Saturday, 24 August 2013

The Way Towards a New Constitution in Britain

Mortal People
The form of Monarchy I advocate would exclude mortal people having an air of “omnipotence” within the Institutions, it would exclude a private family receiving almighty-like reverence and hereditary privileges that make no sense to Democracy and civil administration.

We should leave Omnipotence to God and dedicate ourselves to living in, and for, a fair society.
This way, we would cure ourselves of believing that mortal people should be revered as “almighty-like” when in reality they are mortals!

Head of State
I firmly believe the house of Windsor should all become normal people, no longer considered as head of the Church of England, nor as head of the State, nor as head of the Government, nor of Army, nor of Police.
The British Monarchy should be that of Jesus Christ, while we remain a United Kingdom that believes in the Celestial Monarchy.

We should have no mortal person as monarch. and no mortal person should receive the title of “head of State”. No human should represent the Country as if they were its “head”.

The Cabinet should not be able to make important decisions without consulting Parliament, and the idea of Governing Authority at national level should rest with elected Parliament.

We should have direct Democracy, whereby each local community has the right to vote by way of referendum on important local issues concerning their community, and similarly the Nation has the right to vote by way of referendum on important national issues.

Written by D. Alexander

The British People do not Want War Against Syria

We Said NO to War Against Syria
A few men in the British Government appear to want to propel Britain into war against Syria. The majority of the British People do not want our Country to support terrorists or rebels at war against Syria, we do not want our Country Britain to become militarily involved in the Syrian war.

We do not stand with the Government in its quest to interfere in Syria on the side of rebels and terrorists, we do not agree that our Country be dragged into that war.
The Government appears to be determined to ignore our wishes and may sacrifice our security in the name of a foreign war waged by rebels and terrorists. The Government is following an agenda of its own that has nothing to do with Prosperity in Britain.

Written by D. Alexander

The Muslim Attack Will Come from the North

Friday, 23 August 2013

Syria and the Muslim Attack

The Muslim Attack Will Come from the North
If a Muslim attack should strike Europe, it will come from the North, from North of the Alps. I take this to mean it will be planned and triggered from within the West. It will affect Britain, Europe and North America.

Are there obscure elements within the West that are planning something that will cause a Muslim attack?

Personally I believe some elements within Western governments are stirring up war in the Middle East and that this could lead, eventually, to a Muslim attack.
Non-sectarian governments in Arabic-speaking countries in the Middle East and North Africa seem to have been on the receiving end of Western government interference in the name of “democracy”. Extremist Jihadist groups appear to be becoming stronger because of it.

William Hague the British Foreign Secretary
William Hague the British Foreign Secretary appears to be singing from the same hymn-sheet as the Syrian rebels, and meanwhile he appears to know who carried out a chemical attack on civilians in Syria without any evidence or prior research. He does not appear to have had any problem with British passport-holders traveling to Syria to fight for extremist Jihadist groups and then returning to Britain.

Is William Hague following a personal agenda as Foreign Secretary that jeopardises Britain's security?
It does certainly seem to be the case.
What he might manage to spark off could have catastrophic consequences for the West.

If we do not speak out now, tomorrow may be too late.
The Government that has given Britain austerity, while increasing the public debt from £750 billion to about £1.2 trillion in three years, and that does not have a clue how to sanely govern Britain's economy, appears to be fomenting the war in Syria.

Are we the British People to be led like dumb sheeple down the path leading to catastrophe?
What I do know is that the Muslim attack, if it comes, will come from the North, from within the West, and precisely from north of the Alps. The meaning seems to be that it will be triggered off from the North.

Will a Muslim chemical attack be carried out in the North, within the West, for example in Europe?

Were there plans to carry out a chemical attack in Syria that we are being kept unaware of by Western Governments?

Written by D. Alexander

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

The Falkland Islands or Gibraltar

The Dispute Between Spain and Gibraltar
In August 2013, a dispute arose between Spain and Gibraltar.
The quarrel stems from differing views on fishing and on how to prevent the depletion of fish stocks in the sea water in the area. It immediately became a dispute between Spain and Britain.

However, the Spanish government is seeking to involve the Falkland Islands by proposing a kind of diplomatic alliance with Argentina that would unify these two countries' quarrels with Britain.

The Falkland Islands are not Gibraltar
The view on Celtic Britannia is that the Falkland Islands may not be dragged into the quarrel between the governments of Spain on one side and Gibraltar and Britain on the other.

It would be a serious breach of international Law if the United Nations were to accept to involve the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands and their territory in an argument that does not relate to them. It would be an even greater breach of International Law if this meant jeopardising their security and integrity.

The British and Spanish governments should seek to preserve good relations between the Peoples of Britain and Spain. Both should underline the need to preserve the right of the island people of the Falklands to be kept out of a dispute to which they are not party.

Written by D. Alexander

Thursday, 8 August 2013

British Party: Textile Production in Kent

Proposal made to Kent County Council in June 2013.
Receipt of this proposal was acknowledged.

By way of this letter I wish to present the following proposal to improve Kent’s economy.

Textile Production in Kent
The establishment of a textile industry in Kent producing clothes and footwear would create local employment within the County, offering the retail market products made at fair prices.
At present, retail sales of textile products in Kent are almost entirely reliant on cheap-labour import from the Far East, with High-Street brands charging unreasonable profits. Shoes made in India are sold at prices that do not reflect the factory wages paid in that country, for example £50 to £80 a pair; clothes made in China are sold at prices significantly above that which one would expect to pay for the standard Chinese factory wage, for example trousers at £25 a pair.

Clearly there is a High-Street policy of making large profits on manufactured goods produced in the Far East at very low wages, normally calculated at around £30 to £60 a month. These items could be produced in Britain at standard UK wages - even above minimum wage - and still be sold cheaper than the current retail prices, while leaving reasonable profits for manufacturer and retailer.

Manufacturers and High-Street retail chains have progressively closed down industrial production in Britain and transferred it to the Far East at wages that are fractional compared to those of the UK. However, they are earning large profits by selling the products at a cost many times higher than when purchased from the factories of origin in countries such as India, China and Bangladesh.

This policy, which has contributed to widespread unemployment in Britain, is also in complete disregard of the carbon footprint concerning transport over long distances, going against the spirit of Britain’s carbon emission laws.

Fair Trade and the Right to Employment
As fair trade, combined with the right to employment for local people at honest and fair wages, is the objective of this presentation, I propose that the County Council assess the introduction of skills and training facilities in Kent where local people can learn the basic skills required to produce textiles, clothes and footwear, and also the establishment of factories at district level where production could take place.

The same idea could also apply to other sectors of industrial production which have been almost entirely transferred to the Far East and in particular to China, such as electronics. Indeed, the list of industrial production transferred abroad to cheap-labour factories is long and covers a wide range of manufacture.

By following this proposal even in its initial phase, namely the establishment of a textile industry in Kent, many thousands of permanent jobs could be created, ensuring a decent income for local workers and their families, reducing the burden on the benefit system and contributing to a steady income of revenues.

The purchase of clothes and footwear made locally at fair wages – and sold with reasonable profit margins – could also become part of a future awareness among many people, in particular as the current ongoing financial crisis is partly a result of the dismantling of traditional production and its systematic outsourcing to cheap-labour economies.
Such items could be sold cheaper than the products made in India and China that evidently have huge corporate profit-margins attached to them.

In the sincere hope this presentation will be of interest to the County Council, I look forward to hearing from you.

The reply from Kent County Council did not accept the proposal. Yet it is a fundamental part of economic Prosperity. British Party is the only one that offers Prosperity, as no other party in Britain will. This is quite evident, as councils are elected along party lines and clearly the proposal for sane economy is not accepted by other parties. 

Written by D. Alexander

Tuesday, 6 August 2013

The Monarchy: Jesus King of Britain

If there is a challenge between the Fair Lady and the house of Windsor as to who is Monarch over Britain, how would it end?

The Road to Christ's Church
The Church of the Fair Lady indicates the road leading to Christ's Church, as Jesus Son of God is rightful Monarch of Britain. The foundations of this Church are there.
Now let us suppose that the Church had been ripped down under the reign of the queen. And let us suppose that Jesus had the Church rebuilt following the original plan.
Who then is rightful Monarch of Britain and Defender of the Faith, the queen, or Jesus our Saviour?

Prosperity from High
Prosperity comes from the High City, it does not come from the house of Windsor. So if the queen has decided to hang on and pass the throne to her descendants, the Church of Christ will not accept that those who tore it down impose their authority over it.
The great controversy will come to a conclusion when it is accepted that Jesus is Monarch of Britain and that the Fair Lady In High has established the English Church in the Name of Jesus Christ.

The English Church
It is proven that Henry VIII never established the English Church, and neither did the Pope. Henry VIII tore down many English priories, stole from English churches and confiscated Church estates. He used the proceeds to wage wars.

Under the authority of the queen, Christ's Church was torn down along Folkestone Road, and it was not the house of Windsor who rebuilt it.
The English Church is not under the authority of the queen or her family, for Jesus Son of God is Saviour and Monarch of Britain.

The queen and her family may claim many things, but they cannot take the Keys of Prosperity from the Fair Lady.

Written by D. Alexander

The English Church