The Theatre Of The Absurd

Never is there a time in the calendar when there is such a concentration of utter meaninglessness than the Party Conference season. Each year brings the autumnal parade of delegates, party leaders and the faithful to the various rallying points around the coastal compass, and of course, the inevitable entourage of news crews and reporters, jostling each other for the latest titbit of hot political gossip. No conference would be complete without the 'fringe' events, where those who sail closer to the edge of the received orthodoxy meet and exchange their radical views. And then there are the speeches. Exercises in oratory, hyperbole and rhetoric are brought to the ears of the enraptured, crafted to raise them to their feet for the inevitable ovation and stir them into a frenzy of unswerving devotion and service for another year. The public affirmations of affection from Ed Miliband to his brother David at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester have borne all the hallmarks of a theatrical sentimentality. More skeptical bloggers and journalists have put a less favourable gloss on this, analysing David Miliband's body language, which displayed scantily concealed displeasure at having been defeated in the leadership contest by his younger sibling.

For the disinterested or uninterested onlooker like myself, the party conference season is merely an opportunity for parties and their leaders to showcase their talents to mesmerise, deceive and entertain those who are naive (or deluded) enough to attend them - despite the interjection by the occasional dissenter who heckles from the back during the critical address. They also provide a springboard for the occasional Bright Young Thing, flushed with the bloom of youthful idealism to make a favourable impression on the grandees and delegates. Some careers in politics have been forged through such conference appearances.

If ever there was a Vanity Fair, this must surely encapsulate it. Naturally, the party faithful would accuse me of cynicism, but - regardless of the political party - the theatre is the same. Why does this all convey the meaninglessness of a French existentialist novel? Perhaps it is because there is a perceived sense of disengagement on the part of members of the public. There have been false or broken promises. There have been expenses scandals at a time when many people have lost their jobs. There have been draconian laws, which have fuelled the suspicion that the apparatus of a police state is being constructed. There has also been the continual evasion of pertinent questions in interviews by politicians of all parties. Combined with the increasingly evident chasm between stated intent and actual deed, these observations aggregate a sense of frustration and distrust in the public towards a political machinery and elite which basks in its own self-congratulation, privilege and hauteur. But - perhaps more important than this - there is a disengagement from truth itself. Every party – in common with every corporate body and most individuals - wants to portray its cleanest and brightest side to the public gaze. This is only natural. However, the obsession with presentation and image has resulted in a pathological fear of being perceived as anything short of its desired image. To maintain the illusion of principled resolution, accord and authority, the party whips coerce the MPs into line. Cabinet ministers are diligent in ensuring that they avoid falling into the various verbal traps set for them by journalists and members of the public and resort to parroting the party line - even if it is not germane to the matter at hand. Image is self-serving.

In the Book Of Revelation in the Bible, the beast is worshipped through an image. Given that the beast depicted in the Apocalypse is generally believed to be a political system, one can easily be drawn to some conclusions..

A Challenge

Here is a challenge: can anybody provide one single example where ordinary working and law-abiding people have directly benefited from government? And by 'government' I mean any policy from any administration within living memory, and the benefit needs to be one that is of lasting value.

They Need Us..

They need us:

• To earn money that they can extract from us in large proportions through direct and indirect taxation - to support their opulent lifestyles;

• To be in awe of their pompous institutions and courts;

• To treat us as if we were people who are as criminally degenerate as themselves through CRB checks;

• To systematically remove our Common Law rights and hold us for indefinite periods of time under the guise of 'terrorism';

• To criminalise us with more draconian and stupid laws - so that they can screw more money out of us through fines;

• To dictate how we live our lives, precisely what we eat and drink - and in what quantities;

• To tell us how evil the motor car is - and to cajole us into using inadequate public transport;

• To make us fear them and become guilt-ridden neurotics;

• To lecture us about the evils of smoking - and those who indulge in this satanic habit;

• To tap our phones, constantly watch us through CCTV cameras and monitor our internet usage;

• To frighten us with apocalyptic stories of climate change, global terrorism, Islamic jihad and monetary collapse;

• To make us spy on each other and thereby remove any sense of community and social cohesion;

• To give our children nightmares by showing Robert Peston on the news before the 9:00pm watershed;

• To indoctrinate us through the BBC into the Fabian ideology that they want to inflict upon us;

• To influence our opinion as to which communitarian collective of criminal incompetents should be mishandling our economy and destroying our lives in Westminster;

• To subsidise through taxation myriads of petty bureaucrats, quangoes, tyrannical councils, the 'diversity' industry, Common purpose losers.

They need us. But we don't need them. Ever.

Another Front in the Battle

The battle for the shape of the Church has manifested itself recently in the ranks of the Roman Catholic church - in view of the impending visit to the UK by Pope Benedict: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7987774/Catholic-group-accuses-Church-of-intolerance-ahead-of-Pope-visit.htm

For the record, I'm no fan of the Catholic church - in fact, I'm one of its card-carrying detractors. There are various reasons for this: primarily, I have serious doctrinal issues with its claims and beliefs in all areas where they've replaced Scriptural teaching by papal decree. Since the RC church is constitutionally unable to reverse its historically-established doctrines (e.g. papal authority, the priesthood, celibacy of the clergy, the authority and exclusivity of the church and its teachings, the doctrines of the Virgin Mary, transubstantiation among many others), it's stuck with them. It is literally a prisoner of its own history, tied up by the bonds of its own decrees. Furthermore I find it difficult to summon any respect for an institution which for years has systematically concealed the gross sexual misconduct of its ministers - some of them high-ranking - towards the vulnerable and weak. Without doubt this is wickedness and betrayal of the highest order.

Despite all this, I recognise that there are many fine Christians in its ranks, and must admit a certain amount of sympathy for them through these times; their church has had a lot of (albeit deserved) bad press. But it's also noticeable that such an organisation - notoriously inflexible - now shares with the protestant churches the steady corrosive attack of the secular age and its values. It has become fair game for the homosexual lobby, who have been whittling away at the Church of England for years. It's a sad feature of many of the protestant denominations that they have generally failed to fend off their secular assailants by a vigorous and determined grasp of scripture. There is a morbid fear of appearing to appear to be irrelevant or bigoted to the proponents of the zeitgeist. Many of the aforesaid proponents of political correctness and so-called 'diversity' have been among the ranks of the church, so the attack has been from within.

As I perceive it, the secular battle against the Roman Catholic church is a lost cause. The Pope and his cardinals won't budge on the matters of homosexuality and similarly contentious issues. They won't move on abortion either. This at least earns from me a glimmer of respect - but I suspect that their reasons for fending off these issues differ from my own. I oppose them for one reason: Scripture, which is the revealed word of God - proscribes them, either by plain textual statement or by doctrinal weight where textual statements are not present. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church opposes them for no other reason than the fact that it always has - since its traditions are as immutable as the laws of the Medes and Persians.

An Open Letter To Sandwell Council

To Whom It May Concern

I understand from the press and legions of political bloggers that I read that once again you have excelled yourselves in your zeal for keeping a tidy district. I am sure that you are proud of your efforts to achieve this. I use the term 'once again,' because I understand that on various occasions you taken decisive action against people who have by their behaviour - knowingly or otherwise - transgressed your precise (or might I say 'exacting'?) standards, and who have been victimised accordingly.
Your action against a widow - whose 'offense' was to pinch out a cigarette she was smoking at a bus stop, thus dropping the lighted end on your immaculate street - has proved that you are a council that leads the way in mercilessness and malice. It is abundantly clear for all to see that you hold these qualities to the highest degree.
Permit me to courteously remind you of a few facts:

First of all, as a council, you are the servants of the area. You are not their lords/masters/despots/satraps/kings. This may not be how you would like it to be, but that is how it is. Please consider this - as painful as it may be to you.

Secondly, your local populace earns money which, through their hard work or investment, goes to pay for your wages. In other words, you are beholden to those whose living subsidises your way of life - and, doubtless the sumptuous premises in which you work and from where you issue your diktats and generate the various trendy 'diversity' projects upon which you lavish taxpayer's hard-earned cash.

Thirdly, this is still nominally a free country. It is not a Soviet Socialist republic or a fascist dictatorship - yet. I realise that as a Labour council, there are people in your ranks who have qualified as Common Purpose 'graduates,' and who have enthusiastically imbibed the anti-democratic values and practices that it is intended to subvert. That this country has not yet fully circumvented the vaguely democratic values that has under-girded it may not be to your liking, but again - that's how it is. Deal with it. This is still a free country. There are still regular, law-abiding people who pay your substantial wages who abhor the petty vindictiveness which you have displayed to the lady in question along with others who have also fallen foul of your nastiness. There are doubtless those in your very district who fought in the Second World War to oppose the very principles which you have so enthusiastically applied - authoritarian fascism. You have betrayed them - and all the others of the same generation who endured bereavement and a myriad of hardships and made sacrifices to fight oppression and tyranny for the sake of you and I. I hope you are pleased with yourselves.

Finally, let me remind you that until this country becomes a repressed third-world, third-rate vassal state of an emerging totalitarian socialist Utopia, there will continue to be people like this present writer who will vehemently oppose you and your despotic ways and will take every opportunity to publicly register their undying contempt for the supercilious attitude and inhuman ways in which you operate. And until we are silenced by some secret police force, we will continue to do so.

A Gauntlet To Government

• Until leading politicians speak the truth at all times, I won't believe anything they say (unless they pledge to raise our taxes, which is a promise they never fail to keep).
• Until the aforesaid politicians answer simple questions honestly and without evasion, I won't give them an ounce of credence. They are professional liars, and the truth is not in them.
• Until political parties withdraw the 3-line whip that keeps their MPs in the party line, I won't support any of them. They are merely thinly-disguised flavours of the same establishment.
  
• Until the primary purpose of Government changes from being the handmaiden of vast commercial and financial interests to maintaining the interests of the citizens of the so-called United Kingdom, I won't even tentatively regard it as our representative.
• Until the Government through its agencies commits itself to the protection of all elements in society who are weak, vulnerable and defenceless, I shall oppose it.
• Until the priority of Government is the restoration of our ancient civil rights as codified in the Magna Carta and other historical legal instruments, I can't begin to lend it any moral support.
• Until the great number of laws enacted by the repressive Labour regime are repealed, I will regard any subsequent administration as equally repressive and vindictive - if only because it has failed to right a momentous series of wrongs.
• Until Government ceases to favour small and vociferous minorities at the expense of the majority, I will regard it with the same measure of the contempt that it displays to the opinions of the majority of the public.
  
• Until Government commits itself to encouraging enterprise, hard work, integrity and personal responsibility, I won't support it. It is morally bankrupt.
• Until the BBC's charter is dissolved because of its unswerving bias in favour of communitarian Marxism, I will oppose its continuation and will not take it seriously as a responsible broadcasting medium.
• Until Government treats individuals like responsible adults who are able to make sensible and informed choices concerning their own lives, I will vigorously oppose it - whatever its partisan flag.
• Until Government stops banning things for the sake of it - and to further its control over the details of the peoples' lives, I will not support it.
• Until the Government fears and respects the people of this country, I will continue to regard it with contempt.
• Until Government allows complete and unqualified freedom of speech, association and religion, I cannot support it.
  
• Until Government allows a referendum for the public concerning our future in Europe, I will regard it as de facto - and not de jure. Europe has no business here.
  

Until these conditions are met - I will remain a (responsible and Common Law-respecting) anarchist.

Turkeys in Politics

It was only a matter of time before it was going to surface. If ever anyone needed proof that David Camera was a pro-European droid, then that proof has been spelt out in the last 24 hours. Don't expect any European referendum in your lifetime. Turkey has had the benefit of a visit from our glorious leader, who has ingratiated himself with their elites by telling them that he is enthusiastically supporting their application to join the European Soviet Union. We have the prospect of hordes of Anatolian goat herders pacing our streets, looking shifty.

For those who fervently believed that Cameroid and Clegg were the panacea of all our Labour-inherited evils, it's time to face the facts. Listen. The Tory-Dem coalition is every bit as much a part of our inherited social and political problems as Labour was. When the old Labour regime packed their bags and left the town, all we had was a change of window-dressing. Some new dummies were put in the window, and they wear different clothes. The old drab red has been removed; the color theme du jour is a mixture of blue and yellow. But the business in the shop continues exactly as before. Our politicians don't represent our interests - and they never did. They are the marionettes of the Righteous and the Mighty.

Government

At the bottom of Old Holborn's blog site are the following words - I hope he doesn't mind if I quote them here:

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

Sunday, Bloody Sunday

At last we've seen the sordid truth of what happened on that fateful Sunday afternoon in Derry in 1972. It's a truth that for many was suspected. After one establishment cover-up in the 1970s (aka Lord Widgery's Enquiry), the Saville Enquiry - all those years later - has disclosed that the British Army were the first to fire the shots which resulted in a significant number of civilian deaths. For the sake of the Catholic families affected by this atrocity, I'm glad that they have had the result that had been denied them for so long.
Although I understand and sympathise with their reasons, I'm no starry-eyed supporter of the IRA/Sinn Fein; they - along with their Loyalist paramilitary counterparts - have a great deal of blood on their hands and in their consciences. Although political processes grind on and public memories tend to blur after the passage of time now that a measure of peace and stability has been established, the undeniable fact is that the UK Government must also bear a significant share of the blame for this and a lot of other wanton bloodshed. After all, the cosy collusion with the loyalists ensured that the Roman Catholic majority were denied basic civil rights, which sparked off the Troubles in the first place. They knew what they were doing. The duplicity of the UK Government in Northern Ireland through the secret services and the Army is an unpalatable truth that has yet to embed itself into the public consciousness over here.

The Ghost Walks

When the Berlin Wall was pulled down in 1989, the event was regarded as the most significant development in 20th century politics; it sent a clear signal that communism was dead. The emerging countries behind the Iron Curtain had to come to terms with a new politics - and former Warsaw Pact citizens were having to adapt - emotionally and psychologically - to an entirely different landscape: one where the State no longer held its paternalistic sway. The difficulties encountered by individuals in the transition from dependence on the State and its institutions to liberal democracy must never be underestimated; for those who had lived with communism all their lives, it was a difficult adjustment to make. For the first time, people were forced to take responsibility for themselves because the State apparatus was no longer present to support them. Since that time, many of the Eastern European nations have been integrated into the European Union, and free movement of citizens within EU boundaries has been in evidence in the UK and elsewhere.

But while these quantum changes were in progress, the furniture in the West was slowly and gently being rearranged; subtle changes were being introduced through the mass media in an attempt to change the attitudes and perceptions of the Western populace. Political correctness - generally associated with and attributed to the Labour Party - actually started to emerge in the UK during the long years of Conservative governance. New taboos were being insidiously introduced through the institutions of the press, local authorities and the BBC, and in the fulness of time it became a social misdemeanour to express any opinions contrary to the received orthodoxy. For example, any semblance of racial preference - or criticism of certain selected minority social groups - was frowned upon. At first, no one was sure of the origin of these new social mores. As time passed, legislation was introduced to formalise and codify these new values. The result of this is that while 3 decades ago the National Front was tolerated by the majority - albeit superciliously regarded as a fringe party of bigoted nationalists - its successor, the British National Party, has been systematically demonised by all corners of the political establishment. A cultural transformation has taken place that has eroded long-held values of tolerance. There are regular reports to be read in right-wing tabloids like the Daily Mail of the discrimination of local police or councils against individuals who have held a principled stand for their beliefs. Christians who have publicly expressed their beliefs have been a favourite target by the zealous enforcers of the New Orthodoxy. As we direct our gaze to other European nations and North America, we see the same pattern emerging, a similar orthodoxy in place and similar repressions of those who publicly call it to question.

So, what is actually happening? Why is it that these developments have been taking place elsewhere? Is this part of some unavoidable process attributable to 'change' or 'progress?' The architects of this international cultural change would certainly like that to be the recognised perception. Yes - there are architects behind these value changes that have been foisted onto the public consciousness; they are the disciples of past intellectual masters: Plato, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Foucault and Gramsci - to name but a few. When we couple these social value changes with developments in the global political scene, a clearer picture comes into focus. When political leaders talk about a Common Purpose - and to be sure, Obama and Cameron and their illustrious predecessors have done so - we can be sure that they have a specific goal in mind - one which is hidden from public perception, but abundantly evident if one takes the time and trouble to look. The goal is Communitarianism, where the dictatorship of the community has replaced the dictatorship of the proletariat. The objective is the disenfranchisement and impoverishment (financially, intellectually, socially, spiritually and morally) of the majority by the wealthy and powerful few. A new landscape of poverty, hardship, heavy taxation awaits - while the political classes have untold opportunities to indulge their penchant for the quick buck and the privileges that accompany their role in the new order. Mark Twain said that a cauliflower is a cabbage with a college education. Communitarianism is Communism with ribbons - and some extra letters added. It is on its way. The ghost walks - but then perhaps it never really died in the first place.

A change of mind

For some time I was a fellow-traveller with the socialists; I believed that the needs of people are more important than the greedy aspirations of Big Business and the banks. And this I still believe. Nevertheless I was not a Labour voter, as I've been vehemently opposed to the EU for years. But I've now come to recognise that I don't want to identify myself with any vestige of socialism. Why?

1. Bureaucratic Tyranny. In the last 13 years the Labour Party has brought in untold tyranny through the enactment of more than 4000 new laws to criminalise ordinary members of the public; placing the wrong type of rubbish in a bin could bring down the force of justice. Smokers are now lepers who hang around outside pubs. These new laws were nor designed to correct injustice - but to wear down ordinary people through myriads of infringements of their right to mind their own legitimate business and express their opinions. (Big Brother Watch - bless them - faithfully catalogues the persecutions of citizens through these draconian Labour laws.) I realise that most of these laws have been passed down from Brussels (the devil's socialist playground), but this does not excuse Labour parliamentarians. When they talk piously about a just and fair society, I really wonder who benefits from this 'justice.' Only the Treasury and the courts reap any rewards.

2. Imposed 'equality'. For some time it has been the objective of government to favour some marginal groups while deliberately ignoring the views of the majority. This has brought about the stifling of a Christian voice in a country that has a Christian value system integral to its social and judicial system. Woe betide any Christian who declares his beliefs concerning the practice of homosexuality - he or she is likely to feel the hand of the state on his or her shoulder. The majority of people feel that their feelings and views matter less than those of another group. I know the reasons for this - and they are sinister, as they are cynically designed to change the cultural values of the public. This is social engineering, and Labour have accelerated it at an alarming rate.

3. Other people's wars. These are the legacy of a morally bankrupt party who deceived the public.

A New Wat Tyler?

John Harris, who is one of the leading lights of the Lawful Rebellion movement (mentioned in a previous blog) has been doing his share of rabble-rousing as we approach a General Election (which he calls the election - or rather, appointment - of a general). Once again I find that he has been airing his extensive and formidable ignorance concerning British history and society by expressing some of the most scandalous statements without resorting to any means of proof to authenticate them. While it must be agreed that we are no more than slaves on this island, whose purpose is to turn the treadmill for those privileged enough to be born into families that rake in the proceeds of our toil and sweat, I start to bristle when Mr Harris turns his fire on the Christian Church, which he blandly accuses of being a part of the status quo that has helped (and continues to help) suppress the masses and maintain order for the benefit of the privileged few.
He credits the Church with a great deal more influence than it actually has. For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury has already publicly stated in recent months that he believes that the politicians in Government regard Christianity as some kind of social disease rather than a force for good. Never has the Church had less influence than it has today; we only have to look at the secular agendas set by politicians in the last 25 years. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, its influence is likely to recede further in the light of recent disclosures of cover-ups for gross sexual offences against children by priests. Even Ratzinger can't get out of that one, as he's also implicated.
What are the facts? Well, the Christian Church certainly has played a role in the maintaining of the status quo. This is beyond dispute. However, there have always been tensions within the Church between Establishment-maintainers and those who wanted to reform the Church according to its original biblical foundations. Some were burned at the stake because they posed a threat to the status quo; Savonarola was one such victim; William Tindale was killed for translating Scripture into English. By the time Luther came into the scene, the exploitation and corruption in the medieval Church was at an all-time peak; it was palpably on the take with the cynical sale of indulgences to help fund the new basilica building project. But Luther's arrival at a biblical understanding of the Gospel and his posting of the 95 Theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg was (unbeknown to him) to prove to be the catalyst to pull together already existing strands of dissent and discontent from many quarters of Europe. Consequently the Protestant Reformation was born. In due time the established protestant churches became identified with the state, and once again there were internal dissents and secessions, resulting in new churches. And so it goes.
And now our Mr Harris is accusing the Church of bolstering the position of the socially dominant in our society. Which one, Mr Harris? The Church of England? Oh, yes, the C of E is the 'established' church. Personally, I'd be very happy to see it disestablished - the sooner the better. But I can't see Mr Brown or Mr Cameron having regular briefings from the Archbishop at No. 10 Downing Street. Nor from the Cardinal or the leader of the Methodists. For the sake of maintaining the illusion of 'diversity', though, an imam might tag along. Mr Harris - one of the first things you need to do is to make sure you're sure of the ground you're standing on. Otherwise I might be tempted to believe that you're just taking the piss.

My response to Andy Reed's Reply

This is my reply. No further response has been expected or received.

Hi Andy - Many thanks for your reply. Your blanket response to my concerns is typical of the pragmatism of these times. May God have mercy on us if we continue in the implementation of a Fabian corporate state ; it will be sovietism all over again. What are you all building ? This is my worry for the future of my children and grandchildren. I believe there are sinister agendas at work ..

A Reply From My MP

This is Andy Reed's response to my Facebook message:

Whilst it is fine to live in a puritanical ideological bubble - I don't think it is sustainable.

In Loughborough if you don't vote for me you get a right wing Tory MP - simple as that.

I clearly won't change your mind on your poltics so I won't waste anytime doing so. But enjoy having a Tory MP and government more right wing than Thatcher

Andy

A Letter To My Local Labour Member Of Parliament

I sent this to my MP recently to express my opinions on the corrupt and malevolent organisation that he represents:

Hi, Andy -- I've seen the video you posted - a good reminder of what Labour has stood for over the years. Ideologically I'm a socialist - I believe that the needs of people and communities matter more than profits and balance sheets. However, I believe that despite the sterling work of parliamentarians like yourself, Labour has displayed a malevolent face in foreign and domestic policy; I only have to think of the machinations of Blair to justify participation in the Iraq war. I think of the phenomenal increase in offences created to criminalise the public (over 4000 since '97) and the brazen encroachment of the surveillance state under the pretext of our national security. And we, the inhabitants of this island, are bracing ourselves for yet more financial hardship because of the irresponsibility of the corporate elite (who I think really run this country). This is not the country my father fought for - in many ways it has become a shoddy playground for party apparatchiks and Common Purpose so-called graduates in national and local areas of government. And why did Peter Mandelson say that we are in a 'post-democratic era'? The reason is that ordinary people don't matter - and have been disenfranchised from the really big decisions that matter to us all, eg the Lisbon Treaty.
Andy - I respect you and believe that you're doing a really good job. But I don't want to vote for a party that has sold its soul to the corporate establishment, and until Labour starts to demonstrate that it represents the public rather than the political elite, I will be a disaffected voter.
Regards
Dave Faulks

Well..

Well, it's been some time since I fed this blog with some random thoughts and reflections. Since there aren't likely to be many avid Faulkstalks blog readers, that 's no great loss to mankind. Nobody has petitioned me for new updates, so the obscurity continues. Nevertheless, things have been happening since I last wrote.

For a start, I've gained two more grandsons, which brings the tally up to 4. They are lovely little dots, born within 6 weeks of each other. They are giving their mothers plenty to think about.

I've come to a fuller understanding of the mess of our society and institutions - mainly thanks to the video lectures of Canadian comic Rob Menard and John Harris of www.tpuc.org. John is a Freeman of the Land - a self-employed plumber who through researches of his own has come to a realisation that the society we live in - and the legal system that maintains it - are based on some long-perpetuated lies. For example, statute law and statutory instruments can only have the power of law behind them when they have the consent of the governed because they are contractual by nature. This means that a man arrested for driving without road tax or insurance has not been engaged in a criminal offence, and if he refuses to submit his name and address and refuses to acknowledge that he understands (ie stands under) the charge, he can get away with this alleged offense. Of course, it's not as easy as that - the police are well-trained and savvy when it comes to dealing with offenders - but that is the general idea. The central thesis is that the United Kingdom is a corporation - not a political entity. And corporations exist to make money. In the same way, the courts of justice and the police are also corporations which have the same purpose, i.e. to make money from the public through fines and PCNs. There are various surprises in store when we look on Dunn & Bradstreet's website - including some of our political masters, who are listed traders in the name of whichever party they belong to. It doesn't take too long to realise that if this is indeed the case, our political life is a well-co-ordinated piece of theatre; the real interest behind the veneer of politics is commerce.

John Harris' solution is to opt out of society by formally declaring through an affidavit served on the queen that he withdraws his allegiance to Her Maj on the premise that she is surrounded by traitors who have betrayed the nation into the hands of foreign hands (through admission into the EU). Others simply declare in their affidavits that they are real, flesh-and-blood human beings - not the legal fictions created through the birth certificate upon registration. It is these legal fictions (known as 'persons') to whom statute law applies, and providing the offence is not a breach of common law (i.e. causing death, injury, damage or loss), a well-thought-out argument can win.

But to opt out smacks of dishonesty; to renounce one's citizenship (the reality of which is also aguable) on the one hand and yet to expect (for example) medical treatment through the NHS are hardly intellectually and morally consistent. The only way to derive benefits from the host society while maintaining integrity would be to pay for services as a private individual.

So, while I accept that our politicians are vassals to the corporate state, and the proliferation of draconian laws is designed to screw more money and exert more power over long-suffering and law-abiding people, I also see that for the time being at least, we have to put up with it. Eventually people are going to get fed up with being spied on, controlled and manipulated by a nasty state.

But what is society for? According to Black's Law Dictionary, in so many words its purpose is to maintain the position of the socially dominant group. And that doesn't include me. And if you're reading this, you can bet it doesn't include you either. Stay tuned.