WE THE PEOPLE.

The BCG & Lawful Rebellion are the way forward they have exposed that the tools needed to undo what has been perpetrated against the people of this country are already in place i.e. Magna Carta , Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement 1700.
Common law in a nut shell cannot be repealed or changed it stands for all time, in their infinite wisdom those that wrote the words of both; these are the tools provided to stop the treason which has been taking place for the last 40 years.
I urge everyone to familiarise yourself with the BCG & Lawful Rebellion, quite a lot to take on but well worth every minute of your time, you will then understand that there is no need for violence or public disorder the ANCIENT RULE of COMMON LAW is with every one of us, to work for the return of self-government that has been sold out by the politicians illegally, and therefore is an act of TREASON against every English indigenous person.
Political elite has for some time manipulated the electoral system to deprive the people of true democratic representation by constructing a party political system that has allowed, indeed encouraged, acts of treason to have been committed.
We, the British People have THE right to govern ourselves. That right has been subjugated as a consequence of acts of treason having been committed by the collective political establishment, aided and abetted by corrupt segments of the judiciary, the police, the Church and the civil service.
Our present Constitutional Settlement, based on common law, cannot be amended or rescinded lawfully. None of the major parties will tell you this, and instead argue that Constitutional reform is necessary and that they have the power to do it.
All the so-called constitutional reform since the beginning of the 20th Century is unlawful. The LibLabCon intends to attempt to legitimise these past reforms, along with the proposed reforms, through that instrument of mob rule - the referendum. The proposed date for the referendum on voting reform is November 2011. We need to begin the process of educating people now, not only to prevent Cameron and Clegg's continuing treason, but so that people understand the principles upon which we will build our alternative governance.

Our national assets have been covertly sold off to private companies on the basis that government is not the best at running our infrastructure. While this is undoubtedly true, we have witnessed treason at work. Successive governments have allowed these private companies to turn our national infrastructure into nothing more than profit centres.
Energy companies, water companies, railway companies spend the minimum they can get away with to maintain the present infrastructure, invest nothing for the future and take everything they can out in profit for shareholders. Once the present infrastructure reaches end of life, as it is in the process of doing, it will be the taxpayer who is expected to finance the building of the next generation of power stations and reservoirs, ready for another 25 years of profit taking.
We would do well to remember that every corporate or commercial asset is ultimately controlled by the banks. And as Banker Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild said... ”Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes the laws.” Today, we do not know who controls the Bank of England, but we do know that they are private individuals and private banking interests - thus we have no control of our nation's money supply.
One of our first tasks in Lawful Rebellion must be to bring the control of the nation's money supply and national infrastructure back into the hands of the people via Parliament. We must ensure that all associated transactions are fully visible to the light of day, and that any private company tasked with running our national infrastructure suffers financial penalty if profit is put ahead of future investment.
Our present system of government (of Parliament) is the consequence of this ancient and exemplary act of lawful rebellion. Parliament cannot therefore undo or deny to us our Customs and Constitution without committing the ultimate act of treason and betrayal.

Not only must The Great Treason be opposed and stopped - it must also be undone. The United Kingdom Government has, over the last one hundred years, conspired to become a treasonous assembly and Parliamentary dictatorship. Parliament has acted with malice towards the English. It makes unlawful Statute for the purpose of giving life to its treason – and to suppress dissent. The members of this wretched assembly are oath breakers. Parliament has betrayed those English people who have given their lives to defend this sovereign nation. This is The Great Treason.
As members of ‘a people’ – of the descendants of the first people of this Island – we have a natural entitlement to self-determination. And, as descendants of those that gave us, a free people, our Constitution and Law, we have also an irrevocable right to declare lawful rebellion against a malevolent and authoritarian State. The State must be answerable to the people or suffer the consequences as a treasonous assembly.

The Magna Carta is unambiguously a Charter for the freedom of the people. Clearly it does not provide a warrant for anyone resident here to engage in rebellion (Magna Carta, Article 51). It does not extend to the treasoners (obviously), nor to the treasoners' collaborationists and auxiliaries.

The right of self-determination – of the native entitlement of the people of Britain – is reflected in Constitutional Law. And not just in Magna Carta. For example, the Act of Settlement 1700 (section 3) states:
That after the said limitation [of succession] shall take effect as aforesaid no person born out of the kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be made a denizen) (except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the privy council or a member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any office or place of trust either civil or military or to have any grant of land tenements or hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any other or others in trust to him.

This is still Law.

The objective of the Lawful Rebellion is therefore to end the Great Treason; to bring the treasoners to account; and to undo the harm done to us by those people.
Lawful Rebellion has the authority of native entitlement; of precedent set in ancient Constitutional agreement; of Natural Law; and of a powerful moral argument. Lawful Rebellion is an act of lawful resistance against an unlawful and treasonous State.
Lawful Rebellion is not a single act… it is a process. It has many facets and comprises the bringing together of people of like-mind who seek to reassert our national sovereignty whether as individuals or in groups under the single and recognised umbrella of ‘lawful rebellion’ so that a variety of actions may be taken that will eventually lead to the unequivocal recognition of our constitution and the acknowledgement of the reassertion of our national sovereignty - in defiance of those who have worked to destroy it.
WANT TO KNOW MORE? http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk

Thanks to Mistral_1945 Comment from The British Resistance.
Mistral_1945

CAMERON'S BAD BET

In my blog of 29th January I said that we should keep our noses out of the Middle East turmoil as we often back the wrong side.

Unfortunately with Gadaffi's troops in the process of retaking Bengazi this prediction has been proved to be correct.
The statement by Hague that Gadaffi had fled to Venezuela was indicative of the incompetence of the government machine and ministers.
Yes we have every sympathy with suppressed people trying to obtain their freedom but we are not able to influence events especially since our forces and military capability have been so much reduced.
Even if we had the power our intervention inevitably causes resentment to some in that troubled area.
Now the Bharein rebellion is about to be put down in spite of our government supporting it from afar.
In Egypt the same military cabal still controls the country as before. Only a few people at the top have been replaced.
In Tunisia the people prevailed as it was less militarised and the leader fled with his loot.

What do these events teach us, and leaders throughout the world?

That military might rules, and you can bet that in future all protests in that region will be hastily put down. The leaders will see that any "softness" will result in their demise and that if they want to survive with all their loot they must rule with a rod of iron.
The vengence on the people who opposed these dictators will be severe, whatever Cameron and his poncy Tories say or their pleas for moderation.

But what other effects will these events have on our country?

Well the rulers will hate us and discriminate against us while those ruled will feel betrayed by the weasel words of Cameron's government. So we lose either way on trade deals and money making opportunities which will be reflected in our unemployment statistics.

Yes we all need oil, but then so does China but they kept their nose out. They are a powerful country but have not taken on the job of the world's policeman so they are on good terms with all countries irrespective of the internal politics of those countries, and they will get the trade and oil.
The Chinese government puts the interests of China first and their people are now benefitting from that policy.

Ill judgement is at the heart of this government Remember those on it agreed with invading Iraq and Afghanistan and look where that got us, but then they have not had enough experience of life to understand what motivates people and thus always seem to back the wrong course of action.

I wouldn't trust them to place a bet on a horse. It would come last as our country will under them

THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH BULLIES.

Good on the fat kid. This should be seen by every kid in the country. With bullies violence works. It worked for me when I was at school. Nobody even tried to bully me after what I did to the bully - and HE was the big one.

Watch the vid, read the article and the comments::

http://www.popehat.com/2011/03/15/if-tomorrow-i-tell-the-press-that-like-a-fat-kid-will-get-humiliated-or-a-nerd-will-be-slapped-nobody-panics-because-its-all-part-of-the-plan-but-when-i-say-that-one-little-bully-will-get/

The squirt in this vid got a broken ankle. Hahahahahahahahaha

Morg
.

CONTRASTS IN PEOPLE

The disaster of the earthquake and the following tsunami in Japanwas horrific in any language.
What impressed me was the stoicism and the unity of the people.
They organised themselves for this seemingly impossible task and everybody is confident the damage will be repaired and that country will rise again soon.

Contrast the lack of looting, the organisation and the order prevailing there with the looting in New Orleans after Katrina.
Contrast it also with Haiti which also has an earthquake but no tsunami and a year later little has been done in the way of reconstruction and murder and theft are commonplace.

What conclusions can we draw from these examples.

First, Japan is a homogenous society which has avoided the enrichment and division of the Western countries, a bit like we were in WW2. Countries like this have people who relate to each other and pull together and their united efforts can overcome seemingly insuperable obsticles.

Second Japanese people are intelligent and hard working. Contrast that with Haiti which has endemic poverty but which is also fairly homogenous but the population is African in origin.
A year after the earthquake they are still sitting around waiting for others to dig them out of their problems.

It will be said correctly that Japan is a modern state and has the resources to cope. But then disaster strikes Japan with frightening frequencies, and still they rise above them.
Also they have a low birthrate and an ageing population giving the lie to those who say we need immigrants to look after their old people.

But Haiti was the first Carribean state to be freed from slavery when the Japanese were also a peasant society.
While the Japanese had the brains to embrace modern technology Haiti adopted a government of corruption and its people embraced voodoo and plundered its rich vegetation.
Haiti has a better climate than Japan and neither has much in the way of natural resources but yet Japan prospers while Haiti was more or less a wasteland even before the earthquake.

They both had the same chances at the same time but with very different outcomes.

Meanwhile we import people of African origin who have shown themselves in every country they rule to be incapable of doing so efficiently and who dilute our national unity and even here most only achieve anything as a result of racist anti British discrimination in their favour.

And I have not even mentioned our tsunami, that of muslim immigration and breeding.

If a natural disaster strikes our country do you think we could cope as have the Japs?

No way, we are too divided with uneducated aliens in our midst, many who do not like the hand that at present feeds them.

We would have no chance.

The" Blitz spirit"of a united Britain?
Forget it.

Fish. Barrel. Gun.

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2011/03/fish-barrel-gun.html

OK, it's a cheap shot but Daily Mail hack Jan Moir really has brought this on herself:

Want to stub out smoking? Put Kate's mug on every pack

Plans for selling brands in plain packets unblemished by alluring brand logos have also been mooted — but I have a better suggestion.

If Kate Moss carries on smoking her good looks away, perhaps they should put a picture of her kippered Croydon pram face on the front of every packet?

Kate Moss

Jan Moir

Don't fancy yours much.

Morg
.

PART THREE OF A FOUR-PART ESSAY Re: ISLAM IN THE U.K.

Below is the third installment of a four-part dossier about Muslim immigration written by El Inglés. This series was originally published as a single dossier in pdf format under the pseudonym “Pike Bishop”.

Previously: Part One and Part Two.



A Consideration of Muslim Immigration into the UK: Part Three
By Pike Bishop

V. If We Fail to Act

We venture forth here into a brief but frank discussion of what the future is likely to hold if Muslims continue to flood into Britain, colonize its town and cities, spit on its people and way of life, and suck the blood out of its economy. Few would choose to stare so intently into the crystal ball of ethno-sectarian violence. But that is precisely why we feel we must.

If Muslim immigration, and through it the rate of growth of the Muslim population itself, cannot be brought under control, which is to say stopped in perpetuity, then British towns and cities will continue to undergo a rapid process of colonization by their various Muslim peoples. This process of colonization will have one very unusual characteristic. Normally, technologically and economically more advanced peoples colonize peoples who are less advanced in these regards. This is why, try as they might, the native American Indians could not effectively oppose, much less reverse, the colonization they underwent at the hands of the British and other European peoples. However, in our case, the opposite will be true, as our colonization will be taking place at the hands of technologically and economically inferior peoples who, barring the odd Afghan on the back of a truck, have to be let in by our immigration apparatus to be here at all.

What this means, in a nutshell, is that this colonization will take place only as long as we allow it to, and we will not allow it forever. Eventually we will completely cast aside the various psychological restraints that have been imposed upon us (and without which said colonization could never have occurred at all), resist it, and, at least to some extent, reverse it. There are only two ways this can happen: a) in a relatively orderly and civilized fashion, when a government with the political will to deal with the problem finally comes to power, or b) in an exceptionally violent and brutal fashion, with government playing by no means the only role, and perhaps not even a particularly large one.

It would be asinine to argue that something of this nature could not happen in modern Europe when we have so recently witnessed similar events in the Balkans. And it would be simply absurd to argue it in a country which has only fairly recently emerged from a brutal ethno-sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, a conflict that featured massive riots, ethnic cleansing of entire neighbourhoods, an alphabet soup of ruthless paramilitaries, shootings of unarmed civilians by security forces, collusion between security forces and paramilitaries, thousands of bombings, hundreds of civilians killed in cold blood, no-go zones policed by masked men brandishing AK-47s, the assassination of government officials, and a bombing that nearly wiped out the entire cabinet of the day.

The war that awaits us is tribal war, and we assure our readers that it does not consist of generals exchanging pleasantries before battle, folk riding forth and shooting at each other a bit, and some backslapping over a glass of port at the end. Rather, it consists of people identifying entire communities as their enemies and more or less indiscriminately killing them off until the threats they are perceived to constitute have been reduced to acceptable levels, whatever those levels may be. It is surely one of the greatest failures in the history of (supposedly) democratic government as an institution that so many otherwise prosperous, peaceful European countries have been deliberately hurling themselves along this path despite the fact that the eventual outcome must have been reasonably obvious from the start, and is painfully so now.

When such tribal conflict breaks out in Britain (and it certainly cannot be avoided without radical changes to immigration and other policies), the only way for it to come to an end will be for the overwhelming majority of the Muslim population of Britain to leave permanently. There will be no Good Friday Agreement to bring it to an end, and, for deep structural reasons, no equivalent agreement can exist. We will be discussing the Troubles in Northern Ireland in considerably more detail in a subsequent document, but feel obliged to explain this preliminary observation here. The civil rights movement in the nationalist community of Northern Ireland in the late 1960s had specific wrongs that it asked the Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont to address. Most obviously these were: a) the gerrymandering that assured unionist control of councils even in areas in which nationalists outnumbered unionists, b) the consequent inferior access to council housing enjoyed by the nationalist population, and c) anti-nationalist discrimination in the workplace.

These discriminatory measures were themselves a legacy of a bitter history of colonization and conflict which left unionists, after the partition of Ireland, seeing themselves as outnumbered and besieged on the island of Ireland, with a large nationalist population within their own province whose political loyalty was weak at best and whose influence, they felt, had to be curtailed at all costs. This extreme political polarization and lack of a shared identity or shared interests was what led to the Troubles.

The Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which brought an end to the Troubles as commonly understood, essentially resulted in nationalists being granted a fairer share of political power, and unionists being provided with a guarantee that a united Ireland could only be brought about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. This is how these two different peoples of Northern Ireland have found a way, at least for the last twelve years, of living together in relative peace. But this cannot happen in the event of a conflict between the British and their Muslim fifth column. Indeed, every single part of this compromise in the Good Friday Agreement would be meaningless at best, absurd at worst, in the context of a possible violent conflict of this nature.

As we have already established, the Muslim community of Britain is parasitic with respect to both financial and social capital, criminal and subversive, aggressive and rapidly growing. Its characteristics in these regards are not things it could alter even if it wanted to. Moreover, we cannot grant Muslims the vote, because we have already given them the vote. We cannot give them a fair slice of the economic pie, because they already suck out far more than they put in, consuming wealth created by others with nary a word of thanks. We cannot guarantee them that they will not be incorporated by force into our country, as they are already trying to get every mother’s son in here themselves, by hook or by crook, with the express purpose of being incorporated into it, at least in some sense. And we cannot grant them political influence commensurate with the contributions they make to British society, as their contributions to British society are all severely negative, and the political influence they already have is entirely undeserved and increasingly resented by the indigenous population.

The only way to even try and negotiate a way out of a violent conflict with Muslims would be to give in and grant them some laundry list of demands. But this would simply exacerbate every single one of the problems they already cause, and British anger at them. It is, in large part, this continual retreat in the face of Islamic wrath that has brought us to where we are today. To think that, for example, allowing Muslims in Birmingham to implement full sharia in their neighbourhoods and giving them £50,000 per year for life could somehow solve the problems we would face if they launched a rebellion of some sort would be to tip over in full-blown lunacy. Why not throw in Buckingham Palace as well, and have Anjem Choudary warbling the call for prayer from the roof? It might buy a bit of time with the believers, but is unlikely to go down very well with the natives.

It will be clear to the British people in the case of tribal conflict between them and their Muslim fifth column that defeat will result in the disappearance of their civilization, their way of life, and their existence as a people. Accordingly, they will have to win it, which means they will have to do what needs to be done to win it, which means they will have to do a great many violent and unpleasant things, things that, though quite inconceivable to many at present, will seem right and obvious to most when the nature of the conflict has become sufficiently clear.

We would like to avoid this, but feel that the window of opportunity is closing rather more quickly than some might imagine. Our greatest concern is that, despite the growing anger and alarm on the part of the British people with respect to mass immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular, these feelings might not give rise to the necessary coalescence of political will on the part of our elected representatives in time to try and prevent the horrendous future that otherwise awaits us. We say again that the only course of action that gives us the slightest chance of avoiding the horrors outlined here is that of shutting down Muslim immigration and refusing to subsidize the higher Muslim fertility that is pushing us towards the brink. If Muslim immigration is shut down, if the cessation of all influxes of Muslims from the ‘old country’ helps Muslims integrate (whatever one understands by the term), and if the Muslim population of the UK stabilizes at a sufficiently low level (whatever that level might be), then there is at least a slight possibility that a British vs. Muslim violent conflict can still be avoided.

However, even this slight possibility will vanish if we do not act quickly, hence the need for immediate action in this regard. For it is crucial to understand here that, the longer we delay in shutting Muslim immigration down, the harder it will become to do so, and the less likely it will be that we can avoid the conflict already described. Though the Muslim population of the UK is about 4%, it is estimated^[25] that approximately 11% of all children born in the UK at present are born to Muslims, a figure which suggests the sheer demographic momentum underlying the problem. Furthermore, banning further Muslim immigration will be correctly perceived by the Muslim population of the UK as seriously undermining its interests in a variety of ways. As such, they will most certainly use the votes their British citizenship give them to oppose any such move at the polls, which makes them a barrier to be overcome in this regard if we wish to solve our Muslim problem in a democratic and non-violent fashion.

We see already, across the European continent, people waking up in country after country to the catastrophic futures that await them if they cannot shake off the death grips that their current political and media establishments hold over the political trajectories of their countries. Yet in Britain, the suicidal see-no-Islam, hear-no-Islam, speak-no-Islam paradigm stumbles onwards like a buffalo shot through the heart but still unaware that it is dead. This document is a part of our personal contribution, however small that may be, to bringing the buffalo of Islamization down before, not after, it tramples us to death. ...
...
...
Don’t you realize this is legally impossible? Think of the EU, the Human Rights Act, the UN, the International blah blah blah blah blah…

In response to this, we can only reply that laws, treaties, and the like are human constructs and therefore open to being changed by human efforts on the basis of human concerns. And changed they will be, sooner or later. If it disapproves, the EU will just have to invade us and show us the error of our ways.

How is this document going to contribute to community cohesion in Britain?

Anybody who thinks this document is supposed to contribute to community cohesion as usually conceived of needs to read it again, this time with their eyes open. This document is a call for the British people to move to shut down a phenomenon, Muslim immigration, which will thrust them into an existential conflict that they will be able to win only through the application of massive violence to Muslims as Muslims. We are not trying to give anyone warm feelings about themselves or their religion. Nor are we trying to envelop the Muslim population of Britain in a tidal wave of love. Can we be any clearer? ...

...
But you just don’t seem to be very nice!

That is correct. We are not very ‘nice,’ and we are prepared to become a good deal less nice if that is what is required to prevent runaway Muslim immigration from destroying our country, our way of life, and our ability to live unmolested in our ancestral lands. If there is any particular reason for the British to allow themselves to be colonized by Muslims, whatever their provenance, now is the time for it to be explained. We are listening…

Please go read it all. It is a long read:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/03/muslim-immigration-into-uk-part-three.html 

Morg

. 

WHAT AM I?

I'm an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac.... I lay awake at night for hours, wondering if there is a dog.

Brilliant. Nicked it from here on a comment by Stephen Jenner

http://umbrellog.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1009000&start=15

Morg
.