UK Column Discussion

I’m not sure this is the right section but it seems a good place to start. What I think lawful rebellion is supposed to mean is to rebel against the establishment using law, and in particular law that was concieved hundreds of years ago, as in things like the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus.

Now the other theme running along side this would be what Brian Gerrish is puting out. The trouble I’m having though is that some things said seem to directly contradict other points put out, e.g. those of John Harris. For example, Brian Gerrish said in his recent talk in June that the family courts are like kangaroo courts, and I’m inclined to agree with this point. This however does not tally with the idea that you can stand up in court and assert one's ancient rights and they will all bow down to you and let you do whatever you want.

This is even more obviously so as Brian points out in that the Common Purpous style Marxists sidestep logic and law entirely and use psychological warefare agianst us. Indeed the mark of a free country is one which has a strong legal system where anyone can get justice in a court of law as an individual. We don’t have that in the UK and my recent experiences with a local solicitor on a matter where I was ripped off, I was told the charge would be £100/hour for this woman to take on my case who was not aware of basic legal principles! The stench of a Common Purpous just-us system put me off the idea completely.

Now another thing that often gets mentioned in this group is that a lot of politicians are bent, plus the contrary theme of warnings about a post-democratic society. I feel we play right into their hands by drumming up the ‘politicians are bent’ theme. They want us to think that, because they are trying to de-power them.

Finally another thought for you which was brought to my attention by a lecturer in a ‘higher’ education college. He was very concerned that his class of kids were extremely anti learning anything. The kids saw this man as an establishment figure and they wanted to rebel against him and do as little work as possible. You know what they were saying? They were quoting freeman law concepts at him on to prevent him having any control over them. It makes me wonder that rebellion is exactly what the Marxist system really wants. We have to be one step ahead of them, not one behind.

What do you people think. Do you have a firm idea on what form actions to get our liberty back should take?

(31-08-2009 05:12 AM)Baron von Lotsov Wrote: [ -> ]Now another thing that often gets mentioned in this group is that a lot of politicians are bent, plus the contrary theme of warnings about a post-democratic society. I feel we play right into their hands by drumming up the ‘politicians are bent’ theme. They want us to think that, because they are trying to de-power them.

I agree that the 'MP's expenses' issue was used (and quite possibly set up) to foster disillusionment with the political process and MP's themselves in particular. It just means we have to express ourselves ever more clearer when dealing with these things. Some MP's may be 'bent' and some may be 'controlled' to varying degrees but not all. The solution is to address the shortcomings of the present system, not to replace it with an anti-democratic Marxist European Union.

Finally another thought for you which was brought to my attention by a lecturer in a ‘higher’ education college. He was very concerned that his class of kids were extremely anti learning anything. The kids saw this man as an establishment figure and they wanted to rebel against him and do as little work as possible. You know what they were saying? They were quoting freeman law concepts at him on to prevent him having any control over them. It makes me wonder that rebellion is exactly what the Marxist system really wants. We have to be one step ahead of them, not one behind.

Surely in this situation the challenge is for the lecturer to seize the initiative. Discuss the concept of 'Freeman law' with his students, explain how this fits with the wider objective for 'world government' and how in reality the 'establishment' are actually trying to 'dumb the kids down' and are only too happy to equate the idea of rebellion with being anti-learning. The true rebel is the one who expands his knowledge and wisdom so as to be able to more effectively resist and defeat the 'establishment'. The 'establishment' being those elites behind the drive for a New World Order.

(31-08-2009 08:52 PM)Revolution Harry Wrote: [ -> ]

(31-08-2009 05:12 AM)Baron von Lotsov Wrote: [ -> ]Now another thing that often gets mentioned in this group is that a lot of politicians are bent, plus the contrary theme of warnings about a post-democratic society. I feel we play right into their hands by drumming up the ‘politicians are bent’ theme. They want us to think that, because they are trying to de-power them.

I agree that the 'MP's expenses' issue was used (and quite possibly set up) to foster disillusionment with the political process and MP's themselves in particular. It just means we have to express ourselves ever more clearer when dealing with these things. Some MP's may be 'bent' and some may be 'controlled' to varying degrees but not all. The solution is to address the shortcomings of the present system, not to replace it with an anti-democratic Marxist European Union.

Finally another thought for you which was brought to my attention by a lecturer in a ‘higher’ education college. He was very concerned that his class of kids were extremely anti learning anything. The kids saw this man as an establishment figure and they wanted to rebel against him and do as little work as possible. You know what they were saying? They were quoting freeman law concepts at him on to prevent him having any control over them. It makes me wonder that rebellion is exactly what the Marxist system really wants. We have to be one step ahead of them, not one behind.

Surely in this situation the challenge is for the lecturer to seize the initiative. Discuss the concept of 'Freeman law' with his students, explain how this fits with the wider objective for 'world government' and how in reality the 'establishment' are actually trying to 'dumb the kids down' and are only too happy to equate the idea of rebellion with being anti-learning. The true rebel is the one who expands his knowledge and wisdom so as to be able to more effectively resist and defeat the 'establishment'. The 'establishment' being those elites behind the drive for a New World Order.

Yes, this lecturer was pretty clued up on what was going on and it gave me a really sharp insight into what is happening at the moment in these colleges. He refused to say which college, but to be honest I don't blame him because these people are under contract not to put the educational establishment into disrepute. Seriously, it is a sackable offence. Anyway try as he could he could not get these kids interested in anything. They had become anti-thinking.

Actually I suspect he might have had quite a lot of immigrants in his class trying to get into Britain through education visas, but again he would not confirm anything about the place he worked at. I suppose when your job, house, family and just about everything else is on the line you have to be careful. Anyway it was re-assuring to know we have people listening on the inside. We need to devise ways of cracking the brainwashing because there are ways and that is really the key to challenge this. You can’t do anything when people are acting like zombies.

(31-08-2009 05:12 AM)Baron von Lotsov Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not sure this is the right section but it seems a good place to start. What I think lawful rebellion is supposed to mean is to rebel against the establishment using law, and in particular law that was concieved hundreds of years ago, as in things like the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus.

Not using law. It is to rebel against the establishment while staying within the law.

This is possible because as you detail in the rest of your post, it is the establishment who are acting unlawfully in their actions, by and large.

So I would say that any and every approach to gum up the works, prevent their unlawful activities, or generally be a pain in the ass, so long as it is lawful, is within the scope of lawful rebellion.

(31-08-2009 05:12 AM)Baron von Lotsov Wrote: [ -> ]Finally another thought for you which was brought to my attention by a lecturer in a ‘higher’ education college. He was very concerned that his class of kids were extremely anti learning anything. The kids saw this man as an establishment figure and they wanted to rebel against him and do as little work as possible. You know what they were saying? They were quoting freeman law concepts at him on to prevent him having any control over them. It makes me wonder that rebellion is exactly what the Marxist system really wants. We have to be one step ahead of them, not one behind.

This is why I am not a freeman. I have great respect for some of the people out there calling themselves freemen, because they are adding a lot to our understanding of the specifics of how the establishment is acting unlawfully. But I also find a lot of stuff out there under the freeman label to be tenuous at best, and downright anarchic at worst.

I, and everyone at the UK Column and BCG, including Brian G, are absolutely behind the idea of an organised society living within a sovereign nation state.

Quote:This is why I am not a freeman. I have great respect for some of the people out there calling themselves freemen, because they are adding a lot to our understanding of the specifics of how the establishment is acting unlawfully. But I also find a lot of stuff out there under the freeman label to be tenuous at best, and downright anarchic at worst.

I, and everyone at the UK Column and BCG, including Brian G, are absolutely behind the idea of an organised society living within a sovereign nation state.

This is also why I am not a “freeman” and further not a “UK Column and BCG”

Although myself and both groups are of like mindedness and we can see the many problems of society. Both groups are very short on what we are trying to build.

For instance
http://www.ukcolumn.org/2009/08/31/rebuilding-a-nation/

Where if you look closely all the answers solutions given are just power to the state i.e. Marxism, capitalism,

Quote:
“All national currency is to be issued by the Treasury, and entered into the economy by spending it on projects which keep people alive, educate them, train them and employ them.”

This is like the so called economics of for example the LPUK et all. Where they champion Milton Friedman economic ideas which is a con and most likely why he is hailed as a hero by the establishment, albeit rather some what quietly. It’s at best a trap for so called intellectuals who then think they are wise.

Quote:
“The Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government”

Sounds noble but just gives control to a few at the top, when there policies are examined in detail.

In defence of the LPUK some say they want to roll back the policies we have now, small government, and not anarchy.

But roll back to what? Which is the same? Of the “freeman” and UK Column and BCG”

(01-09-2009 12:53 PM)Fremen Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:
“All national currency is to be issued by the Treasury, and entered into the economy by spending it on projects which keep people alive, educate them, train them and employ them.”

This is like the so called economics of for example the LPUK et all. Where they champion Milton Friedman economic ideas which is a con and most likely why he is hailed as a hero by the establishment, albeit rather some what quietly. It’s at best a trap for so called intellectuals who then think they are wise.

Nonsense.

Friedman was a fascist free marketeer. Look to Pinochet's Chile for his policies in action - slashing of wages and imports and an export of Chile's wealth to service its "debt."

He openly identified with the policies of Schacht, and although he might be viewed as libertarian, what kind? He was in favour of dismantling any and all government interventions which might work for the general welfare of the population. He didn't care whether cutting health care, for example, resulted in the death of the vulnerable in society so long as they were "free to choose."

So I'm not clear how you could possibly identify what I have written with him or his policies. But this is off topic - lets take it to the relevant thread if you want to continue this discussion

(01-09-2009 12:53 PM)Fremen Wrote: [ -> ]But roll back to what? Which is the same? Of the “freeman” and UK Column and BCG”

First of all the BCG has never made any statement on anything other than "we have the right to govern ourselves". The BCG doesn't care about personal politics, and is happy to work with anyone who can sign up to that single principle, and who believes in protecting our Constitution, such as it is.

The UK Column has published many views on many subjects, but never once has it suggested that we roll back to anything. Never once has anyone on the UK Column staff ever claimed to be Libertarian. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Britain has not, in the last 300 years, had any form of government, or way of doing things, worth rolling back to.

But again, this is off topic. What we are discussing is lawful rebellion. Do you not agree that there is a regime in place in the UK which needs to be fought? If you do, how do you intend to fight it?

Lawful Rebellion is not a term exclusive to the freeman movement. It is much broader than that. There may well be many freemen who consider themselves in lawful rebellion, and many in lawful rebellion who are not freemen.

Lawful rebellion is about taking action against a regime which is acting unlawfully. Treasonously, in some cases. That is all.

“All national currency is to be issued by the Treasury, and entered into the economy by spending it on projects which keep people alive, educate them, train them and employ them.”

The above is Maxism and fascist. Where they both meet.

---------
Patrick Vessey - who was/is Leader, Libertarian Party and who wrote their monetary policy.

That do not give proper provision for other borrowing if needed.

Patrick wrote:
“Our monetary proposals call for money to come into existence in three ways:”

“1. Pounds Sterling. This will be totally fiat, as now, and 'printed' (quotes are because, as now, little will be actually physically printed, but simply numbers on a computer -- see the volume differences between M0 and M4) >into existence as required by economic growth by the state (Crown). It will enter the economy by being used to pay the salaries of public sector workers, or to companies performing 'public' infrastructure works -- building roads, prisons etc.<”

--------

"Lawful rebellion is about taking action against a regime which is acting unlawfully. Treasonously, in some cases. That is all."

Apologies if this is on the wrong thread? but is it not also about rebuilding a nation ?

(01-09-2009 02:58 PM)Fremen Wrote: [ -> ]“All national currency is to be issued by the Treasury, and entered into the economy by spending it on projects which keep people alive, educate them, train them and employ them.”

The above is Maxism and fascist. Where they both meet.

No, it isn't. But if you want to discuss this further, please post something in the correct thread.

(01-09-2009 02:58 PM)Fremen Wrote: [ -> ]"Lawful rebellion is about taking action against a regime which is acting unlawfully. Treasonously, in some cases. That is all."

Apologies if this is on the wrong thread? but is it not also about rebuilding a nation ?

No, I don't think so. It is about regaining control. We can debate how we build a nation, and what kind of nation we want, until the cows come home, but we can't start to rebuild until we have control, and until we have the rule of law reinstated.

Quote:But again, this is off topic. What we are discussing is lawful rebellion. Do you not agree that there is a regime in place in the UK which needs to be fought? If you do, how do you intend to fight it?

Yes I agree there is a regime in place in the UK which needs to be fought.

I intend fighting it with the truth and the real Laws. And getting the *best advise there is on Earth, in learning those Laws. The “New Song” which has to be learned by heart so I become closer and closer to the Word (truth)

*JAH

---

Quote:No, I don't think so. It is about regaining control. We can debate how we build a nation, and what kind of nation we want, until the cows come home, but we can't start to rebuild until we have control, and until we have the rule of law reinstated.

It seems you have little understanding of the Law and how can you get some where if you don’t know where you are trying to get to.

I don’t want to appear unkind, but if you flatter a neighbour you can prepare a net for his feet and that would not be loving you as a neighbour in the right way.

(01-09-2009 11:29 AM)mike Wrote: [ -> ]

(31-08-2009 05:12 AM)Baron von Lotsov Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not sure this is the right section but it seems a good place to start. What I think lawful rebellion is supposed to mean is to rebel against the establishment using law, and in particular law that was concieved hundreds of years ago, as in things like the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus.

Not using law. It is to rebel against the establishment while staying within the law.

This is possible because as you detail in the rest of your post, it is the establishment who are acting unlawfully in their actions, by and large.

So I would say that any and every approach to gum up the works, prevent their unlawful activities, or generally be a pain in the ass, so long as it is lawful, is within the scope of lawful rebellion.

(31-08-2009 05:12 AM)Baron von Lotsov Wrote: [ -> ]Finally another thought for you which was brought to my attention by a lecturer in a ‘higher’ education college. He was very concerned that his class of kids were extremely anti learning anything. The kids saw this man as an establishment figure and they wanted to rebel against him and do as little work as possible. You know what they were saying? They were quoting freeman law concepts at him on to prevent him having any control over them. It makes me wonder that rebellion is exactly what the Marxist system really wants. We have to be one step ahead of them, not one behind.

This is why I am not a freeman. I have great respect for some of the people out there calling themselves freemen, because they are adding a lot to our understanding of the specifics of how the establishment is acting unlawfully. But I also find a lot of stuff out there under the freeman label to be tenuous at best, and downright anarchic at worst.

I, and everyone at the UK Column and BCG, including Brian G, are absolutely behind the idea of an organised society living within a sovereign nation state.

Thanks. You have cleared that up because I was under the impression it related to freeman concepts.

Personally I don't trust the freeman movement and I know for a fact some of it is just plain wrong. If anyone tried it they would most likely just land themselves with a huge legal bill.

Actually I don't trust courts full stop. Generally they feel they can beat you, but if you happen to be very clever and get one up on them they will simply cheat. I know because I have had it happen to me. They closed my solicitors down a month before my case and force me to use one of theirs, in addition to breaking the law in court. I think there are much better ways of dealing with this while still remaining lawful.