David Icke in a superb interview with Max Igan

David Icke on world tour 2009

David Icke on the big picture, cancer, codex, silvestrol, financial meltdown, Freeman on the land, 2012 and the current global geo political puppet show, David also offers advice on non compliance and demonstrations.



Watch parts 2-6 on Crowhouse YouTube channel

Icke is currently on a sell out worldwide tour and its a pleasure to listen to both Icke and Igan as they are excellent barometers for the global consciousness awakening that is taking place.
Icke now offers, in my opinion, the most coherent big picture of what is taking place.

Further reading
Max Igan
David Icke
David Icke - Freedom Road

The Revolution will not be televised

Well, it’s about time I started writing again. During my recent hiatus the world has continued going to hell in a handcart, and I can’t imagine this is a coincidence. Sure, I spray venom around on CommentIsFree and elsewhere, but blind fury isn’t enough - it’s time the world learned to fear my name.

I certainly fear the world, so it’s only fair.

I think it’s reasonable to say things are not going well with Planet Earth, and it’s time I explained to the rest of you what’s going on. Actually… no - we won’t agree, I have no proof and I sure as hell can’t be arsed researching anything. In fact, I may make that a rule of this blog - no research. Nope, forget what is happening now, let’s concentrate on wild speculation - what will happen next. What is to come come? That, I know.

I fear them - they fear us. Take a look at experience in the UK this week and last - minor riots, major political discomfort; the common factor connecting both being that government and media found themselves wrongfooted and forced into retreat positions by… you lot. Joe Public; Joe Public and his cameras, Joe Public and his blogs, Joe Public and the internet. Whether t’power is smacking a demonstrator in the teeth on London streets, or concocting a string of lies to smear a political rival, a string of ones and noughts is hanging about just seconds away from upsetting the well-laid plans of politicians and pundits. User generated content is getting to be a real pain for the powers that be. Sometimes they’re open about this - they’re pretty gung-ho against file sharers, no one is suprised that they’re keen to lock up child porn users, and there are plenty who applaud national clampdowns on, (variously) extreme pornography, holocaust denial, gambling, dangerous western liberal freedoms… Porn in the UK, Falun Gong in China, each nation has its own triggers, each has managed to implement censorship mechanisms and, more importantly, each has engineered social consent for these censorship mechanisms. Different countries, different issues, near-identical technical responses. And the plague is spreading. Interesting eh?

Some claim coincidence, some claim it’s a damn good thing. Me? I reckon it’s the end of the fucking world.

Noam Chomsky is a lefty twat but he seems a bright enough bloke apart from that, and his leftiness is an odd sort. I’m not entirely convinced. Regardless, he’s absolutely right on one key point - governments which do not and can not control their populations by force of arms must govern by other means, and that is, of course, by manufacturing consent. Conning your populace into supporting war against people who can do you no harm, distracting them with televised trash, convincing them it makes sense to mortgage their grandchildren’s futures to pay for a banker’s retirement, or even convincing them that nine out of ten cars should be fucking silver…

They’re pretty good at it. Your average faux democracy muddles along, presenting the illusion of competing political interests, generally managing to gather and maintain power at the centre via the lite-touch control of patronage, juicy government scoops, and of course the subtle and pervasive long term policy of making sure that those who pull the media strings are people like us… The UK and the BBC being the best example of this by far. Then you have the odd overtly fascistic nation such as Germany or the USSR where propaganda becomes supremely vital, and supremely effective, but consumes an inordinate amount of time, effort, and may eventually be subverted by internal samizdat, more often by external broadcast and communication. But if the whole world agreed… If practically every nation adopted the same policies, if practically every nation quietly joined the cosy little consensus, if practically every politician figured out that his best interests - best personal interests - lay in joining that special club, if the guiding political principle of the entire political world became… keep power where it is right now. Forever… What then? What chance for change then? Where might the rogue radio beams come from? Where might the smuggled books emanate from?



Luckily, my theorised totalitarian world has an Achilles Heel. T’internet. And you. So long as you and I can talk, so long as one or both of us can manufacture dissent, so long as stainless steel rats can gnaw holes in the wainscoting of the mighty, the world is not yet enslaved. And don’t they fucking know that.

There are two things that might be true today, in every country of the world. 1) The rich are getting richer, 2) The government is working on clamping down on the internet.

We see it here in the UK. In myriad smart little ways these bastards have been edging to it for a decade. The restraints began with child porn, they now encompass posting poetry supporting terrorism - and as we know, the mechanism for controlling the UK internet is solid. They can block anything, they can record anything, they can track anything. So far, they have chosen not to use these powers to go to war with their own people - but I reckon they are coming close. When a government loses control of the story they are close to losing control of the streets. Any government that requires manufactured consent in order to rule must control the prevailing myths of the day - it isn’t optional; it’s a core, founding, necessity. Governments worldwide are, frankly, terrified of the net. Our own government especially.

So what will they do? Well, the frontal attack; censorship, rushing through some kind of libel and seditious libel laws to deal with bloggers - fast-tracking Guido back to the Tower - impose fear using shitty despicable legislation like that aimed at extreme porn, hentai cartoons, attacking P2P, perhaps try to use ID cards as an online biometric identifier; measures aimed essentially at enclosure, limitation, regulation. And alongside this, the government’s shield - their shills - will play their part. The mainstream media have their own reasons to attack the net, their own reasons to hate bloggers, their own finance and ego goals to please. But underlying everything they face the same possible fate as the governing elite - that the net will sap their power, steal their position, chip away at their fortress. They too will fight.

There you go folks - things to come. Not across the centuries, across the months and years to come - right now. Your lifetime. And who can stop it? You.

Don’t look at me chum, join your own fucking dots.

Thanks to Frank for the great article visit …at his web site

The Established, Fundamental Axioms of Being a Freeman

Freeman on the Land is an exciting and rapidly growing area of interest for all people that value their liberty. As we approach some nodal point of global change many are looking for alternatives, and the Freeman on the Land concept can only become more popular as more end up losing everything and ergo, have nothing to lose.

Thank you to Veronica, of the Chapman family for this excellent introduction to Freeman on the land.

(As simplified as I can make them, based on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst). Basically it is their work, tweaked a bit by re-writing, and removing 'God' - thereby reducing it to absolute fundamentals)



1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs. 'unlawful'. Do not get trapped into discussing 'legal'/'illegal'.

2) In order to empower a representative, you must have the power yourself. You cannot give to anyone something you, yourself do not possess. You cannot give them any more than you, yourself, possess. Consequently you can look at anything any representative does, and say "I must be entitled to do that myself, without - necessarily - empowering someone else to do it for me".

3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on 'large numbers'. A majority can be as low as ONE. And that ONE must, of itself, (therefore) carry sufficient empowerment to put any motion into practice. (The US Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4 majority carries any ruling. That's 'democracy')

4) Consequent to (3) no Government has more power than you do yourself. The powers are equal. The only difference is that your power is inalienable - it can't be taken away from you - whereas a Government can be replaced by some other set of role players. Consequently YOU are 'supreme'.

5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child. 'Licencing' is 'begging for permission' and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there is, therefore, absolutely no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'. The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable) privilege instead.

6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior ownership to the entity accepting the registration. Once an item has been registered, you are no longer the OWNER (even though you will still be paying for the item), but instead you become the KEEPER. This includes cars, houses, children (who become 'wards of the state' by virtue of a birth registration), etc. ('regis ...' = handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the way, is the British Crown in Temple Bar, and NOT Elizabeth II)

7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred' into Statutes what was actually happening was that fundamental Rights were being transferred into privileges. Thus they were being watered down. Diffused. Being rendered powerless.

8) In all cases you are always being OFFERED A SERVICE - which includes 'benefits' - in the form of privileges. You are always fully entitled to waive such services, and of course you will also be waiving the attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is - ultimately - to either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or accept (revocable) privileges.

9) The law can give rise to a FICTION, but a fiction cannot give rise to a law. Consequently a legal fiction called THE GOVERNMENT has no power to make LAW. It is, in point of fact, BOUND BY LAW (like everyone else, and including all other legal fictions). PARLIAMENT is another legal fiction entity. Statutes created by Parliament are not, therefore, the LAW. They are 'legislated rules for a society' and ONLY APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY. Join a different society, and you would be bound by a different set of rules. (If this were not the case it would be impossible to become, for example, a Freemason and be bound by the rules of Freemasonry). Statutes are nothing more than the Company Policy of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, etc. (See 'society', below)

10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, has a Mind. Only something with a Mind is capable of devising a CLAIM. Legal fictions are soulless, and do not possess a distinct Mind. They cannot, therefore, in LAW, make a CLAIM.

11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the Judiciary in a court de facto derives all its power from colour-of-law/Statutes, then no court de facto has any power over you as a sovereign human being, IN FACT (although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!). A court de jure is the only kind of court to which you are subject under Common Law, and there are none of those left (unless you insist that the court operates de jure, by demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist that with every fibre in their 'corporate', soulless, 'bodies').

12) YOU, and your fellow countrymen, constitute the entire and total 'wealth' of your country. The resources may be considered as assets, but without you & your fellow countrymen they are worthless. A field must be ploughed, and seeded, before potatoes will grow. Once grown they must be dug up, bagged, and transported before they can do the worthwhile job of sustaining life. Without the efforts of you, and your countrymen, NOTHING can happen, and your country itself is a worthless lump of soil.

13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. A society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-bound to follow them. Different societies can exist, having their own unique set of rules. One way of 'choking' the action of a court de facto is to claim membership of a society that only exists in Common Law jurisdiction. The World Freeman Society has been set up precisely for this purpose.

14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.

B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16, below)

15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands', that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement' and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)

16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know what else to say.

"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)

17. 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can DELEGATE authority, but you can only SHARE responsibility. In other words, if you task (delegate) someone to do something, you still retain the RESPONSIBILITY for getting it done, and for anything that may happen as a result. If, for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given by a superior, then that Officer is personally responsible for what may occur as a result, and all those up the chain of command are considered accomplices, in LAW.

(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about)

Therefore it is important that, if you delegate authority, you delegate to the right individual or group of individuals. You delegate to an individual who will accomplish the task without come-backs. And who you choose is your choice, and your responsibility.


TPUC has seen traffic on its web site increase over the last few months and the UK Libertarian party is growing in leaps and bounds.

Green Tax Calculator launched

Average person pays £740 in green taxes and regulations.

The TaxPayers' Alliance presents their new, online Green Tax Calculator which allows users to calculate, using their personal travel habits, household bills, and even specific make of car, the amount they are paying for green taxes and regulations.

In particular, the calculator sheds light on the hidden price ordinary people are paying for regulations that push up their electricity and gas bills.

The bill facing a typical person

Using the Green Tax Calculator it is possible to work out the annual green tax bill of a typical person:

• Someone driving the most basic 2008 model of Britain’s most popular car, the Ford Focus, the average annual mileage (8,770 miles) will pay £469 in Fuel Duty and £145 in Vehicle Excise Duty.
• Someone who flies once to a destination in Europe and once to a destination outside Europe will pay £50 in Air Passenger Duty.
• Out of average 2008 electricity and gas bills of £424 and £618 respectively, a family would pay over £77 as the result of regulations like the Renewables Obligation and the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.
• That is a total bill of more than £740 for taxes and regulations that do little to achieve their stated purpose.

Matthew Sinclair, Research Director at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“The cost of green taxes and regulations is often hidden from ordinary people in increased prices. Politicians try to pretend they are the friend of the consumer when these prices rise, but their own role in pushing ordinary people’s bills up with stealth taxes and obscure regulations is seldom acknowledged. The new TPA Green Calculator uses the power of the Internet and viral advertising to provide personalised information that can let ordinary people know how much they are paying.”

Thanks to:
The Tax Payers Alliance

Related articles by Zemanta

• Let's ration flights to cut pollution - Let's not (travel-rants.com)
• Carbon price falls to new low (guardian.co.uk)
• Price of carbon credits slumps again (guardian.co.uk)
• Economic cuts EU's CO2 emissions in '08: institute (lightbulbs.org)

Monsanto - controlling our food

Monsanto playing with our genetic heritage

On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television (ARTE – French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that you won’t see on American television. The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years.

Another good documentary highlighting the ongoing disaster with Monsanto's BG Cotton.

Life running out of control - watch it

Thanks to.
Wide Eye Cimema
Journeyman TV

or purchase it here

Related articles by Zemanta

• Europeans ban Monsanto's Modified Maize - HURRAH! (iflizwerequeen.com)
• Monsanto not totally evil after all (dailyfinance.com)
• Monsanto Starts A Blog: Not an April Fools Day Prank (takepart.com)

Noam Chomsky with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now

Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and renowned political activist and writer. He has written scores of books both on linguistics, human rights, economics and politics.

An Octogenarians view point with Amy Goodman.

Part 1


Noam Chomsky, author and Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for over half a century. Among his many dozens of books are Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs, The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, Manufacturing Consent, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, and Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy.

Part 2



Visit Noam Chomsky

The Battle of the blogs

As the congratulations are passed around the blogosphere after Guido’s victory over Damian McBride and Derek Draper, it’s worth keeping in mind that this is not a victory of the Conservative Party over Labour. This is a victory of People over Politics. And it’s a victory which should make all politicians, not just Labour ones, buck up their habits and start fearing the blogs. - Stuart Sharpe

"If you want to be a superstar blogger,
get in the papers but lose Labour an election -
you can just fuck off".
Derek Draper to other Labour bloggers, Sept 2008

The Daily Politics battle between blogger Guido Fawkes, and New Labour mouthpiece Derek Draper. Draper lost the battle.



Thanks to:
Guido Falkes
Ian Dale
Sharpes Opinion

Related articles by Zemanta

• LabourList: party mouthpiece or activists' vehicle? (rainierpr.co.uk)
• Interview with LabourList's technical architect (rainierpr.co.uk)
• Will Derek Draper Be "Labour's Iain Dale"? (iaindale.blogspot.com)