The BBC will be broadcasting a programme about the Queen’s Coronation.
What they will not be telling you is that the Queen’s Oath in 1953 was a solemn contract between the Monarch and people which has been rendered null and void by the cynical mechanisms of the political party system which has stripped the monarch of any legal power to protect the English people, cancelled the legal tenets of our constitution and created an “elective dictatorship” (Lord Hailsham) based upon a fraudulent political democracy instead of a legal democracy
5 October 2017 – I’m willing to bet next week’s pension that I’m not the only person in town to be ‘up to here’ with radio and voyeur-vision daily news reports about our national political parties. There is no getting away from it – party conference season is something of a trial for those of us who remain at home to do something more worthwhile with our time. For me, preaching to the choir never did seem to be a profitable experience.
The idea runs through my mind that most of us seem to have great difficulty in understanding that, doing the same thing over and over again but expecting to obtain a different result, is the height of self delusion. But we do it anyway. I was going to say “We must be nuts”. That is unfair.
However, allow me to lay out my stall on page one. I believe that our parliamentary system as it is today is both contrary to common law and therefore unlawful and quite corrupt. My friend, Martin Cruttwell, will seek to reveal the extent to which we are deceived by a cleverly designed pretence. This notion of pretend will keep appearing.
Suffice it to say that when I spoke to our local Conservative party representative in parliament during the summer and asked him why I could never spot him in his place when I watched BBC Parliament channel, he replied that ‘I am a minister and a member of the government. I answer questions, I don’t ask them. But you will see me there after PMQs on a Wednesday.’
It seems to me that anyone who is first and foremost a representative of his or her party and then accepts an offer to be a representative of the government is not best placed to be a representative of his constituency at the same time??? Without my wishing to be offensive, I invite you think whether a dog can truly obey two masters and which master has the most clout?? Martin has some similar thoughts.
HOW POLITICAL PARTIES CORRUPT THE CONSTITUTION
- Pretend Constitutionality. From legal democracy to political democracy
- The Party System – the Revolution against the legal English Constitution
- How the Party System overthrows the Monarchy
- The Party System empowers politicians to ignore the Rule of Law
- Fake Democracy. Political party manifestos – the “elective dictatorship” – a clever totalitarian trick to gain power.
- The Party System is just that. A complete system. Why we feel helpless.
- Goal of the Revolution. Elimination of Nations by a World Dictatorship
- On the road to dictatorship: How Heath used the Party System to force us into the EC; forced the Queen to break Her Coronation Oath. The resulting Brexit mess.
- Immigration. Principal revolutionary weapon against the English.
- The Consequences of allowing this abuse of Power: debt, corruption, wars, mass migration and misery for millions. “world shaken to its foundations” ?
- The bogus Oath of Allegiance. Why all party politicians (unknowingly?) commit Treason against the Crown, Constitution and the English people.
- Legal democracy explained simply.
- Simple solution: what you can do to stop it
“By retaining the forms, institutions and ceremonies of our Parliamentary heritage, though now rendered meaningless, the magnitude of the constitutional convulsion has been successfully disguised”.
Ben Greene. “The Party System and the Corruption of Parliament”.
There, we have only just started and “pretend” springs into view immediately. Phew!!
Explaining the changes. “The English Parliamentary Constitution (previously) rested on one single principle that ALL authority was subject to the law of the land, derived solely from the consent of the people, which no ruler could change or disregard**, but which he was bound to administer. Based thus on the principle of the Rule of Law of the people the English Constitution stood as the greatest achievement in the art of strong free and stable government in the whole history of civilised mankind!
With a legally constituted Parliament (note 1) as the Supreme Authority, the English constitution established the practical mechanism of a legal democracy by means of which the people, through the jury system, administered their own law, and by direct representation in the House of Commons controlled their own government”. Ben Greene.
- NB. Not choose government – control That means the government did not reside inside Parliament, as now, but elsewhere. i.e. with the Crown.
By subtly moving the system of government away from a stable one such as described above, in which rulers and subjects alike were bound by the law, and towards a system of political democracy, the guiding power of the nation, the government, is no longer legally controlled and working for the national good but determined solely by the outcome of the deliberate division of the people into competing factions or PARTIES at election-time. This competition is based upon envy, fear, hate, greed and ambition and especially FOR power over the others. “when we come to power…..”
Despite the appearance of the ceremonial procession on the page opposite, we have a lawless form of government. Allow me to explain why this is so.
Ben Greene writes of a constitutional convulsion. This convulsion is caused by the political party system which should always be regarded as the “revolution against the English legal constitution” in that this party system does not allow this liberty-protecting constitution and its laws (created over centuries of hard-won experience) to function as it should (with true separation of powers) and for that reason, without exception, ALL political parties are revolutionary. Their policies can be placed somewhere along the revolutionary spectrum, hence the terms “right, left and centre”.
How was this change to lawless government achieved so cleverly and a “fake democracy” maintained for so long?
After the formation of disciplined political parties in the 1850s by Disraeli and Jo Chamberlain, by 1906 with membership of the House of Commons totally under party control it was only necessary for Party Managers to inform the Monarch that no confidence will be shown in anyone not acceptable to the majority party and the personal and most significant Prerogative of the Crown –the appointment of public office – (and honours) passed to the party managers. (see quote by historian Sir Lewis Namier on my website www.camrecon.demon.co.uk . Today grant of office and honours, whilst nominally by the Monarch, is obviously exercised by Party Leaders, for example, the granting of peerages to loyal party cronies, as both Cameron and Corbyn demonstrated.
Why was it un-noticed? Because as Bagehot the 19th century commentator also said, the pomp and ceremony, the “dignified parts” would be retained to pretend to the masses that nothing had changed, but “the appendages of the monarchy have been converted into the essence of a republic…it is needful to keep the ancient show”.(see booklet from www.candour.org.uk at end)
As we know the French had guillotined their Monarchy in 1789 and so no one could participate in government except revolutionaries and this French Revolutionary idea of a Parliamentary Government has been adopted also by the British, who have retained the office and ceremonies (pictures above) of Monarchy to pretend that no significant change had occurred.
It was during the same French Revolution that the Frenchman Talleyrand, an admirer of the English Constitution and fearing what was to come warned: “If the English Constitution is destroyed the world will be shaken to its foundations”. (see consequences later)
Was it just coincidence that this subtle over-throw of our monarchy by the English Party System started to be implemented just after the 1848 publication of Marx’s Communist Manifesto in London? His manifesto included overthrow of all monarchy. When Marxist revolutionaries Rosa Luxemburg & Karl Liebknecht tried revolution in Europe they failed but a much more violent version was planned for Russia by similar people in 1917 during WW1. ( “war truly generalised terminates automatically in revolution”, wrote Lenin).** War being the greatest possible destabiliser, a World War was a pre-requisite to destabilising the very solid European society and for revolutionary success.(note 2)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW NO OBSTACLE TO POLITICAL POWER
The political parties also realised that the constitutional laws which previously bound the Monarchy and so protected the people from Kingly excess power (as had happened) could be simply disregarded as not applying to them, even if those statutes remained on the Statute Books,(as Speaker Betty Boothroyd confirmed with her Bill of Rights statement). Political power had shifted to them via the “democratic” process. Despite appearances, to disregard the law is still lawless government. Instead of repealing these laws, which would cause attention, it was easier just to disregard them and to rely upon public ignorance.
The clever trick was to justify this lawlessness as expressing the “democratic will of the people”, by a simple ruse, as you will see below.
This lawlessness is made obvious by government control of the Commons, the very body supposedly there to check government power. As former Conservative Lord Chancellor Hailsham also stated, see my website: “It is the Parliamentary majority which has the potential for tyranny. The thing that Courts cannot protect you against is Parliament, the traditional protector of our liberties. But Parliament is constantly making mistakes and could in theory become the most oppressive instrument in the world”.* (not just in theory- see later) Sunday Times 19th July 1970.
Any semblance (pretence) of control over the government now depends entirely upon an opposing party making the government of thick-skinned politicians feel uncomfortable. This, while waiting for its turn “in power”, even though it is numerically inferior and thus powerless. (those bear-garden scenes on TV involving much shouting at PMQT)
Put simply, the “democratic” party system forces voters’ “choice” up into the political stratosphere and obliges the voter to participate in a game far away from personal and individual control and with the dice heavily loaded against, because it is all run by “money”.
In what way is this done? At the beginning we saw Ben Greene explain that traditionally we were governed by consent. If there is not consent, then we live under a dictatorship.
To maintain this apparent continuation of consent the political parties have to appear to offer voters a choice, albeit a trick one, while in fact taking individual choice away. It is called a manifesto and comes in the form of a “package”. The parties solicit votes by promoting a few favoured policies and the voter (apparently unwittingly) consents to/authorises the whole manifesto, often without a clue to its remaining contents!! As we know this is the only game in town and a bit like the lottery, you have to be “in” to win? And the result is…….?
This is a very clever totalitarian trick. In a truly free society the individual must be free to accept or reject ONE policy at a time. In contrast the “package manifesto” cleverly wraps everything neatly into a single bundle which is the only option allowed to the voter. ALL or nothing!
Oh yes, by “universal suffrage” you have a vote and by that vote a free choice between the “packages” on offer by them but since party political democracy is apparently the only game permitted in town (because as explained the parties have overthrown our ancient legal democracy) the only choice for the unsuspecting voter is for the revolutionary system of government. All parties, by combining the powers are part of the revolutionary system. As the similarities in main party’ policies show there is little respite even there for the disillusioned voter.
To repeat, in a really free society the individual is free to accept OR reject ONE policy at a time and under a truly constitutional (legal) government, answerable to a free House of Commons, each issue arising would have to be properly examined on its merits, not as preordained policy nodded through under the party system “package”.(see David Owen/Julian Critchley quotes on my website).
It is not hard to see that a vote for any PARTY candidate removes from the individual much liberty and power to make his/her own social policy (which in concert with other like-minded people is REAL democracy) and places control of social policy (as part of the “package”) in the hands of whoever controls the winning party, with devastating social effects**, as we shall see later. So, you’re trapped if you vote for a Party candidate. You’re trapped and helpless, if in disgust, you refuse to vote at all. The all-powerful government still gets in.
As Professor CW Keeton stated in his “Elementary Principles of Jurisprudence” “One of the chief differences between the modern Totalitarian State and Great Britain is that the latter provides for a change in the governing party, if the electorate so decide, whilst the system of the Totalitarian State does not. In BOTH (e.a.) cases the individual is left, face to face with the sovereign authority, with the balance heavily weighed against him”. What is that balance? The power to say “NO” to a policy.
Hailsham’s book “Dilemma of Democracy” also confirmed what I had suspected – that the more that “universal suffrage” and the Reform Acts tried to compensate for the Rule of Law which was breaking down (e.g unlawful Enclosures of Common Land by the landed gentry and pressures of the Industrial Revolution ) the more people were forced into parties to protect themselves from “the others” and electing a government to do just that became the name of the game instead of getting power back under control.
It was Dicey the constitutional expert and proponent of modern party government who also subsequently admitted that “Parliamentary Sovereignty is an instrument well-adapted for the establishment of democratic despotism”.
The notion, held by all sorts of otherwise intelligent people, that you can “kick them out” next time and get a different result means that the still-unaware voter suffers a triple whammy, given:
- a) the extent of this lawless power & how much damage can be done in just 5 years, b) that the “alternatives” are empowered to act in exactly the same lawless way, c) their policies are so similar as to be “not much difference ‘tween ‘em nowadays” and therefore elections are a dangerous illusion.
What one party has done is often not undone by the next because of a ratchet effect and because the parties are not real alternatives, given there is this hidden agenda behind them all.(note 6)
No matter which party is in power this is “top-down” management by the State pretending to be a “democracy” where the law and policy becomes that which the government (and its hidden backers) wishes!!
May I repeat, so that you have no illusions about the party system, all of it? While we saw Ben Greene the former Hull Labour activist describing what has happened as a “constitutional convulsion”, the Party System should always be viewed as the “revolution against the legal English constitution” in that the separation of powers and proper checks and balances and ancient constitutional laws are disregarded (consciously or otherwise) by ALL the participants of the party system. Lawless power reigns, thanks to the mechanisms or “conventions” which they have devised – to pretend that they are acting constitutionally.
The publicly available “constitutional” chart (below) claims that the Queen is a Constitutional Monarch, but that depends on what you understand by “constitutional”, does it not? Constitutional in this context should mean legal and perhaps it does in that what She is allowed to do is legal but what She is NOT allowed to do is to exercise those other legal powers which would thwart the party system. She is therefore just a figurehead or glorified social worker (She and Charles dutifully perform Honours ceremonies as seen on TV) giving the illusion of power, but preventing the people from having Her protection, as we shall see.
Let me explain how this disregard of the law, coupled to the party “manifesto trick”, was put to work to betray the native people of Britain and their precious sovereignty and so create the present Brexit mess.
The Heath government was elected with a “majority” in 1970 on the typical Conservative type “law and order” manifesto but tacked on to that “package” of course was entry into the EC. Described as just a trading bloc we all now know (some of us did then) that was a blatant lie. In 1972 Heath and his party Whips forced (totalitarian) the Commons to pass legislation which then took us into the EC in January 1973. Enoch Powell recorded that dissident Tory MPs came out of the Whips office “ashen faced” they had been so threatened.
In his introduction to the 10th Edition of Dicey’s “Law of the Constitution” (1960) Professor Wade explains this abuse of power:” It must not be forgotten that there can be no check upon the unscrupulous use of power by a government which finds itself in command of a majority in the House of Commons”.**
Labour was waiting in the wings in case the Tories failed to deliver. Indeed, in 1967 the Wilson government repealed the ancient Statute of Praemunire so that Heath could commit Treason.
In 1975 Labour dealt with rising public concern about the EC by a rigged referendum.
Using the power of his ”democratic majority” in 1972 Heath was also able to force the Queen to break her solemn Coronation Oath made in 1953, a solemn contract with the English people under the Coronation Oath Act 1688 to “govern according to our laws and customs”. Though legally entitled to refuse to the Treaty of Accession, under Party System rules if She had refused to Assent all hell would have broken loose from the media, party politicians and Republicans.
So, instead of the Queen saying, ”Mr Heath, the laws of England prevent this and also I would be breaking my Solemn Oath to my people, therefore I will not sign”, She signed. This is why.
The people, forced by this fake “democracy” of “package deals” to elect one party or another, the ensuing government thereby claims to be the voice of the people and thus the supreme or sovereign authority, whom all must obey.(Parliamentary Sovereignty is the term they use). By this ruse even the true legal representative of the people, the Monarch, contracted to the English people via the solemn Coronation Oath,(as described) is made subordinate!! Yes, subordinate!!
We have just seen that no matter how treasonable a government’s activity, under party system rules these alleged representatives of the “will of the people” trump or negate all legal or regal safeguards. In my camrecon website I explain how under this “democratic” system we become our own executioners, as we unwittingly authorise this ongoing lawless horror story by our vote for any party.
As if the party machines’ nullification of the Coronation Oath contract were not deadly enough, here are yet another two examples of how our ancient laws, bequeathed to us by our forefathers and designed to protect us, have been disregarded by the party politicians whom deceived voters put in power!
1) Using the Bill of Rights, our Right to petition the Monarch against something the government is doing,(it is also a Common Law right) “we the people” (those of us who had some idea of the threat)in all weathers and before the Internet, laboriously gathered ½ million signatures to stop Mr Heath. It was ignored because (as already shown) under the Party System the Monarch is supposed to act on the “advice” of Her Ministers (not chosen by Her, as is constitutionally correct, but “flotsam” provided by the party system), whom we see shunted around like musical chairs to suit. This is the Bill of Rights which former Speaker Betty Boothroyd told the Commons is still the law. To no avail.
2) Under the Act of Settlement 1701 an MP was not allowed also be a Minister of the Crown, in order that the Commons may do its job of supervising the Government and keeping us free. (Remember Michael’s response from his MP on page 1?). This Act is also ignored (except as a convenient device for MPs to quit Parliament) and so you have party MPs also being Ministers, drawing two salaries and cancelling the separation of powers. Nice work if you can get it and not very effective at supervising Government. This sort of interference with the freedom of the Commons by a Monarch would have caused uproar in the old days!
Today there is a Minister for every ridiculous concept, which confirms that we have dangerously consented via the party system to the whole spectrum of human activity being subject to government control. So complete is this control that every political party has to “shadow” every Ministerial post. Under Electoral Commission rules every Party has to have a set of rules to control its members and officers. Every party has a “package” for the voters. Apparently there is no escape?
* * *
How does the Party System work and keep us divided against each other? As briefly mentioned already, at election time by “universal suffrage” you are offered several choices or “packages”. You can choose “package” A, B, C, or D but you are forced (totalitarian) to have the whole package. Forced,(totalitarian) in the sense that the political party game is the only game currently allowed and heavily promoted in town (by the media & parties) – but see later – and anyway there is no opting out of the bits you don’t like and no withdrawal of your consent which might exercise some degree of control over government(which is the real democracy)!!
As Michael’s introduction said, you expect different results, but as I have shown, you get the revolution every time. Have you noticed the current “Justice Minister” and MP Liddington’s knowing smirk on the Tory Front Benches? No longer “Justice”!!!(see our video about “Justice”)
Anyone who tries to opt out will be punished (force) and may even go to prison (force), as did the courageous lady who refused to pay her taxes after the Bush/Blair Iraq war. So much for consent of the governed.
Force, of course, is a totalitarian concept, but our minds, apparently numbed by the sheer brazen effrontery of the “democratic” system and bombarded by the media dutifully submit to this “democratic” force by obligingly continuing to play their party game. Don’t the MS media and political professors LOVE to explore daily (and make a perpetual living out of) the endless computations which the party system provides? This keeps the people slavishly glued to the drama and their TV screens, blissfully unaware of that precious freedom which they have lost.
Having a vote is the ultimate expression of freedom, in’it? “in our free and democratic country” intone the politicians, to keep us playing their game. Unaware, until now that is, that there is only one proper and safe constitutional alternative, Independents, voters continue to give one party or another party a majority.
It was Leopold Amery, Tory politician who said” The only candidates before him (the voter) worth taking seriously are either supporters of the team in office or of its rivals. It is within these narrow limits that his actual power is exercised”.
Now that we begin to understand the deadly consequences of our folly, that hold of party over the voter can be broken??
Dependent upon the desire of MPs to pursue a career for themselves and the strength of their party Whips, the party in government does just what it likes and you get these “bear-garden” scenes in the Commons which disgust everyone, as the Opposition pretends to “hold the government to account”.
Thanks to you, the voter, the Government has its majority, the Opposition has no power and can only jeer, until it is their turn for POWER.
You the voter pay the MP’s wages, but the party tells him/her how to vote! (see my website, esp. under “Warnings Past and Present”).
As a result of the PARTY SYSTEM no other power legal *or regal can protect you against a government to which you have given a majority. Political power out of control. This is “fake democracy”.
The Queen could not help us under our ancient Bill of Rights or through Her Coronation Oath; there is no law which can stop a government with a majority (unless they happen to infringe a law which they themselves have passed) because we have ignorantly abandoned our legal protection by voting for a political party.
The Cabinet, a picture of which you see here, is just such a lawless institution, because not only is there no law regarding their operations but they employ “collective responsibility” in order to escape personal responsibility for their crimes and with the 30-year secrecy rule they will be dead before the files are released. Convenient for them?
With the party MP (your representative?) also toeing the party line perhaps now you realise why you feel so helpless when you complain to “your” MP and get the party line in reply.
So out of control of the law (and arrogant) are these people that they not only gave our country away to a Soviet-style dictatorship in Brussels,(note 5) contrary to English law, but they have smashed up Iraq,(Bush/Blair) Libya (Cameron.Sarkozy), Afghanistan (Obama/Blair/Cameron) and Syria(Obama/Cameron), sent you the bill for the armaments used, killed or maimed many of our young soldiers, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children and caused a “terrorism” response from relatives of the victims which justifies in the government’s eyes imposing upon us even more draconian laws – but in addition we are expected to take in, at huge extra cost and inconvenience in schools, hospitals and housing all those refugees and economic migrants which “they” have displaced with their bombs because “they” are out of control and are working for their friends in the military/industrial complex and its World Government objective of total control of the world’s people and resources.(note 6). Sufficient proof of the “world shaken to its foundations”? (Talleyrand).
What is the overall nature of the revolution shaking the world’s foundations, as shown?
The destruction of the independent nation state and movement towards a world dictatorship *(of which the EU is but a stage) and for which world objective both British main parties have at some time declared support.(note 4) (*otherwise known as “globalisation”).
With regard to England, in preparation for all this, the post-war revolution of 1945** was directed to further replacing of Common Law principles of freedom & personal liberty (as foretold by Lord Chief Justice Hewart’s book, “The New Despotism” in 1929). With a Fabian-inspired Statist or Socialist regime, or concealed “elective dictatorship” (Lord Hailsham), alternating between the two main parties, on Jan 1st 1973 it transferred to the open dictatorship or Napoleonic Law system of Brussels by the so-called “law and order” patriotic party, the Conservatives. Indeed, after WW2 the Conservatives accepted that socialism was inevitable and that they would simply run it better than Labour. Part of the plan was to deliberately dismantle Britain’s traditional industrial base. (note 3). As our heavy industry (and means of defence) was slowly dismantled, more and more people and businesses became dependent upon government for their survival, which suits the politicians.
While clearly the plan is to bring the whole of Europe under this centralist regime (including the already conveniently Statist or “communist satellites created by WW2 (and run by dictators) merging when the time was ripe)(note 5) if Britain or England were to refuse to join or if it joined and were then to leave and revert to its Common Law legal system then this World Dictatorship would fail. But, it is not hard to imagine that with so much time and money invested in this project the “powers that be” want to thwart any attempt by the British to leave. Presently the run down of British armed forces and a move towards a European Army both serve to render a British departure impotent. A nation that cannot defend itself ceases to be a nation. Of course, Russia must be kept as “the enemy” to provide the excuse for war if all else fails.
This revolution had to try to destroy any chance that the English Constitution might be restored, by destroying the homogeneity or cohesion of the people who created it, who for centuries lived in their blessed island fortress England and controlled their borders and thus controlled who came in. The revolutionary “divide and rule” party system, already established but still relatively peaceful, needed another more potent disruptive cocktail mix. Immigration.
This attack (deriving from the UN Charter and its anti-discrimination laws) directed especially at England with its particular status as an independent nation state and Common Law legal tradition has been two-fold. First, mass immigration, which was started first and slowly as it had to be gradual, to prevent a huge reaction. Even so the early level of immigration caused alarm and those early objectors were also called “extremists”. Secondly, somewhat later, removal of the right to govern ourselves to Brussels (which as we know further removes the right to control our borders). Prominent in this attack is Peter Sutherland, Goldman Sachs banker, one time EU Commissioner and now UN High Co-ordinator for Refugees who said he wants to see European homogeneity destroyed.(source EU Times). It was Marx who said the English are too stupid to make their own revolution, a revolution would have to be imported.
Rarely mentioned in public (because that would be “racist”- a word designed to terrify us into silent submission) is the irreversible demographic change to the population in parts of England (including our capital city) where some parts are now unrecognisable as England! Hitler’s bombs could not defeat them but as we saw on TV the proud Cockneys have been forced out of the East End by this totalitarian multi-culturalism. One MP exploiting this migrant vote is migrant Margaret Hodge who saw off BNP Griffin in Barking.
The real purpose of immigration, the destruction of English cohesion and identity by “divide and rule”, now becomes clear**. However innocent many immigrants must surely be, the effect is the same. They are useful lobby fodder for Labour, while increasingly occupying housing, schools, territory and positions of influence in the media and government once belonging exclusively to the English. The main parties simply cite the needs of “the economy” for continuing immigration, ignoring the needs of the native English, who were never asked in the first instance, because the answer was obvious. So much for democracy. Though many commentators confirmed that immigration featured large in the 17 million pro-Brexit result, none of the main parties, including UKIP, will repeal the anti-discrimination laws which would free the English to assist in controlling immigration and so protect themselves. So important to the revolution has been immigration that all the main parties supported oppressive anti-discrimination legislation (contrary to English legal principles of freedom and justice) so as to punish those who objected or still object. This is that massive control of social policy mentioned earlier.** Hailsham’s potential for tyranny has arrived and it has a democratic foundation.
The English people watch helplessly as their culture is changing before their eyes and they are slowly dispossessed and replaced in their own country – thanks to party politicians.
Immigration is only part of the explosive austerity problem facing the English(exploited by Labour) while the main cause is the bankers and their debt-ridden system which sucks millions of pounds out of the economy in interest charges which could be otherwise put to good social purposes.
It probably needs repeating, because the idea of a “democratic” party government is so engrained in our consciousness:
ALL political parties belong to the “revolutionary spectrum against our legal Constitution” because every party government (even a coalition party government) has the same effect on the legal Constitution by destroying the separation of powers. Thus our ancient constitution is disregarded!! It is political power over-ruling legal control and party supporters are clearly accomplices to the fact. Those who play the party game, aid, abet, condone and lend respectability to the revolution, however unwittingly.
In view of general public disgust with party politicians , surprisingly we find more and more people starting new parties or continuing with old ones, surely a form of insanity because it repeats the same mistakes yet expects a different result. Not realising that it is a systematic problem which frustrates them, they remain in a hopeless cul-de-sac, having joined the system responsible for their plight!!
Inevitably those patriotic counter revolutionaries e.g. the English Democrats, the NF, the BNP, Britain First, UKIP, now Anne-Marie Waters (ex UKIP) etc who don’t like the policies of the revolution nevertheless subscribe unwittingly to the revolutionary system by placing themselves into opposing camps (“oh, we’re not as extreme as they are”!!) instead of uniting behind the constitution and restoring individual freedom to choose and so returning power to the people that way.
They too do not seem to realise that they are part of the system and so give it credibility – rather than attack and expose it, as we have done. Even worse, since we are always talking about a system of power centralisation, given the sudden arrival of big money they too could be taken over and used. Since Hitler came to power “democratically” this is why the NF/BNP have only ever had limited appeal. Give us the power say NF/BNP and we will give it back to you??? Ha ha.
IGNORANCE OR DELIBERATE TREASON?
When (new) PARTY MPs take their Oath of Loyalty to the Crown and its “heirs and successors” I wonder how many realise that as long as they are Party MPs and therefore automatically agents of the revolution against the Crown and Constitution, their Oath is as meaningless as the Opening-of-Parliament Ceremony which we saw at the beginning.
Not only is the party system the revolution against both our legal English constitution and the Crown but also against the sovereignty of the English people as a whole, whose sovereignty and possession of this island fortress since time immemorial is expressed through that kingly power acting under the Rule of Law, in defence of the nation. Overthrow of the Monarchy is Treason against us all. So much for their political “democracy” or political suffrage.
What does all this mean in simple practical terms?
In a moment we will come back to our legal democracy, that which was mentioned at the start but was probably unknown to you?
By refusing to play the party game at election time you have made a giant leap forward. Sitting comfortably in your arm chair at home, reading this, you can simply say “no more parties for me”! If there were a massive drop in votes for any party their “fake democracy” would look lame. If votes for known and trusted Independents also soared then restoration of our constitution and our personal freedom to live (and make free social choices) is on its way back!! Now that you understand the trick which has been played on you and the dire consequences you won‘t be fooled again by party promises. The only wasted and dangerous vote is for a party, any party.
- Your vote stays in the safe custody of your known & locally trusted Independent to be used by him/her with judgement and regard to restoring the constitution and your personal liberty.
It means that in a freely elected House of Commons, no longer controlled by party, the legal separation of powers is brought back into operation and in censoring a government MPs would not be voting themselves out of office, (as they do now). A great incentive to do a proper job!!
- The appointment of Ministers returns to the Crown so that the best people of skill and integrity may be appointed (and it will be “My Government”) not just the party flotsam thrown at Her by the party elections. MPs will no longer allowed to be Ministers (as required under the Act of Settlement 1701)
Those ancient laws (as listed) which the party politicians have disregarded because they were controlled by these laws, can be restored. Those laws with which the party machines have suppressed our freedom to choose can be repealed by a free House of Commons or such laws can also be annulled by Trial by Jury. The annulment by a jury of any law passed by politicians is the fullest and most potent power of the people against tyranny by politicians and others.
Since the expression legal democracy mentioned on page 1 is probably not familiar to the reader please see New Chartist Movement website then heading “Articles” and then the excellent item “Democracy Is to be trusted after all” by William Keyte. This is peaceful people’s power, not the mob rule of revolution.
- Prime Ministers like Blair and Cameron will no longer be able to make wars and send us the bills. These sort of people can be impeached by a free Commons.
- There will be no need for endless expensive and frankly pointless elections as the government will not need to change every five years. Ultimately, a free Independent House of Commons will, through informed debate with government, decide each policy on its merits and the people, through Trial by Jury, will decide the laws of England, not the party hacks. Politicians will once again have to think very carefully before they pass any law, knowing it can be annulled by the people.
You might reasonably ask “Is the Queen up to the job, having toed the party system line for so long”? We will see, once She is free of the party system, but previous Monarchs who let us down have come to a sticky end.
Now, will you allow the next Coronation Oath uttered by Charles or William to be as meaningless as the last one? Will you tell them what you want as they do their social rounds? Will our next Monarch be a real Monarch, obeying the Rule of Law, or just another glorified social worker?
Obviously there are “good” people in all the political parties who just do not understand what the party system has done to our constitution. Hopefully this explanation has helped. Please tell your friends also.
Please also visit my website www.camrecon.demon.co.uk and think hard. You might also care to visit @democracydestroyed on Facebook and watch our video “The Party System and the Destruction of England”.
Finally, you may have often asked yourself “why are our politicians are doing this to us the English people”?? Is there some hidden force using threats, fear, fear of war, blackmail and bribery to keep them doing it to us? (note 6)
Remember in the 1970s how they bleated “we have to be in the EC as a bulwark against communism”, only to discover that the EU is communism!! ( in the sense of communism being statism where your personal liberty to say “no” does not count).(note 6)
Pretence again? You can have just as much of this corruption as you like, or you can say “enough is enough”. Find out who was behind this mass immigration (in addition to the UN) and the anti-discrimination laws which have helped to flood England with aliens and you will know who is the 5th Column which is destroying your England and its freedom.
Our legal constitution gives us the means to resist. With your help the described revolution must fail – Unite behind the restoration.
Wasn’t it the noble and Rt.Honourable “Lord” Mandelson (Labour) who stated that we are now in a “post-democratic” stage? “ Fake democracy is over and now they are in open control? What we want does not count? Shall we tell them otherwise?
NOTES: 1) What is a legally constituted Parliament? A Parliament consisting of the three separate, independent institutions of Monarchy, Lords and Commons. each under the Rule of Law, so that none can have too much power. Contrast this with what we have today.
2)”In preparation for the World War the press of whole countries was brought financially under the control of London and Paris and the peoples belonging them reduced to an unqualified intellectual slavery”. Oswald Spengler. “Decline of the West” p 462
3) A Conservative “Think Tank” chaired by Peter Thorneycroft “Design for Europe”(1947) stated: “No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices which any adequate plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, NOT BEING ASKED IN ADVANCE….” (emphasis added).This author received a copy of this booklet from Thorneycroft, so it is authentic.
4) 1957 Earl of Gosford (Macmillan Conservative Government) tells House of Lords, “Her Majesty’s government are fully in agreement with World Government. We agree that this must be the goal and that every step that is humanly possible must be taken to reach that goal”Hansard (event also cited by Prof.Alan Sked LSE in Daily Telegraph article 27 Nov 2015)
5) Mr Gorbachev the former Secretary to the Soviet Communist Party (1985-1991) said:” The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to recreate the Soviet Union in Western Europe“.
Why should they do this? Remember how the Berlin Wall suddenly came down after years of the “Cold War” and the former Soviet satellite countries gradually were admitted into the EU. As Vladimir Bukovsky the Soviet dissident pointed out, the structure of the EU was deliberately created like the Soviet system so the two parts could be merged. He likened the European Parliament to the Supreme Soviet and the Commission to the Politburo in Russia. The EU is corrupt for the same reason Russia is corrupt – centralized power permits corruption.
6)”We shall have World Government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether it will be by conquest or consent”. International Banker James Warburg to the US Senate 1950.
With acknowledgement to Ben Greene and thanks to the A.K.Chesterton Trust (www.candour.org.uk) for permission to reproduce as necessary from “The Party System and the Corruption of Parliament”. Order from Candour “The British Constitution and the Corruption of Parliament”, new title for same booklet.
© Martin Cruttwell