Removed From You Tube , WHY? Reduce the population Scene from 'One by One' Rik Mayall's last film release before his sudden death

 

The video features a specific scene from the 2014 British independent drama/thriller film One by One, written and directed by Diane Jessie Miller. This particular clip is widely shared online because it features the late English comedian and actor Rik Mayall in one of his final film roles before his sudden death in June 2014.

Summary of the Content

In this narrative, dramatic scene, Rik Mayall's character (Ernest) delivers a serious, monologue-driven exposition regarding global control and elite manipulation. The core thematic elements presented in the dialogue include:

• The "New World Order" and Population Control: The character details a fictional or conspiratorial agenda orchestrated by a hidden elite or "the men behind the curtain".
•  He outlines a deliberate, multi-stage plan designed to drastically reduce the global population.
• Phases of Deception: The monologue explains how governance, financial systems, and mainstream media are used as tools to manufacture crises, manipulate public perception, and maintain unquestioned authority over everyday citizens.
• Destruction vs. Revolution: The scene serves as a narrative catalyst to "awaken" or violently jolt another character (a cafe worker named Dion) to the idea that the world is being guided toward a controlled collapse or an elite-driven totalitarian structure.

Within alternative media platforms and internet subcultures, this clip is frequently shared independently of the full movie. It is often cited by commentators as a prescient commentary on governance, global power structures, and systemic manipulation.

THE PURPORTED RACE RELATIONS ACTS AND OTHER TREASONOUS ACTS

 

Author Unkown first Published 2012

THE PURPORTED RACE RELATIONS ACTS

The so-called Race Relations Acts are conspiracies to use acts of parliament to enforce the racial integration of subjects of the Crown with Negroes and Asiatics especially brought here for the purpose. They are acts of racial hatred against us by prohibited immigrants. The Race Relations Act of 1965 was introduced to parliament by the Russian Jew Frank Soskice, purported Labour Attorney General. Further Race Relations Acts were devised by the Board of Jewish Deputies. The Jewish Chronicle stated that amendments must be made to the Race Relations Act since the 1965 Race Relations Act was not working the way they wanted it to. The 1976 Race Relations Act was passed in the Commons by default, with only 132 of the 635 members present; 124 Labour and Liberal traitors voted for the bill with eight Tories against.
To terrorize the masses it was required to establish a network of so-called human rights agencies, the ‘Race Relations Industry.’ Ivor Benson writes that:

the task was to penalize the instinctive responses of the local resident population in the presence of unassimilable neighbours who have been forced upon them... Hereto there are rich pickings for decadent, deracinated elements who help to impose the tyranny, like human dregs who rule the roost and spend millions of the tax-payers’ money in Britain’s innumerable inner-city ghettoes. Nor should we omit to mention the zealous active connivance of politicians and bureaucrats whose greed for personal advancement is rationalized with a spurious humanistic ideology.

There are three phases in this Jewish imposition of race mixing:

• Phase One: Unassimilable population elements are introduced into all-White communities of the West as legitimate immigrants, supposedly because their labour was needed.
• Phase Two: Public opposition is circumvented by introducing them as refugees.
• Phase Three: Which came into effect right from the start, is a massive and sustained campaign of mental terrorism aimed at suppressing every form of popular dissent and opposition. The campaign of terrorism has taken two forms, one aimed at the leadership and the other at the masses. Any political leader who dares to give voice to what his own people think and feel is at once made the target by the Jews by an orchestrated campaign of vilification with Jewish-devised swear words “Nazi,” “Fascist,” “racialist,” “racist” while support in money and publicity is diverted to political rivals and opponents. The masses are terrorised by Jewish-led Socialist Workers Party mobs who are quite prepared to use violence when necessary.

IMMIGRATION

The massive immigration of Islamics and other coloured peoples is illegal and the British people, subjects of the Crown, were never consulted about whether they wanted their country to become a multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Mrs Margaret Thatcher deceived the nation in 1979 when she declared that Britain was becoming swamped with immigrants, using the fears of the subjects of the Crown to gain votes and giving the impression that she would stem the flow. Having got her party into government she did nothing about it, only allowed vast numbers more into the country. Multi-racialism and multi-culturalism has been illegally and unconstitutionally imposed on this nation and the Jewish power controlling the government will ensure that the nation will never be consulted.

THE PURPORTED PUBLIC ORDER ACT OF 1986

The so-called Public Order Act of 1986 is a conspiracy to use an act of parliament to enable investigators to enter the homes of subjects of the Crown to gain evidence to initiate action in the law courts against those offending against the purported Race Relations Act. This Act was placed before parliament by the purported Conservative Home Secretary, the prohibited Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, Leon Brittanisky, also known as Leon Brittan, assisted by his cousin, another Lithuanian Jew, Malcolm Rivkind, also know as Malcolm Rifkind. This bill was primarily to prevent subjects of the Crown from discussing and revealing the Jewish take-over of our nation.

THE PURPORTED NATIONALITY ACT

The so-called Nationality Act is a conspiracy to use an act of parliament to take away our rights as subjects of the Crown. This act makes the place of birth rather than the genetic and racial identity of the individual the criteria for nationality. Britons from Australia and Canada visiting the continent from Britain were surprised on their return to be presented with documents to sign marked “Alien” while Pakistanis and other Asians passed through with British passports as British nationals.
This Act purports to replace ancestry, that for generations has been the practical definition of the British subject, by the definition of an accidental place of birth. Thus it seeks to encourage the development of a nation of half-breeds and to swamp and destroy the British people and their customs.
In The Common Law of England, 198. N2, Sir Edward Coke states:

Persons born beyond the seas, if their fathers or paternal grandfathers were natural born subjects, are likewise made so, though with an exception of some unfavourable persons.... Liegeus is ever taken for a natural born subject... Liegeance, a liegando, being the highest and greatest obligation of duty and obedience that can be. Liegance is the true and faithful obedience of a liegman or subject to his liege lord or sovereign. Alliegeance is born of faith: alliegeance is the essential law.

Until William Whitelaw’s Nationality Act we have been subjects of the Crown and under the protection of the Crown. This Act purports to deprive us of this and make us merely British citizens. This Act together with the European Communities Act and the Treaty of Rome aims at destroying the British Monarchy as soon as possible. It is High Treason.
By signing the United Nations Charter in 1946 and passing an act before parliament so-called British politicians were obliged to carry out the terms of the Charter. This entails the mixing of the races of the world to form a degraded population and the eradication of the British and other White races. These the planners regard, together with Christianity, as the main obstacles to the establishment of a totalitarian one-world government.
The United Nations Charter was drafted by Alger Hiss, a convicted communist and Soviet agent together with Andrei Gromyko, a senior Soviet official. Alger Hiss occupied the directional chair at the organizational conference of the United Nations. These people are aiming at genocide of the White race.
According to this Nationality Act the Queen is no longer our Queen and we are no longer her subjects. If we are no longer the subjects of the Crown this Act deprives us of the protection of the Crown, for according to the patent rolls of the Statute of Northampton 1328 it is the duty of the Queen to protect her subjects despite parliament; thus we are protected from a possible anti-White anti-British parliament. This Act purports to deprive the Queen of her titles, lands and prerogatives. We no longer go to war for the Crown but for parliament. This is High Treason.
A letter from the Home Secretary dated 31st May 1988, which appeared in the Independent newspaper on Monday 17th June 1988, made it plain that Her Majesty the Queen is prepared to place at the disposal of parliament all her remaining prerogatives: the power to make war or peace, to ratify treaties, to grant honours; the list is formidable embracing just about all those powers which remained to the monarch after the glorious revolution of 1688. The signature at the bottom of the letter is that of Douglas Hurd. The person who drew the Home Secretary into weighty correspondence is the cryptic left-winger, Tony Benn. Benn laid before parliament his Crown Prerogatives Bill to deprive the Crown of all the remainder of her prerogatives.

THE PURPORTED EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT

The European Communities Act of 1972 and the Treaty of Rome aims at destroying the British monarchy as soon as possible.
This is High Treason the penalty for which is death by hanging and this is still on the statute books. Likewise any subject of the Crown who knows that High Treason is being carried on and fails to report it is guilty of Misprision of High Treason, the penalty may be death: to deprive the Queen of her Crown or any of her dominions.
Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome is irreconcilable with the Oath of Allegiance. There is an absolute constitutional case that there is no statute authority for the executive acts that have bound the UK to the EEC, nor for the British Nationality Act. Both are contrary to the interests of the Crown and people.
The High Court of Great Britain disallowed an Act which was passed by our House of Commons and House of Lords and received the Royal Assent. This Act was the Shipping Act of 1988. The High Court referred the case to the European Court. This was the first case in the history of parliament that an Act passed by both houses of parliament with the Royal Assent and the regulations under it have been set aside. A British Court has interfered with an act of parliament in the interests of a foreign court. This is High Treason.
We can claim that the Queen carry out her coronation oath and protect us from alien and foreign-made laws.
We are legally not in the Common Market nor are we constitutionally a multi-racial multi-cultural society. Traitor Edward Heath carried out the plans of international Jewish financiers and multinational companies, the Imperial Institute for International Affairs and the Rothschilds to deceive the Queen in her grants. Many of us have taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, her heirs and successors and demand protection from foreign-made laws made by aliens in Europe.
The Oath of Allegiance has been taken by members of parliament, Queen’s Councillors, members of the Judiciary, clergy of the Church of England and members of the executive yet many of them are working for our enemies, for a slave-state full of debt which our children will inherit. A charge of perjury of the Oath of Allegiance and High Treason must be laid against all those culprits who have allowed our government to be over-ruled by directives coming from beyond the seas – from foreigners in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Any attempt to take Scotland and England into the EEC is High Treason: “Depriving the Queen of her lands and titles.” All purported MEP’s are qualified for hanging. The basic statutes of the United Kingdom are still in force and are in conflict with growing foreign supremacy.
The full sovereignty of the United Kingdom is not now in the hands of the Queen; her powers have been handed over by a despicable traitor Edward Heath on the instructions of his Jewish mentors. Edicts and laws can be sent out from Brussels and Strasbourg which are enforced by traitors in the United Kingdom. European Law and Community Law is now destroying the respective laws and customs of the British realm and the very birthright of the British people.

Tucker Carlson Confronts Britain’s Most Rothchilds Pro-War Advocate and Summary of Interview

 

1. Rejection of Foreign Interventionism and Proxy Wars

• The Escalation Risk: Carlson strongly opposes the West’s financial and military backing of Ukraine (5:18). He argues that by funding and equipping forces against Russia, the UK and the US have effectively made themselves active combatants in the war (5:18). This, he warns, pushes the world to the brink of a catastrophic nuclear exchange for a conflict that does not serve the immediate interests of Western citizens (8:04).
• The 2014 Ukrainian Regime Change: A cornerstone of Carlson's argument is his assertion that the current conflict did not begin in a vacuum in 2022 (7:07). He highlights the 2014 overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian government, which he claims was directly orchestrated by NATO and US intelligence agencies (7:56). Because of this intervention, Carlson rejects the narrative that Ukraine is a genuinely sovereign nation making independent choices (39:04). Instead, he labels it a proxy state caught between the West and Russia, noting that in 2014, the country was naturally moving toward closer economic and cultural ties with Russia before Western interference disrupted it (38:33).
• National Interest Over Global Order: He challenges the notion that nations have a duty to police an abstract "international order" (19:21). Carlson believes a government's sole moral obligation is to protect and serve its own domestic population, not to sacrifice its citizens' resources or lives to maintain the borders of foreign countries (5:57).

2. Critique of Domestic Freedom of Speech

• The Immediate Threat: Carlson claims that the most pressing threat to the freedom of British citizens does not come from Russia, but from the UK's own government (1:00:13).
• Comparing UK and Russian Free Speech: In a provocative turn in the interview, Carlson compares the policing of speech in both nations (59:33). He claims that the UK government has arrested and prosecuted more people over the past year for social media posts than the Russian government has (59:50). While not defending Russia's overall human rights record, Carlson uses this statistic to argue that Western nations have lost the moral high ground. He asserts that by prosecuting citizens for expressing a controversial "desire" or opinion rather than threatening a direct physical action, the UK has compromised fundamental Western legal standards (1:01:30).
• State Oppression: He criticizes the UK for penalizing anti-war voices, pointing out that figures like George Galloway have been branded as foreign agents simply for opposing the state's geopolitical agenda (56:18). He also condemns the arrest of citizens for peaceful protests, such as praying silently outside abortion clinics, arguing that true freedom of speech is under severe state oppression across the country (1:00:29).

3. Skepticism of Historical Military Narratives

• The True Cost of the World Wars: Carlson introduces a highly critical view of Britain's twentieth-century military history (32:56). He argues that by entering the First and Second World Wars to protect distant, non-contiguous nations (like Belgium and Poland), Britain effectively destroyed its own empire, bankrupted its economy, and depleted its population (32:56).
• Loss of Sovereignty: He points out the historical irony of Britain claiming victory in WWII while permanently hosting foreign (American) troops on its soil for eighty years, which he views as a fundamental compromise of true national sovereignty and self-respect (34:24).

4. Absolute Rejection of Collective Punishment

• The Morality of Warfare: Carlson engages in a sharp theological debate regarding the deployment of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (26:51). He fiercely rejects the idea that killing non-combatants can ever be morally or biblically justified (27:34).
• Western Values and Individual Justice: For Carlson, concepts like blood guilt and group punishment are entirely antithetical to Western civilization (31:32). He argues that if a justice system takes exquisite care to punish only the guilty at home, it is entirely hypocritical to justify the mass killing of innocent women and children abroad under the pretext of shortening a war (31:37).

Nick Griffin - Why Burnham WILL Call an Early Election 30 Sept 2026

 

"Why Burnham WILL Call an Early Election" was published on the alternative media platform PURGED.tv by the political figure Nick Griffin.

The primary thesis of the video argues that a five-year left-wing coalition led by the Labour Party, followed by another decade of unadulterated Labour dominance, is the most likely future trajectory for British politics. Based on the surrounding context of British politics in late September 2026, the video represents a specific right-wing populist critique of the UK government under Prime Minister Andy Burnham, predicting that political maneuvers will ultimately force or incentivize the administration to call a snap election despite official denials.

Contextual Background

The publication of the video directly coincides with widespread political speculation in Westminster surrounding Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

• Official Government Stance: In public statements and broadcast interviews ahead of the Labour Party conference, Prime Minister Burnham explicitly rejected rumors of an early vote, stating that he is not tempted by a snap poll and that the next general election will take place as scheduled in 2029. He dismissed the speculation as "self-serving politics" that would disrupt the work of government.
• Policy Mandates and Pressures: The debate arises because Burnham—who took over the premiership mid-term following the resignation of Keir Starmer—is pursuing radical shifts in policy that diverge from the party's 2024 manifesto. These include plans to establish a universal National Care Service funded by reforming the state pension triple lock, setting up a National Commission to transition Westminster to a system of electoral reform (such as proportional representation), and exploring closer economic ties or a customs union with the European Union.
• Political Strategy Realities: Media reports indicate that some of No. 10's own senior political advisers have quietly urged the Prime Minister to consider a snap spring election. Proponents of an early vote argue it could capitalise on a recent polling increase known as the "Burnham bounce", secure Burnham his own personal democratic mandate, and lock in power before economic pressures worsen or the opposition right-wing parties fully consolidate.

The video on PURGED.tv frames these converging factors—radical progressive policy shifts, structural electoral planning, and backroom political strategy—as evidence that the government is actively setting the stage for an early electoral challenge to secure long-term control.

Every Major War Begins Under False Pretenses & the Central Banks Are Behind It. Tucker Carlson Show

 

This video interview features host Tucker Carlson interviewing German economist Professor Richard Werner, who discusses how major global conflicts and historical milestones are driven by central planners and monetary policy. Werner presents an alternative, system-focused historical narrative, arguing that international crises are frequently engineered to centralize power and reshape the global financial order (9:42).

The interview covers several key thematic arguments:

• Historical Precedents of Conflict: Werner traces the entry of the United States into World War I back to British strategic planning regarding the sinking of the Lusitania, framing it as an orchestrated effort to manipulate public sentiment (0:49). He asserts that modern conflicts, such as international interventions in Venezuela and tensions involving Iran, are de facto proxy maneuvers ultimately targeted at limiting the global economic rise of China (19:26).
• The Rise of China and Economic Deceptions: The discussion details how China serves as the modern equivalent to early 20th-century Germany by trying to establish alternative supply routes, specifically through the Belt and Road Initiative, to bypass US naval and dollar dominance (39:50). Werner argues that modern economic systems use flawed mathematical simulations—which he calls the "great deception"—to validate policies that intentionally suppress development in poorer nations (1:18:14).
• Centralization vs. Decentralization in Banking: Werner details how historic periods of rapid economic growth, such as in 19th-century Prussia or late 20th-century China, relied on localized, decentralized banking systems (26:14). He argues that central banking authorities have systematically dismantled local banks to consolidate absolute control over credit creation (1:50:00).
• The Future Shift to Digital Control: Looking ahead, Werner warns that global elites utilize economic crises and inflation as a "camouflage" to restructure monetary systems (2:00:05). He claims that the push for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and digital tracking frameworks is not about technical efficiency, but rather a mechanism designed to micromanage, restrict, and exercise complete authoritarian control over the global population (2:02:21).