English Civil War, American Revolution, Catalonian Independence, Brexit
As the reader probably knows, there have been two very high profile independence referenda recently; in Iraq, the one largely in the territory now identified as “Kurdish”, but that has historically been conquered by one empire or another so that no indigenous people could call it their nation, and in Spain, the one in Catalonia, a region that is identifiable with a particular folk, whereby a historically separate political entity wants to secede from a union to become its own independent state. Both resulted in a very high number of votes for the project proposed: above 90%. In a recent FBEL article, the former was called dubious – which is what those against the Catalonian vote are saying about it to discredit it. But there is no comparison. Unlike the Kurdish referendum, we know of the Catalonian version through some pretty detailed breakdowns – see this wiki page for instance.
Other than a turnout figure, detail on the Kurdish vote is hard to be found – even in sympathetic British corporate-media. And note; that the British corporate-media produces items titled “This is why the West should support Kurdish independence” (link) and on the other hand “Does [Catalonia] want to leave Spain?” (link) gives us a big clue about how each case fits into the agenda of those bringing about Luciferian global technocracy (the reader will also find the usual socialism-advocating decoy British alternative media is against the Catalonian vote). On the same side is Brexit pantomime villain, Guy Verhofstadt, he of the EU/UK Article 50 negotiation charade, who had this to say of the Catalan adventure:
The result was already known before it begun. What do you call this? Manipulation, deception.
Or, as the Express paraphrases: “Catalan vote was fixed”. And why would that be, the reader might ask? Because it didn’t produce the correct result, which is always the source of Euro-technocratic discontent? Or because it was observably dodgy just like the Kurdish plebiscite? The answer has to be A, does it not? The Catalan vote can’t be dismissed as cockamamie with such a thing as a Kurdish independence referendum existing in the world, with a process and result that both the EU and the UK take seriously as if it were authentic. And they do take it seriously. This is a statement from the British Foreign Secretary:
With our international allies, we proposed an alternative plan which would have seen negotiations take place between the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to address all issues of dispute. This alternative would have given the opportunity for the aspirations of the Kurdish people to be met. It is regrettable that a part of the Kurdish leadership rejected the proposal.
Does the reader see? Boris Johnson is here saying that inter-governmental negotiations would have been an alternative to the referendum. That’s taking the referendum seriously – which is to be expected, because the Kurdish situation is going to be used in British geo-political shenanigans.
The author cannot find a statement from the same source addressing the Catalonian referendum, and couldn’t find one on the Foreign Office’s website either. The British Government doesn’t scratch an itch that it doesn’t want inflamed. Accordingly, the following did appear in tweet form (indicative of the way the UK Government would like to diminish the significance of the event):
The referendum is a matter for the Spanish government and people.
We want to see Spanish law and the Spanish constitution respected and the rule of law upheld.
Spain is a close ally and good friend, whose strength and unity matters to us.
This brings us to a third referendum: the one that conceived Brexit in 2016. The UK Government’s main concern about the Catalonian referendum and its aspiration for independence is all to do with the example given to Britons in the context of Brexit. This is why the corporate-media is full of stories pouring doubt on the ability of Catalonia to thrive, or stating that somehow Catalans don’t really want independence after all.
Right at the heart of the issue is the right to self defence: to act wholly without reference to any other party in order to protect and guard one’s person and property. The principle applies equally to an individual, his family etc, as it does to a like-minded community – a country at the larger end of the scale (or a province in an empire, or a partner in a political union). The right to self-defence is non-negotiable.
It doesn’t matter if it’s only a minority within a country that demands its rights and acts upon them. This is, after all, the only counter-measure to two wolves voting to eat the sheep – the mistakenly much valued model that is known as democracy. The Catalonian independence vote has been called a mockery of democracy. Of course it is. The sheep is acting to defend itself from the wolves. Opponents of Catalonian independence say it violates the Spanish constitution, and thus it is illegal, and thus it is wrong and even shameful. While acting in self-defence might be illegal, it’s never wrong, and definitely never anything to be ashamed of. Criticism of a totalitarian government would be illegal, but it isn’t wrong. In fact, it would be a duty. Everything really comes down to the distinction between the wheat and the chaff. Some people know rights are natural, others think that government bestows them. The latter would absolutely deny the former every time to retain the security of their slave mentality, and their obedience to a system designed to enrich a governing class at their expense. This is why there shouldn’t be too many tears if they are collateral when those who would act on their right to self-defence ever do so.
The Britons who voted to remain in the EU are a large minority, and it has been said that because of this their will should somehow be reflected in the outcome of the referendum on British independence. It is talk, of course, for the purpose of promoting the non-Brexit that the UK Government is currently wheedling for. But the real trick that the UK Government and the EU plays on Britons is asserting that compromise is necessary and inevitable. Britons who want independence should not be fooled. There is only only option that those who want independence can allow for the minority who would Remain: that is their right to defend their self-identification as EU chaff. They would not fare well restricted to this narrow choice – fighting for freedom is inherently more motivational than fighting to deny it – and that’s why they demand compromise – as do their mouthpieces: “there is a fear that some hardliners in Britain don’t really want to negotiate” – thus once spoke Guy Verhofstadt. The EU, and the traitorous UK Government, won’t get what they desire if Britons who want independence don’t compromise.
The lesson to be learnt is in the Catalonian experience. With the Catalonian referendum being illegal, surely the Spanish government would have been better off allowing it to go ahead, and then declaring it null and void? Couldn’t the Spanish Government have decreed that, while Catalans may have expressed a desire at the ballot box, and although this was all well and good, the voters’ involvement in the process was a result of being misled by the Catalonian Government and so the act of voting had no effect in real terms? Why did the Spanish Government deploy police to physically prevent the casting of votes? Why summon 700 mayors to court so as to intimidate them into not holding the referendum in their towns. Why seize ballot papers and voting material ahead of the referendum?
The answer is because the acting in the right to self-defence has priority in law over legalities – as such, the action must be prevented. The Catalonian Government was within its lawful rights to organise a referendum, and the Catalonian people were within their lawful rights to participate in it, and the Catalonian Government is within its lawful rights to declare independence. No legality on Earth, let alone in Spain, can prevent it. Only force. The Catalonians are clearly going to provoke the Spanish Government into resorting to that one measure – and thus make the Spanish Government lose. Fighting for freedom is inherently more motivational than fighting to deny it.
And so the Catalonians serve as an example to the British who want independence, and show them what they must do: declare independence, act in their right to self-defence – until your oppressor loses. Despite all the phony Article 50 negotiation theatre, Britain leaves the EU when the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed (as has been demonstrated on this site before).
When that happens, Britons who want independence must insist upon the reality of the situation. The Article 50 negotiations are for the purpose of creating tendrils and shackles that keep the UK along parallel developmental lines with the EU; for creating a disguised master-servant relationship to benefit the EU while tricking Britons into thinking they are experiencing independence. Keeping to the theme already established, the Article 50 negotiations are about abiding with EU legislation to create further legalities that bind the UK to the EU, while disguising the true nature of the country: that it is independent – and thus in fact reducing it back to dependency. The Article 50 negotiations are a con – as they would be if Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. They are an elaborate fraud to maintain the illusion of the false legal fiction layer between the people and their rights, so that they would be denied. The last thing in the world the UK Government wants is for this to be understood, and for the British who would defend themselves to invoke the law.
