'Why does there have to be a Son of God?' asked the man.
The angel replied, 'Can you be your consciousness?'
'I am my consciousness,' the man said.
'That is not correct. You are in this moment with me; and as each moment passes you will know that moment, or you will become conscious of it. Therefore as each moment passes you have more consciousness. But you are not your consciousness. Your consciousness grows through you and your experience. So, try to be your consciousness - what is it like?'
The man frowned. 'Everything we experience becomes consciousness?'
'That means it becomes one thing.'
'It does,' said the angel.
The man thought for a moment....
Yesterday I did a short video on the intention of our government to introduce a 'law' against smacking our own children. The video is titled, ' Your Children are Yours To Discipline - they are NOT Government Property! '
Questions have been raised.
Here are the questions and answers:
Qu : What is the Common Law on smacking?
Ans : The real law on smacking is that 'reasonable chastisement' is allowed.
Qu : If children are our property, then does it mean that we can do what we like with them as with the inanimate property of ours?
Ans : 'Reasonable chastisement' cannot be assault as assault is about harming another, 'reasonable chastisement' does not cause harm but actually benefits the child.
Again, all is provided by the real law.
We have no need to consent to government interference with our children, not least because those in government do not have a particularly good record for caring for children.
We have no need to submit to or accept their proposed legislation to 'ban smacking'.
I say it again, our children are our property.
They are nothing whatsoever to do with the government or any of their agencies.
It is surely best to keep it that way, by not consenting and not contracting.
And remember, as the Bible says, 'Spare the rod and spoil the child' ( Proverbs 13:24 ).
But that does not mean treating the child like Mr. Murdstone treated David Copperfield in Dicken's story - that would be harming the child.
Finally, if you want to know more about your child being property, you might find it helpful to watch this video with Karl Lentz .
It's going to be another eventful year.
Doubtlessly, there will be more false flags and more institutional lying.
There will of course be more treason committed.
There will be more corporate internationalism controlled by the Internationalist Money Lenders; there will be more deliberate undermining of the economy to usher in more centralised control.
There will be more spraying of our skies to maintain the geo-engineering programme.
Brexit will drag along, and more ‘aliens’ will enter our nations - an 'alien' by the way, in this context, is not a creature that flies about the imaginations of certain people, it is instead the Common Law term, and therefore the lawful term, for people who have not been born in our nation, and who do therefore not have rights of a ‘native’ or a ‘denizen’, which are the other terms for those residing in Common Law nations.
But back to 2017. Yes, many bad things will continue and many will die off, but many good things continue and many good things will begin.
For example, more men and women will become aware of the Internationalist Money Lenders' corporate subversion that is being used in an attempt to undermine our sovereignty and destroy our nations, our people, our religions, our law and our cultures.
More men and women in 2017 will therefore be removing themselves from the system that supports these parasitic traitors. And more men and women will begin to meet those of like mind, so that something true and lawful may emerge and go from strength the strength.
And more men and women will recognise that it is a spiritual battle we are involved in, one that depends on truth, and therefore, in the Common Law nations in particular, a strong alignment with God through Christ.
With that positive thought in mind, let's consider the coming months of 2017 in the context of five short quotations.
With these quotations I intend to deliver a simple understanding of the connection between God, Christ, the law, the Bible , government and what I believe we must do to help bring something wholesome and good into the world.
So, that said. Let's begin.
Since Christmas has just passed, I would like first refer to a quote that has a seasonal flavour.
' For a child is born for us, a son is given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Power, Father of the Eon, Prince of Shalom.' You might recognise this quote from the Old Testament at Isaiah 9:6 as being the origin of a certain Christmas carol – ‘Unto us a child is born…’ Notice the importance of government in the quote - 'the government will rest on his shoulders'; and it means just what it says - 'government', real government, a geo-political kingdom - here in this world .
Let us now consider the second quote:
' The kingdom of God is not of this world. ' You will find this quote at John 18:36 , when Jesus is talking to Pontias Pilate. This quote is found in all Bibles I can find, except, that is, in the original Greek and in the latest translation of that Greek, known as The Eonian Books . But it is an erroneous quote in that it contradicts the quote I mentioned above from Isaiah 9:6 , which clearly shows that God’s government through Christ will be here in this world – ‘the government will rest on his shoulders’ . You see, this erroneous quote, ‘The kingdom of God is not of this world’, indicates that the kingdom of God is somewhere else . That is, it says that the kingdom of God is ‘not of’ this world – I repeat, ‘not of’ this world – it is therefore ‘otherworldly’, like fairy land or where Father Christmas lives.
With that in mind, let's now consider the true translation of that verse, the one that actually reflects the original Greek. It goes like this: 'The kingdom of God is not OUT of this world'.
Notice that this correct translation has one extra word - the word 'out', so that rather than being somewhere else or 'not of' this world, the kingdom of God is 'not out of' this world. The correct translation is correct because the kingdom of God can be defined as, 'God's Sovereign Rulership through Christ over the nations from the heavens '.
That is to say, the kingdom of God is about government in those nations where the people recognise the true Christ and apply his law. In other words, there will soon enough in this world be the true government as promised in the Bible , and it will likely be in the Common Law nations, or closely associated with them.
Why do so many Bible translations give a very subtle but twisted version of the kingdom of God?
The answer, to me, is obvious: train people to believe that God's kingdom is elsewhere on a cloud or in a different dimension or in fairy land or on Father Christmas’ sleigh, and those people will be less likely to recognise the importance of true government here in this world . This in turn helps the Internationalist Money Lenders and their paid-for traitors in government to advance like the wolves in sheep’s clothing that they are.
The kingdom of God, by the way, lasts 490 years and precedes Christ's return here, when he will be king for 1000 years. This 490 year period can be known as 'the Eon' . The 490 year kingdom of God, and the ensuing 1000 years, will have nothing whatsoever to do with any political ideology, nor will it have anything to do with the deceit of what is called 'democracy'; which is, really, mob-rule - the 'mob' being the Internationalist Money Lenders. Instead of 'democracy' we shall simply have good national government according to the law, with people who are free, who run their lives how they want to run them, as long as they harm no one. This will therefore, as I have said, be when God rules here through Christ from the heavens.
Let's now consider the third quote:
'But the last days will come to pass... and he will rule among many peoples and rebuke nations far off... and nation will not lift up a sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore; but every man will sit underneath his own... fig tree... For all people will walk each one in the name of his god, but we shall walk in the name of Yahweh our Elohim, throughout the Eon and it duration.'
Now, the first thing to note with this quotation is that the 'last days' referred to are not the last days of the world, but rather the 'last days' of the age of evil , the fruits of which are now all around us, very clearly audible and visible and touchable.
These ‘last days’ immediately precede the kingdom of God, so they are actually something to look forward to very much indeed.
The second point to note is that this quotation, which comes from the Old Testament at Micah 4: 1-5 , illustrates that the kingdom of God is not only a peaceful period of time, or 'eon', it is also one when the various religions are defined, not destroyed . Hence it says that 'people will walk each one in the name of his god' , with the true Israelites walking in the name of Yahweh, which means that, when we have the kingdom of God, we shall know the true Israelites .
The Israelites of the Old Testament were the ancestors of those who settled in the British Isles. These people included the Ancient Britons, the Danes and the Saxons. The word 'Saxon' actually comes from 'Isaac's son'. The Danes came from the tribe of Dan. The word 'British' actually comes from two Hebrew words, 'Brith' and 'ish' , meaning 'Covenant people'.
of the coming kingdom of God are, however, referred to in Galatians 3: 13-18
as the 'seed of Abraham' in that they are the
believers in the true Christ. They will not die during the 490 year kingdom of
God or beyond it; for Christ promised Martha, as The Eonian Books
version of John
states, 'Everyone living
and believing in me will most certainly not die throughout the Eon.'
Meanwhile, as it says in Micah 4: 1-5 , non Christians will continue with their gods, or their texts, as the case may be, and will continue with the cycles of birth and death. It is important to note that non-Christians are not persecuted when there is the kingdom of God; that's because everyone will eventually know Christ, but only when they are ready, and everything must be as it is, of its time: a shoot from a bulb does not immediately become the blooming flower.
Right, let's now have a look at the forth quote:
'The last days' and 'hold your ground' . Yes, those 'last days' again, but this time we are referring to Ephesians 6 .
In Ephesians 6 it is explained what we must do in the 'last days' : throughout the 'last days' we must 'hold our ground' . That is, we must, according to the Law of God through Christ, keep ourselves as free as possible by, for example, not contracting with, or contracting as little as possible with, the internationalist corporate system, which is run by the Internationalist Money Lenders.
The international corporate system manifests in various forms, notably for our purposes, in local councils and government. By keeping ourselves free from this internationalist monster it means living according to the law, which is the Common Law. Holding your ground includes knowing who your authority is - is it God through Christ? Or is it man? Or is it something else, a machine, perhaps? If it is God through Christ in a Common Law nation then you are free, unless, that is, you sign your freedom away or accept alternative authority and jurisdiction via consent or contract.
Now, I am not a qualified lawyer, but it is interesting to note that if you are, for example, holding your ground against fracking , then you might like to consider putting the man or woman responsible on notice, requiring (it is important to use the word 'require' - 'I require you to etc...') him or her to give you copies of his or her liability insurance, while informing him or her that if any harm is done to you or your property, caused by anything to do with the fracking, you will be taking lawful action against him or her, as a man or a woman.
Note you would not be taking an action against the fracking corporation or indeed the local council, as the case may be. By taking direct lawful action against the man or woman, without their titles of Mr or Mrs or Lord or Lady or whatever , you take them from the protection of their corporation and corporate law, while placing them firmly under the 'man-on-man' jurisdiction of the Common Law, rendering them responsible for their actions. This should put a halt to the fracking in your area, especially if many of you put the man or woman responsible on notice and mean it .
So, there's no need to waste time protesting against fracking - it's far more effective and far more comfortable to get together with neighbours of like mind and put pen to paper, sending as many individual lawful claims as possible.
And, finally, the fifth quote:
'Without loyalty there is no kingdom!' This little quotation doesn't come from the Bible : it comes from the film Robin Hood , the one in which Russell Crowe has the leading role. Over Christmas I accidentally watched a moment of this film. It was the moment when King John said, 'Without loyalty there is no kingdom!' This reminded me that it is now time for those of us who are of like mind to rally together under the banner of the true Christ, and the true law, and to begin to form strong bonds under that banner. By doing that, you could say that we are beginning a tightly knit but good kingdom of our own.
So, there you have it - five quotes, which together should show you that we not only have a lot of good to look forward to , we also have a lot of good to do .
Meanwhile, is vital that we begin to recognise each other and hold together according to the law - the Common Law. And so we must know the Common Law, and its origin, which is God's Law through Christ, implemented by man's common sense and reason.
By definition, you cannot truly apply the Common Law unless you follow God's Law and believe in Christ.
Remember, as Jesus promised, true believers in Christ will 'surely not die in the Eon.'
This is a wonderful promise, and one that shall be fulfilled.
And, whilst many may think that our adversary is strong and we are weak and scattered, first I must ask you to remember the founder of the Common Law - King Alfred the Great , whose army was also hounded and scattered, until he regrouped his men in Somerset, and from his weak position won victory after victory. I must also ask you to remember David and Goliath . On the face of it, the odds were of course against David, but God was with David, not Goliath.
Need I say any more?
Except that, during the coming year of 2017, you have every reason to enjoy the year with a great sense of purpose, learning and applying what you learn as you strengthen your true spiritual position and thereby naturally free yourself from corporate control, man-made law, the effects of treason and the effects of men who think they are gods, or the effects of allowing men to think they are gods.
We have a lot to do.
Let's get to it.
A very happy 2017 to you all.
'... Thank you for your e-mail.
As you are probably aware after
your reading of parts of the book God Makes His Move
, the heavens give
us some very clear clues as to how things should be - hence I mention Psalms 19:1
where we have the heavens declaring 'God's handiwork'; in Genesis 1:14
we have 'Let them be for signs'.
so, we have the Sun and the Moon.
The Sun is masculine. The Moon is
feminine. They are obviously 'together' in a 'marriage', as we see, for
example in eclipses and their shared path across the sky.
The next orbiting 'planet' beyond the Sun and the Moon is Mercury, the child. So the 'marriage' between the Sun and the Moon 'begets' a child. After Mercury's orbit, the next orbit we have is that of Venus, the adolescent, and so on in sequence until Saturn, old age.
so, we have an indicator in the heavens as to what marriage really is
in its purest sense: man and woman to have a child, or children, and
those children to grow up through the stages of life.
to the Oxford English Dictionary
, 'matrimony' is 'the act of marrying'
or 'the state or condition of being husband and wife'.
now consider the etymology of 'matrimony' from the Chambers Dictionary
- '... borrowed directly from Latin matrimonium
marriage; literally, establishment of a mother in the household, derived
from ... mater ... MOTHER...'
A mother is a woman who has a child.
now Mark 10: 6-9
, 'But from the beginning God created them male and
female. On account of this a man will leave his father and mother, and
he will be joined to his wife and the two will become one flesh, so then
they are no longer two, but one flesh. That which, therefore, God has
paired together, let man not break apart.'.
Clearly, therefore, if we
consider all of the above, marriage in its true sense is the joining of a
man and a woman before God through Christ in order for the woman to be a
mother and the man to be a father, which means for the man and the
woman to have children.
The children provide fulfilment of the
man and the woman's need to teach and to nurture, which is important,
as it is vital to a man and to a woman to be able to give selflessly, to
protect and to help bring another to fulfilment.
But what of, say, a man and a woman who are older and can not have children or who marry with no intention of having children?
Well, if that is the case I believe the answer is simple - by definition we do not have marriage in its purest form.
a man and a woman can have 'children' by helping others, by nurturing
others, perhaps through charity, or other work that creatively (children
belong to the creative 5th house in astrology) assists others in one
way or another. A man and a woman can also always adopt, which is very
much accepted in the Bible
. For example, we have Moses and we have Jesus
- both of whom were adopted. Jesus was adopted, because, of course, his
father was not Joseph, but God.
It follows, therefore, that I
do not believe that marriage is entirely about the individuals in the
relationship so that they may, as you say, 'evolve and grow'.
'Evolving and growing' is not therefore, I believe, the purpose of marriage.
see, whilst marriage is certainly about maturing and taking up new
responsible positions, it is also clearly about something positive
EXTENDING from the man and the woman to OTHERS through their creativity
(true masculine and true feminine combined always create), which is about, you
might say, 'growing' others, most importantly, their children.
is certainly not something that can ever happen between individuals of the same sex - as reflected in
the heavens: there are not two Suns or two Moons, for example. Also
homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible
: for example, Leviticus 18:22
. And there is no mention in the Bible
of any 'marriage' between two of the same sex. It is worth noting that two of the same sex cannot ever attain marriage in its purest sense through procreation - that is, they cannot ever have children by simple natural sexual relations.
stand by what I say in that I believe with good reason that marriage in
its purest sense is a very special bond between a man and a woman set before God
through Christ in order for that man and woman to have a child or children naturally
that is, without any genetic engineering or any other technological
interference (I cover technology and its dangers in God Makes His Move
There is a set order and we must follow it - we ignore it to our peril.
There is a set Law (God's Law through Christ), and we must follow it- we ignore it to our peril.
I hope I have answered your question.
I should perhaps have made my point clearer in the book.
Thank you again for contacting me, and I hope you have time to read and benefit from the book, God Makes His Move .
(for the video of this item please click here - YouTube - Ours Are Not Tolerant Nations
The bodies of our nations are afflicted by poison and disease.
Subversion is one of the poisons and political correctness is one of the diseases.
An example of such poisoning and disease can be seen in Sarah Olney's acceptance speech when she won the Richmond by-election for the LibDems.
She said that she does not want a 'hard Brexit'. She said that she and her kind 'will not let intolerance, division and fear win'.
But it is through subversion and political correctness, which I believe are potent weapons in Sarah Olney's armoury, that are the cause of the 'division and fear' she talks about.
As for the 'intolerance', well, we British and we from the Common Law nations are not by nature and culture tolerant people and our nations are not tolerant nations. That is why we have withstood so many enemies over the centuries and defeated them.
Unfortunately, however, the enemy is now within, and one of the weapons used by that enemy is to urge us to be 'tolerant'.
'Tolerance' in this respect is about forcing us in a most underhand way to go against our nature.
Again, I say, we are not tolerant nations.
We do not tolerate evil.
We do not tolerate injustice.
We do not tolerate treason.
We do not tolerate lawlessness.
We do not tolerate lies.
We do not tolerate the undermining of God and His Law.
Instead, our nations are Common Law nations.
That is to say we are Christian nations, nations with national constitutions rooted in God's Law through Christ.
We are nations where the upholding of the Common Law brings freedom and protection for all.
We are nations where no one is above the law.
We are nations of defined borders.
We are nations rooted in courage, steadfastness and Christ's favour.
We can clean the poison from the bodies of our nations and we can heal the disease that afflicts us.
And that healing comes only through the firm application of the law, the Common Law, and the vigorous commitment to strengthen our relationship with God through Christ.So, let's get on with it, we have no time the waste, the hour-glass is close to empty.
Today we learn that Tony Blair claims to be an ' insurgent who can keep us in the EU '.
Meanwhile, we must remember that our nation is a Common Law nation that has never in truth been in the EU.
It has never been in the EU because our 'membership' of the EU is unlawful - it is against our constitution, for instance it is a breach of the Bill of Rights 1688 - see under the title, Supremacy .
Our nation has never been in the EU, because our 'membership' is like an apple tree that has been covered with mistletoe - the apple tree is not the mistletoe and vice versa, and the two will never merge, but the mistletoe will eventually kill the apple tree by taking its sustenance and its life force.
And, as we know, mistletoe has its charms, charms that hide its parasitic murderous nature, just like the EU has its charms to those who fail to see the fraud, the deceit, the treason.
Consider an apple seed.
Its essence is that of the fruit-bearing apple tree and vice versa.
This is like God's Law through Christ and the Common Law and the constitution in our nation.
Anything that is outside of the essence found in the apple seed is not of the seed or the apple tree. Similarly, anything that is outside the essence of our Common Law and constitution is not of our nation.
Anything that wants to take from the fruit of our nation - freedom, prosperity, strong borders, strong defence, rule of law and justice - is a parasite, like the mistletoe.
The EU is not the only charming parasite.
We also have Zionist international corporations and banks and NGO's, all of whom are taking our sustenance, slowly destroying us.
How could our nation be in debt to private international banks when our ultimate Sovereign is God through Christ and when usury is against the Law of God?
How could our nation possibly be in debt to private international banks when we have access to the likes of the Bradbury Pound ?
How could our nation possibly be beholden to the corporate entity, the EU, whose random man-made laws, designed to suit the corporate internationalist 'elite', are anathema to the steady Common Law, to the simplicity and predictability of God's Law, and undermine to the borders and therefore the definition of our nation?
How could our nation have anyone in any official position who is not a believer in the true Christ, when they swear an oath to our monarch, and when our sovereign, the monarch, swears an oath to God to 'maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel '?
Ours is a Common Law nation.
Common Law is at the root of our success as a nation.
It is at the root of the success of all Common Law nations, and its obfuscation and attempted burial by internationalist corporate parasites are at the root of our current failure.
Common Law is also at the root of the freedoms found in our nation and other Common Law nations, which have been the envy of the world and its obfuscation and attempted burial by internationalist corporate parasites are at the root of the attack against our freedoms.
It is time for us to reassess and reapply what our nation
It is time to set ourselves away from all that parasitizes off us, whether it is an international corporation, an NGO, a political ideology such as socialism or communism or fascism or capitalism or whatever is not consistent with the constitution of our nation, the law of our nation and the Common Law and God' Law through Christ.
Only when we do that will be truly rid ourselves of the parasite of the EU and rid ourselves of all other such parasites that simply have nothing whatsoever to do with our nation, nothing to do with its essence and nothing to do with the fruits of all true nations, which are those that are in accord with God's Law through Christ.
So, we need not fight anyone, nor have any political ideology with which to deceive others, but rather look to our strengths that have emerged from well over a thousand years of history and to reveal them as the wonders that they are, and to apply them, which is to hold our ground, hold to what we are, and to prevent the parasite from taking anything from us.
I shall leave you with a quote from the inside cover of a
first edition print of The Memoirs of Field-Marshal Montgomery
'... There is a sombre warning - more striking perhaps because it comes from a soldier - that what is is to be feared in the future is not the possibility of a shooting war but the more insidious onslaught of economic forces aimed at undermining the very foundations of our civilisation'.
Before you start reading this article, please note that I am not a lawyer and that the following article is not legal advice. It is all my opinion based upon what I have experienced, and I suggest that you make your own conclusions and confirm them and the facts with your own research. All I hope is that what is written below helps prompt you into thinking about the terrible situation in all Common Law nations and how we might begin to extricate ourselves from it lawfully, and therefore in accord with God's Law through Christ.
An article appeared yesterday in the Daily Mail concerning a woman who built a £25,000 cabin on her land without planning permission .
Having had her application for retrospective planning permission refused, Ryedale District Council is now applying for permission to bulldoze the cabin.
The woman has also received a criminal conviction.
This story is likely to infuriate those who believe that the Common Law allows us to do as we wish on our property, as long as it harms no one else.
Let us examine this.
First, in England, Wales, Canada, Australia and New Zealand the Crown owns all land. This says something about the jurisdiction of these nations - they are Common Law nations, because the law in all Crown nations is Common Law.
The Crown is not the Queen, which is a title, nor is it the woman Elizabeth: the Crown is a corporation with direct connections to the monarch.
So, the Crown owns all land in these nations, which begs the question, 'What do you own when you buy a house?'
The answer is that 'owners' do not actually 'own' the land but rather own an estate in fee simple absolute. Fee simple absolute is the highest estate permitted by law and it allows the owner of the estate to do, within the law, as he sees fit on his estate, or property.
It follows then, doesn't it, that if we buy some land we can do as we wish on it?
The answer is certainly not, for several reasons.
First, it is a rule in Common Law that you can do as you wish as long as you cause no harm to others.
Second, if you are in any way connected through a contract to your local council, there are planning restrictions, which give guidelines on what may or may not be done on your property.
Third, it is not actually your land, as it is ultimately owned by the Crown.
Let us first consider the planning restrictions.
They are set by the local councils.
But since the corporatization of local councils, local councils have become corporate entities with which you have to contract before they have any right to interfere with what you do. So, if you do not engage with local councils in any way via contracts they cannot claim council 'tax' from you and they have no power over what you do on your land, unless, that is, you cause the council harm.
Now, in the case of the woman building a cabin on her land, we see that she has applied to the council for retrospective planning permission, which was declined.
So, she has applied , which means she has completed their forms and to all intents and purposes signed a contract with the council, accepting the council's jurisdiction and therefore the council's terms. She has therefore given up her God-given rights to the council - she has put council above her and her Common Law rights.
This was a big mistake.
It is for this reason that she is in the state she is in: she has accepted the rules and she has broken them.
So, in my opinion, whilst it may seem harsh, the council most likely would have a right to remove the woman's cabin, for otherwise the council would have no means of ensuring that contracts are adhered to.
Now, it is very tempting to attack the planners and the planning departments of councils, especially since they have over the past few decades treasonously submitted to UN Agenda 21 'sustainable development' , and through the deceit of 'visioning meetings' and such like have forced villagers and townsfolk across the nation to accept 'developments' that they do not want, not least because such developments are largely for 'migrants' or immigrants ('aliens' in Common Law), and not least because such' developments' destroy the areas in which they are forced upon people.
But bashing the planners is not helpful.
I know of planners from the old school: those who did not take Common Purpose courses, who abhor what has recently happened in planning departments. Old-school planners, some of whom no doubt still work in some councils, were genuinely concerned about their areas and the uniqueness of their areas and the people who resided in them.
Besides, why bash the planner when you have consented to his authority over you by signing a contract with the council?
No matter, planners were initially meant to protect you.
How so? You may ask.
Well, when you buy a house one of your main considerations is location, hence the adage, 'location, location, location'.
So, whilst we might purchase our property in fee simple, the property is not in isolation. It is in an area or a neighbourhood, and that area or neighbourhood has a certain character, which is connected to the property we bought. And this cannot be ignored.
For instance, we purchase a property in a village because it is quiet and there are fields all around, and we would no doubt want it to remain that way, without interference. That is, we would most probably be very disappointed if buildings and roads started cropping up all around the area we thought would be so quiet and picturesque.
So, whether we like it or not, those who live near us surely have an interest in our property and have therefore, within reason, rights to prevent you doing certain things with your property. And this is where the planners should come into action: with swift planning decisions made in accord with the interests of others in the area.
Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of planners now are too interested in unnecessary detail, such as what is 'sustainable' or whether your window is facing the right direction. They tend to have their interests placed elsewhere, such as in the global control plan, UN Agenda 21 'sustainable development' and its international NGO, ICLEI , which is about making money from 'Climate Change' and controlling you through 'Climate Change'. This, by the way, is about handing our sovereignty over to an NGO and is, by definition, treason. I have little doubt also that financial interests also come in the form of what many may call 'brown envelopes', not least through some of the many 'partnerships' councils have with businesses, which is the true definition of fascism.
So, we are stuck, aren't we?
That is we buy land, and we want to develop it, but if we want to do that we must submit ourselves to a corporation that has treasonous interests.
Is there a solution?
I believe there is.
It is that you purchase your property, but you do not register it, and you do not sign any contracts with the council and you have no contact with the council, and you never given them your name and you never accept your name with the title Mr. or Mrs. or any other title, as any use of a title takes you away from your status as a man or a woman, and therefore renders you vulnerable to corrupt corporations, such as your local council.
If you remain independent of your council you can then continue with whatever you want on your property, as long as you cause no harm to anyone else, which is the Common Law principle.
Unfortunately, however, it is fashionable today to believe that the Common Law is a tool for anarchy. That is to say, there is a growing number of men and women who believe that the Common Law is about simply doing as you wish in a nation devoid of government. They believe therefore that it is perfectly acceptable to buy their property and do what they like to it, with them as judge and jury as to whether or not they are harming others.
So, for instance, they buy some land and, without any connection with the council (and therefore out of the council's jurisdiction), they go ahead and build on it. And when someone complains, they respond by saying that the new house or whatever they have built causes no harm - that is, for example, it does not take any light, or causes no nuisance and so on.
But still people are aggrieved. Whilst they might not be able to pinpoint any harm as such, they do not want their village or area blighted by what a developer subjectively thought was acceptable. Nor do they want buildings randomly popping up all over the place without any notice - they feel threatened that the peaceful enjoyment of their property, which is connected to their area and its stability, is under threat. They bought their property because of its location, indeed, the location was actually part of the price.
Of course, it would have been perfectly acceptable if the developer had talked to the locals first and had a meeting with them to discuss the plans and to listen to and to act upon anyone's objections, for this would have been within the Common Law: it would have adhered to the principle of taking reasonable care not to harm your neighbour, as established by Lord Atkin in the case Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) .
This principle is based in Christ's teachings, the Second Commandment, 'love your neighbour as yourself'. It is also directly linked to the principle, also taught by Christ: 'Therefore all things, whatever you wish that men should do to you, you also do the same to them, for this represents the law and the prophets' ( Matthew 7:12 ).
And remember, the Common Law is based in the Bible : Common Law is God's Law through Christ implemented via man's common sense and reason. The Bible is the ultimate precedent.
So, the question would be, 'How would I feel if someone did the same to me?'
Common Law and common sense therefore tell us that when we buy a property we do so with a duty of care to our neighbours, and when we want to build something permanent on our land, that means consulting them, within reason, about it.
This is important not just for aesthetics, but also for infrastructure. I know a village where the water processing plant is at full capacity and where the roads are very narrow. If someone came a long and just built another property that linked to the water processing plant it would cause considerbale damage and crowd the small roads.
As I have already indicated, Common Law and common sense also tells me that if I do anything to my property that is out of keeping with the locality it can and does do harm to others.
Finally, as I have said, the Common Law is God's Law through Christ implemented via man's common sense and reason. Part of God's Law is that the people should respect the authorities that have been instituted by God ( Romans 13 ), which means government that is in accord with God, and that includes local authorities. So, if you are going to follow the Common Law you have no choice but to accept the authority of government - as long as that government is in accord with the law, that is! And this will have its benefits, as it gives you protection of your freedoms, which surely include freedom from the unsettling sense caused by people building properties wherever they like in a country that is already over-populated.
The problem we now have, however, is that government at all levels, which include planning departments, is breaking the law (the rue law, not legislation) in many ways. Government no longer protects us, but attacks us, robs from us. A major part of the problem is also that the councils were in 1974 transformed into profit-making organisations, with CEOs and 'Customer Services'. Indeed, our national government is a corporation and acts more and more like a business on a daily basis, rather than an important entity that is there to protect, to provide easy access to true justice, to uphold the true law, to bring cohesion and such like.
For the time being we therefore have little choice but to do
our best to avoid councils and government as they stand, not to contract with
them, while ensuring that we uphold the true law, which is the Common Law. That
means, if you are going to develop your land by putting a house on it and have not contracted or in any similar way interfaced with the council, then
ensure that you have consulted your neighbours and have their written approval,
and have acted in accord with the principle of doing to others as you would
have done to yourself. You will then hurdle over any interference from
planners, as long as you hold your ground and recognise your true authority - Almighty God through Christ, as given in the Bible
and Common Law.
You see, if you adhere firmly to the Common Law, you are untouchable, as it is still at the core of the framework of our nation, and will be upheld, if you know what you are doing.
It is clear that if our councils were run lawfully, and had
not been subjected to treasonous international development plans such as UN Agenda 21, and
had not been sold off as profit-making corporations, placing them in the hands of international banks, we would actually benefit
from planners as good public servants. They could, for example, help bring
cohesion to any meetings of the locals, while providing expertise on the
infrastructure of the area and any other factors, such as an overview of other lawful
planning considerations. By doing this they would be representing the ultimate owner of the land, the Crown, and thereby underline their Common Law position.
So, in conclusion with regards to the woman and her cabin, she should either:
· have got planning permission before she started building her cabin
· not contracted with the council in any way, and therefore remained free from their jurisdiction, before consulting neighbours and then going ahead with the build, while remaining firmly within the Common Law
As the situation stands, it appears that she will have her cabin removed, and it will be a lesson to us all. But we must ensure that this lesson is that we should first know the law and then stick closely to it, while being very aware of what our councils and our government have turned into, so that we may work effectively towards the establishment of true government.