| I
wrote an article a little more than a
year ago making the point that some
anti-establishmentarians who claim to be
fighting the likes of the Illuminati,
the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral
Commission, the Council on Foreign
Relations, and so on, sometimes
mistakenly believe that they are
actually fighting for the same cause,
when in reality they sometimes have
conflicting agendas. The article can be
accessed by clicking below:
http://www.freedomsite.org/colum/promajority1.html
As I point out in the article, those
within the pro-Majoritarian movement,
including those who are on this mailing
list, are fed up with the extent to
which minority victimology (i.e. the
Holocaust, slavery, the aboriginal
question, the internship of the Japanese
during WWII, the St. Louis Ship, etc.)
dominates our culture. The rehashing of
these and other alleged sins and the
perpetual playing of both the genocide
and race cards within our society is
something to which pro-Majoritarian-types
are firmly opposed.
Pro-Majoritarianism also overlaps
with those fighting things such as
abusive state power and unfair taxation.
The point of the article, however, is
that in some cases this commonality has
its limitations. Here are some recent
examples that have my blood boiling.
They involve a couple of staunch
anti-establishmentarians fighting a
couple of different battles. The first
is Jean-Serge Brisson of Embrum (near
Ottawa), Ontario, who has run in
elections for the Canadian Libertarian
Party. He's been fighting the seat belt
law in the province of Ontario. He was
involved in an accident in 1989 and only
survived because he was thrown from his
car. Had he been wearing a seatbelt he
would have been crushed. He's launching
a Constitutional challenge in an Ontario
Court and these are the first two items
in The Grounds of Application:
1. That the legislation, Highway
Traffic Act of Ontario, is void ab
initio, owing to her Majesty the Queen
and the provincial government of
Ontario being complicit in the crime
of genocide as against the First
Nations people, thereby depriving Her
majesty the Queen and the provincial
government of Ontario, the proper
legislative authority to enact the
Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
2. That the Ontario government
lacks proper legislative authority in
Ontario, East Region, specifically the
township of Russell, in that this
territory is unceded Algonquin First
Nations territory and the
establishment of law courts and
enforcement officers in this territory
is directly contrary to the Royal
Proclamation of 1763 set out in the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
rendering the Highway Traffic Act of
Ontario void as against the Appellant.
The first two items in The
Constitutional Principles to be argued
are:
1. The legislature of Ontario and
Her Majesty the Queen, deprive
themselves of legislative authority,
by being complicit in the crime of
genocide, contrary to their
international treaty obligations
codified in the Convention for the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, 1948.
2. By virtue of the relationship
between Her Majesty the Queen and the
legislature of Ontario, with the
Algonquin First Nations people in this
territory, there has been an
unconstitutional assumption of court
jurisdiction by provincial and federal
courts, established in unceded
Algonquin First Nations territory, and
thereby amount to "Misprision of
Treason and Fraud", within the
meaning of the Royal Proclamation of
1763 encoded in the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, and amounts to
"complicity in Genocide",
contrary to the Convention of
Genocide.
The other is an
anti-establishmentarian named James
Bradford Medd, who is part of the
"de-tax" crowd. He's launching
a Constitutional case to repeal the
Income Tax Act. The first item on The
Grounds for the Application Are:
1. That the legislation is void ab
initio, owing to Her Majesty the Queen
and the Federal government being
complicit in the crime of genocide as
against the First Nations people,
thereby depriving Her majesty and the
Federal Government of Canada the
proper legislative authority to enact
the Income Tax Act as against the
Appellant.
The first item of The Constitutional
Principles to be argued is:
1. The Parliament of Canada and Her
Majesty the Queen, deprive themselves
of legislative authority, by being
complicit in the crime of genocide,
contrary to their international treaty
obligations codified in the Convention
for the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide, 1948. By virtue
of the relationship between the
parliament of Canada and Her Majesty
the Queen, with the First Nations
people of this land, there has been an
unconstitutional assumption of court
jurisdiction by provincial and federal
courts, established in unceded First
Nations territory, and thereby amount
to "Misprision of Treason and
Fraud", within the meaning of the
Royal Proclamation of 1763, and
amounts to "Complicity in
Genocide" contrary to the
Provisions of the said Convention on
Genocide.
To me this is somewhat similar to O.J.
Simpson playing the race card in his
trial and is completely unacceptable. We
as pro-Majoritarians are trying to get
away from this race-card business and
here we have two members of the white
majority who fancy themselves as
"system-busters" using the
aboriginal genocide card. Is their next
step to use The Holocaust card because
Canada turned away the St. Louis Ship in
1939?
The point of the article I wrote and
the point of this posting is to
demonstrate that there can be a
substantive difference in either the
agendas or tactics between pro-Majoritarians
and anti-establishmentarians. Please do
not assume that everyone who opposes the
System or who wants the Income Tax Act
abolished is on the same page as we are
when it comes to the race question. |
