Is Tax Dependent on Our Agreement?

An interesting video that makes the LEGAL case for not paying taxes in Ireland.

Much of Irish law is the same as British law (as it was formulated under British rule) so many of these arguments might well apply to the UK.

Nationalists should be discussing these matters.

Are You For or Against a Corrupt Zionist Regime?

Have a look at this great montage. Again it shows the hypocrisy of "the West" - i.e. the political and media class.

The last time I made a comparison between the (Real) IRA and the Syrian insurrectionists, and the treatment of them by the BBC (chalk and cheese) when they shoot soldiers, I had one or two dullards and/or nonces stirring up quite the hornet's nest on here.

So, just to let you know, I am not an anarchist any more than I am an Islamist (or "democrat") Arab insurrectionist. I know, I know... but you'd be amazed at what trolls, idiots and numpties will read into a post!

Of course - the rioters in Cairo were fighting against a Zionist puppet regime that had acted against the interests of the indigenous people for decades... whereas in England we have... a 'democracy.' Mwah ha ha!

The BBC treated Irish and Syrian armed gangs who shoot soldiers, policemen etc, quite differently; they also treat those who riot against governments controlled by vested interests quite differently.

As always (e.g. when dealing with Libya or Saudi Arabia ruling families, Iran or Israel's nuclear realities, Serbian or American 'war crimes') the BBC twists the news to fit a specifically British State agenda, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. As our state is Zionist (i.e. in the pockets of Masonic bankers/financiers and hardline pro-Israel) the litmus test seems to be whether a regime is pro-Israeli or Israel-tolerant. Of course in international diplomacy nothing is so straightforward. France, for example has gone from "bad" to "good" under Sarkozy (I wonder why) from a regime which tended to oppose Zionist wars to one which is far more in favour of them (it is highly questionable that the French people changed that much!)

That some British nationalists (still!) worship the Westminster State and are still following certain paths and herded in certain pens, thanks to years of brainwashing and State propaganda speaks volumes. The blinkers still aren't off. And so we see a "hurrah" for 'plucky' David Cameron who stands up to the Euro Beast... to defend the rights of financiers in the City of London, who in turn show little or no loyalty to the UK (always threatening to leave these shores if taxes are raised, for example)

The plastic patriots who cheered on 'Call me Dave' Cameron used to be the Imperialists, who cheered as Britain planted flags in India, Africa, and even in Calais and Gibraltar (but who would go to war if Spain or France claimed the Isle of Wight). Of course, they were too dumb to realise that eventually the Indians and Africans would return the favour and colonise us - now they want to claim as a right what their political forebears denied the Indians and Africans -- independence, nationalism and their own country run by their own kind.

The jingoism of Empire was in reality a form of multi-culturalism which celebrated money, profits and greed above all else. There was little or no altruism, no seeking what was best for "us" or "them." The British (unlike for example the Spaniards) did not even have the good grace to convert the heathens. Speaking to an Indian (Hindu) on a train recently he told me that most Christians in India are Catholic, with one small area also Methodist (after a Methodist missionary went there). The impact of Anglicanism, given that England ran India for so many years, was minimal indeed. Just imagine (and this is pure conjecture of course and not seen as the be-all and end-all) an India and Pakistan that was converted to a form of Christianity, instead of just bled dry and turned against each other as Britain sought to 'divide and rule' with Muslims and Hindus.

We might even have no nuclear powers playing tit for tat wars with each other, and no Muslim stronghold (used by the CIA and its enemies) to "export terror" as and when needed. Or look at Japan, which was on the verge of becoming Christian thanks to missionaries from Mediterranean lands. It was Dutch and English traders who persuaded the Japanese rulers who weren't Christian (about half) that this was some kind of threat from Portugal or Spain which would then "take over" and so Christians were massacred, crucified en masse, and often mutilated by having their feet cut off. It was the money-men of Amsterdam and London who stopped Japan becoming Christian... imagine the impact in WW2? History may have been so different. It may even have impacted on China, preventing the rise of Communism... who knows?

It was money and profits that drove the British Empire, and it was (as usual!) GK Chesterton who saw the future problems this early globalism would bring. I found this interesting text/review online, about an essay on Patriotism by GKC. It is so good I would urge everyone to read it two or three times and to keep a copy for future reference:

There is, however, another enemy of Patriotism and Nationalism. It is equipped with power and wealth and a good chance of success in practical politics and it is but the disguise of cosmopolitanism. It is Imperialism, or as we would say, 'Globalism'. In Chesterton's opinion the Empire was neither for the benefit nor the glory of the English, it was for their exploitation. We had been put to work, to suffer, to bleed and to die, for the benefit of international banking and trade, that is, 'Globalism', and when we had served our purpose the assets would be stripped and lodged elsewhere. The price of such glory as we might enjoy from seeing the map painted red, was our impoverishment, our deculturation, our mongrelization, our destruction as a Nation. Chesterton presented this succinctly in 'The Flying Inn'(1904) "Did you ever hear the great destiny of Empire? It is in four acts: Victory over barbarians. Employment of barbarians. Alliance with barbarians. Conquest by barbarians. That is the great destiny of Empire."

GK Chesterton saw mass immigration into Britain decades before it happened, whilst the ideological forebears of today's plastic patriots, Westminster State worshippers to  a man, were singing God Save the King, down with the Frenchies/Krauts (delete as applicable) in short, much as most of them still do today!

They sung/sing a hymn to a Queen who has rubber stamped laws on homosexuality, abortion and divorce (and mass immigration/anti-racislism!) that have ripped this country apart. She swore to be a Christian Monarch on her accession to the throne, an oath she swore to God; but just as the wedding oaths sworn by so many, it was meaningless - as their weddings were dissolved by man, might we wonder if her monarchy should be dissolved by man? How can a Christian Monarch pass laws as she has? She even made the architect of the 1967 Abortion Law (which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent Britons) a Lord!!! How preposterous is that? ...and we have Charles "defender of (multi-)faiths" waiting in the side-lines.

If Elizabeth II had an ounce of decency she would have stepped down as monarch, or stood firm to uphold her oath. This, I believe, is the basic argument of much of the Lawful Rebellion crowd. If the crown is void (a kind of British 'sede vacante' - vacant seat - position if you will) then when we enter the courts controlled by the crown, they have lost the authority to judge us. If we do not recognise the crown as legitimate, having broken the Coronation Oath (as usury, abortion and homosexuality to name but three, are anti-Christian), then it has no right to levy taxes on us -- for its illegal wars, its pro-queer bodies, its abortion-performing structures and for its repayments on usury debts.

But let us return to nationhood. GKC once said that the patriot loves his country, whereas an imperialist wants to invade his neighbours. I said in a recent post that WW2's very basis was flawed given that we were conned into taking part in a war that was for the freedom of Poland, but resulted in handing over the entirety of Poland to one of the very powers that had invaded it in September 1939 (but which bizarrely we did not declare war on!): the USSR.

For me, one of the faults with National Socialist Germany was that it was, at its very core imperialist. The Reich was to expand. Austria was a fascist country with a superb economic basis on which it was building structures for the Common God that were building a socially strong and confident Austria. Even Poland was nationalist and had stood up to Soviet Communism. Today it would be painted by liberals as "fascist." The sad fact is that both these countries were taken over by a Germany whose very basis was imperial growth. It was its imperialism rather than any perceived "fascism" or "socialism" that proved its downfall.

"Chesterton’s distaste for state socialism, his suspicion of monopoly capitalism, and his support for the independence from imperial domination of small nations like Poland..."

from the GK Chesterton Society's conference 2011 blurb

As nationalists, we must be nationalists! This is the basis of this rather meandering post. We must stand up for our own nation. We must not be imperialists, we do not want or need empires. We must realise that we love our nation(s), but that does not mean we must worship the state. We must disassociate worship of the Westminster State from love of nation.

This is a debate that nationalists need to have, especially in light of devolution, a monarch and state that are promoting homosexuality and abortion, the collapse of the Euro and the ongoing take-over of our lands by non-Europeans, which the state is defending to the detriment of our people!

Regardless of the permutations in the arguments that fly back and forth, the one thing that we have to realise above all else is that as nationalists today, the state that rules over us, which has promoted multi-racism, destroyed Christianity, pulled apart the family, promoted illegal Zionist wars, and pushes its twisted propaganda as news on the BBC, is not "ours" - it is not British, English or whatever - it is in the pockets of financiers with no national loyalty, it is bought and paid for by the men who rule the Lodges who wreck our lives, yet it expects our loyalty too??? We'd have to be mad!

That is the British State as it stands, that is why we owe it no loyalty. It, the Queen, her governments and the Lodges behind them all, have betrayed the peoples of these isles on every single imaginable level. The law is not only an ass, but a law that breaks almost every single moral law (from deadening usury, to sterile homosexuality, to the multi-racism that destroys, to the mass death of abortion), has to make us realise that we are living under a regime that has sold us and our children into perpetual slavery, taxation-debt and degeneracy.

That's why, when I see an anarchist bashing a police van in London, whether it is a demo over student loans, big brother or against another war -- despite the fact that he may need a "damn good wash" (copyright 1970s NF) and support more than a few dubious causes -- I see very little difference between those demonstrating against a corrupt, pro-Israeli regime in the pockets of the money-men, who treat the indigenous people like crap; and the demonstrators in Cairo.

Jeffrey Epstein & the Prince: a Set-Up or Revenge?

I wonder what Prince Andrew has done to upset the establishment figures so much?

Guilt by association is such a broad stroke attack.

Let me make it clear I have no interest in defending the prince.

• 1. I am no monarchist.
• 2. I am no defender of unearned privilege.
• 3. I am no fan of big business.
• 4. I am no fan of American, Jewish, financier, billionaire, sex offenders (could there be anything

worse!).
Now let's look past the headlines.

Why is the prince being attacked for working with someone any amount of politicians would work with day-in, day-out? Is the financier working with finance? if so why not ostracise the bankers etc. that have worked with him?

When a famous person is attacked like this we should ask "why?"

They are all at it.

This kind of "link," when it is used to attack a politician or similar stinks of vested interests.

Has the prince done something to annoy the spooks, media etc.?

This looks like a concerted campaign.

Has he upset or threatened the bankers? The Zionists? I wonder...

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Prince Andrew is not a person to hold up as a role model. That he associated with an American, Jewish, financier, billionaire, sex offender is awful - and something his minions, flunkies and spook-minders should have warned him off (or did they give him the all clear - built up, knocked down so to speak?).

Idle speculation?

Remember the case of David Mellor?

He offended the Zionist lobby by speaking out forcefully against the treatment of the Palestinians on a visit to the Middle East.

Shortly afterwards he was "exposed" for his 'romps' in a Chelsea football top with a harlot. It all stunk to high heaven, with bugging of the flat, a kiss n tell story sold for tens of thousands etc. etc.

The defender of Palestinian rights in the 'right wing' Tory party (traditionally pro-Israel) was forced out in disgrace, and the Palestinians are still be maltreated...

The lesson is that the enemy of civilisation will keep dirt files on friends and enemies. And you never know what might be said or done behind closed doors which prompts them to take something out of one of their files to be handed to a media puppet.

That's what makes me wonder what Prince Andrew has done to upset the puppet-masters.

Link:
Media say Sex-Offender Paid Fergie

Queen Offers us Harmony? Pull the Other One it's Got Jingle Bells on

As is the way of things, we have been told what will be in the queen's speech tomorrow.

For those of you outside of the UK or the parts of the world that used to be coloured in red on the map (that's the British Empire dontchaknow), the queen records a speech which then goes out on BBC1, I think at 3pm. I have to be honest - as a seditious-minded bod I don't watch it.

The modern media likes to tell us what will be said, what is being said, and what has been said by the "great and the good" and so the political class and others get three times the coverage for the same hackneyed speeches offering the world but delivering nothing.

But to return to the queen's speech.

This year, we're reliably informed she will tell us how sport can bring communities together and create harmony.

Harmony.

Now there's a buzz word.

When a family has Sunday dinner and everyone share's the roasties, we rarely hear the word "harmony."

When a classroom in Shropshire works quietly and finishes its work on time, we rarely hear the word "harmony."

When Bristol City play Bristol Rovers and the supporters mix in a friendly atmosphere, we rarely hear the word "harmony."

When scouts from across Scotland hold a gathering and everything goes smoothly with a wonderful atmosphere, we rarely hear the word "harmony."

Harmony is a special word.

Harmony is a buzz word used by those who defend the migration of millions of non-Europeans, non-Whites to the UK.

Harmony is a buzz word used by those who have created the Balkanisation of our cities, who have imported organised crime gangs and drug cartels from around the world.

Harmony is the buzz word used by those who destroyed the harmony of indigenous working class communities made up of British people with a smattering of our European/Christian cousins.

The same forces who purposefully destroyed communities that were perfectly harmonious and created violence, street crime, drugs-riddled areas and much more now have the chutzpah to preach about "harmony."

A few years ago the queen used her speech to wax lyrical about the "joys" of multi-culturalism - joys she and the political class never have to enjoy at their fullest, at the sharp end shall we say?

Over decades the rulers of this land (seen and unseen - but Freemasons almost to a man) have destroyed the harmony we had. And the queen sat over all that chaos, rubber-stamping the obscene laws that allowed mass, uncontrolled immigration which has destroyed the White, Christian character of this land.

Yet they know have the brassneck to tell us that sports can bring "harmony."

As if!

If the political class wanted harmony they could start resettling the non-Whites. Start with the criminals, families who wish to return, professionals who want to help others in their own lands - and let's go from there.

Over the years, who knows, we may even get what the queen falsely offers us now: harmony.

Prince Harry's "Paki-Gate" - and the BBC's "Parky-Starn" Rule

So Prince Harry (pictured right) has apologised for using the terms "paki" and later "raghead" in a 'home video' taken with his army friends.

The "Paki-Gate" affair raises a number of interesting points:

1. Is the word "paki" illegal?

2. If not is calling someone a "Scot" illegal? Or a Saudi? Or a Khazak? Or an Afghani? Or an Iraqi? Or an Israeli?

3. Furthermore if it is illegal: will it be an arrestable offence to say "I'm going down the paki shop" if your neighbour overhears you? Or if a child or sibling has the hump over something else and reports you?

4. And if it is illegal - will it be illegal for an Asiatic person (Jew or Gentile) to call someone from these islands a Scot? or Taffy? or Mick? or Brit? If not won't that show favouritism to non-White communities and individuals?

5. If it's not illegal - and with hundreds of thousands of people using the term day-in, day-out one has to wonder - why the fuss? After all it is merely an abbreviation of "Pakistan."

6. If it is illegal - why has a simple "sorry" from Prince Harry sufficed to stop an arrest and a charge? After all, if it is illegal we have to assume that anyone else who isn't royal or upper class would be arrested and charged (not to mention getting their door kicked in).

7. If it is illegal will the various t-shirts and other paraphernalia with the words "PROUD TO BE A PAKI" be made illegal and their usage banned?

8. Last but not least - why are we living in and accepting a society wherein the words "f##k," "c##t" and many other highly offensive terms are used on TV, seen on t-shirts, shown in shop windows and much more, with no action taken by the police, the courts etc., yet a simple abbreviation of a nation's name (same as Scot) is deemed unusable and offensive (even to the stupid degree that Pakistan is no longer pronounced Paki-Stan by BBC newsreaders but rather Parky-Starn in a ridiculous pc attempt to be non-offensive!).

Would someone please wake me up -- I must be dreaming!

"1066 and all that" Started Today: Harold II Crowned

This day in 1066 saw the Coronation of Harold II of England, the man fated to die at Hastings: the last Anglo-Saxon King of England.

Some say the Godwinsons were power-mad and their lust for power angered William of Normandy into grabbing the crown by force, with all the repercussions for the Saxons of England (and the knock on effects on the Scots and Welsh).

Some blame Edward the Confessor, a man who had brought peace, stability and more to England for his entire reign, for failing to make the succession clear.

Others still blame William the Conqueror for pressing his claim (which some claim was dubious) and certainly his post-Conquest treatment of the peoples on Britain (despite close links between Saxon England and Normandy even in the reigns of Edward and Harold) does little to make William's claim seem justifiable to later generations.

This day in 1066 could be seen as the first day in which Saxon England's fate was doomed, because when Harold II was crowned it started the anger at a (rightly or wrongly) perceived betrayal of an oath that would make William of Normandy amass an army from across Northern France and Flanders for a huge invasion of England.


Link:
Harold II

The Ghost of Christmas Past

I found this gem from the FC e-zine dated 25th December 2004:

ENGLAND: THE QUEEN'S SPEECH - AN OUTRAGE

Those of you unfortunate enough to have seen the whole of the Queen’s Speech earlier today will have witnessed one of the most shameful piece of political polemics ever uttered.

We were offered words, and pictures, of the benefits of multi-racism, multi-culturalism and the fantastic opportunities afforded by alien religions such as Sikhism and Islam.

The Queen who, don’t forget is the nominal head of the Church of England proceeded to attack “extremists” who seek to undo all this good work, and she also waxed lyrical about the schoolkids who intermix, before a multi-racial school choir sang some modern vomit-inducing ‘hymn’ about love.

Visions of the Queen at a Sikh temple and the Prince of Wales at a Muslim centre capped a speech which must surely rank as the worst ever made.

FC has never been particularly monarchist, but we know some of our supporters are, and we can understand their viewpoint for everyone seeks to cling to traditions, to certainties, to links with the past.

But even hardened monarchists must surely wonder how the Queen can utter such politically short-sighted utter tripe.

Has the Queen ever been mugged? Has she lived alongside Asian-dominated streets? Has she witnessed drug dealers at the end of her road? Has she seen her former homes, streets and /or towns overrun with foreign hordes?

This women who lives in a carefully controlled bubble has read a scandalous speech written by some political professional from the government’s ranks. The upper class twaddle espoused by a class that’s never known life at the ‘sharp end’, who’ve never suffered the direct results of multi-racism, and written by the esconced political twits who look down from their ivory towers and ignore the evidence, ignore the proof and ignore the pleas of the indigenous peoples over the years to further their own absurd political dogmas.

Those who have excused this Queen as she allowed her parliament to pass morally illegal, fundamentally unjust, thoroughly absurd and totally un-Christian laws over the years may be forced to sit up and think re. this latest Queen’s Speech of 2004.

The laws legalising abortion and homosexuality should have been the final straw(s). The Race Relations Act that piece of Talmudic inspired Bolshevik legislation, written and supervised by the usual enemies of Christian civilisation should have awakened even the most comatose of those (un)fortunate souls holding a UK passport and whose veins run with the blood of the Anglo-Celtic peoples who once exclusively peopled these Isles.

But as G.K. Chesterton said, the English people haven’t woken yet more’s the pity. And whilst the English, and their cousins across our internal borders, have rallied occasionally whether over issues such as unemployment, immigration, petrol taxes, hunting the political class remain, the bankers continue bleeding us dry and this Royal Family continues to reign over the biggest betrayal of a people ever!

On BBC1 the Queen’s Speech was followed by a programme hosted by perma-tanned faggot Dale Winton who basically helped needy kids get gifts of a life-time. In this saccharine sick BBC of 2004 we get one scandalous Queen’s Speech followed by more sickening tripe interspersed by more speech from a media-sponsored queen!

My TV was switched off with frightening speed as I’m sure countless others were, to spend more time with what the BBC bosses might label my “hideously White” family and despite Queen Elizabeth’s approved laws on abortion, homosexuality and race we’re a White family that remain resolutely opposed to all those maladies like many others.

And as we raised a glass we toasted like-minded “extremists” or as the determined nationalist fighter of many decades Rosine De Bounevialle used to say: “Here’s to us, who’s like us?” whom the Queen, her speech-writer(s) and her government seem to have declared a form of war on, in defence of all things indefensible.

God Bless the Queen? Not in our house.

Merry Christmas everyone!


finalconflict@dial.pipex.com

Ignorance and Revisionism

In recent weeks and months the BBC has performed a series of Mea Culpas over reporting duplicity and rigged phone votes.

Other channels have suffered too, but the BBC (which many, though not nationalists, have regarded as a study of probity and honesty) has been most dreadfully damaged because of its reputation for "fairness".

So the BBC (with its in-house production and external producers) have taken a battering - pretty much choreographed, but a battering nonetheless.

Integrity. Honesty. Truthfulness. Openness.

These seem to be the benchmarks of the 'New BBC.'

Yet, just like New Labour and (Brown's) New New Labour, this is so much exterior whitewashing, and whilst at first (as with the newspapers' denouncement of Paparazzi intrusive photos after the death of Princess Di) it appears to be shiny white with heartfelt promises being made throughout the media - it won't take long for the cracks to start showing again: for it is the very nature of the media to make things far more certain and far more "sexy" than they are in our 'real lives' which tend to be far more drab, hypocritical, mundane... than BBC reports might have it.

And so how long before the BBC bring out another "fake-umentary" with "evil Neo-Nazis" or "extremist Christian fundamentalists" etc. etc.

How long before the BBC addresses the real problems with multi-culturalism and mass coloured immigration? Or the damage done to society by abortion? Or the harmful nature (to individual, community and nation) of homosexuality? Or the truth about usury and the banking swindle?

How long before the BBC puts out a programme defending our Christian heritage instead of mocked-up "history" full of modern ideals and spin?

In the last few weeks I've had the misfortune to see the Tudors, the BBC2 "history" of an early Henry VIII, made very much in the manner of the series 'Rome.' I've also seen a couple of the programmes of the new Robin Hood series.

The Tudors is crammed full of Grade A Bull Guano in which only St. Thomas Moore and Henry's first wife are seen to be fully Christian... and even in these cases Moore keeps banging on about being a "humanist." Since when does a Christian saint subscribe to the ideals of Freemasonry - and those from a latter century? Of course, Catherine of Aragon is pretty much dismissed as a foreignor.

It all stinks of a modern re-write of history.

We should be used to the lies (from the pens of Jusaisers and Zionists) concerning events such as the Spanish Inquisition or World War Two - all done for political ends - but now we're facing the twisting of hitherto accepted norms, such as St Thomas Moore actually being a Christian.

As for the BBC's Robin Hood - well that just limps from outrage to outrage.

Some of the long-term readers of this blog (you die-hards, you gluttons for punishment!) will know that I have written a diatribe about this series before (there was a negro sergeant-at-arms in the first series). Now we have the ridiculous situation of an Asian (Saracen) woman (and she a genius too!) in Hood's Saxon outlaws and yet another negro! - this time as a genius (as ever!) blacksmith (though they just called him a smith - very pc) in the village of Locksley.

With two Negroes in close proximity of Nottingham, one would be forgiven for thinking that there must have been thousands of coloureds living the length and breadth of England at this time!

Add in the Asians (supposedly) living in England too - and you can see the message being sent out far and wide: we were a peaceful multi-culti land back then - just as we are now!

What the concocters of this garbage forget is that the Saxons fought the Normans to remain free... and these were related peoples. The same concocters tend to overlook the Crusades, at least when they are mentioned at all, the heroes tend to speak out against them (again, in a very "humanist" way).

See the message: Christianity is bad. Homogeneity is bad. The English (apart from a "Masonic" Saint!?!) were ambivalent to the Faith and uncultured morons. Whereas Multi-Culti is good. Race-mixing was accepted. Other cultures brought understanding and learning.

Our history, our heritage, our religion, our peoples, our nations - everything about us is being undermined by a set of politically correct degenerates.

We should not... no, strike that. We must not accept these outrageous assaults on our history, on our forefathers.

A few re-edited scenes regarding the Queen? Who cares? - well ok, it is indicative of a wider editorial malaise in the BBC that sees them making fast and loose with the facts; but compare it to willful re-writing of our history and the rush to transfer the multi-culti, Freemasonic ideals (of a failed experiment!) to an age when our people were Christian, secure, homogeneous...

No-one is suggesting that all in the garden was rosy: but the idea of our forefathers being ignorant uncultured savages is a nonsense. They were probably more aware of their country, their way of life, their Faith, their freedoms, their soil and their blood than the great swathe of Sun-reading, Eastenders-watching morons today who keep placing their faith in treacherous Masonic politicians.

That's why even when Henry VIII tried to claim more powers for himself by closing the monasteries and grabbing the land -- which had been used to support the monastic institutions which cared for the sick, the poor and the destitute (as well as travellers) which would have to be replaced years later by the awful workhouses -- revolts and uprisings occurred, amongst other places, in Yorkshire and the West Country some of which had to be put-down by hired mercenaries from abroad.

Today the land is grabbed by absentee landlord insurance conglomerates to be farmed by huge chemical agri-business and what do the people care about? Phone-ins being rigged on meaningless chewing-gum TV which only the brain-dead would have the notion would be 'money well spent!'

Did the people of Devon and Yorkshire have more political awareness 500 years ago? More notion of freedom? More awareness of faith and heritage?

When I erringly stumble on a Sun editorial or I overhear someone talking about a family upheaval on some TV show, I am tempted to think so.

Princess Diana Memorial

And so the media has been involved with yet another furore over a non story.

As our country falls about our feet, with a crime endemic, a drugs endemic, an immigration endemic - well, you get the idea - what do the media care about?

Princess Di's memorial service and whether Camilla (Duchess of Cornwall) should be there or not.

Now this makes me have several trains of thought:

1. I'm not against the Diana Memorial per se. It is certainly efficacious to pray for the dead and a great act of charity, and it is the most natural thing for family members to do - for if we're forgotten by our loved ones - who will there be to pray for us?

2. The turning of this event into a public spectacle though has me reaching for my vomit bucket. Diana was no saint (which of us is?), but the painting of her as some kind of latter-day secular saint because she was a mate of Elton John and Versace or filled her vacuous hours with work for some charities is more than a bit much.

3. Who gets invited to the service should be up to the family, but then this should be a family affair, instead it becomes some kind of celebrity bash.

4. The hysteria surrounding Diana that gets typically brain-dead Sun readers and Eastenders-watching automatons incanting "she was the peoples' princess weren't she?" is enough to make anyone blow chunks. This media-created myth should be exposed for what it is.

Diana was possibly, (as I believe King Lear said) 'more sinned against than sinning' and what hurt is done by her family and friends praying for her immortal soul?

But this circus, run equally by the media, the Royal Family, and various pressure groups is indicative of Diana's sad life.

The thought of a Christian ceremony (albeit a typically effeminate Anglican one) with a gaggle of homosexuals present (like Sir Elton of John - knighted for services to buggery) is somehow suitable.

It sums up the faggot-hugging, Masonic, non-religion of the monarchy and the ridiculous media-circus that these events inevitably are.

So whisper a prayer for the soul of Diana today.

Chances are that your small private prayer may, if she's not beyond our help, do the poor woman more good than all the public wailing by the preening garish peacocks on display at the ceremony today.