Anglosphere Unity And Taking Back Our Freedom

Proposed Anglosphere Flag

I’ve Just been reading and commenting on a Facebook page called CANZUK. The page looks at closer relations between Australia, Canada, Great Britain (UK), and New Zealand. The people there had been talking about a flag for CANZUK so I put my own effort into the discussion (see above). I then went on to outline some other related ideas.

A Flag of Anglosphere Unity

My own design for an Anglosphere flag is a modified Union Jack that incorporates the St David’s cross. A seven pointed star in the middle represents the seven kingdoms (I class Wales as a kingdom, but that is another discussion) of the Anglosphere (England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand). The modified Union Jack represents origins, the seven pointed star unites origins with diaspora.

Someone had already objected to the Union Jack because they thought that the diaspora countries fought for freedom against Great Britain. I asserted that they didn’t fight for freedom from us (GB) and that in fact they are us – we are all equal citizens. That’s why political reunification is appropriate and that is why we need a single unified government rather than some fudged new relationship.

The Union Jack belongs to the diaspora countries as much as it does to Great Britain. It is not a ‘foreign flag’, in fact Australians and New Zealanders use a modified version of the flag as did Canada in the past.

Capital city

I suggested that the capital and seat of government should be in Vancouver. The capital would therefore be centrally located and far away from the globalists of the City of London.

The government quarter would be in Stanley Park next to the Lost Lagoon. The Royal Palace would be further north. Both areas would be connected by a grand processional route for use on important national occasions which would help consolidate unity.

A grass roots, ground up movement

I believe that reunification should be achieved from the grassroots up rather than the top down. We shouldn’t wait for corporations or ‘elites’ to get things moving – we should do that on our own, starting now. We should be shaping events and not being led by them.

We don’t want corporations taking freedoms from us during the process. Individuals who want the reunification of the Anglosphere should just come together and do it!

A Second EU?

Some argue that we would be at risk of becoming a second EU – but we would be nothing like the EU.

We have always been united under the same shared Head of State and as such are already unified in that regard. We have similar cultures, parliaments, and legal systems and we have a shared language.

We would not be creating something new, we would be merely reasserting our unity. Our current disunity is only a recent development that needs to be reversed.

A reassertion of our democratic way of life

Reunification of the Anglosphere is currently essential because of the impact of globalisation on our democratic way of life. Corporations and not our elected governments hold all the real power and we are sovereign states in name only.

Our institutions have been subverted and many now hold them in contempt. Reunification is an opportunity for national renewal and chance to clear out the corruption. This would allow us to stand up to bullies on the international stage who use words like inevitable, an who imply that resistance to their schemes is futile.

On reunification our governments would cease being their lackeys, and as such they would not be inclined to persecute their own people in order to get sinecures after they leave office. High office would return to being an ultimate goal rather than a mere stepping stone to a lucrative career.

The globalists want balkanisation and disunity in order to divide and rule as a tiny elite. I want civilisational unity and a return to a situation where sovereign power is rooted firmly with the people.

Conclusion

A grass roots led reunification of the Anglosphere is an essential prerequisite for reclaiming our ancient rights and freedoms. A united country on a civilisational scale would have the power to stand up to organisations like multinational corporations and their own House of Lords style government – the World Economic Forum.

The state would be the basis of rule making and not them. They would have influence but no actual control. People would once again see that their vote counted and that their government would look after their interests and represent them rather than powerful non state actors.

The Globalist Playbook

Leaders meeting to reshape the world.

The plan is to use mass migration combined with divide and rule to balkanise western states in order to make the people easier to govern.

Divide and rule has been a very powerful ‘tool of tyrants’ throughout human history. This is how a tiny elite of British aristocrats and their lackeys managed to rule a country as large and populous as India. The current aim is to roll out the India model globally. However, in India mass migration was not necessary. India already had serious internal divisions that could be exploited.

Global governance by an oligarchy is not possible when you have the presence of strong, united, homogenous states. An oligarchy does not rule by consent, so unity is their enemy.

This is why all the states that were, broadly speaking, homogenous have to be broken up and broken down. The key method that has been deployed to achieve this is mass immigration combined with the cultivation of a policy of division.

Balkanisation involves the breaking up of states into smaller and more malleable units. It is a tool of divide and rule and helps to destroy homogeneous states. To rule on the global scale, you need states that are small, divided, and powerless, yet still manage to satisfy the human need of territoriality.

A tool to achieve balkanisation, in addition to immigration, is the encouragement of ‘micronationalisms’ like Scottish, Welsh, Catalan, etc, and of regional governance, and elected mayors within western countries. The aim is not to to bring power to the people but to take power away from them. The ultimate aim is to create political units that are so small and pliable that become accustomed to following orders.

The already balkanised areas are then balkanised again. The policy of mass immigration interweaved with the deliberate cultivation of division results in the need for independent cultural enclaves within the areas already divided up into micronations, regions, and city states.

The aim is to create a medieval patchwork of disunited and mutually suspicious statelets that are unwilling to work together. Except when instructed to do so by the ‘gods’ of the global government ‘high guard’.

In the English speaking world there is an antidote to this dystopian future, but it needs to be deployed urgently. It involves moving in the opposite direction to the globalists. It involves the creation of a global grass roots movement for a united Anglosphere. It has to be grass roots as the more corporate CANZUK model will benefit only the ‘elites’.

The creation of new nations of a civilisational character and the promotion of unity within them is the only way to oppose the political aspirations of the globalist oligarchs and self appointed ‘gods’. By inaugurating an era of democratic civilisational nations, the big multinationals and their WEF coordinators are brought within a stable and accountable system. They no longer look so strong and intimidating. Real power is returned to the sovereign people.

The Era Of Natural Climate Is Over

The Blue Marble

I’ll start with a bit of a riddle:

“The Climate Change Agenda” – Stopping Something That Has Always Existed And Replacing It With Something That Has Never Existed.

***

Since ‘Climate Change’ ceased being a question of science and moved into the realm of politics, it has been impossible to have rational discussions about it. Science is about reality, but politics is about perception. Politics is not about what is real, it is about what people believe to be real. It means that things take on a quasi religious quality on both sides of any debate.

With politics, you look at power relationships and how you as a individual fit into those relationships. When an issue becomes political, people come up with scientific heresies such as ‘the science is settled’ and thereby suspend scientific method because it is in their interests to do so.

The current fashionable paradigm of the day thereby becomes consensus, and consensus becomes dogma. Research grants become dependent on it and scientists can become corrupted in order to put bread on the table.  Anyone who attempts to change that paradigm becomes a victim of the inquisition. Reality is suspended, science becomes unscientific, research becomes a series of witch hunts rather than the search for truth.

Today, powerful and ambitious people with a far reaching political agenda, the Davos Globalists, pursue the notion that there is a ‘climate emergency’ with such religious zeal that people get suspicious and question their motives. As the issue is now political, people ask what do they have to gain and what do I have to lose. This is where we are at in the current climate change debate – science has lost the magic of trust.

***

Now, let’s solve the riddle…

Climate change has always existed since the beginning of geological time, it is completely natural. However, because science is now political it must serve the interests of power and has becomes an agenda.

Many will remember the days when ‘climate change’ was referred to as ‘global warming’. But when it snowed in summer or when winters seemed colder, the tagline lost its power. As jobs and political agendas depended on it, a rebranding was necessary and the marketing men needed to be brought in.

What they came up with, probably with the aid of focus groups, was the rather nebulous term ‘climate change’. Perhaps they thought that it would prevent people from pinning things down? It would be unfortunate if the tagline had to be changed yet again. They would have to wheel out their contemporary medieval ‘child saint’, Greta Thunberg, to pluck reasons out of the Akashic record.

But as is often the case when politicians get involved, the term did not reflect reality because climate has always been changing. I suppose they were following the maxim ‘don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story’. This is not a problem in politics because, as I said earlier, they are based on perception. But science is not, they forgot that science has its own rules, rules that cannot be bent to their whims.

The second part of the riddle suggests that we are now doing something for the very first time. What we are doing now is attempting to create a climate that is absolutely stable.

***

In c1760 a new geological era was born in England – the Anthropocene. After this date climate would never be natural again and, as a result, humankind in the future will begin to embrace its ecological destiny to expand the realm of Gaia.

In eighteenth century England an epochal event occurred – the Industrial Revolution. Many people believe that this is when humankind first began to have a serious impact on the environment and started the process of making the climate ‘unnatural’. I also believe this to be the case. But is this such a bad thing?

It is quite possible that without the Industrial Revolution we might now have found ourselves moving from an interglacial into a glacial period within our current ice age. For me, continuing under interglacial conditions is highly desirable. We should do everything we can to remain so – we should play God and we should interfere with the Earth’s climate. As far as the future of the Earth is concerned, we are God! But how do we proceed?

Since breaking through the industrial barrier we have crossed a technological threshold. Humankind now has assumed responsibility to take control of the Earth’s climate on a permanent basis. We might not have wanted the role of God to accomplish this task, but because of our actions we have that role and there is no going back!

There are serious moral and ethical questions at stake as we move forward as ‘gods’. But this means we will probably become more religious as we will need God’s help and guidance more than ever.

If we create a static climate then, potentially, natural evolution will come to an end. We will have the responsibility to preserve all forms of ‘natural’ life as no new forms life will come into existence. Our science will have the capacity to create new forms of ‘unnatural’ life, and we will be able choose to move away from a static climate in order to encourage a particular type of evolution.

The need for anthropogenic climatic control technology has to be thought through very carefully.  The presence of anthropogenic induced climate change is not just a tool for a self-appointed globalist elite to make a wealth and power grab. It is a religious mission for the human race with cosmic implications.

The short term interests of politics cannot be allowed to influence this process. Scientists are already fixated on the present and not thinking long term. They are researching carbon capture technology so that carbon can be extracted from the atmosphere and put into caves at the bottom of the deep blue sea. But they are not considering how that carbon can be rereleased into the atmosphere on demand. To control the climate it is necessary to regulate heat in both directions as human action is not the only variable.

***

It is our destiny to take life out into space, beyond the Earth to places where it currently does not exist. After all, we are the only life form on Earth capable of doing so. That is our natural role, that is our ecological purpose, that is why we exist as part of the natural world.

Responsibility is not just on globalist or government shoulders – it is on the shoulders of us all. We are members of a species that dared to eat from the tree of knowledge and we are all responsible for keeping our leaders honest.

We took the responsibility and were expelled from Eden. But we are capable of creating new Eden’s out there on barren rocks across the Galaxy.

Don’t Fall For the Rwanda Ruse!

Flag of the Republic of Rwanda

The Rwanda Bill as is just a smokescreen to cover inaction.  Anytime people spend putting faith in Sunak’s Bullsh!t Bill is time wasted. It is just a Will-o’ the-wisp to mislead the gullible. They could just send illegal migrants back to France but come up with excuse after excuse as to why it is impossible. At the same time demonise and wage information warfare on dissidents who complain or call them out on the issue.

The ‘government’ does not intend to do anything meaningful. They only want to send a few token people to Rwanda and make it look like they are doing something because there is an election coming up. The media will be used to portray it as really draconian and hard line. In the end they will quietly bring those few Rwanda bound people back and compensate them handsomely for playing their role. Anyone who falls for it is a fool.

It is vital globalist policy to have mass migration in order to facilitate divide and rule which is the only way for a tiny minority to govern populations on a planetary scale (it is how a few British aristocrats and their servants managed to rule a country the size of India). India already had division so it was not necessary to import it via unregulated mass migration. The societies of the West were formerly homogenous and therefore impossible to rule in this way.

They also need the young men of fighting age to serve in the British Globalist army, an army that would be willing fire on British ‘citizens’. It was a technique used by the Roman Empire to keep provincials in line. They never used local troops, or those from a neighbouring province as it was likely they would sympathise with the locals. They only used troops from far away provinces with different cultures who would be more likely to see locals as ‘other’. They will facilitate the creation of their globalist armies using the ‘Starship Troopers’ method of ‘Service for Citizenship’.

Starship Troopers – ‘Service Guarantees Citizenship!’

Already seen the groundwork for the plan with French troops guarding Buckingham Palace, continuous talk about how weak our armies are, frightening people by saying how conscription may be necessary, and openly saying that they want to open the military up more to foreign nationals and immigrants. They also strut around the world talking about the imminence of WWIII when the globalist controlled Western countries have armies that are so degraded that they would be incapable of maintaining domestic order let alone a major war against great powers.

Don’t fall for the Rwanda Ruse!

How Science Treats Conspiracy Theories – “Chemtrails”

One of the techniques to shut down debate used by the blinkered followers of dogmatic wisdom is to label someone as a ‘conspiracy theorist’. That’s it, problem solved, argument over, free pass provided. They also often claim the high ground of science to support their claims, but often have no real understanding of how science works. They adopt unscientific arguments to back up their ‘scientific’ claims.

They demand evidence from the ‘conspiracy theorist’ but never provide any to support for their own position that is usually based on what some superior authority says. It is an almost quasi religious faith in their ‘betters’ and nothing more. The situation is like being guilty until proven innocent when the state has all the resources and holds all the cards. It is usually governments or wealthy individuals who commission scientific research and not the ordinary man in the street who is too poor and without connections.

Someone who immediately reaches for a label rather than an argument is making a baseless claim and rejecting the principles of scientific method. Their scientific ‘evidence’ is a mere belief in dogma – at least they won’t have to recant in front of the inquisition like Galileo.

Despite this it seems to be the resource poor who are expected to commission a research project in order to unearth ‘evidence’. However, they can do something – they can make intelligent observations, identify patterns, and draw informed conclusions. These are free and just require a bit of intelligence. They can come up with what scientists refer to as a hypothesis. This is the theory aspect of ‘conspiracy theories’.

The poor are lucky when it comes to the rationale of science because scientific method is based on the principle of falsification. The aim of science it to prove a negative and say that something isn’t the case. A scientist takes their theory and does all they can to prove it to be false. If they can’t achieve that after collecting and analysing the data (evidence) then they know that they are on the right track.

The establishment and the scientists that they pay are in a position where they can marshall the resources necessary to try to disprove any hypothesis. If they label something a ‘conspiracy theory’ they are in a position to falsify that theory. If they unable to do so then the theory may indeed have merit. It is not enough for them to rest on the laurels of a mere label. If you are being scientific you have to treat the ‘conspiracy theory’ as a hypothesis and then try to falsify it.

Someone who immediately reaches for a label rather than an argument is making a baseless claim and rejecting the principles of scientific method. Their scientific ‘evidence’ is a mere belief in dogma – at least they won’t have to recant in front of the inquisition like Galileo.

The following uses the example of a ‘conspiracy theory’ relating to ‘chemtrails’:

The ‘conspiracy theorists’ have made empirical observations. They have witnessed an increase in the number of white lines in the sky. They have done their research – they have ‘looked things up’. They have also got in touch with others from around the world and compared empirical observations. Together they have noticed similarities between their observations.

They have also noticed duplicity and lack of trustworthiness from establishment leaders. This is also based on empirical observations over long periods of time. They have compared their observations with others in different western countries and noticed a similar modus operandi.

They have come up with a hypothesis that says:

Western leaders are using jet aircraft to distribute chemicals in the atmosphere in order to modify the global climate for some nefarious purpose. It is maintained that foul play is at work due to the observed behaviour of those in leadership positions. As such it is asserted that information from official sources is therefore of dubious authenticity.

There is also an alternative hypothesis in play that says:

Western leaders are completely trustworthy, are untainted by vice, and always act in the service of the common good. The ‘chemtrails’ are merely contrails that result from normal atmospheric processes related to temperature and condensation.

It is therefore necessary for data to be collected by proponents of each hypothesis working together without alerting anyone who might interfere with the normal running of international aviation. A sufficient number of samples from the exhaust gases from aircraft would be taken randomly. The chemical composition of each sample would be recorded. These results would be analysed and both hypotheses would be modified in accordance with the findings.

***

My own observations of the behaviour of western leaders and the outcomes of their actions suggest bad faith and conspiratorial  activity. However, I am not sure about the speculation about the deliberate use of chemicals to regulate the climate or the use of jet aircraft as the delivery mechanism for these. I am aware that experiments are taking place using balloons. It is quite possible that other secret experiments could be taking place using jet aircraft. We need sampling and analysis of exhaust gases to find out.

***

To conclude, we can say that labelling puts the burden of proof onto the shoulders of the person with the least resources. How does that prove anything? If you are the establishment and your position cannot be backed up, they your position has no merit. You have the tools to falsify a statement but won’t. What are you afraid of?

There Will Not Be World War 3

There is much talk at the moment about World War 3, but the whole concept is ridiculous. Even if we were invaded by a hostile power the public would do nothing. It would realise that we would only be exchanging one set of dictators for another. If WW3 ever materialises, it will come in the form of a global civil war against the very rulers who want to promote war for their own selfish ends.

The globalist usurpers of Western nation states are not yet in a position to wage a sustained war. You only have to ask a few simple questions to realise this fact.

Are the woke, degraded, and subverted armies of the West even capable of waging WW3? Does the West still have any industrial base to support such a war? Who would be willing to fight and die for globalist oligarchs who hate their own people? Western armies are so depleted they are not even capable of effectively policing their own populations.

Given the contempt in which the globalist elite is held, any move to implement conscription would result in rebellion and revolution rather than shared purpose with the rulers. If the globalists get themselves into WW3 they will be on their own, unloved and unsupported.

The globalists know this, and this is why they promote mass migration. They need a population to join their armies that will be willing to repress and brutalise the Western public who have already rejected them as rulers. Notice the prevalence of young men of fighting age in the armada of little boasts crossing the English Channel. We could soon be seeing a Star Ship Troopers model of ‘Service for Citizenship’ to get things started.

In the meantime, the policy is to deplete our armies and mothball our military resources until the new soldiers are ready for deployment. The whole scheme represents a treason so large and so heinous that it is unprecedented in the whole of human history.

Until the globalists have completed their efforts of population replacement, they are effectively powerless. Like any bully, they just need to be stood up to. They need to learn to appreciate the power and relevance of one word – No!

The technological means of controlling such a mercenary army will also be necessary. Otherwise, the mercenaries could just seize control of the state for themselves.

It is a dangerous time for the globalists as they have not quite got their chess pieces in position and their preferred future still contains an element of doubt. They will therefore not risk recklessly banging the drums of war for the time being.

We are therefore currently in a hiatus period in which a major war is politically impossible. There will be no WW3 in the immediate future. 

Update 22 April:

The globalists have deliberately broken all our institutions, facilitated the biggest mass migration since the invasion of the Anglo Saxons, pursed a policy of deliberate divide & rule, & created political instability unprecedented since the end of the English Civil War.

In the meantime, they strut about the world stage trying to create the illusion that they are even capable of waging WWIII. As such they must be regarded as the biggest theatrical roadshow since Barnum & Bailey, with their leaders taking the role of clowns.

In posturing the way they are, they are merely following the advice of Sun Tzu to appear strong when they are weak. However, the damage that they have already done to their own source of real power, their own people, and the integity of their institutions, means that the resources they can deploy against serious great power opposition is very limited.

Western nations do not have sufficient military and police resources to even maintain domestic order, let alone fight an international war involving great powers. We have seen the police admit that they do not have the capacity to manage the pro-Palestine marches. That is why they arrest observers on the sidelines who they believe might provoke the mob and cause them to lose control. The reality is that the mob are controlling them. How can such a feeble state even in its wildest dreams and vivid fantasies hope to fight and then win WWIII.

Globalists getting us into WWIII is an idea so ridiculous and far fetched that even the Brothers Grimm would baulk at making it into a fairy tale.

Globalist Cheerleaders Of ‘Climate Emergency’ Are Biggest Threat To Our Climate

We are supposedly in the midst of a ‘climate emergency’ yet our globalist leaders conspire to continue their environmental bad practice.

It is them that push forward the idea of a crisis but they work to ensure that it is only the public get to bear the costs and burdens related to it. Despite the severity and seriousness of this crisis, they continue to put their power and profits before the interests of the environment. They even subvert the public institutions that would otherwise give priority to the greater good.

The following is a list of things that they are doing that would make any supposed climate crisis worse:

1. Gradual application of technology to maximise profits

This means that when a scientific breakthrough is reached, instead of a big, rapid jump forward we have a slow walk. The benefits are therefore not realised immediately and resources are wasted as a result.

Electric vehicles were adopted decades late because manufacturers wanted to maximise profits from internal combustion technology before releasing new electric technology.  Is this the reason we have inadequate batteries? Is technology still being deliberately kept back?

2. Lack of modular electronic devices

Have to replace the whole unit rather than a single faulty component. The corporate idea is to sell more of the whole product rather than efficiently utilise resources. Profits are paramount, not addressing imminent disaster. Resources are thrown away or recycled before they need to be.

3. Companies buying patents and then sitting on the technology because it is a superior competitor technology

This both prevents its use and forestalls further development.  Establishment or corporate interests are put before the greater good.

4. Restricting free speech and the free exchange of ideas

The free flow of information is vital in times of crisis and measures to impede that flow are counterproductive. Opinions must be encouraged in order to generate ideas to solve society’s problems. Censorship and self-censorship are the enemies of progress.

New laws that assert things like ‘the truth is no defence’ are an obstacle to the social and scientific progress that is necessary to solve intractable problems.

5. Deliberate destabilisation of more efficient homogenous societies

Homogenous societies tend to be more stable and productive due to the greater likelihood of trust and social cooperation. Such societies tend to have better scientific output.

Yet these are the very societies that are been deliberately undermined by the very globalist corporate forces that promote the idea of a ‘climate emergency’. These societies are being splintered in order to foster divide and rule for the sole purpose of protecting establishment power dominance.

Official encouragement of culture wars and battles of the sexes is illogical when people need to come together to combat environmental armageddon.

We need stable societies where people naturally respect and trust the institutions of state and society. Yet thanks to official policy trust is at an all time low.

6. Unreliability of official sources of information

Misinformation and fake news from corporate media organisations is also being encouraged. Many do not watch news programmes because they know that they provide biassed and false information in order to bolster corporate power.

Scientific progress does not proceed  quickly in low  trust societies where people can’t believe official sources of information.

7. The poor handling of the Covid crisis

Vast amounts of time that could have been used to push forward positive scientific development and innovation was wasted by economic inactivity of entire societies during an unnecessary lockdown.  Time wasted when we are on the verge of catastrophe is unacceptable, illogical, and immoral.

Corporate news media that always speaks with its master’s voice was silent on this point and slavishly pushed the lockdown agenda.

Unscientific notions such as ‘the science is settled’ are unhelpful when scientific innovation will be the basis of our salvation. These were widely circulated during the Covid Crisis.  Such misinformation is an obstacle to progress and innovation and brings real science into disrepute. Those that put forward such ideas behaved in an anti-social manner, and this in a time of crisis and imminent danger!

The manufactured Covid ‘crisis’ achieved the greatest transfer of wealth from poor to rich in human history. What a coincidence!

8. Wasteful wars to transfer money from the public purse into private pockets

Many believe that the Ukraine War is just giant money laundering exercise. The magic money tree always yields its fruits for such ventures but never for those that benefit the public. In any case the national debt goes up at the same rate as private corporate profits. Once again, money is transferred from poor to rich.

Would this really be a priority for the distribution of resources if we were in the midst of a crisis that threatened our very existence? Would resources be better deployed into research and development to find solutions to the ‘Climate Crisis’?

The preference would be for a swift war with the quickest possible victory for the stronger side. But this is not what is happening.  A war is being deliberately prolonged with massive negative consequences for the environment.

***

This list about the globalist, corporate, establishment approach to ‘climate change’ could go on and on. But even this short list leads us to draw one of two conclusions:

1. That there is no climate emergency.

2. That there is a climate emergency, but it is not urgent enough to be allowed to impact negatively on corporate profits and the interests of the establishment.

***

One way or the other, we are being manipulated to serve the selfish private interests of giant corporations. We are being impoverished in order to enrich power hungry oligarchs who care nothing for the greater good.

If we are hurtling towards imminent climate catastrophe and the potential extinction of the human race then you would expect urgent action from the leaders of society and those with comfy lives who ultimately have the most to lose. However, this urgent action is not forthcoming.