The cultural norms, values and heritage of indigenous peoples must be legally protected, defended and secured, and in order for that to be ensured, the land on which those norms, values and heritage are determined and evolved must also be equally protected, defended and secured under law.

The self-determination and sovereign status of indigenous peoples, including the Angloriginal peoples, must be respected and protected by all. Those who deny this right must be called out and held to account for their bigotry.

How about the shirt on your back? Well yes, as much as you can really own anything, the shirt on your back is fundamentally yours. Unless someone can prove that you stole it from them, it’s your shirt, and British law – both literally and metaphorically – does not allow anyone to take the shirt off your back – not even the taxman.

Let’s go up a level. What about your car? It’s certainly regarded as a personal possession, but there are major caveats to your ownership status. The key word when it comes to vehicle ownership is “registration”, for which you pay a yearly fee. Anything you own that is registered by the state, is not actually owned by you. Effectively, it is owned by the state as a freehold, and you are the leaseholder. Yes, you can own and use it without registration, but if you are caught not paying the yearly fee to the state owner (road tax), then you’ll be fined, and the vehicle can be impounded, or sold.

The same applies to your house, and personal land. You may think that you are the freeholder, but you actually only own it under license from the state. Your house registration ties you into a social contract, which allows the state to be able to force you to sell, in order to pay state fees, such as outstanding tax or death duties, and under certain conditions, to compulsory purchase your property at ‘the market value’, to which you have no absolute legal right to refuse.

In so far as the balance between true ownership and state registered ownership is concerned, it is fair to say that most people would expect a similar registration system of some type, in order to curtail criminality, and to allow the machinery of society to actually operate. However, when we come to the next question on ownership, the real underlying problem in every instance – the state, and how much it can be trusted – is brought sharply into focus.

Although I am writing this for the benefit of Angloriginals, the following truths are pertinent to every reader, no matter to which country you are native. The assertions made herein relate to everyone’s indigenous land rights.

To the casual observer, the state owns the country on behalf of the people. However, when one digs just a little deeper, a much more muddy and murky picture begins to appear, and it’s not a pretty one. So as not to convolute the matter at hand, we’ll leave the particulars of exactly who has their grubby little hands on the real tiller of the country (do your own research), and focus instead on the broader picture, and the solutions that will evolve our society to a far fairer model of ownership.

Firstly, the people own absolutely nothing, and have no say whatsoever in how the country is run. If you think you do, and that the democratic process proves it, then please get in touch with me, as I have a fantastic bridge and clock tower in London that I recently acquired, which I can let you have for an absolute steal!

The state is intrinsically corrupt. Just like all other corporations, it has no morality; it has no humanity; it has no soul. The clue is in the word “corporation”. It is named after the word “corpse”. It is legally a “person”, but not a living one. That’s right, you are controlled in every aspect of your daily life by a zombie, and as we know, all zombies relentlessly feed on people. Yes, it really does all make sense, doesn’t it?

The second great truth about the state is that like all systems of power in society, it attracts – like flies to faeces – the very worst of society. Those with antisocial personality disorders, who crave power, fame, money and absolute control over others, namely – grandiose narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths.

It’s the perfect mix of corrupt operators in control of policy making for a corporation that has a guaranteed customer base of tens of millions of taxpayers, and an international database of billionaire and trillionaire partners in crime lining up with their fleecing sheers.

The only way for the state to remain uncorrupted, and to truly serve the people, is for the state to actually be the people – for the people to become the state.

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln perfectly summed up this ultimate political solution in his Gettysburg Address when he talked of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” This correct interpretation of how democracy should really work was very obviously never adopted in either the USA, or indeed in any other nation across the entire globe. Still, we can certainly applaud Lincoln for at least getting the idea out there before they shut him up permanently.

Let’s consider the two main types of corporation that exist in the business world. A limited company (Ltd), which is privately owned and cannot sell shares to the public, and a Public Limited Company (PLC), which can sell shares to the public.

Although the analogy is not perfect, we can think of the state as being a limited company, in so far as it is privately owned and managed, with the general public having no share of ownership, and holding no position of power whatsoever within its corporate structure.

The relationship of the people to this privately owned and controlled corporate structure is that the state contracts with the public – referred to as “the social contract” – just as a company contracts with a client or customers to provide a service. In this case, the service supplier (the state) is expected by the client (the people) to provide all the infrastructure and public services that are reasonably expected, plus whatever the elected government has promised to the voting public.

The fly in the ointment of this scenario is as stated above – corruption. It is impossible to say exactly what percentage of politicians are bought-and-paid-for at any given time, but the number is always significant enough to mean that the vast majority of money is fed into policies and projects that are more designed to profit transnational companies and foreign (globalist) agendas than to serve the needs and desires of the indigenous population.

Returning to the analogy of this highly corrupted state system being a limited company, there is a very obvious solution to the blatant, continual fraud that has been operating on full steam ever since the idea of the state was manufactured. We will come to that solution in just a moment, but it is first essential to understand why pundits and economists have not been promoting this solution for decades.

A brief but very important interjection…

The overarching divide and rule strategem within the modern political system has always been to separate each nation of voters into two main party political camps under the banners of left vs. right (red vs. blue). This is referred to as “the two party control system”.

So long as the majority of voters can be herded into thinking in a politically linear way, history has proven that the demographic will generally find its level at roughly a 50/50 split. Shift the Overton window to the left or right, and the level will once again find that 50/50 split, just further to the left or to the right.

So long as the establishment can retain control (or a fifth column can attain influence) over each of the two main parties that represent the left and the right, then the democracy is very much controlled by those who hold the political, economic and media steering wheels. In other words, there is no real democracy at all under such a system.

A fundamental addition to the left/right, red/blue scripted stage act is the parallel socialism/capitalism system that works in tandem with the party politics. Each member of the populace is conditioned to think that they must fundamentally either support a capitalist run society or a socialist run society. Most people simply do not have the critical discernment to think outside this constructed duopoly box to realise that each of these ideologies equally contains both good and bad ideas, and indeed some very good ones and some equally very bad ones.

This divide and rule mindset allows, on the one hand, the state to feverishly embrace a capitalist run economy controlled by transnational PLCs and ‘the markets’, all of which operate on a share ownership system, whilst at the very same time, the very same state operates its own corporation along with its allied central bank as private limited companies, and with undisclosed shareholders. Even the brightest top economists are so conditioned to the divide and rule way of thinking that not one of them has yet spotted this most obvious hypocrisy.

The people have been persistently programmed to believe in the right-wing ideology of the market economy. However, the transnational and central banking control of this market economy utterly abuses the shareholding system on which it relies. In its proper form, shareholding is one of those ideas that everyone on both sides of the aisle should applaud. After all, isn’t share ownership not only at the very core of the capitalist model, but also fundamentally at the very core of socialist voting ideology.

When company shares are monopolised, and the boardroom is corrupted, the same equitable shareholding system that produces legitimate checks and balances, instead becomes a highly corrupted monopoly for the illegitimate appropriation of industries and economies. This multinational takeover of indigenous industries and national economies by global PLCs, is exactly what has taken place in every single country on earth over the last 100 years. It is commonly called ‘globalism’ and its puppeteers have strings on most politicians and on almost all news media.

Again, as mentioned above, we must take the best from the left and the best from the right, and eliminate the worst from both. When it comes to our own government and democracy, the need to do this could not be more pressing.

When implemented fairly, and managed by a responsible board of directors, the shareholder system is by far the most stable and equitable form of managing any large institution with lots of interested parties, whether such interests are purely financial, or in the case of what we are considering here, are also of great public concern.

Every voter would like to think of themselves as a stakeholder in the affairs of their nation, but the reality is that you are nothing of the sort. Under the current model, you have less ownership, status and clout, than a burger flipper has inside the boardroom of MacDonald’s.

In regard to citizenship, the old model must be completely eliminated and replaced with full legal share ownership of the nation by its people. We should call this evolved concept of the people actually owning their own country a Public Limited Nation (PLN) because, in business terminology, that it is exactly what it is, and whether you like it or not, your nation does operates as a business.

You simply need to decide whether you want that business to continue being owned and controlled by criminals, parasites, and foreign (globalist) cartels, which have absolutely no loyalty to your values, your people, or your nation (only to financial profit and the fleecing of your economy), or whether you believe that the people themselves should always be the full stakeholders within their own country; their own culture; and their own common prosperity.

Transferring Britain, or any other nation, into a Public Limited Nation (PLN) would sweep away the corruption in every branch of governance.

• Articles of Association would effectively be a constitution written by the people (the shareholders), not some bought-and-paid-for politicians.

• There would be PLN Annual General Meetings, at which the people would get to vote on anything that was deemed to be of great national significance (politically know as referendums).

• At AGMs, the shareholders would also have the opportunity to call for those in positions of control within public services who were deemed to be unfit for the role they occupied to be replaced.

• When the nation showed a profit, each shareholder (citizen) would receive quarterly dividend payments.

Essentially, the people would get hands-on control of who was running THEIR country FOR THEM. The people would get to decide on what changes were implemented, in order to make their own nation prosperous and pleasing to them.

The only real question for the people of each nation to decide upon is who should initially be permitted to be shareholders, and who should be excluded. After all, the company (PLN) must obviously represent the indigenous culture, values and heritage of each country.

The alternative is exactly what you are currently experiencing. The people who are running the country do not feel any real bond to the country; its history; its values; or its sovereign individuality. They are selling it out because they care more about their personal prosperity than they do about the longterm prosperity of England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales.

Almost without exception, only those who have a long historic, generational bond to a country will care deeply about it (although there are some rare but notable exceptions). If you do not feel in your bones that the Anglo Isles are your true home, and that you are deeply connected to their history and the history of the Angloriginal peoples, then you obviously cannot be trusted with being a custodian of those lands and that heritage.

For this reason, all shareholders of a PLN should be required to sign, at the nominal legal age they become a shareholder, a document that states that they give complete allegiance to the people of the nation, above all other allegiances and oaths: religious, political, national, and to any other institution, agency, organisation, or secret society.

An added safeguard could be put in place stating that alongside the automatic removal of shareholder status if an individual was proven to have broken their commitment of allegiance, additional financial penalties would also apply.

If someone was not prepared to sign such a document, it would be very clear that their primary allegiance lay elsewhere, with some entity other than to the nation in question. Although they may be permitted to remain in the nation as a guest, they should obviously not be able to have any say in the PLN, or benefit from any financial profits it may produce.

The phrase “No taxation without representation” originated in the ‘Speech on the Declaratory Bill of the Sovereignty of Great Britain over the Colonies‘ written by Lord Camden and given to the British parliament in 1768. He states that, “taxation and representation are inseparable. This position is founded on the laws of nature; for whatever is a man’s own is absolutely his own; no man hath a right to take it from him without his consent either expressed by himself or representative; whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery.”

It is interesting to note that the British government of the time argued for ‘virtual representation’, which referred to the idea that people were represented by MPs, even if they could not remove them by voting for someone else. Of course, if given the facility, the American colonies would have chosen representatives directly from their own ranks and those who could be trusted, whereas today, the two-party control system only allows voters to choose ‘selected’ MPs, pre-chosen by interests that are not aligned to the indigenous population who they are supposed to be representing.

So in modern terms, “No taxation without representation” actually demands a far more robust and involved participation by the people within the democratic system. Modern technology allows for such a hands-on approach, and the well-accepted and long-term tested shareholding model provides the perfect avenue for an authentic representation of the people within any nation – their full and shared ownership of it.

Indeed, “No taxation without incorporation” should become the new rallying cry of those who believe in true democracy and wish to put an end to political and economic corruption.

Interests within the darker elements of the state in countries such as Canada, have been accused of organising deals with corrupted indigenous leaders, in order to give them land rights over the existing private properties of Canadian citizens, to in turn pass that ownership or leasehold ownership onto transnational developers. Such criminality within the state is exactly why a PLN is the perfect solution to indigenous land ownership, and to obtaining a true democracy within any nation.

If the indigenous population as a whole legally own their entire country via non-transferable, equally distributed shares (one citizen, one share) within a PLN company structure, then there is clearly no reasonable way that such corruption could ever take place.

Those whose families have occupied the land for centuries and millennia will not only care deeply about the land, because it is their heritage, but will also not be able to sell the land, because it is permanently owned by all the indigenous population, and will continue to be so throughout every generation that follows.

Whether we are discussing the indigenous people’s full ownership of their own country though a PLN, or indigenous land rights as a stand-alone matter, it is important to understand exactly what is covered under the word ‘land’ in this regard.

Land

The word ‘land’ can refer to both a specific parcel of land, or more expansively, such as in the terms: nation, country, homeland, fatherland or motherland. Essentially ‘indigenous land rights’ can apply to any of these perspectives, depending on whether the conversation is revolving around a particular culturally significant or sacred site, or the nation as a whole.

Water (above and below the Earth)

The abuse of water source ownership has become a hot topic in recent years with members of the parasitic class gobbling up lake and aquifer land and syphoning off rivers, in order to produce agricultural business monopolies; to gain control over populations; and to accumulate ever more toxic wealth for themselves. A prime example is in California, but the same is happening in Australia, Africa and all around the world – billionaires stealing and hoarding the water for profit and control.

This tactic of water source control has also been employed to ethically cleanse targeted populations, with perhaps the most blatant example being in Palestine, in which jewish settlers and the Israeli government have secured the higher land, in order to redirect the natural flow of the rivers away from Palestinian farms and towns.

Let’s face it, nobody without a serious antisocial personality disorder would ever believe that natural water flow that a community depends on should ever be owned by anyone other than the people it has served historically, as a whole. Sadly for normal human beings, billionaires all have severe mental disorders, such as grandiose narcissism, sociopathy and psychopathy, and so will never possess a level of empathy that does not require stringent laws to be put in place in order to curb their antisocial actions.

The only remedy is for the indigenous people of each nation to legally own all the natural water, and so land rights must also include any water that flows through the land or is contained under it.

Air

The need to have rights over the air may seem ridiculous to some, but in fact, air is something that is currently under the control of the state, not the people, and can therefore be taxed.

The whole manmade CO2 global warming scam is by far the best example of this covert taxing strategy. Those who haven’t read the Club of Rome, Agenda 21, and Agenda 2030 documents may still believe that those who run groups like the World Economic Forum actually care about those outside of the billionaire class, but the fact is that ‘sustainable development’ is simply all about funnelling the people’s money into the bank accounts of those who control the scam.

The plan for carbon taxing that is the big payoff within the “CO2 is bad for the environment” hoax, and which the more awakened researcher has been shouting about for years, is just around the corner. If the people do not, under law, also fully own the air that exists above their land, then what you breath out (carbon dioxide) will be taxed. That’s the plan. The choice is yours: own the air or be prepared to pay the tax.

The other reason for air ownership is what is being sprayed over you. Whether you woke up to the reality of geo-engineering (chemtrails, SRM) years ago, or have only recently realised it was real because governments have finally begun to openly admit that they are funding it, the fact is that the military-industrial complex has been illegally spraying toxic chemicals over us for the best part of century, but obviously never admitting to it until their backs are against the wall, which the British Ministry of Defence finally had to back in 2002.

Clouds of secrecy – BBC Inside Out East, 6th November, 2006.

Millions were in germ war tests – The Guardian, 21st April, 2002.

The only way for any nation, its water and it crops, to be reasonably free of constant chemical attack from above, is for the people to legally own what is above them in the sky, as well as the land upon which they stand.

Infrastructure (transport, energy, communications)

Would you buy a house that didn’t include the pipes, cables, taps, plug sockets etc? Of course not, and that is why land rights – whether we are taking about an individual parcel of land or the nation as a whole – must include the infrastructure of roads, rail tracks, energy cables, communication technology, water pipes, and anything else that is required to allow the land to function in its existing state.

Cultural, historic, and sacred sites, structures and buildings

If we park to side the larger issue of the people needing to legally their own country as a whole, via such a model as a Public Limited Nation (PLN), and focus on how native peoples around the world began their own movements for indigenous land rights, we see that securing the rights of ownership to sacred land and cultural heritage sites was often the starting point.

I believe that such milestones in the indigenous land rights movement have now been been so well established that the Angloriginal™ movement can instead concentrate on securing ownership of the entire nation without needing to begin at that rudimentary starting point. However, these cultural, historic, and sacred sites, structures and buildings do still provide a great visual tool in awakening the people to understanding the importance of Angloriginal land rights in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

A final reminder must be made about the difference between those who genuinely care about the Anglo Isles nations of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales – i.e., the indigenous populace, compared with those who are scripted to pretend that they care, but are actually lying with every word that they speak.

If you want to know the overriding reason why your country has gone to the dogs this century, it is because in the majority of key positions within government, the civil service, and all public services, the individual or individuals in control are not indigenous in their values, the worldview, or their beliefs. It really is that simple.

Whether you understand the fully orchestrated and long-term agenda that has brought this about, or whether you prefer not to imagine such conspiratorial realities, the fact remains that a person who is truly indigenous feels a connection the land of the Anglo Isles, whereas a non-indigenous person very rarely does, and most often has completely opposing loyalties to another culture identity.

Very importantly, there are exceptions to this rule of thumb. Firstly, there are those who are born and bred in the Anglo Isles, and who can trace that native ancestry back for centuries, but who are willing to betray that connection for a bag of silver. They are not Angloriginal. They are traitors and fools.

Similarly, there are those whose parents arrived in the country as immigrants, or they arrived themselves as such, but who were always meant to live within the Anglo Isles. They utterly embrace everything that is culturally Angloriginal, and reject that which is not.

Such people are rare, but I have personally known one or two, and there are a few notable individuals within politics today who may fit this category. I will not mention names here – I think they will know who they are, but they all exist on the fringes of politics in 2026. To them I simply say, you are as Angloriginal as me.

Remember, this is all about culture, not race.

But it is ALL about culture.