diamondgeezer wrote:
Hate to pull you up on something but in this case it warrants it.

johnpilger.com/videos/stealing-a-nation

If you haven't seen it yet, it's well worth watching. Its very emotionally disturbing. Even your ciizenship means nothing to the royal privy council.

You say that DG but a convicted prisoner managed to win a case against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_%28No_2%29

andyh wrote:
I shall give it a gander andy, cheers.

(Although from a quick look at the write-up accompanying the vid, it does appear to be a case of the govt of the day being at fault, not the Monarchy...correct me if I'm wrong).

diamondgeezer wrote:
Well its what the govt wanted to do but they actually did not have the power to do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative

'In the case of the Chagos Archipelago, in 2000, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that a local ordinance made by the Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory exiling the islanders was unlawful, a decision which was accepted by the British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. That Order was legislation passed under authority given by the royal prerogative, not an exercise of the prerogative itself, and was overturned as being beyond the powers given. After this decision, the British government issued an Order in Council, a primary exercise of the royal prerogative, to achieve the same objective. This Order was also ruled unlawful by the High Court, a ruling upheld in the Court of Appeal. However on Wednesday, 22 October 2008, the government won its appeal in the House of Lords against the previous rulings. The House decided by a three-to-two majority that the Order in Council was a lawful exercise of authority.[14][15] In their speeches, the Law Lords admitted the government of the day was morally wrong to force out some 2,000 residents of the Chagos Archipelago, a British Crown colony, to make way for a US air base in the 1960s. Nevertheless, the majority could not find legal fault in the Order.'

You'll need to read Pilgers book to get all the details but this is one of the few things that really touched me, because these people actually lived in peace without using money. The way they were treated is truly horrifying.
Each and every one of them should have been given homes and jobs in the UK or US at the very least, preferably they should have of course just been left alone but we all know how govt works to 'protect' us etc etc.

Guevarista wrote:
Yes, he won the right to vote in Britain as a convicted criminal. But it was hardly a case that challenged or threatened the might/power of the EU itself was it?

Try taking a legal case that does actually challenge the might/power of the EU to the European Court of Human Rights and see how far you *don't* get lol...

diamondgeezer wrote:
I'd like to see the chagos islanders try.
Ofc...they're not covered.

Albert Burgess A Case For Treason https://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/

John Bingley British Constitution...

Roger Hayes British Constitution Group

Lawful Rebellion Website

William Blackstone Commentaries on The Laws of England Audio Book > Written Text.

UK Column Newspaper & Podcast News Show Website > Youtube Channel
Guevarista wrote:
Transcending national boundaries is a benefit to whom? Do you seriously think that the EU state wont establish and maintain new borders within Europe? Most likely based on economic wealth and resources. European Wars won't be a thing of the past they just won't be wars in the conventional sense. The EU state will be at war with the people within regions of the EU state or minority groups across multiple regions simultaneously. The people of Greece are already in an economic war against the EU state...a state who would given the opportunity deploy international forces to maintain EU authority. The current military and policing policies aren't mature or centralised enough, for the present incarnation of the EU Fascist state, to employ the force they will doubtless unleash in the future - when all the pieces are finally in place.

There is nothing good about the EU super state. Those behind the establishment of the EU never intended for it to be benevolent, as the only real objective for them has been consolidation of wealth, resources and primarily political power.

Correct Frog.
Government is at war with people by proxy.
We will see greater integration of EU power and centralization, digital currency even if it is called a pound or a euro it won't matter...single police force, single army (God help us). Its a wet dream for those at the top.

I guess it comes down to fear or love, and the choice between the two that most of our beliefs, opinions, aspirations, actions etc are based on.

I hope it doesn't have to get that bad but if it does it will cause a force of opposite polarity to develop to a similarly refined level.

For me its all about personal individual freedom, together with the personal responsibilities that go with it. Nothing is more important than that.

And the way I see it, the two biggest opponents to personal freedom today are political organised religion and oppressive dictatorial undemocratic government.

Hence why I abhor the EU.

diamondgeezer wrote:
Can I frame that?
I'll have to paste it out in gert huge red verdana font with a golden frame.

I would agree that the EU fits the bill as you describe it there DGI'd add economic neo-liberalism too.

Guevarista wrote:
So by economic neo-lib you mean the ones who want only economic freedoms for big business yep?

All the political parties I know of want that regardless of whatever they are called or whatever 'wing' they purport to be.
It goes double for EU kommissars

Guevarista wrote:
Fear and Love? Do you really think that the State is capable of such emotions? We are all the enemy of the State and the State views us all as such. You're guilty until you can prove otherwise in the eyes of the State! Good luck defending yourself against a State who is neither loving or just.

diamondgeezer wrote:
I might get semantic on yer arse but basically

Frog wrote: I wasn't referring to the state why do people insist on insulting my intelligence because I refuse to constantly display cynicism?
I was referring to your personal, and the "truth" movements collective propensity for focusing on one side of the dialectic

andyh wrote:
Yeah I agree with you there too.
I would say Neo-Lib is a drive enforced by the WTO, IMF, World Bank which nation states the EU etc abide by to receive loans to promote market activity, it is based around privatization of national amenities and industry, deregulation, promoting the private sectors role in society and opening up every area of life, education, healthcare, politics etc, to the financial markets.

Guevarista wrote:
Yep to a select few corporations (or new ones they help create- BT for example).
They're always the in-crowd.
They never give contracts to joe average or even small business.
The game is basically to keep ownership with the elite, just as it was in the past.
Its still feudalism of a sort imho, there's no word to describe it. Its not capitalism.
Governments have actively helped create these monopolies and now they are left with nothing to do except buy out smaller companies and patents.
Even the treasury has been privatised

Guevarista wrote:
What has it to do with your refusal to display constant cynicism? I think the fact that you're ignoring the real nature of Government is far more disturbing and sets the context of your contributions in this thread. You have been busy praising the EU state in this thread, and telling us how we should see that we are the beneficiaries of it blar blar blar. It's hard to understand how you can be so affronted by a response to your input given the obvious interpretation based on what you had written previously.

Why are you assuming that people are the direct cause of the issue? Clearly the root cause is a minority of politically motivated psychopathic individuals - operating in direct opposition to the views of the people they are supposed to represent! I have no idea what the 'truth' movements have to do with anything, similar thoughts on the EU are pretty mainstream in society, with the exception of the propaganda supplied by media and politics. People are just people and no matter where they come from they all want pretty much the same things. On the whole people do extend love and peace towards one another if they didn't the streets would be carnage. And that's despite Government manipulation to cause divides within populations and social structures, which are designed to cause disharmony among society. Governments thrive on conflict, most individuals on the other hand try to avoid it at all costs!

People really only have one major enemy and that is either their immediate government or the government of a foreign power who would like to be in control of their government.

Frog wrote:
Just had to quote these sections and say, basically