VOTE UKIP!-ON MAY 7-2015

 

 
 
 
 
MAJOR ISSUES BULLETIN
 
 
     

VIEWERS -TOP TOPICS-WKLY/ARCHIVE

 

PAGE ONE/ PAGE TWO/PAGE THREE/ PAGE FOUR &LATEST-

PAGE FIVE

 

A PEACEFUL ENGLISH REVOLUTION IS ON THE WAY-ALERT-1

 

     
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND MARRIAGE AND THE STATE**** GAMBLING AND ETHICS****CHRISTIANITY,THE PEOPLE, AND ETHICS****IMMIGRATION POLICY**** CHRISTIANITY IS MORE THAN A RELIGION_IT IS THE MAIN CULTURAL FORCE_WHICH MAKES US WHAT WE ARE****CHRISTIAN BELIEFS UNDER ATTACK BY EU'S PARLIAMENT IS INTELLECTUAL NAZISM**** A DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY BY A ONCE AGNOSTIC****WHO CARES ABOUT MORALITY****DEMOCRACY WITHOUT MORALITY AND RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUALITY IS DESPOTISM****THE WORLD IS DIVIDED INTO MANY RELIGIOUS CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE****THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE BACKBONE OF CHRISTIANITY****CHRISTIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN SPEAKS ON TAX BILLS-FOREIGN POLICY-PEACE-AND THE POWER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS****OURS MIGHT BE A STRONGER AND HAPPIER SOCIETY IF CHRISTIANS WERE READIER TO DEFEND THEIR VALUES****SUNDAY SCHOOL CAN SAVE CHILDREN FROM DELINQUENCY-SAYS BISHOP****OUR CHRISTIAN FESTIVAL OF EASTER WHICH MANY KNOW SO LITTLE AND SOME NONE****

AN AGE WHEN ALL FAITHS ARE EQUAL-EXCEPT CHRISTIANITY****

LET the CHRISTMAS MESSAGE ring out WHILE you still CAN-by -MICHAEL NAZIR ALI-BISHOP OF ROCHESTER-DEC-2006****

 

 

 

WHY WE MUST REMAIN A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

Democracy without Morality and respect

for Individuality is Despotism.

 

At a time when our own Prime Minister says that

 

MORALITY IS NOT A NECESSARY ATTRIBUTE FOR POLITICIANS

 

while his close buddy across the ocean is capitalising on his Victory, which was the result of the support of the MORAL MAJORITY. We have also the recent acrid comment of the Home Secretary with regard to Individualism.

 

We look to the past to William Temple the then Archbishop of York and later Archbishop of Canterbury who was enthroned on the 23rd April 1942 a day most of us know as St. George’s Day and the birthday of our greatest poet William Shakespeare, to reply with his 1927 Essay: -

 

CHRISTIAN POLITICS

 

*

 

DEMOCRACY:

ITS CLAIMS AND PERILS

 

Democracy was regarded by many English folk before the war (1914-18) as something so established and assured that neither its claims nor its perils received very much consideration.

 

We tended to suppose that the most “advanced “ nations meaning, of course, ourselves and those whose political constitutions most nearly resembled ours- had adopted Democracy once and for all. and for all, and that the shear pressure of the automatic Progress. In which so many then believed, would gradually bring all countries into line.

 

The war was hardly what was generally envisaged as part of the automatic Progress, though it has brought (1927 - before the rise of Adolf Hitler) Germany nearer to Democracy than it was; but it had destroyed Democracy in Italy, whose citizens are liable to hail our General Strike or the financial and political entanglement of France as signs that Democracy is dying in the two countries that gave it birth.

 

Meanwhile Russia would have us believe that it has leapt from the rear to the van, and, omitting the stage of Democracy, has established that socialised Republic for which in other countries Democracy is the preparation. There is plainly some need to reconsider the case for Democracy, and to take stock of the dangers that threaten it.

 

I

 

Nothing does so much damage to any human institution as to make on behalf of it exaggerated claims. Early enthusiasts for Democracy based it on two claims, neither of which can be substantiated; one was that there resides by right in the People an inherent sovereignty, the other was that the People is always right.

 

As regards the first of these it has been said that all theories of sovereignty break down which do not recognise that sovereignty as a real fact is always correlative to actual loyalty.

No sovereign can impose his (or its) will on a community except as far as that community either by choice or by acquiescence or from fear assents to this.

 

The despot who by force either exterminates his opponents or terrifies them into submission appears to provide a refutation of this view; but in reality he confirms it, for the force on which he relies consists of other men, usually soldiers, ready to obey him.

 

All Government rests in the last resort on consent; and this is the measure of truth that resides in the belief that there is an inherent sovereignty in the People. As soon as we go beyond that, we are faced with insoluble difficulties. For who in the first place are the People? In a country like ours, with natural frontiers, the upholder of the sovereignty of the People may define his sovereign as all inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, though even then he will presumably have to limit these to citizens who are of age.

 

But what would he do about Ireland? Or about Alsace-Lorraine before the (1914-18) war? Or about India? And if he replies that he does not offer a theory as an account of actual facts, but as a statement of an ideal, we must answer that his ideal can only sound as an ideal if it does perfectly co-ordinate the facts.

 

In the French Revolution men believed in this dangerous nonsense fanatically. Wholesale lynching and indulgence of the blood-lust by men and women lost to reason would be gravely described by saying that the reason would be described by saying that the People had resumed its sovereignty and had itself administered Justice. Indeed the most astonishing feature of the French Revolution is the quantity of cant plainly believed by men who were accomplishing so vast a transformation.

 

Inherent sovereignty is an attribute of no human person or collection of persons; it is an attribute only of the Moral Law, and of God who is himself the Moral Law in personal form. Only to God and to Right is an absolute allegiance due. Our earthly contrivances of Government are makeshifts at the best.

 

But to make a shift is necessary; and to believe that all the possible makeshifts Democracy is the best. This, as need hardly now be said, is not because the People (if you can once settle who they are) is always right; the mob who carried out the September massacres in 1792 were a far proportion of “the People”; does anyone pretend that they were right?

 

Moreover “the People” seldom has a single mind or purpose. Democracy always means in effect the rule of the majority. On what depends the right of the majority to rule? Cynics say that we nowadays count heads to save the trouble of breaking them. In a battle the majority, other things (like courage and ammunition) being equal, usually wins.

 

Is it that the two armies have decided to count the combatants and allot victory to the greater number? That would be very prudent on their part, but hardly the basis of that right in the majority so distinguished. What is the basis of the right, or in other words what makes it right that the law should be by the majority?

 

Certainly it is not that the majority is always wise, or that the justest and most correct opinions can always obtain most votes.

We may indeed be sure that on most difficult questions, and on all novel questions, the best opinion is held by a small minority. Perhaps it is true that though the majority is pretty sure not to be quite right, it will be more often nearly right than any particular minority would be. And it is as far as it seems safe to go along this road in asserting the claims of Democracy.

 

Another modest defence of Democracy is that the laws made by a majority are likely to reflect public opinion sufficiently to be obeyed and enforced.

That is also true; but it is a gross exaggeration, or rather perversion, of the truth to say that obedience is due only to those laws about which we have been directly and indirectly consulted.

 

Our obedience is due supremely to God and Right; secondarily it is due to the law as being on the whole the embodiment of Right and as the bond of public order on which, as a general rule. Public welfare depends.

 

The authority of any given law does not depend on the assent of the citizens to that particular enactment, but on their consent to the general constitution whereby the legislature, whatever it is, is entitled to make laws. For the LAW, THOUGH MOST AUGUST, is not the ultimate tribunal; OUR DUTY TO GOD, and even our duty to the State in its highest interests, may require us to rebel against actual enactments of the State.

 

WE must therefore repudiate three frequent defences of Democracy: we must deny that there is any inherent sovereignty in the People; we must deny that the People as a whole, or any majority, is of necessity, or even probably right-vox populi is no means identical with vox Dei; and we must deny that our obligation to obey the Law is derived from our having a voice in making the law.

 

But if all these impressive foundations of democratic doctrine are removed, is nothing left except two meagre considerations set forth above, that a majority is more likely to be nearly right than any particular minority, and that laws passed by a majority are more likely to receive obedience and enforcement?

 

For if this is all that can be said, a popular dictatorship may do as well as a democracy and even better; for it will be more efficient. Is the type of Government represented by the three names Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini really as good in itself as a representative Democracy? We are convinced that it is not; but the grounds of that conviction lie in another sphere than those, which we have considered hitherto.

 

II

 

We have alluded to certain episodes in the French Revolution. The watchword of that volcanic upheaval was “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” The last did not exercise any very great influence, except perhaps in the cynical sense attributed to it by M. Clemenceau when he said, “Fraternity is the oldest passion of mankind: Cain and Abel, Cain and Abel.” But Liberty and Equality were ideals passionately held. Unfortunately they are incompatible, unless Equality is understood to mean equality of opportunity; and then it becomes one form of Liberty.

 

The early Republicans meant by Equality very much more than that: they meant the spirit which expresses itself in the saying,” One man is as good as another, and a great deal better too.” For ten years, from 1789 till 1799, the struggles between Liberty and Equality convulsed France, till Napoleon suppressed both together.

 

On the whole, Equality had won the day. It was entirely supreme under Robespierre, in the days of whose supremacy Liberty counted for less than perhaps in any other period of European history.

 

After the close of the Terror, Liberty has some scope, and Licence a great deal. But the Government of the Directory was too feeble, and too corrupt to secure that public order which is the breath of life to Liberty, so the fall of the tyrant was not the birth of Freedom.

 

Now the passion for Equality as shown in the Revolution and at many other times has been a self-assertive passion. It has not frequently appeared in the form of one who was rich becoming poor that others through his poverty might be made rich; that passion is indeed divine rather than human, and men receive it only from God; such a passion for Equality on a large scale would heal the worst sicknesses of mankind.

 

But there was none of this about the men who made the Revolution; with them it was a claim of Tom, Dick, and Harry to be equals of the King, who was called for the purpose Citizen Capet, though Capet was not his name.

 

From such self-assertion little good could come. Various gross evils were cleared away, and the space was left for reconstruction; but the Revolution could not reconstruct until it threw up the genius who was at once its child and master.

 

Yet the Revolution, though its prophets were inconceivably muddle -headed, was necessary; for there was something of priceless value for which the old regime made no allowance-Liberty. More and more clearly, as the years have passed by since the essence of the Revolution was affirmed in the Oath of the Tennis Court, it becomes evident that the deep unconscious clamour of men’s hearts was not for Equality but for Liberty.

 

Outraged by Privilege in its most insolent form, they thought Equality was what they wanted. It was not then; it is not now; for it is not a reality.

But Liberty they needed and all that hindered it had to go, because Liberty is the political and social expression of the greatest reality in the world- the spiritual personality in man.

 

Here is the root of Democracy. WE must find some way of recognising that each individual citizen is no tool to be made use of for the attainment of some prosperity in which he will not share, still less mere cannon -fodder, but is a living personality, with mind and heart and will, who can only be himself so far as he freely thinks and feels and plans. The root of Democracy is respect for individual personality.

At this point Democracy closely touches Christianity, which teaches the infinite worth of every individual.

 

Democracy is just one, almost certainly the fullest and best way of showing respect for the individual in the political constitution; majority rule is the one device for giving constitutional weight to the judgment of the ordinary man.

 

Its justification is not that the majority is sure to be right, for it is much more likely to be partly wrong; nor that it is efficient, for up to date that has not been conspicuously true; but that it does honour to the ordinary citizen and helps to develop his personality. In short, its justification is its educational efficacy.

 

 

III

 

Now if the root and the value of Democracy are to be found in respect for the individual, it is clear that Democracy itself, if it be perverted, may destroy its own foundation and the purpose for which it exists. Human beings are not yet fully rational, and instincts tend to sway them more powerfully than reason.

 

Plainly Democracy gives great opportunities for the herd - instinct; plainly also the herd -instinct is destructive of that individuality for which individuality exists. Here is a peril of the most alarming kind.

 

For Democracy of necessity works through mass meetings, demonstrations, and other machinery which inevitably calls the herd-instinct into full play and makes it difficult for the individual to preserve his independence of feeling or judgment.

 

Moreover it is hard for the majority to show sympathy or even toleration to an individual who takes a contrary view. It is no easy matter foe one member of a trade union, for example, to defend the employing class against what he thinks unjust accusations, which have just been received with loud applause. In such case there is great need for charity in the majority and courage in the dissentient minority or individual.

 

But if that courage and charity is not forthcoming, Democracy will have destroyed itself; it will have crushed out the individuality, respect for which is its life-blood, and it will give place to Bureaucracy or Despotism. Napoleon was the inevitable result of the course taken by the French revolution. That he was a genius made his despotism both brilliant and in the main beneficent; but the despotism had to come.

 

Obviously this means that while Democracy may be the ideal form of constitution it makes very special demands on the moral qualities of the citizens. It rests on respect for their individuality; but unless they respond to that respect, it will itself crush out their individuality and so destroy itself.

 

Undoubtedly the danger is greatest in the working classes, who also stand to gain most by the full establishment of Democracy on its own basis. The danger is the greatest here for two main reasons.

 

First there is on the whole far more sense of a fight to be fought among working- class people than among the salaried or shareholding classes. They feel a necessity to stand together if they are to escape defeat and oppression. And their past history gives warrant for this feeling. Consequently the herd-instinct tends to be strongest in conflict.

 

But besides this, the members of the working classes live far closer to one another than do members of other classes; the good opinion of his neighbours matters far more to a working man than to a well-to-do citizen who has some space in his own house, opportunity to gather his chosen friends around him, and a motor in which to escape to other scenery and other faces (1927) So it is bound to be among the working class that Democracy is put to its supremest test.

 

If it is to emerge from the test approved for a long period of activity, two conditions must be fulfilled: First, there must be a great development of working-class education-so great as to make the working classes zealous for individuality; secondly, it must find its strength in spiritual power, not in concern for material benefits.

 

The whole forward movement of our social life turns on the development among the great mass of the people of that kind of education which makes men eager both to think for themselves and to appreciate the truth in any opinions from which they dissent.

 

This is something totally different from propaganda. There may quite well be a place for propaganda as well as education; but is not the same thing. Those who are strong supporters of propaganda among the working classes are chiefly people who wish to recruit an army for the successful prosecution of the class-war; the object to be gained is primarily a better organisation of the material side of life, and thereby also a fuller realisation of human brotherhood.

 

Such a policy rests on a radically false psychology. No doubt the organisation of society has an immensely strong suggestive influence, and is one of the main factors in the formation of character. But it is only one; and passions aroused for purposes of war cannot be laid to rest because the fight is won.

 

If the whole policy of this field is carried out, the instincts of pugnacity, aroused to create the state of brotherhood, would begin to destroy it before it was established; but even if it were established, its unity would be that of the herd of animals, not the free fellowship of individual personalities.

 

It must not, indeed, be supposed that it is only to the working classes that the value of individuality needs to be preached. There are those who sheepishly follow the Morning Post, just as there are those who sheepishly follow the Daily Herald (1927) And there is a political school of thought which deprecates the development of individuality on aristocratic grounds, just as another deprecates it on communistic grounds. But the strength of Democracy is in the working classes, and if there its roots are sapped, its decay must be rapid and ruinous.

 

The second condition, besides the development of true education, is the reliance upon the spiritual power. This is partly because true spiritual interests are always a uniting force; the good things of the spirit are such that the more one has, the more there is for others; so it is with knowledge, appreciation of beauty, loyalty, courage, love. Joy and peace.

 

But it is also because, if humanity is to rise to the level of character requisite for true Democracy, it must be by the infusion of the Grace of God, whose universal and all-loving Fatherhood is the one true ground of that respect for the personality of the ordinary man on which Democracy rests.

 

Why, after all, should a triumphant majority respect the minority it has defeated at the polls? Why should a Sovereign People respect any rights in an individual who sets himself against it? Why should the State have regard to the claims of a handful of citizens that make themselves a nuisance? There is only one reason; It is that these individuals or little groups are, equally with other component units of the Sovereign People itself, children of God.

 

Here, if we want it, is the ground of that true and deep compatibility that exists between Monarchy and Democracy. Here also is the one inspiration of true Democracy and the one influence that can keep it wholesome.

 

By three tests it can be known whether Democracy is true to its own root principle: by the depth of its concern for justice of individuals; by the scrupulous respect which it offers to whatever can present itself in the name of individual conscience. Of these the last is the most vital of all. Society may have to protect itself against fanatical faddists; but respect to the conscientious objector is, broadly speaking, a hall-mark of true Democracy.

But if Society as a whole is to maintain such a character, when its members are absorbed in the engrossing claims of politics, business, industry, and the like, there must be a spiritual society interlaced with the secular society keeping it true to its highest ideals. Here is the function of the Church in relation to public life.

 

Its main work now as always must be the conversion and sanctification of individuals. On that everything depends; if that goes, all goes.

 

But the Church must also have its direct impact upon the ordered life of the community-its politics, industry, and the rest. It will not pretend to export knowledge, or settle technical disputes.

 

But it will constantly affirm the spiritual principles which are involved in any department of public life, and it will try to bring together in mutual good-will those who are at variance, that together they may find some solution of their problem.

 

Above all the Church will perpetually insist that no question touching human life is ever merely secular, merely economic, merely material. All that touches human life is fundamentally spiritual, and can only be rightly settled under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

Democracy may degenerate into mob rule, which is the worst of all tyrannies. But it is capable of being the political expression of man’s nature as a free spiritual being. Nothing political in our generation matters quite so much as the realisation of the spiritual roots of Democracy, and the determination to keep them vigorous and strong.

 

This task may be rendered difficult by historical circumstances, but in principle it should not seem other than obvious. It is no accident that Democracy in the modern sense-that is Democracy not based on slavery-should have grown up only in Christian countries.

 

We have seen the root of Democracy is respect for personality; and this is so truly a Christian principle that it is from Christianity that our whole idea of personality has sprung.

 

As Professor Web has lately shown in his Gifford Lectures, this idea was gradually formed out of the Christian teaching about God, and was then applied also to Man because of his experienced personal fellowship with God.

 

It is not the fact, as is commonly supposed, that man first reached the thought of personality in Man and then transferred it to God; on the contrary, they first reached this idea in their doctrine of God, as they formed this in the light of Christ’s revelations. And then transferred it to man, whose personality they felt to be guaranteed by his personal intercourse with the personal God.

 

Of course, the ancients were not without any conception of personality. Very much of that Christian conception of it, which we inherit, comes from Plato and Aristotle. But the conception was so far incomplete, indistinct, and foreign to ordinary thought that the ancients in fact had no word for it. The apprehension of it is a part of the Christian enrichment of human thought and life.

 

From this it is plain at once both that there is a close relationship in principle between Christianity and Democracy, and that the Church can best discharge its task of spiritualising Democracy by insisting on those elements in it which are closest to its Christian root.

 

Thus on one side the Church should steadily stand for the rights of personality in preference to those of property when these two conflict. It will not indeed suppose that humane sentiment can alter economic facts, and it will remember that respect for economic laws is the best way to befriend those who are dependent on their operation.

 

But this will not hinder its protest against all that tends to reduce persons to mere instruments of production. So far as the Labour Movement (1927) is claiming a fuller recognition of the rights of personality, the Church will be its ally.

 

But the Church will also perpetually insist that personality in men is derivative, not original, and only deserves the recognition claimed for it so far as it recognises itself as dependent on the personality of God. Consequently its exercise must correspond with the known character of God.

 

The revelation, through which we know God as fully personal, also sets Him before us as righteous self-sacrificing love. Now what has mainly spoilt democratic movements in the past has been that they rested on the assertion of rights rather than duties

And even where the rights asserted are true and just, the assertion of them creates an ungodly, because unlovely, frame of mind.

 

The whole notion of rights belongs to the world of claims and counterclaims, the world below the level of fellowship. But the notion of duties at once lifts us to that level, and increasingly so as the divine spirit of love becomes the mainspring of our performance of Duty.

 

Democracy is akin to Christianity; but Christianity is a great deal more than Democracy. It lifts it to its true origin, which is faith, not primarily in Man, but primarily in God, and in man because he was made to be a child of God and a member of God’s family.

 

Nothing in Democracy itself needs to be changed in the process of its spiritualization; but very much in most democrats must be changed. And only in the degree in which that change takes place, only in the degree in which democrats put duty before rights and recognise the rights of human personality are derived from its dependence on and relation to the divine Personality, can Democracy become the ideal form of society or be secured against the danger of degenerating into the worst.

 

[Font altered-bolding used-comments in brackets]

2003

 

* * *

MAGNA CARTA/ ****A Constitution millions died for/**** Bill of Rights of 1688 - OUTLAWS EUROPEAN UNION/****Almost everything which is most precious in our civilisation has come from small states/****Why We Must Remain A Christian Country/****England or European Regions/Provinces-You Cannot have BOTH!/GOVERNMENT BY CONSENT/****English Constitution-By It They Lived-For it They Died./**** A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION -CONSPIRATORS NAMED/**** Our Loyalty to our institutions and country/****Liberties of Parliament -Birthright of subjects of England/****WHAT HISTORY TELLS US ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONTINENT-Part 1-3/ ****The Heritage of England is a Whole made up of Many Parts/**** The Lives and Reputation of our Ancient Island's Defenders of Freedom now at Greater RISK./****Our basic Liberties and Freedoms - to be surrendered to a FOREIGN POWER/****TREASON A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS by NORRIS  Mc WHIRTER - Lest we Forget/****The Truth About A Federal Europe-Parts1-4/****A TIME TO MAKE A STAND/****COULD ENGLAND SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE EU?-YES!/****The Rotten Heart of Europe-by Bernard Connolly-Parts 1-4/****SAY 'NO' TO EUROPE! SAYS RODNEY ATKINSON/****So You Thought You Were FREE/****Empires have gone and most people in the world now live in Nation States said Lord Shore/****Freedom of Speech-A Freedom which cannot be abused - is NOT WORTH HAVING/****MAKING OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION/****England's place in theUNION?/****ENGLISH FREEDOM -WHY IT IS YOURS/****Our Loyalty to our Institutions and Country/

 *

[ Click HERE:There are hundreds of bulletins on ENGLISH FREEDOM listed  within and at the end of the MAIN BULLETIN FILE]

 

*

TREATY OF TREASON

*

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

 

*

WHO CARES ABOUT MORALITY

*

 
 
Elections in the British One Party State

If you vote Conservative, Labour, Lib-Dem, UKIP or the BNP, you'll be voting for the EU dictatorship. All five party leaderships are EU controlled. That's why your vote doesn't make a difference - all these five parties have the same policies: the EU's policies.

The 17 most senior politicians in the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour parties, including Ken Clarke, Francis Maude, Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne, Nick Clegg, Brown, David and Ed Milliband, Ed Balls, Peter Mandleson are Bilderbergers, the 140 strong band of ultra senior Freemasons who are bribed by the EU to build the EU dictatorship.

No Bilderberger, Freemason or Common Purpose graduate should ever be allowed to hold public office.

UKIP and the BNP are honey traps to neutralise activists: UKIP is riddled with Freemasons and Common Purpose like a cancer, and the BNP controlled by the Edgar Griffin (father) and son Nick Freemasonry family. The 350,000 freemasons and the 40,000 strong Common Purpose Organisation are the (mostly unknowing) foot soldiers of the EU in Britain. (Which makes the BNP the easiest party to clean up - get rid of the Griffins, and put in a real anti-EU leadership.)

 For more details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk

 

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF

UKIP

 OR

 INTEND TO JOIN THEM TAKE NOTE OF THE MESSAGE ABOVE

 

 

THE EDP HAS BEEN CRITICAL OF THE MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP OF THE UKIP FOR SOME TIME NOW AS IS SHOWN IN A NUMBER OF BULLETINS  OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WHERE WE HAVE CRITICISED THEIR LACK LUSTRE PERFORMANCE AS THEY FAILED TO MOTIVATE THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO A MORE DETERMINED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAMPAIGN WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE THE GOVERNMENTS TREMBLE BUT THEY HAD NO WORRY BECAUSE THEY HAD THEIR OWN PERSONS IN CHARGE AT THE TOP OF THE ORGANISATION.  THIS FIGHTING SPIRIT HAS BEEN LACKING AND WE CAN CONFIRM THIS OURSELVES BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT WHEN A MARCH WAS CANCELLED - AND WATCH THE FARCE WHEN CANDLES WERE HELD AND THOUSANDS OF LETTERS SENT TO MPS WHO KNEW WHERE TO DISPOSES OF THEM -AND ALL TO NO AVAIL.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF UKIP YOU HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY YOUR OWN LEADERSHIP SOME APPEAR ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW WHICH HAS BEEN UNDER CLOSE SPOTLIGHT RECENTLY AS BEING CLOSE TO AN ISRAELI SECURITY FIRM DETAILS ON OUR WEBSITE .    IRONICALLY IT WAS A CHANCE LOOK ON THE INTERNET A FEW YEARS AGO  TO COME UPON THAT SITE WHICH OPENED OUR MIND TO THE ILLUMINATI.   THOUGH WE HAVE SOME DETAILS OF THE BILDERBERGERS ON OUR SITE  A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WE FAILED TO DO MORE RESEARCH- WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN.  THE FAILURE OF UKIP WE HAVE SUSPECTED  FOR MANY YEARS   THAT MANY AT THE TOP OF THEIR ORGANISATION MIGHT BE UNDERCOVER MEMBERS OF THE ILLUMINATI.  IT IS A FAVOURITE TRICK OF THEIRS TO SUPPORT ANY PARTY OR ORGANISATION AT THE OUTSET WHATEVER ITS POLICY AS IT ALLOWS THEM TO PUT THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN TO CONTROL ITS POLICES AS THEY BEHIND THE SCENES SUPPLY THE VITAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT.

  Our intention is not to benefit from this disaster as since the 1999 European Election we have NOT! accepted a DONATION! from ANYONE! and we closed membership also because we did not wish to split the vote for UKIP but have stated in the past that we would contest another election if it was ever necessary to enter into the affray again and with the reputation of UKIP under scrutiny we will keep our options OPEN!   As we mentioned some time ago we have been almost two decades on the campaign trail to free our once FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE of ENGLAND from the SATANIC EU and those who have for centuries have planned for an EVIL ONE-WORLD CORPORATION/GOVERNMENT and EXTERMINATE! at least 5 BILLION of the WORLD'S POPULATION and therefore if we are right about those mentioned above they are not only TRAITORS to their COUNTRY but also a THREAT to WORLD PEACE.   However, of late, matters have NOT! been going well for the ILLUMINATI as you will observe BELOW.

The Queen, Treason and the Coronation oath

Together with Churchill, King George VI saved our nation; he was a Monarch to be proud of. But his daughter the Queen is the only monarch to have broken all her coronation oaths, by signing these six treaties that abolish our common law, the British Constitution, the British and English nations, and our sovereignty. She has also committed treason, together with co-signatories Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Realising that under the five Treason Acts they should already be hanging by the neck until dead, Tony Blair and the Queen signed the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, which secretly abolished much of the crime of treason (s36.3) and reduced the penalty to life imprisonment - they didn't tell the MP's what they had just voted for.

1.4 million British Servicemen gave their lives for our independence. The Queen has thrown their sacrifices away and made them worthless.

At no physical risk to herself, she could have fulfilled her oath and duty as a constitutional check and balance, by refusing to sign the six treaties until an in/out referendum had been held. In the unlikely event the vote went against her, she was even more unlikely to lose her crown (not her life or a limb), and would keep her 9 billion plus palaces either way. Those servicemen's lives would still have meant something.

But she was always keen to sign; and said in advance she would sign the last treaty. Princes Charles, William or Harry can now never be King. You can't have a King without a Kingdom: they can only be princes of a region (principality) within Europe.

King Edward 8th was forced to abdicate because he was too overt as a German Nazi supporter. Mrs Simpson's divorce was merely the excuse. The Royal Family is a German Family - real surname Saxe-Coburg Gotha. Windsor is an adopted surname. All four of Prince Phillip's sisters married high ranking German Nazis. After they lost the war the EU was switched from a Nazi basis to a communist basis.

Between the ages of 12 and 22 Queen Elisabeth's political and constitutional tutor was Sir Henry Martin, a Fabian Communist. It seems clear she was well trained for her subversion and treason.

Because she waves and smiles at us most are fooled into thinking she's lovely; in fact the Queen is a member of the Illuminati, a Bilderberger, head of Freemasonry, is wholly pro the (German) EU, and has abolished this nation with ruthless determination. It is so obvious she cares nothing for Britain or the British.

The Queen's aspirations are not ours; she clearly serves a much darker master; the faith she defends cannot be the one we think it is. King George VI, the one recent monarch not indoctrinated with Nazi or Communist philosophy, must be turning over in his grave.

I ask that the law be enforced, and the Queen be tried for treason before 12 honest people, and not by our corrupt judges. And that the illegal section 36.3 Crime and Disorder Act be declared null and void, so that she can hang by the neck till dead.

The new EU Hitler doesn't have to get elected
Its worth noting that Adolf Hitler first had to get elected, if on a 35% minority vote, and then get his Enabling Act passed. An EU dictator has no such problems. Our EU rulers do not submit themselves for election now. And the Queen has already signed the Enabling Act (Civil Contingencies Act 2004).

The EU's Hitler will have a much easier rise to power, and will have the formerly British and French nuclear weapons from day one. Adolf Hitler killed 54 million people. The EU's dictator could kill a billion at the touch of a button, with no democratic checks and balances to answer to. How could any aspiring dictator resist the EU opportunity?

 

 For more details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk

 

www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.l

 

A+MONARCH+THAT+BREAKS+A+CORONATION+OATH+

CANNOT+CLAIM+IMMUNITY+FROM+HIGH+TREASON+

BECAUSE+A+FIRST+MINISTER+SECRETLY

+CHANGED+THE+LAW

IN+1998.

THE+SACRET+OATH+IS+TO+THE+PEOPLE+

TO+PROTECT+THEIR+ACCUSTOMED+LIBERTIES+

AND+THOSE+OF+FUTURE+GENERATIONS+TO+COME

+IS +SACROSANCT.

 

 

HOME

DID YOU KNOW?

No 8

(Christopher Story of International Currency Review)

 

IS HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN SOVEREIGN?

Under Article 17 of the collectivist Maastricht treaty , all residents of the European Union are citizens of the EU Collective.  It follows that Presidents and Monarchs are 'citizens of the

EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE

as well

This provides the twisted rationale for President Herzog's vituperative dismissal of the relevance of the nation state, and for his insistence that it has outlived its usefulness, even though he continued to serve as President.

Dr Herzog's subversive remarks have special resonance for Britain, where

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

 is the

 SOVEREIGN AND CONSTITUTIONAL HEAD

of the

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.

She is the custodian, in her person, of the sovereignty of the British people which was passed to HER in February 1952 on the death of her father,  This was confirmed initially when the

QUEEN took the OATH of ACCESSION

and was finally solemnized at the QUEEN'S CORONATION in 1953 after HER MAJESTY had been recognized and universally accepted as the undoubted and rightful

 SOVEREIGN of the BRITISH PEOPLE

In November 2000 -after a correspondent who had taken care to prepare his case thoroughly, had written to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair; to the then Leader of the Opposition William Hague; to the Leader of the House of Lords, who was then Baroness Jay; and to the Lord Chief justice and other official office-holders and dignatories -asking:

Is Her Majesty the Queen Sovereign?

HE RECEIVED NO ANSWER AT ALL

or else a non-committal weak, diversionary reply.

Mr Blair being unable to answer the question himself, redirected the enquiry  to the Home office, which likewise prevaricated. Indeed, a hallmark of the

BLAIR GOVERNMENT

has been its Ministers' arrogant reluctance to answer letters and parliamentary questions.  Likewise, Mr Blair has reportedly made a point on occasion, of'

' standing the Queen up'

by failing to turn up on time., or at all, for his weekly scheduled audiences.

[Further details to follow]

*

[More background information will be available in the near future but why wait - order your copy - contact the under-mentioned website]

 

[This is a new series of single statements from

THE EUROPEAN UNION

COLLECTIVE

IS THE

Enemy of its Member State

www.edwardharle.com

www.worldreports.org

*

AUGUST-2008

*

 

WHAT IF ALL EU LAWS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT AND APPROVED BY HER MAJESTY ARE INVALID BECAUSE AGAINST THE LAW OF THE LAND.

 

The position under English law, of course, is that Her Majesty remains Sovereign until the moment of her death, when sovereignty will pass automatically to the next rightful heir to the British Throne.  However, the Prime Minister's problem appears to be that since, under Article 17 of the Maastricht treaty, the Queen is a 'citizen' of the European Union, Her Sovereignty has been usurped.  Those UK Ministers and officials who permitted this scandalous state of affairs to develop are accordingly prima facie

TRAITORS

and ought to be indicted for

TREASON.

But so far as President Herzog of Germany has been concerned, his status as a 'citizen' of the

EU COLLECTIVE

appears to be entirely acceptable, because the EU is just a 'mask' for emerging

'GREATER GERMANY'.

When, following the correspondent's letters to selected leaders, an attempt was made by Christopher Gill MP in January 2001 to put down a question asking the Prime Minister whether

Her Majesty is Sovereign

the Table Office at the House of Commons replied in the following astonishing language:

'Last night you sought to table a question to the Prime Minister concerning the effect of the UK's membership of the

EUROPEAN UNION

on the constitutional position of

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.

You will recall that I explained I would need to check the admissibility of the question with other colleagues before it could be tabled.  It has been pointed out to me that the question as drafted in effect seeks the Prime Minister's view in the interpretation of the law, in this case the

Treaties of the European Communities and associated European Treaties and UK legislation.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE

to table questions to Ministers seeking interpretation of the , as this is a matter for the appropriate courts , not Ministers.'.

It would accordingly appear unclear whether

Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign

-and by extension, whether any legislation passed by Westminster Parliament since  Britain made the mistake of joining the

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

in

1972

is

VALID.

For evidently  until the matter is decided by the 'appropriate courts', the question of whether

HER MAJESTY IS SOVEREIGN

and thus able to act as

HEAD OF STATE

and hence give the

ROYAL ASSENT

to

LEGISLATION

passed by the

WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT

remains in the air.

This Kafkaesque situation reflects the fact that, as noted under the

COLLECTIVE TREATY

all residents of the

EUROPEAN UNION

 are its citizens; and the

QUEEN

is a resident of the

EUROPEAN UNION

THEREFORE

if

EU law

 

has precedence over

BRITISH LAW

the

QUEEN

 being an

EU citizen

is

NOT

SOVEREIGN.

 

*

 

It may be asked: Why does no British Government ever take steps to have this matter clarified?

There are two possible answers to this question:

(1)    If the matter were to be resolved and it were to transpire that, indeed, The Queen is not Sovereign, then all legislation to which Her Majesty has given the Royal Assent since Britain acceded to the EEC is

NULL and VOID
 

because she had no power to give the Royal Assent, Alternatively:

(2)    Successive UK Governments since the beginning of the collapse in 1970 have preferred this issue to remain unresolved because if it were to be concluded by 'the appropriate courts' that The Queen is Sovereign, then correspondingly all EU legislation in the UK

is

NULL and VOID

because it is presupposed that EU law has precedence over UK law.

which cannot be the case if The Queen is Sovereign.

By contrast, if it does transpire the

The Queen is not Sovereign, then, certainly all legislation passed since Britain joined the EEC is indeed called into question.

Either way -whether The Queen is or is not Sovereign -the logic of the above leads to the conclusion that all EU law may be invalid in the United Kingdom.

Thus the the real reason this key issue has never been clarified is that the British Government's deceitful EU 'coup d' etat by installments'  policy would be exposed as illegal if the issue were ever to be addressed in the COURTS.  Furthermore, as reveiwed on page 209, the Treaty of Rome was reportedly

NOT SIGNED

-so the basis of all EU law throughout the

EU COLLECTIVE

may be open to

LEGAL CHALLENGE

on that ground alone.

It is concluded that EU law may have no standing in the United Kingdom and that successive conniving UK Governments have been

SHIRKING THIS CENTRAL ISSUE.

 

In an article published in The Times of London on 27th April,1996, Karl Lamers, whio was then foreign affairs spokesman for the Christian Democrats in the Bundestag, condescended to recognise that 'British doubts are deeply rooted.

The British concern is about the destruction of the national identity and the nation state, which is seen by the British as the only legitimate expression of the popular will.   Germans, by contrast, say that there has long been a supranational reality created by our European civilisation.  Common problems spawn common interests; our vital interests are identical

Whereupon Herr Lamers delivered a further broadside in Germany's psychological warfare offensive designed to help the stupid British to abandon their love of national sovereignty, which it is the central purpose of the European Union to

COLLECTIVISE:

'The  Euro-optimists take as their starting point the objective external reality.... The Eurosceptics (in Britain) deal with the inner, subjective reality of the consciousness of the British people.  It is if you like , the forces of Logic pitied against the forces of Psycho-logic.  It must be the task of democratic politics to help narrow this gap.  Otherwise politics will cease to be effective.  A community makes sense if it can begin to solve its existential problems.

If the nation state can no longer do that by itself, its failure undermines its political legitimacy'.

In other words, Britain had no right to continue existing as a nation state, and it must be 'brought to reason' so that it comes to full acceptance of German prescriptions and intentions without further. tedious prevarication

Note that, for Herr Lamers, the Pan-German position was 'logical', whereas the perceived British tendency to 'cling' to the nation state was 'psychological'. Once again here, the truth was turned upside-down.

The essence of Germany's continuing, updated strategy to realise the Germans, has never been in doubt - not least, since the German legislature adopted several amendments to the Basic Law (constitution) on 22nd December, 1992, in order to legalise' ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.  A new Article 23 was incorporated, the previous one having been repealed by the Unification T of 31st August 1990. The revised Article known as the 'ARTICLE on EUROPEAN UNION'. contains the following:

 

With a view to establishing a Unite Europe, the Federal republic of Germany shall participate in the development of the European Union, which is committed to democratic[?], rule of law, social and federative principles as well as to the principle of subsidiarity, and ensures protection of basic rights comparable in substance to that accorded to the Basic law

To this end the (German) Federation may transfer sovereign powers by law with the consent of the Bundesrat. The establishment of the European Union , as well as amendments to its statutory foundations and comparable foundations which amend or supplement the content of this Basic Law or make such amendments and supplements possible shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) and (30 of Article 79.........

THIS MEANS that Germany can extend its sovereignty into Moravia and Bohemia, as provided for under the secret accord reached between President Gorbachev and Chancellor Kohl in Geneva , in 1990

As for Dr Professor Herzog, he faced both ways at the 1997 Konigswinter Conference, held in Berlin. In a welcoming speech, he suggested that 'Britons and Germans can build on common values, convictions and interests.  the debate on Europe can only reach a fruitful conclusion - that is to say, a conclusion acceptable to the German strategy elite- if we help gain acceptance for one idea, namely that the 'Europe of-Fatherlands' is possible.  The European nations can be Fatherlands and still integrate' 

 

 

[TO BE CONTINUED]

*

 

 

[More background information will be available in the near future but why wait - order your copy -

THE EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE

 -contact the under-mentioned website]

 

[This is a new series of single statements from

THE EUROPEAN UNION

COLLECTIVE

IS THE

Enemy of its Member State

www.edwardharle.com

www.worldreports.org

*

 

 

SEPTEMBER-2008

*

 

TO ASSIST YOUR SEARCH WE HAVE INCLUDED THE LINKS BELOW

 

EUROPEAN UNION Q & A

1EUROFACTS -   THE REALITY BEHIND THE EU

2]   WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE EU

3]   THE TRUTH OF A FEDERAL EUROPE-PARTS1-4

4]   THE 1701 ACT OF SETTLEMENT-WHY IT SHOULD  CONCERN YOU!

5[    THE BRITISH LEGACY -CANADA-AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND

6]    COMMONWEALTH REALMS VERSUS THE NEW CONSTITUTION  OF EUROPE

7]   OUR BASIC LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS SURRENDERED TO A FOREIGN POWER

8]   MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN

9]   OUR QUEEN AND EU CONSTITUTION

10] VALERY GISCARD'ESTAING -WHY HE IS CALLED X

11]  THE ROTTEN HEART OF EUROPE by BERNARD CONNOLLY

12]   'I SAY WE MUST NOT JOIN EUROPE'-FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY-(1962)

13]  PREVIOUS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SAYS WE MUST RETAIN OUR ANCIENT CONSTITUTION

14] THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND IS THE  LAW OF ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES.

15]  A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION - CONSPIRATORS NAMED (1993)

16]   WHAT HISTORY TELLS US ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONTINENT

17]    COST of EU to UK-4.8billion = 40 DISTRICT HOSPITALS-EQUIPPED -_STAFFED-AND FUNDED.

18]   WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON ABOUT THE EURO.

19]     200 MORE REASONS TO WHY TO REJECT THE EURO AND THE EU

20]     100 REASONS TO LEAVE THE EU

21]    THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE

22]    UK CONTRIBUTION TO BRUSSELS: BIG INCREASE IN 2005

23]   EU WHISTLEBLOWERS EXPOSE BILLIONS OF EURO FRAUD BUT NOTHING IS DONE

24]    BRITAIN CAN LEAVE THE EU UNILATERALLY AND CEASE PAYMENTS SAYS QUEEN'S COUNSEL

25]    FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENTS BY PAYOUTS

26]    SIGNS OF AN EU POLICE STATE

27]    NINETY-NINE COUNTRIES HAVE FREE TRADE WITH THE EU-WITHOUT PAYING A CENT TO BRUSSELS.

28]    IT IS TIME TO CONSIDER OURSELVES-IN A COMMONWEALTH FREE TRADE AREA

29]   BRITAIN MUST LEAVE THE EU AS UN SHOW BEST AREA FOR EXPANSION WILL BE USA/ANGLO-SAXON SPHERE

30]    WAVE GOODBYE TO THE EU AND MAKE EUROPE A BETTER PLACE   

31]    LORD STODDART PINS DOWN BLAIR GOVERNMENT ON COST OF EU -JUNE 2007.

32]    BRITISH VOTERS MUST GET A SAY ON NEW EU TREATY-[JUNE-2007]

33]    BLAIR'S LAST TREACHEROUS ACT. THE 60,000 DOLLAR QUESTION IS WHAT WILL MR BROWN DO?-JUNE-2007]

34]   GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU?

35]  HITLER'S PRECEDENT PROVIDED THE MODEL FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION-1930-2007

36]  SAVE YOUR ENGLAND! - SAY NO! TO REGIONS
 

37]   NAZI INTERNATIONAL IN 2007-CLOSER TO YOUR HOME THAN YOU THINK  

38]    A WARNING FROM JAN-2005-TO PRESERVE THE NATION-STATES OF EUROPE-VOTE 'NO' TO THE NEW EU CONSTITUTION (D.T.)

49]    SO WHY DON'T WE LEAVE THE EU. (D.M.)

 

[For hundreds of bulletins about the EU]

HOME

 

 

WHAT A WAY TO WIN A WAR

*

IS SENATOR RON PAUL- ILLUMINATI?

 

BENJAMIN FULFORD

 

More!

[WORKS]

*

SEEKTHETRUTHANDWISDOM

 

*

Bank Of England The Banking Swindle

 

More!

 

More!

 

PATRIOT or TRAITOR to HIS COUNTRY

+More!

 

 More!

 

+(More!

 

 

THIS YOU MUST SEE IT CONCERNS

 YOUR

PLANET!

AND

 YOU!

 

 

NO NEED TO PANIC!

 

'Others shall sing the song,

Others shall right the wrong,-

Finish what I begin,

All all I fail of win.

Hail to the coming singers!

Hail to the brave light-bringers!

Forward I reach and above

All that they sing and dare.

 

The airs of heaven blow o'er me;

A glory shines before me

Of what mankind shall be'-

Pure, generous, brave and free,

I feel the earth move sunward,

I join the great march onward,

And  take, by faith, while living,

My freehold of thanksgiving.-

 

WHITTIER

 

MAY-2012

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

 

 

MAY-2012

 

*HOME-PT 2

 

HOME