It was Edmund Burke, MP for Malton North Yorkshire, who some 300 years ago described our present totally unsatisfactory political situation:
“Whenever Parliament is persuaded to assume the offices of Executive Government it will lose all the confidence, love and veneration which it has ever enjoyed whilst it was supposed to be the corrective and control on the acting powers of the state.....”
In other words, Parliament has lost its controlling power to protect the people from the State and has become part of a centralised state-controlled Marxist system, whether the current leader went to public school or not. Yes, Marxist.
Have we learned nothing about the separation of powers essential to the proper working of our constitution, given the competition for power witnessed between the various factions of the Tory Party? Or has this information simply been suppressed and conveniently removed from the education system, so that tyranny may prosper?
It is vital readers (especially journalists) understand that our political Party System is not democracy but “universal suffrage” or “elective dictatorship”(Hailsham) and is the Marxist attack on our constitution. I will explain…
I recommend that readers buy the booklet “The British Constitution and the Corruption of Parliament” by Ben Greene. An unfortunate title which should read “The Party System and the Corruption of Parliament” (the real nature of the problem) and one of his essays explains just that.
Together with Ben’s booklet and my input, readers should get the picture of how our ancient liberties created over centuries of custom. and thanks to a homogenous people, protected by the English channel,” a moat against the envy of less happier lands” (John of Gaunt) gradually came to lose those liberties and be ruled by an electoral system and majority rule.
This Marxist dictatorship, posing as choice, crushed our ancient rights at Common Law by extending the concept of rights, not as some condition essential to a happy, free and independent existence for sovereign individuals, but as something government grants to you, in pursuit of that which Churchill described as “impossible equality”. As Ayn Rand put it “a right is a freedom of action in a social context”. Very simple and straightforward, equally applicable to all.
The whole modern party system is the Marxist collective “hiding in plain sight” for the reasons set out below.
“War truly generalised terminates automatically in revolution” stated Lenin as WW1 was essential to the success of the Russian Revolution (download “The Rulers of Russia” by Revd.D.Fahey) and more specifically, while our men were fighting and dying others in Westminster were preparing for the 1945 revolution here at the end of WW2: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” (Marx) was adopted first by Attlee’s Labour government and then by the Tories who regarded Socialism as “inevitable”. They would simply run it better than Labour.
What is happening in today’s Britain is the direct result of this “Marxism hiding in plain sight”. The Rotherham grooming scandal, for example and fear of being called “racist” indicates where the problem originates when before none existed. We were one homogenous people until these “refugees” arrived.
Marxism requires the overthrow of monarchy. In the 1917 Revolution the Tsar and family were slaughtered by migrants imported from the underworld of big cities like New York. In our case Monarchy is the pinnacle of our constitution and beloved by the people. Since Marx said the English would never make their own revolution, to overcome this obstacle of popularity Walter Bagehot proposed the forms and ceremonies of the Monarchy should be retained to fool the masses that nothing had changed while the essential powers to protect us were removed.
As a result of the Marxist revolution during Victoria’s reign, instead of the House of Commons remaining the traditional protector of our liberty (Hailsham) it became the “single elective authority” and whipped along party lines, making the candidate representative of party manifestos TO the electors, NOT representative OF the electors and defenders of their liberty. “Collective responsibility” is the term.
Greene mentions that these changes followed French Revolutionary principles taking hold in Britain, but in her book “World Revolution” Nesta Webster (lecturer to our security services) she states that these principles are interchangeable with Marxism. As historian Sir Lewis Namier explained during a public lecture in 1952 about the modern party system created in the 19th century, the Prime Minister replaced the Sovereign as actual head of the Executive when the choice of Prime Minister no longer lay with the Sovereign; “the Sovereign lost the power when organised, disciplined parties came into existence - and party discipline depends primarily on the degree to which the member depends upon the party for his seat.”
Every party manifesto is what I call the manifesto package trick, because it requires the voter to consent to the entire package of policies or not vote. There is an illusion of choice but in fact the combination of policies is decided by the parties, not you, the voter. The candidate represents the party manifesto TO the voter, not the wishes OF the voter. You pay the wages, the party tells him how to vote!
As the late Bob McKenzie of BBC Election “swingometer” fame wrote:” Some are prepared to argue that the popular will is the product of the political process, not the motive power”. Exactly so. This describes the “manifesto package trick” perfectly. Note how easy for a government with a majority to break an election promise and how (nearly) impossible to it is to punish them for it.? “As long as we backbenchers vote after the debate in the way the Whips tell us, nobody cares much what happens during the debate” Julian Critchley MP (Con) just about sums it up.
Write to your MP to complain and you get the appropriate (automated) party line in reply. A vote for a party signifies handing over control to the party with regard to the entire contents of the Rarely read manifesto, and the significance of this fact seems to escape the voters who continue to believe a vote every 5 years is democratic choice, instead a continuation of a grand scheme. Readers who contact their MP will have become aware that he/she is in effect an administrator of party policy down to the constituent, not a representative of the constituent.
In some cases more vote against the winning candidate than for. Also, apart from the party candidate being “whipped” to toe the party line and therefore representing the party program. To the constituents, a vote may be cast just because one or two policies are attractive, (e.g. Brexit) but consent has therefore been given in advance of any detailed discussion or impact assessment. Very dangerous.
As Albie Amankona, GB News, stated - the minor parties e.g. (Reform) are simply going to help elect Labour and not going to get anywhere near power to implement their own policies for decades This is the nature of the game created to control us!!
Meanwhile the floodgates remain open at Dover, to destroy our peaceful homogeneity in accordance with Marx who said the English will not make their own revolution, one will have to be imported. So, one must ask “what is the strategy or objective of the voter whose wishes are clearly not going to be implemented? Punish the Tories, or Labour? In what way? Just remove them from power, but allow “the others” in - not punish for Treason? Or a statement “That shows ‘em how I feel” How long will it take for Reform to achieve Executive power to stop the invasion it claims to oppose? Ten years?
To demonstrate the dangerous fallacy of the “collective manifesto” offering choice, freedom is defined as the ability to accept or reject one policy at a time. In a truly free society therefore the sovereign individual makes his/her own choices or manifesto, one policy at a time, not as a “collective” granted from elsewhere.
Where certain features or events are outside the individual control, these points of view are transmitted to the government on behalf of the individual by the Independent “representative” MP. Therein could lie voter control over government and true democracy because the voter says “I do not consent” to a given policy and refuses to act as required by government. True democracy is the sum of all those free choices made by individuals during their daily lives and has nothing to do with voting. Brexit is a perfect example of the voter being enticed to surrender that vote only to find that HS2, Net Zero and Covid Lockdown are perfect examples of a government being granted a majority in advance of any reasoned discussion of the matters in question. Total power is thereby granted.
It is this illusion that having a vote is democracy which is so dangerous because people keep believing they must keep voting every 5 years to be free, when the opposite is happening. A “new” party emerges but the SYSTEM is the same. A vote for a party is an application to have your wishes considered (not a contract enforceable at law) but only if they achieve power first and, being a package, who can tell which part of the package got the most votes. I suggest a vote for a party candidate is clearly a total transfer of power. As we saw after the 2019 election any other matter arising like Covid (not included in the manifesto) was authorised by the government. The nation was shut down, by Mr Johnson, on TV!
In 1970 Hailsham had warned “It is the Parliamentary majority which has the potential for tyranny”. This warning suggests a built-in requirement by the party system for a majority and a potential for tyranny every 5 years. Few people read Hailsham’s warning in the Sunday Times, but thanks to Heath we got a massive example of the tyranny and got 48 years in the Marxist EU. The huge 750,000 petition raised by a desperate people to the Queen to stop the EC Act 1972 was ignored. Years later we now understand why.
The so-called “Glorious Revolution” and subsequent Bill of Rights 1689, allegedly reaffirming the rights of the people from Magna Carta 1215, contained a treacherous clause prohibiting the Sovereign from acting in the interests of the people and cancelling a law made by Parliament. Despite Her Coronation Oath to the English people to govern according with our laws and customs, the Bill of Rights was deemed superior, and we joined the EC.
One result of the original abuse of power by Parliament was the tyranny of Enclosures, where the landed gentry, with help from friends in Parliament passed laws to steal 6,000,000 acres of Common Land from the English yeomen -a bigger catastrophe for England than the current but shocking Post Office scandal, because some resisters were hanged and others deported to Australia.
None of the political parties publicly admit that the Sovereign has been removed by the Bill of Rights 1689, from the duty as protector of the people’s rights under the constitution according to the Coronation Oath. The parties pay lip-service to the Monarch when they swear an Oath on admission to the Commons, because the treasonous term “Parliamentary Sovereignty” admits the fact that party politicians regard themselves collectively as sovereign over the Royal Sovereign, because of the clause in the Bill of Rights.
Under threat from the party system (or in collaboration with government ministers in exchange for a quiet life) Charles has faked his Oath, just like his mother did for 70 years. That thousands filed past her coffin at Westminster proves how well the deception has worked. The Royal Family’s superb charitable work and the many supine Royal Commentators from Angela Levin to GB News’ Cameron Walker serve to mask the destruction of our fabulous constitution. Please go to Alex Thomson, Eastern Approaches Youtube channel to “Constitution” and look for “The Party System and the Destruction of England” The House of Lords Office informed me that the last Sovereign to personally attend Royal Assent was Queen Victoria in 1854. Clearly Royal Assent (the vital last part of the legislative process and our alleged protection) was automated even then, (by the Bill of Rights?) just as it is today? Evidently Victoria just decided to turn up for that one.
The democracy charade continues, and the elective dictatorship is complete - because voters fail to understand the trick played upon them. They think a “new” party will solve the problem. But all it does is to is transfer the same “collective” idea and the same evil mechanisms to a new party. Clearly no party is solving the migrant invasion because the one party which has Executive power is too afraid of “world opinion” or “international obligations” and happily ignores OUR rights. Just to show what sort of patriot Farage is, as UKIP leader he boasted on TV that he “single-handedly killed off the BNP”, who would have stopped immigration!!
Now you know why they take no notice of us. A complete control system exists above and behind our politicians, behind the pretence at democracy. Whether we have escaped from the EU by Brexit, the earlier. more deadly attack on our sovereignty started with Windrush in 1948. For decades as the invasion continued not only did the two main parties pass increasingly vicious laws to silence our opposition, out of fear of being called “racist” but import Marx’s revolutionaries. What began all those years ago was not accidental. The endless taxpayer’s money shelled out to the world’s migrants at Dover “to each according to his need” (Marx), while armed Kent police stand watching tells the story of Marxist penetration of the Tory Party and in the Home Office. The ineffective, deliberate time-wasting Rwanda Bill avoids recognising that we already have the power at Common Law to defend our territory by force against those who decide they want to come and occupy our nation. We are according to Sunak. prohibited by our “international obligations” from taking them back to France by force and MUST spend millions accommodating their requirements.
Finally, to the desperate, homeless, Tory voter: What of Reform UK? My belief is that Reform UK, as a party, is a continuation of the Marxist attack on our constitution (unwittingly perhaps) because they merely continue the party system, which IS the attack. The chances of Reform forming a government are Zero but will serve to install Labour, which is the other or “left wing” of the revolution of which the “Tory collective” is the “right wing”.
In some very public forum with cameras rolling ask Reform this: “Will they repeal the vicious anti-discrimination and public order laws which have silenced the nation for 50 years against the migrant floods and so enlist the help of what is left of our nation to reject further migration. If they won’t then all is revealed. Is Reform Uk a group of genuine patriots who don’t understand the Marxist party system pretending to be democracy? All they are unwittingly doing is providing a respectability to the party system: a dustbin for votes of frustrated voters: and diverting attention from alerting the voters that the constitution needs restoring.
Whatever the true status of Reform UK is irrelevant. It cannot achieve power to act and, by adopting the party system and its mechanisms, instead of exposing them as evil, and making sure a bewildered population keeps voting ‘party’ as if it is “democracy”, and thereby making sure that one or other of the main wings of the UNIPARTY revolution against the constitution is elected for another five years.
Both Tory and Labour are equally bad as many voters are aware by the effect on their lives. outlined above. Delaying the next election and stopping the election of either is the urgent task while we unite around this one objective: to rescue the constitution. It is the constitution which sets us free, not a “new” party practising the same old evils. Only when the reader understands fully that it is not just about policy, but the system will we be able to demand restoration of the constitution and re-separation of powers - the one most urgent thing we need to unite behind.
That this evil regime which never changes - though its party-controlled puppets do - is clearly feeling threatened by an angry people is why there is suddenly talk of another war with Russia. The same enemy is within. “The will-to-power operating under a pure democratic disguise has so perfected its masterpiece that the objects sense of freedom is actually flattered by the most thorough-going enslavement that has ever existed” Oswald Spengler.
For to subject the British population to the jurisdiction of foreign courts and laws fatally breaches the Constitutional Sovereignty. There is no Trial by Jury permitted by the repugnant EU ‘Treaty-Constitution’; only the despot’s and statists’ trial-by-judge instead. Yet, the British People have perpetual sovereignty over the law and any activity which attenuates or attempts to attenuate the sovereignty of the Juror—such as joining the EU and submitting causes to foreign laws and courts—is High Treason.
Those parliamentarians and courts (judges) who claim “sovereignty” for parliament need reminding of the fate of judges Cadwine and Frebern who also undermined the People’s Sovereignty expressed through Trial by Jury…
contact me:
scrabbingham435@gmail.com