ESCAPING THE COLLECTIVE

By Martin Cruttwell

What is a vote?

“By dividing people through the party system, we can achieve what has been so well planned”
Bankers Magazine of America 1924.

When Prof. Matt Goodwin’s substack asks “What has happened to our political class” the answer is they have retired. The old controllers of the “collective” who had been in business or the Armed Forces in the war and gave an air of authority to the governing “collective” are replaced by uni graduates who have done nothing else before politics .

Despite his being informed by my brother Martin that England first and foremost faces a constitutional crisis Prof. Matt Goodwin apparently either did not understand or understood very well and shovelled this information into GB News’ lap ,who likewise did nothing?

This essay is about exposing the revolutionary set up misnamed “democracy” which England’s enemies have created to keep us enslaved.

Why is it a constitutional issue? Because the whole political party system , on the subject of which the Pied Piper of Kent leads his followers a merry and lucrative dance to nowhere in particular , sets one part of society against another in the quest for POWER; destroys our constitution, which separates the powers, making the said constitution inoperative in protecting our individual liberties – liberties so ancient and set in Common Law but buried underneath a torrent of endless legislation or SI’s. ”democratically” authorised every 5 years by the bewildered voters consenting to the said

competition for power. which is really “suffrage” or the choosing of administrators.

It is essential to understand that this modern party system revolution, based upon French Revolutionary principles,(same as Marxism) took place in England un-noticed towards the middle of Queen Victoria’s reign (1856) and so “by maintaining the forms, institutions and ceremonies, though now rendered meaningless, the constitutional convulsion was successfully disguised” Ben Greene in his booklet “The British Constitution and the Corruption of Parliament” page.15. order from www.candour.org uk /Amazon.

Whereas in France there was just one revolutionary party which overthrew the Monarchy , within which existed the wings, “left” “centre” and “right”, after the disguised revolution in England the spectrum was occupied by a number of parties.

The point is this: because ALL parties are part of the same SYSTEM, they all have the same effect on the constitution – they cancel it,

This means that whatever their policies the SYSTEM makes sure the Executive or Government, now derived from the PARTY SYSTEM,(and no longer from the Crown), is merged with the whipped Commons. The Lords, no longer the Supreme Court of Common Law and comprised increasingly of party appointees is also “whipped” along party lines, apart from Crossbenchers.

Lastly this means that the Sovereign King or Queen, the people’s last protection against bad government, pledged by the Coronation Oath Act 1688 and the Petition of Right 1627 to honour that duty , is also rendered powerless by a Parliament which declares itself Sovereign because:

1) of a treasonous clause in the Bill of Rights 1689 which forbids the Sovereign (from William III onwards) from suspending Parliament’s laws – which action might seek to protect the liberty of the people, 2) the dubious voting system herein described.

During this essay it will become obvious how the party system disregards constitutional law in order to centralise power over the people and reduce accountability to Parliament.

In addition to the two constitutional laws just cited above, the Act of Settlement 1701 (designed to separate the powers and so protect the liberty of the people) is also conveniently repealed by the party system so that MPs (originally forbidden to be also Ministers of the Crown to keep power separate) can ignore that. e.g. Kevin Hollinrake MP is ( at the time of writing) also the Business Minister.,

But if it suits them to leave Parliament they can also apply for an “Office of Profit under the Crown” e.g Manor of Norsted or Chiltern Hundreds (as if the law still applies) and so leave Parliament.

”Royal Assent” is an automated announcement by the party Speaker system to all legislation, with the connivance of the resident Monarch.(See King’s Assent Act) This Act deals with the event of Royal Estates being affected by government legislation!!!

This cleverly disguised Marxist revolutionary change to our ancient constitution was finalised by 1906 when constitutional law no longer was observed (page 45 Ben Greene) and explains the utter contempt by the rulers for the wishes of English people.

The First World War, (in effect arranged by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and which was in effect just a crime) was approaching and was to be sufficiently destructive to destabilise the social order, as required.. “War truly generalised terminates automatically in Revolution” wrote Lenin) in preparation for 1917.

The industrialised slaughter served to kill of the best & fittest on both sides in preparation for Part 2 in 1939. As Lloyd George said in April 7 1923)” Wars are precipitated by motives which the statesmen responsible for them dare not publicly avow” As Spengler writes:”In preparation for the World War the press of whole countries was brought under the control of London & Paris and the peoples belonging to them reduced to an unqualified intellectual slavery”

Returning to the subject of the attack on the constitution:

In consequence of these revolutionary changes, what the people get is not a stable, just set of rules or laws to live by,(English Common Law) as free sovereign individualsprotected by the constitution but a constant turmoil as one party seeks to replace the others on the principle of the bid for POWER not only every 5 years but for 5 years in duration..

By replacing RULE OF LAW which has the common consent of the people with RULE BY PARTY “MAJORITY” a game the people have been tricked into playing, the name of the game switches from the same rules for all to “the only way to protect yourself is to become a member of the next “governing section” which makes the rules”

Not only did Lord Hailsham warn in 1970 “It is the Parliamentary majority which has the potential for tyranny” but the very idea that the only deciding factor in the form of government is mere numbers of sometimes semi-literate individuals without any moral yardstick, says it all to those who believe we have a democracy,

“Money organises the process in the interests of those who possess it and elections are pre-determined contests staged as self-determination” Oswald Spengler

In other words the only protection now apparently available to the disillusioned voter is to form/join a “new” party which WILL give you what POLICIES you want. The mistake here is the failue to understand that a vote for ANY PARTY is a transfer of POWER from you the sovereign individual to the PARTY CONTROLLERS . It implies that nothing can happen unless you get authoriation from a PARTY or the “ the collective” of your choice.

But you need HUGE resources to do so and TIME. Given also that the Party System is anti the constitution as described, and restoring the constitution is the only lawful and proper objective one has to decide whether a party like Reform is staffed by patriots who simply don’t understand the problem and think a “new” party is the answer, or Reform is “controlled opposition” created by MONEY so making sure the voters are so desperate for POLICY change that they remain totally unaware of the constitutional aspect.. To understand which it is, you need to know the enemy.

One of the main features of the Marxist tyranny which we face is that they constantly have use of OUR money through the TAX SYSTEM to oppress us.

The sovereign individual mentioned above is not in total control of his finances. So, the Dover invasion can proceed as Marx planned because “taxation by consent” and withdrawal of our money is not possible.

e.g. The Marxist invasion at Dover is funded by the taxpayer to more than £8m a day, based on the Marxist tenet “to each according to his need”. The program of arms to Ukraine is paid for by the taxpayer . EVERY program damaging to our interests is funded by the taxpayer

GENERAL ELECTIONS – THE DANGEROUS ILLUSION OF DEMOCRACY. REAL MEANING OF THE VOTE”

Voting for a Political PARTY (as opposed to an INDEPENDENT)** is a transfer of your Individual Sovereignty to the “Collective”. The “collective” is the “manifesto package” or particular combination of policies offered by the various parties.

“THE MANIFESTO PACKAGE TRICK”

This is the entrée to the tyranny.

A vote for any PARTY signifies acceptance of the entire contents of the said manifesto, (often between 65-100 pages long) though you will be making your choice based only on a leaflet through your letterbox.

That a government may be chosen first by this tenuous act and then by voters of varying intellect and then be chosen on the basis that a majority simply like ONE or TWO policies mentioned in a leaflet through the letterbox in the multipage (otherwise unread) manifesto confirms Hailsham’s warning in 1970;

”It is the Parliamentary majority which has the potential for tyranny. The thing the Courts cannot protect you against is Parliament – the traditional protector of our liberty. But Parliament is constantly making mistakes and could in theory become the most oppressive instrument in the world”.

Why? Because allegedly chosen by the people and therefore unchallengeable. “Mistakes” is a misapplication of the word when the act may be wantonly deliberate and tyrannical, enforced by the Party Whip.

To demonstrate the danger of this “collective trick” , and the so-called “collective responsibility” behind which ALL party politicians escape personal responsibility “individual sovereignty” or freedom is based on the “ability to accept OR reject ONE policy at a time”. The individual may say “I DO NOT CONSENT” to anything the government wishes to do and ACT accordingly if reasonable. When you go to hospital for an operation the doctors must get your consent or they assault you.

Under the genuine “Rule of Law” you can make your way in life as a “sovereign individual” FREE to do what you wish, provided that action is not prohibited by law. What is prohibited by law ought to be confined to “do no harm”.

Currently it isn’t. A whole raft of laws to prevent the native English discriminating in favour of their own people have over the decades been passed by the two main parties in the endless pursuit of what Churchill called “impossible equality” and “ever-multiplying “human rights”. thereby imposing punishment on dissenters.

As Russian emigrée to the US Ayn Rand suggested, a “right” is simply a “freedom of action in a social context” applicable equally to all and NOT a benefit extracted forcibly from someone else through the tax system .

That the rules or Common Law by which for centuries we have lived , with the common consent of the English people have now been replaced by a Marxist system constantly passing new laws to adjust the disadvantaged position one section of the community feels itself versus the others.

It has become even more evident because of mass immigration at Dover that our demographics have been fatally altered and conflict is likely. .It was Marx who said the English will not make their own revolution, one will have to be imported.

Since WW2 laws of increasing severity have been passed specifically aimed at preventing the indigenous English population from protecting itself and its territorial interests, in this fabulous island set-up..

The reader presumably asks “why would an Englishman do this to another Englishman”? Answer. Fear. They are acting under pressure of forces which are not English, who are immigrants who have taken our hospitality, worked their way into positions of influence and are abusing it..David Mellor admitted so on ITV Trevor Phillips.8.59am Sunday 7 Nov 2021.

Anti-Discrimination and Public Order laws such as the Thatcher Public Order Act 1986 (!) designed to suppress the liberty of the native English inhabitants to speak their mind even caught Conservative Col. Bob Stewart MP recently.

What he should have done is challenged the conviction at Common Law. At Common Law expressing opinion is not a crime. It appears it was overturned because a judge thought his intent was not objectionable enough.

What many MPs do not understand is that by taking the whip they are “collectively” responsible for the SYSTEM they endorse though they may object to some policies. What seems to be happening in fact is that an infuriated population, unable to find the guilty party to punish can attack at RANDOM an MP for being part of the offending collective.

Some MPs are now wearing body armour for surgeries.

The Party System and the (Marxist) revolution against the constitution. .

Unlike in France with the execution of its Monarchs, in England the “new” constitution decided upon by Bagehot and Dicey during the Victorian era was to physically retain the Monarchy and forms and ceremonies of the constitution (see Ben Greene page 38) whilst removing its function as an effective force in protecting the people from misgovernment.

What was disguised was our separation of powers being cancelled and the resulting amalgamation of Executive & Commons into a “single elective authority” chosen by increasing numbers of voters after the Reform Act of 1867.was heralded as “the will of the people”.

By retaining the forms and ceremonies of our old constitution it became less obvious that the business of government being conducted within the same building was turned almost randomly into a tyranny by the modern party System. Edmund Burke, one time MP for Malton North Yorkshire explained it thus:

“Whenever Parliament is persuaded to assume the offices of executive government, it will lose all the confidence, love and veneration which it has ever enjoyed whilst it was supposed to be the corrective and control on the acting powers of the state. This would be the event though its conduct in such a perversion of its functions would be tolerable, just and moderate; but if it should be iniquitous, violent, full of passion and FULL OF FACTION, it would be considered as the most intolerable of all modes of tyranny” .

This was merging of government with Parliament then Confirming now that we have a centrally-controlled Marxist state, led by an Asian immigrant in a pin-stripe suit.

THE SILENT ATTACK ON THE MONARCHY

As the pinnacle of authority of our constitution and of our legislative process, the attack was directed at the Monarchy whilst retaining the pretence that nothing had changed.

“The Prime Minister replaced the Sovereign as actual head of the Executive when the choice of Prime Minister no longer lay with the Sovereign; the Sovereign lost the choice when strongly organised, disciplined parties came into existence and party discipline depends primarily on the degree to which the member depends on the party for his seat”

Sir Lewis Namier historian (1952) public lecture before Queen’s Coronation in June 1953. As politically aware readers will know, Lord Hailsham coined the expression “elective dictatorship” to describe the process whereby every 5 years we obligingly enter a polling station and by voting in what I call the “manifesto package trick” © the voter is tricked into consenting to the entire contents of one of a variety of “collective” policies – or not vote at all.

Voting under the “new constitution” is the only way to change/select a government, assuming that is desirable and in daily frequency is erroneously described by party politicians as “democracy”..

But as Churchill once said” Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin & woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.

But what Churchill was describing was our present system of “universal suffrage” or “one man one vote”- as herein described,- which is NOT democracy. A democracy cannot be a dictatorship at the same time, can it?

It is this haphazardly random “collective manifesto” idea, (albeit comprising a common Marxist theme across the acceptable parties !!) whereby just the acceptance of a single policy within the said manifesto is deemed acceptance of the totality which dangerously smothers the dissenting individual into a state of tyranny & helplessness.

“The chief differences between the modern totalitarian state and Great Britain is that the latter country provides for a change in the governing party, if the electorate so decide whilst the system of the totalitarian state does not. In both cases the individual is left face to face with the sovereign authority with the balance heavily against him”.

Prof. CW Keeton “Elements of Jurisprudence

Migrants pouring in at Dover, financed by the helpless taxpayer and assisted by the authorities, with armed Kent police watching as RNLI/Border Force assist the invaders to their destination produces a feeling of despair.!!

The media incorrectly uses the word “intercept” which means to turn back and prevent from reaching a destination, while in fact the migrants are assisted to their intended destination.

Apart from the Marxist idea of overthrowing the Monarchy this voting “collective” is the Marxist communist idea, common to all parties, that the “collective” majority have superior rights to the individual, achieved by nothing more than a superior number of votes for a manifesto, aided by a majority of candidates sworn to follow the party line.

As the late Bob McKenzie of BBC Swingometer fame wrote:” some people are prepared to argue that that the will of the people is the product and not the motive power of the (party) political process”. i.e the manifesto trick as described creates the policy.

Thanks to the “Conservative” or “blue wing” of the revolution in 1973 we got the aforementioned tyranny and were immersed into the EC and 48 years of servitude. This version of the “manifesto package trick” based upon a few policies like “law & order” and “defence” was dominant in giving Heath his “majority” but of course, lurking in that most notable “manifesto package” was the EC bit.”trade, no more no less”.

Enoch Powell recorded that dissident Tory MPs opposed to the EC were seen leaving the Whips Office “ashen faced” they had been so severely threatened!!!

This is an illustration of how the party system (the alleged democracy) still works today. This is the system Sunak alleges is being threatened by us “extremists”.

As Dr, David Owen, SDP (now Lord Owen) wrote in Mail on Sunday 3/6/90:” The notion that the House of Commons is made up of 650 MPs who each reach carefully considered opinions and who act as a brake on the Executive is so far from the truth as to be ludicrous. The Whips are in absolute command. The Executive is in total control. What the government says, goes”!!!!!

Confirming the Hailsham warning is that from Prof. Wade.

“It must not be forgotten that there can be no check upon the unscrupulous use of power by a Government which “finds itself” in command of a “majority” in the House of Commons” .Prof. Wade. 1960 Edition Dicey’s Law of the Constitution.

Whilst not specifying the exact “manifesto package” which heralded the arrival of Blair to POWER, apart from “education, education education” the Blair era saw millions of civilians killed in the Iraq war and “rubbing our noses in diversity” through mass immigration. That was one particular version of the tyranny but this situation is repeatable every 5 years at election time by any party,whether under Theresa May, David Cameron, Boris Johnson etc..

Fast forward to 2019 to the Boris Johnson “package”. This was the man who declared in an earlier leadership contest that he was not the man for the job and the country got the Theresa May interregnum.

The 2019 “package” gave Johnson POWER and an 80-seat “majority” because it was based on just two main policies “Redwall” and “Getting Brexit done” for the 17.5 million people who, so desperate to recover their self-government, risked voting for the very same party which had betrayed them in 1973!!

You know about the tyranny of Covid lockdown, Covid vaccines and damage , Net Zero, etc. and now the Northern Ireland scam. Total power.

The forecast 2024 Labour majority of 250 seats (Electoral Calculus) will probably achieve its victory on NHS and economic issues, but Starmer’s “package” can include anything he likes to tack on, including rejoining the EU. The nature of the party pulling this trick is irrelevant. The SYSTEM is identical.

The only diversion which might upset this inevitable forecast is if the media is instructed to play the so-called “anti-semitism” angle for all it is worth and this disrupts the normal electoral pattern.? Public ignorance of the “Jewish question” is so abysmal that the word “anti-semitism” can produce a pavlovian response and create all sorts of distortions in the voting pattern,.

Here we have the tyranny of the communist “collective” manifesting itself in the interests of “big business”.

The jeering across the gangway of the House of Commons which disgusts the onlooker is simply reversed. This time it could be the impotent Tory rump doing the jeering.

Here we have the tyranny of the communist “collective” manifesting itself in the interests of “big business”. Starmer has talked to the CBI to see what it wants.

On page 314 of her book “World Revolution” by Nesta Webster she quotes HG Wells who wrote :” Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism”

The Vaccine Manufacturers, excused by government from any liability for damages, the burden is transferred to the taxpayers.

As only one commentator stated, the drug companies should pay. Some might argue the victims were so gullible to believe government propaganda that they are responsible for their own fate.

Whilst mass immigration is a Marxist tenet, the invasion at Dover illustrates the power which “collective” or general taxation gives to a government. “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need” (Marx) is the bedrock of our present system since WW2..”Taxation by consent” is a myth.

Without the millions of pounds which taxpayers are forced to pay to house the thousand of migrants in hotels the invasion would have collapsed!! Marx said that the English would not make their own revolution, one would have to be imported!! We have had a Tory government carrying out the Marxist plan in more ways than one.

The late Norris McWhirter, one-time Chairman of the Freedom Association often bleated that if we didn’t like a government we could always kick it out and get another. The absurdity of this claim is based on the idea that a party government can do as much damage as it likes (as proven here) and you can replace it with another party government equally empowered to do as it likes. e.g. Labour, given the massive forecasted “majority”.

All this provides the excuse for a landslide win for the “red wing” of the revolution, Labour, for the next 5 years.. What this horrifying situation confirms is that a manifesto package is a package which has had little discussion or exposure to the elecorate or candidate before acceptance – e.g. the HS-2 fiasco or Net Zero,.

What Prof. Matt Goodwin, the Pied Piper of Kent calls “democracy” is in fact “universal suffrage”. Quite simply it cannot be democracy because “It is the Parliamentary majority which has the potential for tyranny” (Hailsham) and a democracy cannot also be a tyranny..

Prof. Goodwin makes no mention of the constitution and its restoration which is the only thing which can save us. He makes a lot of money telling his readers of the party computations, or new centre parties which might only be useful placing a wager nearer the General Election. The anger building up is not being addressed either by Matt or the parties because THE PARTY SYSTEM is the problem and this is not understood by either. .

The “new” Reform Party is deemed a salvation rather than simply a continuation of the “collective”. The idea that enough votes can be gathered in enough constituencies to provide a workable number is so absurd, as the polls confirm.

Neither Matt Goodwin nor GB News ( with the exception of Neil Oliver) makes any mention of the constitution (and then only once)and its restoration which is the only thing around which we can all unite to save us.

Instead of competition for power and having to join a faction to protect yourself against the others the restoration of the constitution starts to protect us from the sort of corruption witnessed by the Post Office scandal, the contaminated blood and the Covid enquiry. The emptying of the Commons by the party Whips as Andrew Bridgen was billed to speak confirms the degree of corruption we face.

By this I mean: the party system, operated by all parties and so damaging to the constitution, creates the “collective” through the manifesto package idea, and collective taxation so that the individual, who should be able to say “I DO NOT CONSENT” to a given policy (like HS-2 or arms to Ukraine or foreign aid, or housing the migrants in hotels while our own sleep in doorways), simply is left powerless. This is the nature of the “divide & rule” SYSTEM they pretend is democracy.

Assuming just for a moment or two that we are not up against a control system,(which existence was confirmed by Disraeli in one of his novels) the idea that any of 8 or 9 minor parties, in competition with each other over many similar policies are going to be able to win POWER and form a government, to correct the problems angering voters is so absurd as to question the intelligence of the participants.

I quite understand that the parties are trapped by a dilemma they cannot understand, so conditioned are they that this is “democracy”..

Let me help. Ben Habib was the excellent Reform candidate at Wellingborough. Like UKIP anti-immigration is a strong platform, but consider this:

Since the 1950s/60s in response to the objection of Londoners that they were being invaded after Windrush, first the Labour party then the Tories passed laws of ever increasing severity to silence objectors(out of fear of being called “racists” by the migrants behind them)

As you may have seen Col Bob Stewart MP was recently convicted and fined £600 for saying that an immigrant should go back home. The Thatcher Public Order Act 1986 under which he was convicted was an affront to the liberty of the people at Common Law.

In other words the tyranny mentioned by Hailsham comes from unlawfully using statutes as a form of tyranny, contrary to Common Law.

My question is; given the critical situation which mass immigration has caused why do candidates not enlist the help of the voters by saying “we will repeal these public order laws” which silenced you all those years ago?

In effect, if Reform, UKIP etc do nothing about offering to repeal these Acts then they are accepting that Britain is a multi-racial society and nothing can be done. In which case, they are all fakes.

Farage boasted on TV that by taking over UKIP he “single-handedly defeated the BNP”, who WOULD have stopped immigration. Question; would a real patriot do such a thing to fellow patriots?

The fact that you the voter believe that you have got to vote for a “collective” to get what you want, rather than decide personally what you want and act accordingly is the trick.

When we vote for a PARTY, whose manifesto may be 65 pages long, (we are so trusting we probably only bother to read a leaflet through the letter box) we are consenting to absolutely everything in that manifesto and handing over control to that government not only in respect of the manifesto, parts of which may be broken, e.g. (reduce immigration to 10s of 1000s (Cameron) but in any matter arising, outside the manifesto e.g. Covid lockdown. which caused many small businesses to go under and made huge profits for online companies..(see HG Wells quote again).

Remember the PARTY candidate ( you just pay their wages) is beholden to the party and enough of them always vote the way they are told to vote. Because the PARTY SYSTEM has amalgamated government with the Commons, if MPs vote against a government they risk a general election, a mighty dis-incentive to speak for you.

“As long as we backbenchers vote after the debate in the way the Whips tell us, nobody cares much what happens during the debate” Julian Critchley MP (Con) Readers Digest Nov 1989. P.80

With the constitution restored and the Commons separate again the voters might start to understand the LEGAL battle ahead.

By getting ALL patriotic groups/parties to UNITE to restore the constitution , instead of fighting each other over POLICY, you let the people decide what POLICY they want by their individual social choices, currently thwarted by “the collective” power of the Tory “wing” of the revolution..

Witness £6m spent every day housing the invaders through our taxation; notionallly by consent, that consent being obtained by the “collective” trap of the party system at election time…

What is the alternative? Free the people from the Party system by having constituency primaries to give the voters real independent choice.

Return the government to the Crown, so that instead of the musical chair we witness where some Ministers have moved up to 9 different Cabinet posts , the best most experienced people may be chosen by the Sovereign, the separation of powers is restored because the elected representatives of the people are independent of party, and the Commons becomes defender of liberty again and our constitutional laws are restored; no longer a vehicle for corrupt organisations to manipulate..

In view of the above:

“The will-to-power operating under a pure democratic disguise has finished off its masterpiece so well that the object’s sense of freedom is actually flattered by the most thorough-going enslavement that has ever existed” Oswald Spengler doesn’t seem so unbelievable, does it?