Your Taxes Are Funding A Criminal Government

The facts are beyond dispute: Taxes that go towards funding a criminal government are unlawful under Common and International Law.

Today’s discourse and the accompanying notes are of especial pertinence to British and American people but also for those in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa.
Irrespective of what the fraudulent captured governments may falsely claim, you are under Common Law.

When ‘your government’ is stealing your moneys via taxation and using them to fund a Christo-Zionist Genocide (think, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Palestine) then you are obliged under moral and international law to cease funding it. In other words, you have a moral duty and the right to stop paying taxes that the IRS, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) et al can (and will) not challenge.

It also applies to the funding of so-called Regime Change and the plethora of non and governmental agencies that have initiated a series of ‘influential’ operations like the fake plandemic, the imposition of a deadly serum delivered at mass-needlepoint, gender-awareness, EV promotion, ‘democracy’ influence on and over foreign states, geo-engineering, 5G, smart meters and all manner of diktats, moneys funnelled into ‘woke’ scams that, ulitmately, enable the crypto-controllers to cull the herd and make massive profits in the process.

The quotation below is from Ken O’Keefe and it was published in 2016 as a Legal Opinion for his  then attempt to establish his World Citizen Mission. It was written by Dr. Curtis Doebbler

Summary of Opinion

“Questions of the legitimacy of State action, however, arise when a State uses its resources for activities that are inconsistent with its international obligations.

In such cases, individuals who are able to articulate their opposition to State policies because they are inconsistent with international law, including international human rights law, have a right and an obligation to refuse to act in a manner that supports such illegal activities.

Such action is not inconsistent with an individual’s duties towards his or her State because that duty also requires individuals to not support violations of international law.

1 Does international law recognise any human rights that can justify an individual’s failure to pay public revenue charges or taxes?
2 The answer to the first question is that international human rights law can be a justification for an individual’s failure to pay public revenue charges or taxes when it can be proven that the payment of taxes contribute to an illegal action.
3 Do individuals have a right or an obligation not to support violations of international law by their State?
4 The answer to the second question is that individuals have a right and an obligation not to support violations of international law by any State.
5 Do national courts have a duty to recognise individual rights that are part of international law applying to a particular State?
6 The answer to the third question is that national courts have a duty to recognise individual rights that are part of international law applicable to a particular State. This is the case because under international law, national law can never be a justification for a violation of international law.
7 What legal recourse does an individual have if his or her State forces him or her to contribute to taxes that are used to finance an action that violates international law?
8 Finally, the legal recourse an individual has if a State forces him or her to contribute to taxes that are used to finance an action that violates international law will depend, at the international level on the procedures to which a particular State has agreed. International human rights mechanisms may be approached to determine a States responsibility for forcing an individual under its jurisdiction to contribute to a violation of international law.

Notes:

1. The Great British National Strike is scheduled for 24th May, 2025.
2. Inflation – pint of beer. Packet of Polo Mints now costs £1.20 30 years ago, the same packet of mints would cost just 35p.
3. State Inversion of the Truth – the targeting of young white males – feminisation, feminism, education, mind control – aim to portray them as the enemy.
4. Woke nonsense – the Last Voyage of the Demeter is a ‘woke’ film that purportedly is set in the late 1800s yet contains a series of woeful historical inaccuracies.
5. How I was, in my younger days, an ‘anti-racist’ –  how prejudice may simply be discernment, the ability to think critically.
6. The self-evident attempt to replace the native populations is a decade’s old operation that is crystalised in the Kalergi Plan
7. The weaponisation of language – the empty rhetoric of the term Islamophobia demonstrates it to be a nonsense.
8. In other news, there are claims that Elon Musk’s social media platform X is to be fined $1 billion by the criminal mafia that is the EU. However, does the EU actually have the jurisdiction to fine X?
9. Under Common Law, fines, forfeits and punishments that have not been ordered by a Court of Law (which is a court of record) are illegal and void.

Like any and all relgions, Islam is a bind for the mind.

Religion defined:

popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare “to bind fast” (see rely), via the notion of “place an obligation on,” or “bond between humans and gods.”

The UK government may attempt to invert the language as much as its mealy-mouthed speakers of legalese can manage but it matters not if we stick to the true and accurate definition of the term. If Islam means surrender/submssion and phobia means extreme fear or dislike, then does it not follow that Islamophobia actually means,

An extreme fear of surrender?

As ever, thank you for reading and listening. If you are feeling appreciative, please chuck a few quid into the pot via the BuyMeACoffee button and/or taking out a paid subscription at my Substack page.