Subject: Marc Steinberg .vs. Magna Carta
From: Veronica
Date: 26/1/14 9:05 am
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Having just had a quick refresh of the Magna Carta 1215, and recalling the Marc Steinberg videos I watched a week or so ago ...

... I was reminded of what Marc said ... about the fact that our 'enlightenment' had made no progress over thousands - even millions - of years.

Think about it.

Our ancestors came up with a list of 'solutions to justice' in 1215 ... and wrote them down.

Now, the actual wording reflects the situation at the time, of course. Thus we have to do some translation of the wording, to bring the ideas to the modern day equivalents.

But, the point is, the IDEAS remain constant.

The points they made, and the solutions they offered ... REMAIN EXACTLY THE SAME TODAY.

The very fact that we need to refer back to those points, says ... what?

The very fact that we must revert to the points made in 1215, says ... what?

It says that NOTHING HAS -ESSENTIALLY - CHANGED ... since 1215.

Which is exactly in line with what Marc Steinberg was saying.

The 'state of enlightenment', that was available in 1215, HAS NOT MOVED ON ONE IOTA ... in the intervening 800 years.

Or ... to put it the other way round: THEY WERE TREATED LIKE SHIT IN 1215 ... AND WE ARE TREATED LIKE SHIT TODAY ... AND IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

And I am as fed up with that, as are you.

And I DEARLY want to nail these bastards ... once and for all.

And that MUST take the form of "no longer being RULED". That is something we have never done. We have had revolutions, upsets, Civil Wars, executed Monarchs ... but we have never had the guts to "not be ruled" ... to shake off the ultimate 'yoke'.

Sure ... we came close after the Civil Wars ... but Cromwell even had the sense & decency to refuse to upgrade himself from "Lord Protector" to "Monarch".
In 1657, Cromwell was offered the crown by Parliament as part of a revised constitutional settlement, presenting him with a dilemma since he had been "instrumental" in abolishing the monarchy. Cromwell agonised for six weeks over the offer. He was attracted by the prospect of stability(*) it held out, but in a speech on 13 April 1657 he made clear that God's providence had spoken against the office of king: “I would not seek to set up that which Providence hath destroyed and laid in the dust, and I would not build Jericho again”
(* INSTABILITY fostered, of course, by RELIGIONS!)

Oh ... but we couldn't have that! No no no! We MUST have a fucking Monarch!

Oh ... William and Mary ... purleez come over from Holland ... and be our King and Queen!
The phrase William and Mary usually refers to the coregency over the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, of spouses (and first-cousins) King William III & II and Queen Mary II. Their joint reign began in February 1689 after they were offered the throne by the Convention Parliament irregularly summoned by William after his successful invasion of England in 1688, the so-called Glorious Revolution. They replaced James II & VII, Mary's father and William's uncle and father-in-law, who was "deemed to have fled" the country. Parliament offered William and Mary a co-regency, at the couple's behest. After Mary died in 1694, William ruled alone until his death in 1702. William and Mary were childless and were ultimately succeeded by Mary's younger sister, Anne.

We MUST have a fucking King & Queen ... otherwise ... otherwise ... otherwise we'd be FREE!

And we MUST have a fucking Religion ... otherwise ... otherwise ... otherwise we'd be FREE to think for ourselves!
 
We MUST have a fucking King & Queen to authorise our Declaration of Rights into a Bill of Rights ... otherwise ... otherwise ... otherwise ... we'd have to fucking well do it OURSELVES! (Heaven forbid! Or, more accurately, Vatican ... which decided - unilaterally - without any such right - to insert itself between us and Heaven ... forbid!)

Nothing has - essentially - changed. And nothing will ... UNTIL WE WAKE UP.

Vxxx