Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

Featured

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1177

2022-12-08

Between them they probably have as much experience of the NHS as any two people you could hope to find, one from the front line and the other from what we might loosely term the management end.

We can probably all agree that the NHS does appear to lurch between crises and panicked monetary infusions by government.

So is the NHS model of "free at the point of use" as directed by the government still a viable (let alone desirable) model?

" ... the sky is dark with chickens coming home to roost ...

" ... it's not just because they are exhausted over Covid, it's because they can't sleep at night because they are being asked to do things that they're not feeling safe or confident in doing"

" ... it's just hopelessly clunky and horrible ... "

" ... but they don't do that now, it's all done centrally by a big piece of software ... "

" ... when it comes to infection control I think we don't have any"

(64 minutes)

Essential viewing.

But do they get to the causes of the problems? Say the top three?

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1277

2022-12-04

Another email plopped into my inbox - probably yesterday, maybe before - exhorting me to support their latest project - Proportional Representation! And guess what? I'm invited to send them money!

Well I'll be jiggered, I didn't see that coming ...

Now, I'm all for solutions, but they have to be solutions that work, and we've been around the proportional representation loop before, so what's different this time?

Maybe I'll pass up this opportunity to "make a difference". Still, as a confirmed critic of the current political settlement in this country, I probably ought to explain my thinking.

Before we can address a problem we have to understand it. We have to diagnose the problem, identify the underlying cause(s), and then we can check whether the proffered solution actually addresses the causes - if it doesn't, then we know what not to do.

So what are the problems with our parliamentary system that proportional representation might fix? Oh, and does it have a track record of success?

It is said that the first-past-the-post system:

(a) provides a government that can actually push its policies through (good principle, not necessarily so in practice due to a myriad of other factors in play at any one time - as exemplified so well by our current government) 

(b) stops people voting for minor parties because they are seen as being in an impossible position (also true in some ways, but again it's by no means the only factor)

Proportional representation (it is claimed) will give the minor parties a better chance to get into parliament - a notoriously difficult feat for a number of reasons:

  • The media give smaller parties parsimonious publicity at best, whilst the big boys are given close enough all of the available publicity
  • Sensible potential parliamentary candidates recognise that the party system works against small parties, and to get elected you need to join a big party
  • Ordinary sensible people recognise that adversarial politics is both the bedrock of parliamentary debate and the nemesis of rational debate (viz: PMQs), and that no good is likely to come from getting involved in it
  • Ordinary sensible people have lives to live and find parliamentary politics nauseous and incomprehensible, so vote by instinct, past habit, and what their media of choice suggest, rather than by any analysis of the actual politics at stake
  • Those ordinary sensible people who do vote tend to vote for what they see as the least worst option when they only have two or three major parties to choose from
  • Ordinary sensible people who actually think about it realise that the game is rigged - which ever party you vote in, the people (out of the public eye) who control the party will dictate the policies to be implemented regardless of for whom you voted - money (and many other factors) speak louder than votes
  • Other factors:
    • The Civil Service - regardless of who wins the election, there are hordes of civil servants sufficient to run rings around any and all politicians who want to implement policies at odds with the "advisers" - it's simply impossible to refute the advice and guidance in any practicable time-frame - and then the same civil servants would have to implement those "ill-advised" policies, knowing that the politician is always the fall guy
    • The Media - the mainstream media are also beholden to the same corporate controllers, so you can be sure that any politician that seeks to buck the system will enjoy either awful or zero publicity, as may be thought appropriate
    • The rules - byzantine rules for maintaining "fairness" mean that a politician can't talk to anybody appropriate to his/her needs
    • The rules - these mean that everything you say or do must be recorded for posterity (and may make you look a fool or a criminal if you should by any mischance put a foot wrong or annoy somebody important at some stage)
    • Lastly we must recognise the potential for criminality - bribery blackmail etc - anybody who believes that this potential is not significant when the possible prizes are so huge and the system is so controllable needs to check out the government's procurement habits

So, which of the above problems will proportional representation address, and will it make any appreciable difference? Does the EU Parliament (where PR is de rigeur) work any better than ours?

So why the sudden drive for PR now?

Anybody who supports this initiative is going to be distracted from analysing the real situation and proposing a real solution. Reformers focused on the wrong solution all weaken the reform movement.

It's called "divide and rule".

So what are the real problems?

There are quite a few (well OK, quite a lot), but here goes:

  1. The political parties are a front for the criminal classes.
    They have the power, so they will always attract the criminals who want to profit from that power. They have to be neutered somehow. Politicians must start to represent their constituents and not their parties.
    • At a minimum, constituencies should elect and finance their MP, and have the power to recall and replace them whenever they please
    • Party whips should be stripped of their real power of patronage - the American system where the voters decide who should stand for the Party is designed to help, but it's very likely insufficient
    • Political parties should ideally be abolished, and local candidates should be elected victualled and supported according to local rules
    • The Electoral Commission should be abolished and its functions returned to the constituencies
    • Devolution should match power to capability - central government should never control that which can be performed at a local level

  2. Taxation should be voluntary!
    "Heresy!" I hear the anguished cry ...
    But in times past all public works were financed by public subscription, so if the public didn't value it sufficiently, it didn't get done. I think that idea has much to commend it, and in these internet days the means to crowdfund such matters already exist - they probably just need to be better organised for easier access visibility and accountability.
    In any case the principle of compulsion is well overused today - it needs to be reduced to a rump, and ideally eventually to nothing at all.
    Yes this would be a mammoth change, but the current unaccountable spending from "general taxation" is utterly out of control and gives rise to uncontrollable cronyism at the highest levels.

  3. The corporate stranglehold on everything needs to be broken.
    Easier said than done of course, the whole direction of travel of both government and corporations has for many years been to amalgamate smaller enterprises into bigger ones (by hook or by crook - think lockdown), resulting in what we have now - actual power in the hands of a tiny elite and for the masses, the illusion of choice where many brands are in fact merely fronts for the same controlling corporate entities. Possible solution:
    1. Abolish limited liability for corporate enterprises. Owners should be personally liable for debts however incurred, including damages and restitution of losses as directed by common law courts.
    2. Alongside this there would need to be an adequate defence against Ponzi schemes where huge losses are hidden by ongoing "investment" - obviously a difficult topic, and not adequately addressed in today's world either.
    3. Abolish the monopoly of central banks to issue intrinsically worthless currency. This is an extremely hoary topic too big to address here, but if we can't save the fruits of our labour in a form that doesn't have potential for uncontrolled evaporation then we are being robbed.

In short, actual power needs to be returned from the elite few to the people, in all respects. We have now almost reached peak centralisation, and if we don't like the uncontrollable result, then we must change it.

We must do so before we finally reach Ultimate Peak Centralisation, control by the unaccountable UN and their crony corporates of the WEF, Big Pharma, and the global mafia hiding behind global "charitable foundations" and "independent" (but also unaccountable) NGOs of all kinds.

If you follow the money, these NGOs charitable foundations and political bodies are all ultimately financed by our tax pounds/dollars/euros/dinars etc - abolish taxation - they all dry up - we get to spend our own money on our own priorities.

So what's not to like?!

We need to start thinking about how we get there ...

 

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1207

2022-12-04

Love him or hate him, David has been at the forefront of the exposure of the global project to convert the world into a global-corporate-fascist-government slave colony, seemingly from time immemorial.

He is also very articulate and clearly expresses his views. We may not always agree with everything he says, but does he have the right to say it?

Free speech has become a bit like Brexit - of course we are all free to express ourselves - or to live free of control by the EU - but of course (!) there are limits (which may be invented/interpreted differently to suit the elite at any time).

It used to be that the law clearly recognised that the freedom to only speak without offending anybody is not worth having. In recent years the invention of "hate speech" and other more or less elastic definitions of speech that some people won't like has reached an incomprehensible level of ever mutating convolution, designed to keep us constantly confused and scared to test the unknown limits.

Here he brings us right up to date with the progress of the global fascists, and their methods of silencing this obstinate old man from the Isle of Wight.

Worth reminding ourselves what this manipulation of perception and the struggle for truth and freedom is all about, and how it works.

"China is the Great Reset"

"The scale of the change that is coming (if we allow it) is beyond the imagination of most people"

(2hrs 35mins)

We have been warned.

 

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1265

2022-12-03

Jon Rappoport is not a conventional person. 

He doesn't hold authority in high esteem (or any esteem at all!) - unless he can find truth and integrity in that authority's pronouncements. And he's his own judge on that.

If you were to ask me, I would say that in these troubled times, this is an attitude to which we should all aspire, even if we cannot yet see our way to full achievement of such aspiration.

I'm not sure that Jon has approved of any authority in recent years, other than perhaps some independent self-made authorities that also follow the evidence wherever it leads them.

After what seems like an eternity of Covid authorities rampant, he reposts a blog from February 2020 wherein he reviews what he thinks of the Covid scenario (just at the time that the vaccines were beginning to be rolled out).

"This article is a kind of summary of where I stand, at this moment. A rather crowded snapshot"

Here he unravels a number of points of evidence and draws conclusions so outrageous that nobody would believe him ...    unless they too were prepared to dispassionately review the evidence and follow it wherever it leads.

" ...did researchers ever really find that virus? If they didn’t, we would be looking at fraud on a mind-boggling level ... "

"in 1987, I had a highly respected virologist tell me he KNEW there was a serious problem in calling HIV the cause of AIDS, but he and his colleagues were going to 'take a pass on this one' "

" ... the population of Earth---if these vaccines are deployed---will unknowingly step up to the plate in a vast guinea-pig test ... "

This is not to say that he conclusively proves his point as would be required in a criminal court of law - after all, that would be up to a jury to decide, and that trial has not yet taken place.

But when the circumstantial evidence mounts so high, one may conclude that he is worth reading.

Particularly his very last - but perhaps very pertinent - point.

As an exercise for the reader, why not review the post February 2020 events in similar mind-set, and see whither those might be leading us?

Oh, and welcome to the ever-growing club of "conspiracy theorists"! There is no membership fee, other than ostracism (and its consequences) by the ever-shrinking mainstream.

 

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 2315

2022-12-01

The "Died Suddenly" film recently featured on this site (and many others) is coming in for some stick.

It's true, it's a minefield out there, and I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the underlying truth of this 3-D world - there is no such thing as certainty (except in relation to "death and taxes", although even here there are some who think otherwise - and who am I to deny them?!).

Any site that claims to be able to always distinguish the truth from the falsehoods is a site that I would regard with extreme suspicion. That is why I conclude that the people with the ultimate responsibility to perform this impossible feat is the ultimate reader, since any intermediary will be subject to (a) their own individual prejudice and (b) possible subversion by vested interests.

(The same logic applies to philosophical / spiritual belief, and for the same reasons).

In practical terms anybody outside Big XXX who runs a free operation on a shoestring (as does freecitizen.uk) cannot possibly have the time and resources to reliably identify false narratives, especially when these may well be interwoven with much truth.

I never claim such capability - what you get here are articles that I deem worthy of attention, and this judgement necessarily relies on my own inclinations experiences and prejudice.

For all I know, Fintan may himself be "controlled opposition", but his presentation deserves our attention for the same reasons.

Ultimately it's your decision, but parking it in the "noted but undecided" tray until more evidence turns up can also be a helpful option .

(19 minutes)

 

Like / Dislike this video here.

 

  1. The Gap Between Reality and The Illusion is Narrowing
  2. The NWO - 20th to 21st Century
  3. ICIC - Nanotech in the Vaccines? Dr Fuellmich Investigates
  4. CBDCs Incoming!
  5. If You Really Want to Know What's Going On
  6. Covid - The Infinite Onion?
  7. "Political Corruption at the Highest Levels"
  8. The FTX Crypto Collapse - Brownstone Investigates
  9. Are 5G & EMFs another "Climate Change"?
  10. Is The "Big Guy" in Official Trouble?

Page 279 of 315