Archive for the 'Politricks' Category

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard rides the D-Notice razor edge

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes in the Telegraph about ‘The Death of Paper Money’. Anyone who has been woken up by Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and the Austrians knows that this is in fact inevitable, and in the end, is a good thing, because it means that government can no longer steal your money from you while you sleep, spending that money on mass murder:

Great numbers of people failed to see it coming. “My relations and friends were stupid. They didnt understand what inflation meant. Our solicitors were no better. My mothers bank manager gave her appalling advice,” said one well-connected woman.

“You used to see the appearance of their flats gradually changing. One remembered where there used to be a picture or a carpet, or a secretaire. Eventually their rooms would be almost empty. Some of them begged — not in the streets — but by making casual visits. One knew too well what they had come for.”

Corruption became rampant. People were stripped of their coat and shoes at knife-point on the street. The winners were those who — by luck or design — had borrowed heavily from banks to buy hard assets, or industrial conglomerates that had issued debentures. There was a great transfer of wealth from saver to debtor, though the Reichstag later passed a law linking old contracts to the gold price. Creditors clawed back something.

A conspiracy theory took root that the inflation was a Jewish plot to ruin Germany. The currency became known as “Judefetzen” (Jew- confetti), hinting at the chain of events that would lead to Kristallnacht a decade later.

While the Weimar tale is a timeless study of social disintegration, it cannot shed much light on events today.


My emphasis.

Cannot shed much light on events today?

This is so irrational, contradictory and ridiculous that we could be forgiven for concluding that Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is working under the constraints of a D-Notice, preventing him from spelling out explicitly what is about to take place for fear of the disruption that would ensue, should the emperor’s naked state be publicly declared.

What he has done in this article is the next best thing; he obliquely spelled out the precise nature of what is going to happen in the USA, UK and all over Europe should hyperinflation suddenly kick in, and then put in a disclaimer right at the end of the section, to indemnify himself and get past the Telegraph editors.

That is the only explanation for this line. All of the factors are here for an inevitable hyperinflationary event. The parallels to the German hyperinflation are eerily similar, including the mass ignorance of what inflation is, what money is, etc etc.

So, what should you do to protect yourself from this coming hyperinflation? Evans-Pritchard tells you in this section:

Foreigners with dollars, pounds, Swiss francs, or Czech crowns lived in opulence. They were hated. “Times made us cynical. Everybody saw an enemy in everybody else,” said Erna von Pustau, daughter of a Hamburg fish merchant.


The message is clear; you need to hold currencies other than the ones that are about to go critical mass in a hyperinflationary spiral. You need to own gold. You need to own Swiss Francs. You should not own the Euro and under no circumstances, should you own the Federal Reserve Note (the ‘US Dollar’).

So what about the Pound Sterling? What are its characteristics, and why does Evans-Pritchard believe that it is immune from hyperinflation? Why has Evans-Pritchard completely (deliberately?) ignored the Pound and its nature in this discussion? He says:

This is not a picture of America, or Britain, or Europe in 2010.

Why not? What is the precise difference between the money used in the Weimar hyperinflation and the US Dollar, or for that matter the Zimbabwe Dollar (which no longer exists)?

The answer is that there is no difference.

Now, lets do what Evans-Pritchard is apparently forbidden from doing, using only the Google, and ask a fundamental question.

What is the Pound Sterling?

The pound is a fiat currency, supervised by the Bank of England.

The Pound is redeemable for nothing:

The contemporary sterling is a fiat currency which is backed only by securities; in essence IOUs from the Treasury that represent future income from the taxation of the population. Some economists term this ‘currency by trust’ as sterling relies on the faith of the user rather than any physical specie.

The bank of England has outsourced the manufacturing of its notes to the private company De La Rue:

De La Rue announces that it has been selected by the Bank of England to be its preferred banknote printing supplier. This follows an announcement by the Bank today that it has decided to contract out its banknote printing operations at Debden, Essex, to a commercial company. This will enable the Bank to lower the costs of the supply of its banknotes, while for staff it opens up the possibility of bringing in more work to Debden.

So. In five minutes we discover that the pound is worth precisely nothing. It can be printed at will in any quantity the Bank of England desires for any purpose that the state chooses, without any constraints whatsoever.

If you also factor in fractional reserve banking where UK banks are legally permitted to create money at will, you have a system, just like the one about to implode in the USA, the Federal Reserve System, that cannot possibly be immune to collapse.

If Sterling is immune from collapse, I would like to know precisely how it is different to every other paper money fiat currency that has ever existed.

Did you know that:

At heart, this economic crisis is in fact a currency crisis. Throughout history no paper currency (or “fiat currency”, since it is accepted as money by virtue of Government fiat or decree) has survived, and this time will be no different. The average lifespan of fiat currencies has been 16 years*. The present system is unique in that it has survived for 38 years and for the first time ALL countries throughout the world are on a fiat money standard. This means that the resulting crash will be on the scale of something the world has never seen.


My emphasis. Wether or not the figure of sixteen years is accurate, ALL fiat currencies eventually collapse. These are the countries that have already tasted it: Angola 1991-1995, Argentina 1975-1991, Austria 1921-1922, Belarus 1994-2002, Bolivia 1984-1986, Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1993, Brazil 1986-1994, Bulgaria 1996, Chile 1971-1973, China 1948-1949, Free City of Danzig 1922-1923, Georgia 1993-1995, Germany 1922-1923, Greece 1942-1944, Hungary 1945-1946, Israel 1970-1971, Japan 1948-1951, Krajina 1992-1993, Madagascar 2004-2005, Mozambique 1977-1992, Nicaragua 1987-1990, Peru 1988-1990, Philippines 1942-1944, Poland 1989-1991, Romania 1998-2005, Russia 1921-1922 and 1992-1999, Turkey 1990-1995, Ukraine 1993-1995, United States 1861-1865, Yugoslavia 1989-1994, Zaire 1989-1996, Zimbabwe 2004-2009.

All of the countries in this list experienced government created hyperinflation in the twentieth century. If each of these countries had not had government monopolies on the creation of money and legal tender laws, opting instead for a completely market driven commodity money system of currencies created by entrepreneurs whose business it is to manufacture money, they would not have experienced this problem. The sole exception in the above list in terms of the century of hyperinflation is the USA which had its experience in the nineteenth century, so they are about to have a second experience of it.

This is what Ambrose Evans-Pritchard will not touch in his articles… and its understandable why he does not touch upon this matter. Why should he do anything that might precipitate the inevitable collapse of Sterling? What can he possibly gain from telling the truth that anyone who is reading his article, and who therefore can use the Google, can access for themselves? He will only be made a scapegoat for the collapse which is going to happen wether he writes about it or not. We have all seen how governments and the press will use anything and any person as scapegoat to deflect blame from the true causes of a ‘financial crisis’.

Pity is what you should feel for Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. He is caught between a rock and a hard place, knowing the inevitable, desperate to warn everyone but unable to do so, either because of orders from above or his instinct for self preservation.

UK to abolish decennial census

Saturday, July 10th, 2010

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, said the Census, which takes place every 10 years, was an expensive and inaccurate way of measuring the number of people in Britain.

The herd owner has decided that there are better ways of counting the head of cattle….hmmmmm!

Instead, the Government is examining different and cheaper ways to count the population more regularly, using existing public and private databases, including credit reference agencies.

And these databases will fit in the palm of your hand.

It will represent a historic shift in the way that information about the nations population, religion and social habits is gathered.

The suggestion is likely to be approved by Cabinet next week. It will be too late to prevent the next Census on March 27, 2011 from going ahead, although Mr Maude said he was looking at ways of reducing the 482million cost.

FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO MILLION POUNDS? I would love to see a breakdown of how that number came about. That is

cost of census / (number of adults in UK / 3)

482000000/(50893318/3) = 28.4123742924

28.41 per productive person in the UK.

And why exactly is it too late? Why not scrap it right now and save one hundred million pounds? Perhaps the contractors might have something to say about its cancellation; that is probably the TRUE reason why they are unwilling to stop it.

Britain has carried out a Census every decade since 1801, with the exception of 1941 during the Second World War.

It is the only time that everybody in the country is counted, and is used by the Government to determine spending priorities and track population movements.

In other words, there is no sound reason for it whatsoever.

Academics, charities and religious organisations all rely on information gathered in the Census as it asks wide-ranging questions relating to peoples households, nationality, faith and marital status.

The needs and interests of these groups does not constitute a sufficient argument for the theft of this money to count people.

The information is also a significant source of research for future generations. The online publication last year of the 1911 Census proved hugely popular, with three million people accessing the database within its first few months.

Completely irrelevant. If there was a reason to collect and store this information, then someone other than the state would do it at their own expense. The latter uses of this data are secondary extra benefits, not the primary consideration. Even if those benefits did not exist, the state would still claim that they had to collect this data.

Mr Maude, who has responsibility for the Census, told The Daily Telegraph that the Government was looking for a fundamentally better way of doing it. There are, I believe, ways of doing this which will provide better, quicker information, more frequently and cheaper, he said.

The ID Card would have become a one stop shop for all this data and more. Now they have to piece it together from disparate sources. What they should do is give this task to people who are good with big and dirty data sets, like Google. Why should the state do this at all in the first place? As long as no state data is given to Google in preparation of its national data set, why should this valuable data, which everyone thinks is such a good idea, cost people who want nothing to do with it a single penny?

Just as it is with the ridiculous ‘Your Freedom’ website, which is total rubbish and is costing 20,000 to run, this task would be much better handled, for free, by Google. Imagine ‘Your Freedom’ run by Google; it would have no scaling problems, would have been properly thought out and executed… but you know this.

Mr Maude said Britain needed a new way to keep track of the population because the Census was often inaccurate and out of date. About 1.5million households failed to fill in their forms in 2001.

What’s that you say? 1.5 million?!

Once again we see that there is nothing that the state can do if large numbers of people simply refuse to cooperate.

In the USA, there are many people whining about the census, its intrusive nature and unconstitutionality. All they need to do is simply not do it. If they do this, nothing will happen. There is no need to give (perfectly correct and proper) explanations about why the census is immoral, illegitimate and illegal. All you have to do is simply refuse to answer or respond in any way. All that will happen is that a note will be made, and everyone will move on.

This is what it sounds like:

He appears to be heading outside the city.
Repeat, he is heading outside the city.

All I can do is note your information.

Stand by.

Please come back.
You have nothing to be afraid of.

The THX account is 6 percent
over budget.

The case is to be terminated.

Discontinue operation.

Report to thermal station 62.

Discontinue operation.


From THX-1138

“Economics make it necessary to terminate any operation which exceeds 5 percent of its primary budget.” This is the absolute truth of this matter, and the matter of your liberty. Unless they have your money to enslave you, they cannot enslave you.

Mr Maude said the Census was out of date almost before it has been done and was looking at ways to count the population more frequently perhaps every five years using databases held by credit checking firms, Royal Mail, councils and Government.

And so, what they will have, if people are careful, is a data set that is always inaccurate to a certain degree, but which is always up to date.

Anyone who is not stupid enough to vote, will not be counted. Anyone who uses more than one name will not be counted. Or may be counted twice. In short, anyone who is aware of their privacy and how to protect it will never be counted by this new system of real time census taking. It also means that you can get out of the count at any time by taking yourself off of the electoral register, and using shield identities for all your activities. We wrote about this ages ago.

This would give you more accurate, much more timely data in real time. There is a load of data out there in loads of different places, he said.

The first part of this is not true. The data will not be more accurate, and if this is not correct, I would like to know how it would be more accurate than the traditional census. There may be a ‘load of data’ out there, but there is no guarantee that that data is clean. Its an interesting problem!

Mr Maude said he hoped that the new way of counting the population would be less intrusive.

Translation: “We can do this in a more stealthy way, without the citizen knowing what we are collecting, storing and sorting on him.”

Questions for next year include the name, sex and date of birth of any visitors staying overnight.

The majority of people that I know and have ever known do not fill out census forms on principle.

He was also examining ways to save money on the 2011 Census, which will be organised by the Office for National Statistics. However, Labour had already spent 300million on the project.

Ah yes, I remember now; its going to cost so much because Lockheed Martin, arms company, won the contract to run the UK Census! File under $500 hammers and $2000 ‘toilet seats’.

It is common practice around the world for governments to carry out a census and the Government is required by European Union law to count the population regularly.

“Everyone is doing it, so its OK.”
“The EU says we have to do this.”

Makes you want to puke doesn’t it?

Geoffrey Robertson QC, a constitutional barrister, said the news was regrettable since some sort of count had been carried out by the monarch or government for almost 1,000 years.

Geoffrey Robertson QC

Oh dear me…

Tradition is the illusion of permanance.
Woody Allen (American Actor, Author, Screenwriter and Film Director, b.1935)

A tradition without intelligence is not worth having.
T.S. Eliot (American born English Editor, Playwright, Poet and Critic, 1888-1965)

Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay
Jiddu Krishnamurti (Indian Theosophist Philosopher, wrote The Future of Humanity, Songs of Life, Kingdom Happiness. 1895-1986)

Tradition is an explanation for acting without thinking
Grace McGarvie

Tradition is a guide and not a jailer
William Somerset Maugham (English short-story Writer, Novelist and Playwright, 1874-1965)

Tradition is a prison with majority opinion the modern jailer

Nuff said.

Future historians will be less able to interpret Britain in the Cameron/Clegg era as a result of this decision maybe that is the reason for it, he said.

Utter rubbish.

David Green, a director of the Civitas think tank, said the decision was a terrible mistake. It is a question of whether the alternatives are reliable, he said. The Census is expensive but I think it is worth the money for the historic continuity.

“Worth the money”? Where is and what is the source of this ‘the money’ that David Green speaks of so freely? If he thinks it is ‘worth the money’ why does he not gather up ‘the money’ himself, all 482m of it, and conduct his own census for posterity? He could even charge people for access to his priceless data… now there’s an idea.

These people really are beyond belief. What do you expect from a ‘think tank’ run by an ex Labour councillor? A basic understanding of economics?!

Under the 1920 Census Act, citizens can be cautioned under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and fined 1,000 for failing to answer questions. However, the powers have not been properly enforced previously. In 2001 just 38 people were fined for not filling in forms.


What on earth does the census have to do with Police and Criminal Evidence? That aside, do you see what I mean? one and a half MILLION people did not fill out their census forms, and only 38 people were fined. That means only 0.000253333333% of people who did not fill out ‘their’ census forms were prosecuted, or one out of 394,736 This ratio would continue to get smaller as the number of people refusing to comply increases. According to this article, 3,000,000 people refused to obey, so the ratio is smaller than we realize.

What these numbers say is that if you do not fill out a census form, no matter where you are (in fact, in America, the number of people prosecuted for not complying is even smaller than that of the UK) nothing will happen. There is nothing they can do to make you comply, and you have to be very unlucky to win the lottery of those vanishingly small number of people who are chosen as examples to the population of disobedience.

The power of the state is an illusion. The only people who suffer from it are the very unlucky. The state cannot and never has been able to resist a mass refusal to obey on any matter.

If you do not want to fill out a census form, just don’t do it.

Or as Nick Clegg has wisely advised the people of the UK, Don’t Accept it!

Bad tool for the job

Saturday, July 10th, 2010

useless tool

Incomplete excision!

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

It’s not perfect. In fact it is FAIL, this expulsion of the foetal police state. Two articles demonstrating some of the limited progress, bearing in mind that the sinister, racist, apartheid style ID Cards are still… on the cards. It’s a catalogue of FAIL, with each measure leaving just enough cancer behind so that it can return one day to kill the body.

Face-to-face passport interviews catch only eight fraudsters

A multi-million pound scheme to tackle passport fraud has been branded a failure after it was revealed that only eight people have been caught as a result of the project.

Since 2007, first-time applicants for passports have been required to attend face-to-face interviews with officials from the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) in an attempt to spot fraudsters.

Out of half a million people interviewed so far, just eight have been refused passports on the basis of the evidence obtained, according to official figures.

Although 4,000 fraud investigations have been triggered as a result of the interviews, not one has led to a prosecution or conviction.

Yet the government has admitted that on its own estimate, 4,400 fraudulent applicants per year are still managing to slip through the net and obtain passports.

Phil Booth, of campaign group NO2ID, said: “This expensive project was an attempt to introduce a network by stealth for the national identity card scheme. These figures show it has failed to have any significantly effect on passport fraud.”

The system of face-to-face interviews cost 93 million to set up, with 30 million a year running costs on top. It has helped push the price of a standard passport up from 28 in 2001 to 77.50 today.

Mr Booth added: “Now the ID card scheme has been binned and we have seen off, for the time being at least, proposals to fingerprint for passports, will this network be closed and will the cost of a passport be cut by this Government?”

Under the new system, applicants for passports aged 16 or over, who have never held a UK passport before, must first pass a background check and are then told to arrange an interview at one of 69 offices across the country.


While the interviews appear to have make little impact on levels of fraud, traditional paper checks continue to detect thousands of bogus applicants a year.

In 2006/7, 6,100 applicants were identified as fraudulent by the existing safeguards and prevented from obtaining British passports.

In the same year, according to an official government estimate, 9,700 slipped through the net and obtained passports to which they were not entitled.

By 2008/9, the most recent year for which data are available, the number identified as fraudulent and stopped through paper checks had risen to 9,200, while the number estimated to have slipped through the net had fallen to 4,400.


Remember, this is 9,700 out of an undisclosed number of passports that are issued or renewed every year. Without the number of passports that are issued correctly, this number is meaningless. If the total number of passports renewed or issued for the first time is 9,701 then the problem is huge. If the number of passports renewed or issued for the first time is 1,000,000 then the problem is very small, and the vast majority should not be penalised. Also, if this 9,700 number is correct, it shows that the state is able to detect these passports and intercept them in order to make a count, rendering the number of carriers of bad passports at any one time very small indeed compared to the tens of millions of people who are British passport holders.

Like the pathetic and paranoia, vendor snake oil fuelled US VISIT system, this absurd face to face interview system is a total waste of time.

The vast majority of passports are correctly issued. Even the ones that are correctly issued can be misused at will by criminals and murderers, especially now that cloning them is meade simple by the RFID chip in each passport. That is why, by the way, you should hammer the chip page in your biometric passport if you are unfortunate enough to have one.

When it is proposed that a working system is altered to accommodate a problem caused by a statistically small number of cases, that is a good indication that the proposed changes are wrong and should be rejected.

See our other posts on this subject:

The Times on Biometric Passports: Do they FINALLY understand?

Fingerprints as ID – good, bad, ugly?

What about the Children?

and one from 2005 etc etc.

And now, on to the insanely stupid ‘vetting and barring scheme’:

Ministers slammed the brakes last night on Labour’s controversial scheme to force millions of parents to undergo anti-paedophile and criminal records checks.

Home Secretary Theresa May pledged to change ‘fundamentally’ the deeply unpopular Vetting and Barring Scheme which was due to expand dramatically from next month – but she stopped short of scrapping it entirely.

The plans for new registrations from July 26 have been scrapped and Home Office officials are working out how the scheme will be scaled down.

Nine million adults were due to undergo intrusive checks by a new government agency, the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

But there was outrage after it emerged parents taking their children to Scouts or sports events could face fines of up to 5,000 if they failed to comply.

The scheme, which was designed to protect children and vulnerable adults, prompted major civil liberties concerns over its size and intrusion into private lives.

Last night Mrs May said checks on vulnerable groups should be ‘proportionate and sensible’.

She said: ‘The safety of children and vulnerable adults is of paramount importance to the new Government.

‘However it is also vital that we take a measured approach in these matters. We’ve listened to the criticisms and will respond with a scheme that has been fundamentally remodelled.

‘Vulnerable groups must be properly protected in a way that is proportionate and sensible.

‘This redrawing of the VBS will ensure this happens.’

Civil liberties groups welcomed the move, but urged Mrs May to abolish the scheme entirely.

Dylan Sharpe, campaign director of Big Brother Watch, said: ‘A review is not a solution.

‘The vetting and barring scheme should be scrapped and the Independent Safeguarding Authority should go with it.’

You cannot be a little bit pregnant. This scheme, like the foul ID Card and NIR must be entirely abolished forever. Absolutely appalling that they are even considering keeping it, especially when they have the perfect storm of pretexts for getting rid of it.

I had a chance to watch this again. What struck me about it was how it highlights the complete reversal of right and wrong, normal and abnormal that we are suffering today.

In the 1960’s its clear that the ideas of mistrust by default, preemptive war, attack as the best defence was the line that the purely evil, venal, greedy villain took, whilst peace, patience, negotiation, understanding, empathy for strangers (and in this case, VERY strange strangers) was the position of the absolute hero, the ideal and model human being, the normal, decent and true spirit of man.

This episode is startling, because it reminds anyone who watches is that the world really was a very different and better place even with all the unpleasant things that were happening at that time.

There is absolutely no reason why the better nature of human beings should not re assert itself in the 21st century. All decent people refuse to go along with the anti human Zero Trust Society, the economic slavery, the systematic silencing of anyone who does not go along with the group think.

It looks to me that thanks to the internet, it is now nearly impossible for a lie to have a long life. This means that means that all lies that are used to reshape the world now cannot do so, since reshaping the world with a lie takes time. If the truth is told all the time everywhere, then the end result must be more liberty and not less. This is why it is vitally important for people to retransmit the truth; it is more important than demonstrating, violence or any of the the 20th century ways of making things that are wrong, right.

And while we are talking about the truth, do take the time to watch all of the documentary ‘Free to Choose‘. The facts that make up the science of Economics are not a matters of opinion. It is up to you to make yourself familiar with the truth, to face it, embrace it and spread it.

For great justice!

Damian Green employs the Nuremberg Defense

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

Today, we read an irrational nauseating and completely wrong headed Defense of what amounts to ID Cards through the back door, delivered uncritically by the incorrectly named ‘Liberty Central’, which is in fact, Fail Central when it comes to your rights and defending them:

ID cards: gone for good
Scrapping the costly ID card scheme will be just the first act of this coalition to stop the state stealing people’s liberty

The title of this piece is false. ID Cards are not ‘gone for good’, since foreigners are still compelled to hand over their fingerprints and be registered in an NIR Lite®.

When the second reading of the Identity Documents bill takes place in the House of Commons later today, the coalition government will meet its commitment to scrap the ID card scheme. This bill is the first step the government will take to reduce control by the state and hand power pack to the people. It is not the job of government to collect and store vast amounts of biographical and biometric data belonging to innocent people.

We agree with this entirely.

It is not the job or proper role of government to do this to innocent people, no matter where they come from or who they are. That is the qualification missing from this correct statement.

People do not want the state keeping information on its citizens for some ill-defined and unproven benefit. Fewer than 15,000 people have bought an ID card since last November and around 3,000 of those were issued free to workers at Manchester and London City airports.

When has what people want had anything to do with the proper role of government, or what it decides to do or not do? This is window dressing, and as for ‘ill-defined and unproven benefit’, you, Damien Green, fall into this trap yourself in this very article.

Many claims have been made in recent years for supposed benefits of the identity card scheme from tackling terrorism and fighting organised crime to preventing identity fraud. I don’t believe these have, or ever would have, materialised. This is incredible given that the scheme, while delivering no increase in public protection, would also erode hardwon rights and freedoms and requires huge spending.

We have been talking about this for years. All the claims made for ID Cards were completely disproven by us and many other people. Which makes what Mr. Green says later quite astonishing.

The estimated spend of 835m in costs over ten years on the scheme is a significant amount of money, not “diddly squat” as Alan Johnson, the former home secretary, has publicly stated.

What do you expect from a communist post man? In any case, what the liars in New Labour said is now irrelevant. The bills have been put on the table and they need to be paid and repealed.

This huge sum would have been extracted from all of us one way or the other either because we would have been forced to buy the wretched cards or through taxation.

And the issue of money is an entirely separate issue from the basic immorality of the project.

With the introduction of the Identity Documents bill, the coalition government has acted swiftly to turn back the increasing tide of government bureaucracy. We want to dismantle the scheme at minimum cost to the public and see early destruction of the personal data held on the national identity register and of the register itself.

You may be turning back the tide, but the country is still flooded up to the neck in laws that violate the rights of everyone who lives in Britain. Until you have drained all the leech filled waters completely, you cannot make any claim that the work is finished.

Now we come to the nasty, ridiculous, irrational, illogical, xenophobic clap trap…

Some campaigners have criticised our decision to continue issuing biometric residence permits while scrapping the ID card for UK citizens. This is misguided because the documents are very different.

No, they are not different at all in nature. Foreigners will be compelled to hand over their fingerprints and be registered on an NIR Lite® which will be subject to all the same vulnerabilities as the full NIR. It is discriminatory and xenophobic since it targets only one group of people – foreigners. It is illogical because anyone who does not look the part will be subject to investigation as we have detailed over and over instantly legitimising the need for a National ID Card of the type you are rejecting. It will create confusion, suspicion, division, disharmony and hatred; the complete opposite of what any mandated interfacing with the state should produce.

These biometric residents permits offer no advantages over the traditional ones, just as biometric ID Cards do not offer any benefits to anyone. If they are going to be brought in, as was the case with ID Cards, Damien Green needs to explain in detail, with evidence to back up his claims, how these residence permits are going to deliver the benefits he lists. I note that he does not do this in this article, because he knows full well that this system is being kept on solely to placate the vendors who are having their NIR related contracts cancelled.

We are required by European Union law to provide biometric residence permits to non-EU foreign nationals.

This is the Nuremberg Defense. “I was only following orders”. All the people who committed serious crimes and who used this defense were hanged.

If something is immoral, you have no option as a moral and ethical person but to reject and refuse to impliment it. You cannot lay the blame elsewhere for your crimes of violation. If you are acting as a public servant, you cannot engage in acts of violence against anyone on behalf of your masters, under the same principle that covers your behaviour in the Nuremberg Defense.

This excuse simply does not hold water, and there are any number of EU laws that could be enacted that are offensive to liberty that I could list, where I might say, “if X law was passed would you be obliged to obey it?”. The UK opted out of the parts of the Shengen Agreement that were not to its liking. There is no reason whatsoever that this too should not be immediately stopped.

They are issued under entirely different legislation.

This is the sort of argument a child makes. Whatever the legislation is, you should not be implementing it, period.

They are not “ID cards for foreign nationals”, as the previous government called them.

That is exactly and precisely what they are. As we describe, anyone who does not look the part will be made to identify themselves against the National Biometric Identity Service (NBIS) system, to which the police will have access so that people can be fingerprinted in the street, like criminals.

This is completely indefensible.

The biometric data is not kept on the national identity register

No, it is kept on the NBIS database, which is for all intents and purposes, identical to the NIR. To use these words as as a balm to reassure the public that the danger is really over is pathetic, childish and shows that Damien Green is falling into the same traps that New Labour fell into when they were trying to sell the snake oil of ID Cards. They start by using childish thinking, illogic, diversions, mischaracterisations and end up lying through their teeth to save face.

, and there is no legal obligation for foreign nationals to carry their permit with them,

This is a New Labour style misrepresentation and fact omission. Everyone and their dog now knows that in a biometric system with a central database, your fingerprints are the card. Once you give over your fingerprints, they can be checked anywhere at any time, instantly. You do not need a physical card; this is the sinister nature of biometric identity systems, and it is why the NIR had to be destroyed. The NBIS is no different, and anyone who says so is either:

  1. Computer illiterate
  2. A liar

so no one should ever be stopped and asked to produce the card.

Firstly, we all know that the anti terror laws have been abused beyond imagination and all reason. No one SHOULD have been abused under these laws, but they WERE and CONTINUE TO BE abused.

If this requirement for foreigners remains, then reflexive xenophobic forces WILL come into play and people WILL be abused. That is an absolute fact. And whilst no one will be asked for their card, they will be forced to put their finger on a scanner to be identified.

First, this will happen to brown people. Then, there will be yet another toothless outcry of racial profiling from the usual suspects, and then to make up the numbers, ‘white’ indigenous people will be targeted at random for street fingerprinting and fingerprinting down at the police station, so that the police can demonstrate that they are not using racial profiling, and being in the new Orwellian doublethink of the day, ‘fair’.

Think about it carefully. If they need to prove that they are not racially profiling, they will need to fingerprint (at any place and any time) the indigenous British, and then record their details along with the fingerprint that they took for the purpose of gathering statistics. That data is going to have to be stored somewhere.

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

ID Cards for foreigners will by their very existence, bring into being ID Cards and an NIR for the entire population.

We must also bear in mind that it only takes an act of Parliament to make the carrying of foreigner ID Cards compulsory. The word of one decent, if slightly confused man in a single article in a Marxist newspaper is no Defense against the future abuses of a rogue Parliament and the totalitarian beasts who man it.

Unlike the identity card for British citizens, this card serves a purpose by helping foreign nationals easily prove they have a right to live and work freely in the UK.

This is a claim that biometric resident permits have a utility greater than the residence permits that were being issued previously. Damien Green has not said how this is so, but I can tell you that proving you have a right to “live and work freely in the UK” means that you will, at a minimum, be required to produce your foreigner ID Card to a potential employer.

Any employer who does not ask for this card, could open himself up to prosecution. Any person who does not look or sound the part will be asked for this card. If an employer asks a person who does not look the part but who is British, could find himself being prosecuted for discrimination.

Once again, the only way a system like this can work is if everybody has a card showing their status; a National ID Card, which the coalition have conceded is unacceptable to decent people living in a free country.

What they must now admit is that the foreigner ID Card is also unacceptable for the same reasons, and more, since it will create the need for the very thing they have railed against so eloquently.

This government wants to bring to an end the practice of the state gathering data for the sake of it. It is imperative the government is held accountable to the people it represents and does not abuse its position in key areas of personal freedom and liberty.

If that is the case, then they should not be gathering the fingerprints of anyone, since doing so serves no purpose but to line the pockets of IBM.

This government represents not only the indigenous people of Britain, but of all people who enter this island legally for whatever reason. By mandating that foreigners are to be fingerprinted, this coalition government aligns itself with the worst abuses of places like Dubai, where workers are routinely abused.

The coalition is setting up a system of second class persons, just as the Apartheid government did, through its system of pass laws. This is anathema to all moral people.

The Identity Documents bill is a major step on that road. Making the repeal of ID cards bill the first to be brought before parliament by the new government demonstrates how serious we are about creating a free society and reducing expenditure.

This is simply not true.

In a free society, you do not fingerprint and catalogue one section of the public, whilst leaving the remainder at liberty. Liberty is for all, no exceptions, no compromises and no excuses.

Cancelling the ID cards scheme and abolishing the national identity register is a major step in dismantling the surveillance state, but this bill is just the first step. It will be followed by a series of reforms to restore British freedom to our citizens.

The British are not YOUR citizens. Someone who believes in liberty would never use the possessive pronoun to describe human beings; you, Damien Green are THE SERVANT, not the OWNER or THE MASTER.

You have NO RIGHT to fingerprint ANYBODY, British Citizen or not.

You are NOT making the first step unless the NBIS is abandoned permanently; in fact, yo are TRIPPING YOURSELF UP with this absurd and illogical retention of an immoral and inhuman Apartheid system, that is sure to grow like a cancer that will impede the recovery of the healthy liberties of Britain.

Coerced association: the state mandates it

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Lew Rockwell has a great article about the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

It seems incredible that in the last days, a fundamental right of the whole of humanity, the freedom of association, has been denounced by the New York Times and all major opinion sources, even as a national political figure was reluctant to defend his own statements in favor of the idea, and then distanced himself from the notion. Has such a fundamental principle of liberty become unsayable?

Or perhaps it is not so incredible. An overweening government, in an age of despotism such as ours, must deny such a fundamental right simply because it is one of those core issues that speaks to who is in charge: the state or individuals.

We live in anti-liberal times, when individual choice is highly suspect. The driving legislative ethos is toward making all actions required or forbidden, with less and less room for human volition. Simply put, we no longer trust the idea of freedom. We can’t even imagine how it would work. What a distance we have travelled from the Age of Reason to our own times.

Referencing the great controversy about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Karen De Coster put the issue to rest by turning Rachel Maddows question on its head. She demanded to know whether a white businessman has the right to refuse service to a black man. Karen asked: does a black businessman have the right to refuse service to a Klan member?

I don’t think anyone would dispute that right. How a person uses the right to associate (which necessarily means the right not to associate) is a matter of individual choice profoundly influenced by the cultural context. That a person has the right to make these choices on his or her own cannot be denied by anyone who believes in liberty.

The right to exclude is not something incidental. It is core to the functioning of civilization. If I use proprietary software, I can’t download it without signing a contractual agreement. If I refuse to sign, the company doesn’t have to sell it to me. And why? Because it is their software and they set the terms of use. Period. There is nothing more to say.

If you run a blog that accepts comments, you know how important this right is. You have to be able to exclude spam or ban IP addresses of trolls or otherwise include and exclude based on whether a person’s contribution adds value. Every venue on the internet that calls forth public participation knows this. Without this right, any forum could collapse, having been taken over by bad elements.

We exercise the right to exclude every day. If you go to lunch, some people come and some people do not. When you have a dinner party, you are careful to include some people and necessarily exclude others. Some restaurants expect and demand shoes and shirts and even coats and ties. The New York Times includes some articles and excludes others, includes some people in its editorial meetings and excludes others.

When business hires, some people make the cut and others do not. It is the same with college admissions, church membership, fraternities, civic clubs, and nearly every other association. They all exercise the right to exclude. It is central to the organization of every aspect of life. If this right is denied, what do we get in its place? Coercion and compulsion. People are forced together by the state, with one group required at the point of a gun to serve another group. This is involuntary servitude, expressly prohibited by the 13th amendment. One presumes that a freedom-loving people will always be against that.

As Larry Elder says: “This is freedom 101.”

What about the claim that government should regulate the grounds of exclusion? Let’s say, for example, that we do not deny the general right of free association, but narrow its range to address a particular injustice. Is that plausible? Well, freedom is a bit like life, something that is or is not. Slicing and dicing it according to political priorities is exceedingly dangerous. It perpetrates social division, leads to arbitrary power, mandates a form of slavery, and turns the tables on who precisely is in charge in society.


And this is precisely why racialists, nationalists, and hard-core bigots have always opposed liberal capitalism: it includes and excludes based on the cash nexus and without regard to features that collectivists of all sorts regard as important. In the imagined utopias of the national socialists, the champions of commerce are hanged from lampposts as race traitors and enemies of the nation.

That’s because the market tends toward an ever-evolving, ever-changing tapestry of association, with patterns that cannot be known in advance and should not be regulated by federal masters. In contrast, government’s attempts to regulate association lead to disorder and social calamities.

Indeed; all of this is absolutely true, and I agree with it.

Government has no business forcing association or preventing association by law. Which puts into sharp relief the next part of this post.

It seems like the arguments questioning the logic of forcing anti discrimination by asserting that the state does not force people to enter restaurants or forbid people from engaging in boycotts are deflated in one aspect. It is indeed illogical that the state forces restaurants to serve but does not force patrons to enter… actually, they DO force people to trade with each other, and forbid boycotts.

In the USA, the Federal Government has enacted a law that forbids people from boycotting Israel.

What they are saying is that american firms are FORCED to deal with people that they may, for whatever reason, prefer not to deal with.

From the ‘Bureau of Industry and Security’, a department with a distinctly un-American name:

Antiboycott Compliance

The Bureau is charged with administering and enforcing the Antiboycott Laws under the Export Administration Act. Those laws discourage, and in some circumstances, prohibit U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League, and certain Moslem countries, including complying with certain requests for information designed to verify compliance with the boycott. Compliance with such requests may be prohibited by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and may be reportable to the Bureau.

Boycott Alert

U.S. companies continue to report receiving requests to engage in activities that further or support the boycott of Israel. U.S. companies may receive similar requests in the future. If you have questions, please call (202) 482-2381 and ask for the Duty Officer or you may contact us by email.

This is a law that forbids private companies from refraining from association.

Antiboycott Laws:

During the mid-1970’s the United States adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of U.S. citizens in other nation’s economic boycotts or embargoes. These “antiboycott” laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA). While these laws share a common purpose, there are distinctions in their administration.


The antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy.

Primary Impact:

The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today. The antiboycott laws, however, apply to all boycotts imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the United States.

Who Is Covered by the Laws?

The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to the activities of U.S. persons in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States. The term “U.S. person” includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States, including the permanent domestic affiliates of foreign concerns. U.S. persons also include U.S. citizens abroad (except when they reside abroad and are employed by non-U.S. persons) and the controlled in fact affiliates of domestic concerns. The test for “controlled in fact” is the ability to establish the general policies or to control the day to day operations of the foreign affiliate.

The scope of the EAR, as defined by Section 8 of the EAA, is limited to actions taken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.

What do the Laws Prohibit?

Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:

  • Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
  • Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.
  • Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
  • Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.

Implementing letters of credit containing prohibited boycott terms or conditions.

The TRA does not “prohibit” conduct, but denies tax benefits (“penalizes”) for certain types of boycott-related agreements.

Note the double talk, the act does not prohibit conduct, but penalises for agreements. Later on the page says:


The Export Admnistration Act (EAA) specifies penalties for violations of the Antiboycott Regulations as well as export control violations. These can include:


The penalties imposed for each “knowing” violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved, whichever is greater, and imprisonment of up to five years. During periods when the EAR are continued in effect by an Executive Order issued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the criminal penalties for each “willful” violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to ten years.


For each violation of the EAR any or all of the following may be imposed:

  • General denial of export privileges;
  • The imposition of fines of up to $11,000 per violation; and/or
  • Exclusion from practice.

Boycott agreements under the TRA involve the denial of all or part of the foreign tax benefits discussed above.

When the EAA is in lapse, penalties for violation of the Antiboycott Regulations are governed by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA Enhancement Act provides for penalties of up to the greater of $250,000 per violation or twice the value of the transaction for administrative violations of Antiboycott Regulations, and up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment per violation for criminal antiboycott violations.


Amazing isn’t it? It does not prohibit conduct, but puts you in GAOL for doing it, removes your ‘export privileges’ (doing business is a privilege?), imposes incredibly large punitive fines, and finally (I presume) can revoke your license too practice your trade.

Absolutely immoral and illegitimate.

On the other hand, you have many states that enforce a boycott of Israel, which is an illegitimate and immoral denial of the right of association.

Not only do all of these countries violate the right of association, but they are violating the right of individuals to freely enter into contracts.

If someone wants to draw up a contract that contains a boycott clause, it is the absolute right of the parties to agree to this. Period. Obviously, the mandating of the insertion of such clauses is a clear violation; you should be able to remove or add clauses as both parties see fit.

Take a look at a representative sample of the clauses:

Office of Antiboycott Compliance

Examples of Boycott Requests

Following are recent examples of boycott requests that have been reported to the Office of Antiboycott Compliance. These examples are illustrative and not exhaustive. Companies should call our advice line (202) 482-2381 with questions concerning these or any request to comply with restrictive trade practices or boycotts.


Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Purchase Order:

“In the case of overseas suppliers, this order is placed subject to the suppliers being not on the Israel boycott list published by the central Arab League.”

Reportable boycott condition in an importers purchase order:

“Goods of Israeli origin not acceptable.”

Reportable boycott condition in a letter of credit:

“A signed statement from the shipping company, or its agent, stating the name, flag and nationality of the carrying vessel and confirming … that it is permitted to enter Arab ports.”

Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Contract

“Israeli Clause:
The Seller shall not supply goods or materials which have been manufactured or processed in Israel nor shall the services of any Israeli organization be used in handling or transporting the goods or materials.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“The Contractor shall comply in all respects with the requirements of the laws of the State of Bahrain relating to the boycott of Israel. Goods manufactured by companies blacklisted by the Arab Boycott of Israel Office may not be imported into the State of Bahrain and must not be supplied against this Contract. For information concerning the Boycott List, the Contractor can approach the nearest Arab Consulate.”

Prohibited Condition in a Letter of Credit

“Buyer shall in no way contravene the regulations issued by Bahrain Government and or Israel Boycott Office. Buyer shall not nominate a vessel blacklisted by the said office.”


Prohibited Boycott Condition in instructions to bidders on a contract

“No produced commodity shall be eligible for … financing if such commodity contains any component or components which were imported into the producing country from Israel and countries not eligible to trade with … the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. The equipment and materials must not be of Israeli origin. The supplier/bidder who are not black listed by Arab boycott of Israel will be allowed to participate in this bid.”


Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Questionnaire

“1. Do you have or ever have had a branch or main company, factory or assembly plant in Israel or have sold to an Israeli?”

“2. Do you have or ever have had general agencies or offices in Israel for your Middle Eastern or international operations?”

“3. Have you ever granted the right of using your name, trademarks royalty, patent, copyright or that of any of your subsidiaries to Israeli persons or firms?”

“4. Do you participate or ever participated or owned shares in an Israeli firm or business?”

“5. Do you render now or ever have rendered any consultative service or technical assistance to any Israeli firm or business?”

“6. Do you represent now or ever have represented any Israeli firm or business or abroad?”

“7. What companies in whose capital are your shareholders?” Please state the name and nationality of each company and the percentage of share of their total capital.”

“8. What companies or shareholders in your capital? Please state the name and nationality of each company and the percentage of share of their total capital.”

“N.B. The above questions should be answered on behalf of the company itself and all of its branch companies, if any.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“The Contractor shall, throughout the continuance of the Contract, abide by and comply in all respects with the rules and instructions issued from time to time by the Israel Boycott Office in Iraq.”

Prohibited Condition in a Trademark Application

“Requirement for the registration of pharmaceutical companies:

Certification letter regarding the boycott of Israel (i.e., do not comprise any parts, raw materials, labor or capital of Israeli origin).”
“Requirement for the Registration of Medical Appliances, Disposables producing companies, and Laboratory diagnostic kit manufacturers:

Certification letter regarding boycott of Israel.”
Prohibited Condition in a Purchase Order

“Supplies of our purchase order should never be consigned or shipped by steamers included on Israel Boycott list.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“The bill of lading shall bear a note that the vessel delivering the cargo is not on the “Black List” and does not call at Israeli ports.”


Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Customs document

“[The vessel entry document asks the ships captain to certify that,] no goods, dry cargo, or personal effects listed on the document of Israeli origin or manufactured by a blacklisted firm or company are to be landed as they will be subject to confiscation.”

Prohibited Boycott Condition in Letter of Credit

“We hereby certify that the beneficiaries, manufacturers, exporters and transferees of this credit are neither blacklisted nor have any connection with Israel, and that the terms and conditions of this credit in no way contravenes the law pertaining to the boycott of Israel and the decisions issued by the Israel Boycott Office.”

Reportable Boycott Condition in Letter of Credit:

“Importation of goods from Israel is strictly prohibited by Kuwait import regulations; therefore, certificate of origin covering goods originating in Israel is not acceptable.”

Prohibited Condition in a Purchase Order

All shipments under this order shall comply with Israel Boycott Office Rules and Regulations.

Prohibited Condition in a Purchase Order

Goods must not be shipped on vessels/carriers included in the Israeli Boycott list.

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

The vendor (as person or organization) or his representatives should not be an Israeli national. So the vendor should not be owned, managed, or represented by any companies that carry an Israeli nationality and there should not be any sub-contractors that carry Israeli nationality.

The vendor should not involve any person or representatives that carries the Israeli nationality in importing or exporting the software or hardware mentioned in this contract and its appendices and the vendor should provide all documents that support the above information.


Prohibited Boycott Condition in Power of Attorney from Lebanese firm

A Lebanese firm sent a power of attorney affidavit to appoint a local agent in Iraq to a U.S. firm. The affidavit asked that U.S. firm answer a series of questions concerning the Arab boycott. These questions included whether the firm had a plant in Israel, has sold to Israel, had offices in Israel, owned shares in an Israeli firm, had provided services for an Israeli firm, or had granted any trademarks, copy or patent rights to Israeli persons of firms.

Reportable Boycott Condition in letter of credit:

“Certificate issued by the shipping company or its agent testifying that the carrying vessel is allowed to enter the Lebanese port…”


Prohibited Condition in a Letter of Credit

“Original commercial invoice signed and certified by the beneficiary that the goods supplied are not manufactured by either a company or one of its subsidiary branches who are blacklisted by the Arab boycott of Israel or in which Israeli capital is invested.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“The Second Party shall observe the provisions of the Law for Boycott of Israel or any other State which the provisions for Boycott are applicable and shall ensure such observation from any other sub-contractor. In case of contravening this condition, the First Party shall have the right to cancel the contract and confiscate the deposit by mere notice by registered letter without prejudice to his right of compensation.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“Boycott Provisions:
The Contractor shall observe and comply with all the provisions and decisions concerning the boycott to Israel or any other country the same is valid. The Contractor shall secure the respect of such boycott by any other party he might have subcontracted with him.”

Prohibited Condition in a Certificate of Origin

“The goods being exported are of national origin of the producing country and the goods do not contain any components of Israeli origin, whatever the proportion of such component is. We, the exporter, declare that the company producing the respective commodity is not an affiliate to or mother of any company that appears on the Israeli boycott blacklist and also, we the exporter, have no direct or indirect connection with Israel and shall act in compliance with the principles and regulations of the Arab boycott of Israel.”


Did you know that if you have a stamp from Israel in your passport, none of these countries will issue a VISA?

In the USA, it is clearly illegal for a greengrocer to require a wholesaler to only provide products that do not come from Israel. The law says that it is illegal to participate in foreign boycotts, but how can anyone separate a foreign boycott from a USA led boycott? If the terms are exactly the same, and a foreign boycott started first, then how could you prove that your domestic boycott is not an extension of a foreign one?

The people who drafted this law knew that the constitutionality of this law would have been challenged immiediately if it had been an outright ban on boycotting, so they put it in the context of foreign boycotts to get around that pesky piece of paper.

It’s an interesting question.

There are certain trades, like the gem trade, where people from these two supposedly separate spheres, who publicly are unalterably opposed, do business together as if they were members of the same family.

They make agreements on a handshake, where vast amounts of money are involved, and everyone behaves like rational human beings.

This is what happens when you remove the malevolent influence of the state. Without the state interfering, on both sides, people behave rationally and manage to live together without conflict.

This is the truth, it always has been the truth, and the only people who are against the sort of peace that we all expect are the statist collectivists who, with their foul and artificial divisions of humanity, cause every act of violence in the world.

ID Cards: the coalition takes the Apartheid approach

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

It looks like shouting victory was premature:


Despite the demise of the national identity card, a separate but technically similar scheme for some foreign nationals will continue. That scheme is run by the UK Border Agency and is still being rolled out.

Some 200,000 cards – known as biometric resident permits – have already been given to migrant workers, foreign students and family members from outside the European Economic Area.

The abolition of ID cards is among measures that the coalition partners have pledged to take as part of a reversal of what they call an erosion of civil liberties.


As it was in Apartheid South Africa, all ‘foreigners’ are going to be compelled to be fingerprinted and put into an NIR Lite®. This is what it looks like:

If you are caught out in the street while looking like a Pakistani, an Indian or a West Indian, Malaysian, Indonesian, Arab, North African, West African, South African, South American (no, they just SHOOT them on sight), you will be pulled over and asked to show your ID Card. If you do not have it, they will force you to put your finger on their mobile fingerprint scanner then the magic will happen…

But wait a minute, we have been here before!!


Foreigners who repeatedly flout the rules when they are made to apply for ID cards will be thrown out, the Government said yesterday.

Immigrants will have to give two fingerprints, iris scans and a raft of personal details to the Home Office when the scheme is introduced for foreign nationals only later this year.

Ministers said that, if they fail to comply with these primary requirements, they could have their permission to stay in the UK revoked.

But papers released yesterday revealed that only serial offenders who break the rules at least three times in five years will face removal.

Initially, they will face only fines of 250 per offence. And refugees will face only fines up to a maximum of 1,000 as human rights laws bar them from being deported.

A consultation document on penalties under the scheme, which is a fore-runner of the national ID card for all British citizens, also said there was no power to jail anyone who failed to pay the civil fines.

But the offence of contempt, which can carry a jail term, may be applicable, it added.

Someone with indefinite leave to remain in Britain would only have their leave cancelled in compelling circumstances, the paper went on. Fines would be discounted for people on benefits.

The roll-out will begin later this year, with the children of foreign nationals also expected to carry the cards.

Opposition MPs said it offered a glimpse into how the ID card scheme for British citizens could work, when it is introduced from 2009.

Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said: This shows the kind of punitive measures that every British citizen can expect when ID cards are eventually rolled out nationally.

ID cards for foreign nationals are not going to solve the problems of identity fraud and illegal working. All they will do is threaten the immigration status of hard working people who bring benefits to this country.

But Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said: Britains border security is currently undergoing the biggest shake-up in a generation, ensuring it stays among the toughest in the world.

ID cards for foreign nationals will cement the triple ring of security protecting our shores, along with fingerprint visas abroad and a single border force here at home.

Daily Mail

Look at the image they used to illustrate this article.

It’s just the sort of photo they would use to inflame peoples emotions and get them on board with ID cards for foreigners.

But the question is this; how are they going to differentiate between those people?

Lets look at it from the policemans point of view shall we?

Obviously, the first person you stop is the Muslim on the far left in purple, Number 1?. This guy is probably here on a passport with a Visa, and should be carrying his card.

Number 2? we do not stop. She has her belly button showing, and is light skinned. The belly button, tight jeans and no bra means that she cannot possibly be a muslim, so we leave her alone.

Anyway shes hot.

Number 3? we pull over straight away. He looks muslimish, is wearing a cap and looks shifty. Frowning fits the profile. Stop.

Number 4? STOP!

Number 5? Call a WPC.STOP. Covered from head to toe, carrying heavy thick plastic bag.

Number 6? Mouse brown hair, fashionable clothes, conscious of her hair. No stop.

Number 7? Same as number 6.

Number 8? Hot blond, no stop.

Number 9? Nice handbag strap, caucasian, no stop.

Now, there is one problem with all the above:


Not one of them is required to carry or apply for an ID card of any kind, because they are all British and all of them were born right here in the UK.

This is the problem with what they are planning; it is the begnning of racial profiling on an unprecedented scale. That is the only way you are going to be able to pick up all the foreigners and get them fingerprinted. Then of course, after it is done (if it ever even happens) You will forever be pestering British Citizens simply because they do not look the part.

Then will come the calls for everyone to be put in the database, since to have only a section of the population under this system makes no sense at all, as we have said so many times.

Even if everyone were in the system, they would STILL use racial profiling every day trying to hunt down the stragglers and the refusniks. This is a disaster in the making of the type that Britain suffered with its sus law. Only it will be much much worse.

This is discrimination of the worst kind. It is also a breaking of trust in the same vein as the non-dom debacle; people who have lived here for decades are now to be treated as criminals, and subjected to a system created by habitual liars and incompetents who have so little care for human beings that it strains the imagination as to what it would be like to actually speak to these monsters in person.

The fact of the matter is, this is discrimination, pure and simple. A legal challenge is coming. An infrastructure for mass resistance is already in place.

This measure, this dry run will be the death knell of this bad scheme.


Thats how we said it in 2008.

if you think that the borders agency is not going to share their database with the police you are insane.

That means that the police and their mobile fingerprint scanners are going to be used to terrorise anyone who is brown.

As the police use mobile scanners, they will scan you, and if you are not on the database it means one of three things:

  • does that mean you ARE british? Only the British are NOT on NIR Lite®
  • does this mean you ARE an illegal immigrant? Only illegal immigrants are NOT on NIR Lite®
  • Interesting isn’t it? Any imbecile can work this out, but clearly, Nick Clegg has not the capacity to do this.

    It probably went down like this: the ID Card vendors had break clauses in their contracts that would have cost the treasury tens of millions. Rather than invoke these clauses and pay out the penalties, the coalition gave the contractors the contract for the Borders Agency NIR Lite® system as compensation, in return for not invoking the break clauses.

    Who knows?

    What is for sure is that this is nothing more than a delay in the roll out of a compulsory ID card system for every British citizen.

    In the end the penny will drop that they have to have everyone in the system to know the status of anyone.

    A piecemeal system cannot work; that is why every country that has an ID Card makes them compulsory for everyone.

    For the record, there is no reason whatsoever to have an NIR Lite® to control borders. This is vendor snake-oil and the coalition has swallowed it wholesale. All the fingerprinting and iris scanning in the world will not stop illegal immigration.

    But you know this!

    The Queen’s Speech, or Why BLOGDIAL is and has been so very great

    Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

    Take a look at this:

    After massive public rejection of the surveillance state, and country wide vandalism of the millions of CCTV cameras in the UK, it was decided to remove all traces of the monitoring apparatus that cast a debilitating fog over life in the UK. Like the fall of East Germany and the STASI, the changes came overnight as the revulsion over the mutated form of British life became universal and went nuclear.

    We are not going to live like this anymore. Britain has been turned into a prison, and we have had enough

    Parliament has drawn up a list of all database state laws going back to the early days of the now discredited Blair government, all of which are to be struck off the books in one fell swoop.

    This has been a long time in coming, but the writing has been on the wall for years; the silent grumbling of the British public has turned into an earthquake of non-violent dissent. Just like the Berlin Wall, the database state has been dismantled one camera at a time in a single day, without any opposition from the police.

    That was an imaginary scenario concocted to paint a picture of how the fall of the Police State would look.

    Sounds familiar doesn’t it? It’s from an old BLOGDIAL post.

    BLOGDIAL is great because the people who write on it are:

    • way ahead of the pack
    • know their subjects backward
    • do not mince their words
    • can synthesise the facts of the present to produce accurate predictions of how the future will look
    • all have impeccable taste

    The BLOGDIAL archives are chock full of gems like the one above, and we keep getting better and better as we hone our understanding and expand our learning.

    Unlike others, who believe that writing about Liberty is likely to ‘bore readers’ we understand clearly that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is absolutely NOT the time to pack up and go home; in fact, it is time to redouble all efforts to push back our mutual enemies and mush them underfoot for all time.

    With all of that trumpet blowing out of the way, the Queens speech has just been read, so lets rip through it.

    Many of the items in it are predicated on the idea that the state is legitimate in the first place, which it is not. We can however look at each item from a point of view of wether or not it makes any sense or is good in the short term:

    Office for budget responsibility bill. Sets up the OBR to take responsibility for producing budget forecasts, meaning the chancellor who under the current arrangements is in charge of producing his own forecasts won’t be able to twist the figures.

    This makes sense, because the people in charge of the money of the state should not audit themselves or do anything like that.

    National insurance contributions bill. Raises income tax allowances, so that “most people would be better off relative to the previous government’s plan”, funded by a rise in national insurance. Reallocates tax worth around 9bn.

    This does not make sense. It is more borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, exactly like the completely immoral Child Credit scheme, which took money from taxpayers to give to children.

    You could not refuse this ‘free’ investment money, and your child was given a unique number as an identifier. If you did not respond to the agency running this fiasco, they invested the money for ‘your’ child on its behalf and sent you as the parent or guardian, regular updates by post about how ‘your child’s investment’ was doing. A scandalous, immoral, deeply offensive and irrational misuse of other people’s money, which does not seem to appear in this speech, even though its abolition is promised.

    Welfare reform bill. Simplifies the welfare and benefits system, improving work incentives and “removing the confusing complexity of the benefits system”.

    We all know about the Welfare Warfare state do we not?

    Pensions and savings bill. Implements the findings of the review of the state pension age being conducted by the government. Currently the state pension age will increase to 66 after 2024. The review will propose bringing that forward. The bill will also restore the earnings link from 2012.

    This is another Ponzi scheme. The people who pay in today are being remunerated in the future with devalued money, thanks to the fiat pound.

    Financial reform bill. Gives the Bank of England control over macro-prudential regulation in the City. Not clear yet what will happen to the fate of the Financial Services Authority.

    The only thing that needs to be reformed is the nature of the Pound.

    Equitable Life bill. Pays compensation to savers who lost money when Equitable Life came close to collapse.

    Where will the money come from for this? It’s another bailout, as immoral as any other.

    Airport economic regulation bill. Promotes competition in the airport market, possibly breaking up the BAA monopoly.

    Makes sense; airports should be entirely privately owned and run for profit.

    Postal services bill. Allows the sale of part of the Royal Mail, in line with the plans originally drawn up by Lord Mandelson. The exact proportion being sold has not been specified.

    The post office should be entirely private and for profit, just like Federal Express.

    Energy bill. Promotes energy-efficiency measures in home by introducing a “green deal” charging system, with incentives to suppliers and households to save energy. The bill may also regulate emissions from coal-fired power stations and create a Green Investment Bank.

    This is utter Glegish nonsense of the first order. Readers of BLOGDIAL already know why.

    If the idea of a ‘Green Investment Bank’ was commercially viable, it would already exist and entrepreneurs would have created one. Nick Clegg is a complete idiot when it comes to this subject; he is more like a religious fanatic, ranting and frothing at the mouth than a rational human being. That bank WILL FAIL without government concessions to the industries that the bank lends money to, so they can generate profits which are not really profits at all but cost savings since the state will not have its protrusible proboscis on those industries, as it does on all others. This bank will therefore destroy businesses and jobs, just like the Green Jobs of Spain, that destroy 2.2 jobs for every real job. It will also divert capital from the real economy into a false ‘Green Economy’.

    These are FACTS.

    Academies bill. Allows more schools to become academies, giving them more freedom from Whitehall.

    But this is to be paid for by the state, so it is still completely immoral at its base. Still, its better that central control is abolished, so it is a move in the right direction.

    Health bill. Replaces the “top-down approach” with “the devolution of power and responsibility to doctors and patients”. Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, will set out more details of his vision in the next few weeks.

    Is the NHS Spine going to be dismantled or not? That is what everyone wants to know!

    Police reform and social responsibility bill. Makes the police more accountable through “directly elected individuals”. The bill will also create a dedicated border police force, ensure health and safety laws do not stand in the way of “common sense policing” and overhaul the Licensing Act.

    ‘Overhaul the licensing act’ which means ending the freedom to drink when you please, where you please, while the patrons of the House of Commons bar can drink and smoke all day every day year round.

    Public bodies (reform) bill. Cuts the number of quangos, with a view to saving 1bn a year.

    Makes sense.

    Decentralisation and localism bill. Gives more power to councils and neighbourhoods. Also gives residents the power to instigate referendums and veto excessive council tax increases.

    What? Give more power to the same councils who use RIPA to investigate dog fouling? These people need LESS power, and to be FORCED to behave like Public Servants. Do you know what a Public Servant is? Read that last link if you have even a sliver of doubt that you do.

    Local government bill. Stops the creation of unitary councils in Exeter and Norwich.


    Parliamentary reform bill. Introduces fixed-term parliaments, gives voters the right to recall MPs found guilty of serious wrongdoing and sets up a referendum on the alternative vote system.

    We all know about why voting is illegitimate, and so there is no need to go into that. Recall of MPs would make them more like Public Servants, so that is good. If it ever works.

    Freedom (great repeal) bill. Restores freedoms and civil liberties and repeals “unnecessary” laws.

    THERE’S THE RUB! What is “unnecessary”? In whose opinion? The predicted backdown starts here!

    Identity documents bill. Abolishes the identity card system and destroys the national identity register.

    At long last. VICTORY!

    After many years of a hard fought information war, we have WON this important battle. Without an NIR and ID Card, it will be very difficult if not impossible to run a totalitarian police state. This is the most important part of the Queen’s Speech!

    Scotland bill. Implements the final report of the Calman commission, giving more devolution to Scotland.

    Freedom is not free, and if the Scots want freedom they have to have their own money and complete financial separation from England. Without it, all of this is just TALK.

    European Union bill. Ensures that there is a referendum on any future plan to transfer power to the European Union.

    What about the Lisbon treaty you TRAITORS. There should be a referendum on that and the very idea that Britain is in the EU in the first place.

    Armed forces bill. Continues in force the legislation giving the armed forces a legal basis, as well as improving provisions for service personnel.

    I’m not even going to go there.

    Terrorist asset-freezing bill. Gives the government firm powers to seize assets from terrorists, following a supreme court decision that quashed the previous legislation in this area.

    So the court says the law is wrong, so they are changing it so that it is right. So much for all their promises of doing things differently. And of course, this law will be used on ANYONE who they want to destroy. Oh well, what do you expect? Miracles?

    And there you have it.

    The two most important parts of this speech, the death of the NIR/ID Card and the Great Reform act mean that at least to some extent, things are going to be much better than they would have been under the totalitarian Labour government. Sadly we have already seen the backing down on this Reform Act, which should include ALL legislation that infringes the liberties of people in Britain.

    That is why now is NOT the time to stop writing; any newspaper writer with one brain cell will now be getting ready to submit a comprehensive list of ALL legislation that is immoral and an affront to liberty, so that at the very least, it can be rejected and Mr. Clegg can be made to explain why he must retain control over everyone’s personal victimless pleasures; so he can explain why he is the master and not the servant in matters where there is no harm whatsoever.

    Members of the House of Commons: completely delusional, completely corrupt

    Friday, May 21st, 2010

    The new Parliamentary expenses control body is now in action, and the reaction to it by MPs is a perfect reminder of the true nature of these people. They believe that nothing that applies to you applies to them. They believe that they are the superclass of this country, above the law and all regulations; what rights you have are nothing more than conditional privileges given to you by them, and everything you own, including your children, belongs to them to do with as they please.

    This is why they are raising capital gains tax to 50% for people who own, in their opinion ‘too much property’; your house does not belong to you, it belongs to them. The value in it belongs to them, and they can seize it at any time by merely saying that they want it. They borrowed money from foreigners to bail out their friends and are sticking you with the bill, which you and your children will have to pay.

    but I am getting carried away…

    Today may mark a historic moment as David Cameron and Nick Clegg unveil their programme for the first British coalition government since the war.

    But most MPs are not poring over the Lib-Con document which is open for consultation on the Cabinet Office website. Instead Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs are seething with anger after their first encounter with the new independent body responsible for handling their expenses and salaries.

    The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) was established last year after a collective loss of confidence at the height of the expenses scandal. In an attempt to end the clubby atmosphere, in which MPs would often bully the Commons Fees Office, an outside body was given statutory powers to approve the payment of expenses.

    Here are some of the complaints I’ve heard from an array of MPs, whose language about Ipsa would be out of place on this happy-family blog:

    • In their initial encounter with staff from the new body, MPs are greeted with a written message which says Ipsa will not tolerate threatening or abusive behaviour. One former minister says:

    We are being treated like benefit claimants. Why don’t they just put up a metal grille?

    • The requirements for payment of expenses are too stringent. If an MP wants to claim for the travel expenses from the constituency to Westminster of their spouse or civil partner, they must produce their marriage or civil partnership certificate. If they want to claim travel expenses for a child (under the age of 16 and in full time education) they must produce the original birth certificate. This is what the rules say:

    Prior to any reimbursements of this nature taking place, MPs wishing to claim for this will need to submit a completed application form via the online expenses system.

    To support this pre-approval, they will need to provide the original certificate of marriage, civil partnership, or utility bill to prove co-habitation.

    Evidence for travel for will be the same as for MPs, based on the mode of transport.

    One minister is furious:

    For Christ’s sake, what has happened if this bloody authority doesn’t believe me when I say my wife is my wife? A utility bill to prove co-habitation? Good God.

    • MPs in London are already having to lay off staff because the amount they can claim for office costs has been cut. They are also not allowed to transfer sums for their Westminster office to their constituency offices. Labour MPs feel particularly aggrieved because they say that, as representatives of less affluent urban areas, they have more casework than Tory MPs.
    • MPs are not allowed to ask Ipsa staff any questions over the phone. They can only send emails which then form part of a formal audit trail.
    • Taxis home can only be claimed after 11pm. One woman MP says:

    What happens on a January night in London? I suppose I will have to take the tube, then a bus and then a long walk home. That is not safe.

    MPs are resigned to the fact that there is nothing they can do. They have completely lost the trust of the public which is no mood to tolerate any easing of the rules.

    One MP said:

    We just have to accept this because the public is not with us. It will take something really horrendous, such as a woman MP being stabbed on the streets of London because she is not entitled to take a taxi home late at night, before people wake up and realise how unfair this is.

    MPs admit that they have to tread with care:

    There were some bad apples who did terrible things with their expenses. The system had to change. But decent people in all parties are being treated in an infantile way.

    Ipsa says it is fulfilling a mandate handed to it by parliament. This is what it says in a foreword on its website:

    We have been required by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as a body entirely independent of Parliament, Government or political parties, to provide a scheme for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by MPs in doing their work. We have no axe to grind. We have set about our task against a background of great public anger at the present discredited system that has been exposed over the last year. We have consulted widely, not only those whom we are required by the Act to consult, but also the public at large.


    Extraordinary isn’t it? Or is it?

    That monster who thinks she is too good to use public transport and the streets, “because they are not safe” believes that she is better than you, and so therefore should be afforded special protection. Its the same vile argument that they used to exempt themselves from ContactPoint.

    As for the human animal that thinks they are being treated in an infantile way, this harks back to the battle over Home Education. They tried to treat every parent as unsuitable and under suspicion by default, to be monitored and catalogued, invaded and examined because there were some ‘bad apples’ (that in the case of Home Education did not even exist, unlike the MPs who stole money who were very real and guilty), but when this illogic is applied to them, with just cause, this is characterised as being treated in an ‘infantile way’.

    People living in the universe where reason is king couldn’t make this sort of thing up, sadly because we live in a universe where these MPs are very real, it is not only possible to imagine it, but they say it reflexively.

    They have not learned their lesson; they never will and never can learn it. The power they have corrupts them all, and they are all beyond salvation. The whole lot of them need to be thrown out, along with their inherently corrupt, immoral and bankrupt system.

    While we are at it, Teressa May, the new Home Secretary, is ‘reviewing the 24 hour drinking laws’. They will try and roll the clock back to the time when it was illegal to drink outside of hours that they deemed fit, because there are some bad apples. Of course, the House of Commons bar will continue to allow MPs and their guests to drink 24 hours a day, and smoke in that bar, as they always have done during the entire time that the original provisions of the licensing act mandating opening times was in force.

    This is yet another example of ‘one rule for them, another for us’. Any talk of a ‘new politics’ is a complete lie; its the same old politics of, coercion, theft, mass murder and counterfeiting, just with different faces. Anyone tho thinks otherwise, and who cheers on these people is completely delusional.

    The risks associated with Liberty

    Thursday, May 20th, 2010

    Rand Paul has won the Republican nomination in the race for the Senate seat in Kentucky, and since this has happened, all the mainstream media are being prompted to pour over what ‘Libertarian’ actually means (even though Rand Paul says he is not a Libertarian) in practice, and they are finding that it is to say the least not to their taste.

    In particular, they have discovered the part of Libertarianism that, quite logically, extends the idea of property rights to the subject of restaurant owners excluding people from their establishments for what many feel are not good reasons.

    The fact of this matter is simple; either people have property rights or they do not. If the government can mandate that a restaurant must accept me as a client, then the owner of that restaurant does not have property rights in his establishment; the state is the owner of that place because ultimately, they are able to force the owner to serve people he would rather not serve. They are also making the owner into their servant, by forcing him to work for someone he would rather not work for (the act of cooking).

    If the state can do this to restaurant owners, then they can do the same thing to any person, for any reason, including you. This is the reason why we must accept the risk that there are people in the world who discriminate, and accept that we have to share the world with them. We cannot gang up against them and force them to believe what we believe; doing that is immoral, and there are no two ways about that.

    The possibility of discrimination is one of the risks of living in a space where people are at liberty to live as they see fit and exercise control over their property. You are going to get some people who discriminate, who hold and publish opinions that we find objectionable and who we would not care to associate with. We cannot eliminate risk from the world, and we cannot eliminate behaviours that we do not like. We are obliged to live with these people just as they are obliged to live with us. As long as they do not use violence against us, or gang together to coerce us, there is no problem whatsoever with restauranteurs, who are to our minds, savage, behaving like savages.

    Sadly, people in the mainstream believe many contradictory ideas simultaneously. They believe that censorship is wrong, but that there should be such a thing as ‘hate speech’. They believe that they should have the right to Home Educate without being licensed because bad home Educators are practically non existent, but restauranteurs should be licensed, because “someone might be poisoned”. Similarly, these people believe that the property rights of others should be nullified, whilst their property rights are enshrined and protected. This is illogical and irrational thinking.

    People in the mainstream of thought are outraged that artists are forbidden from drawing depictions of religious figures, but at the same time, will not support other people who espouse ideas or draw pictures that they find distasteful.

    Libertarians do not suffer from this contradictory thinking. Libertarians understand rights correctly; you cannot use the government to enforce your beliefs or ideas; it is immoral and coercive. Banning Facebook because it hosts ideas you do not like is exactly the same as putting someone in gaol because you do not like his view of history. Supporting restauranteurs’ right to ban people from bringing handguns into their premises (or even more likely banning smokers) means you must support the right of restauranteurs to ban anything or any person for any reason. You cannot pick and choose what rights restauranteurs should have based on your own personal prejudices and personal circumstances.

    There is a distinction between the state and the private sphere that is not properly understood by ‘normal’ thinkers. If we are to take the premise of democracy and representative government at face value, then anyone who votes or pays taxes or who is a member of ‘society’ has, by default, the same rights to services and to serve as any other member of society. That means that as equal stakeholders in society, the state cannot discriminate against a person for any reason whatsoever, as each person is an equal participant in the collective. The state, with its monopoly on coercion and violence has an obligation to treat all people equally that private people and the businesses they own and control do not. This is the key difference between the realm of the state and the world of private property. Private people do not have the right to use violence to extract monies from individuals, and neither does the public have a quotal share in the property of private people. Private people are also under no obligation to be in service to anyone; any other position than this is to condone slavery. The state, on the other hand, has the power (but not the right) to use violence, has an explicit obligation to serve the electorate, and the public has a quotal share in it and by its own rules, has ‘rights’ granted by it. The two could not be more different, and it is crucial, if you are to understand why restauranteurs have the right to exclude types of potential patron, that you have a clear delineation in your mind separating the state and private spheres.

    As this argument rages on, you will see bad thinking swirling around this subject, grouped by the type of speaker. You will hear the same arguments, smears and nonsense again and again from the violent, statist, anti-Libertarians, and they will look like this:

    They will:

    • Conflate the disturbing imagery and injustices of the past with the core idea that man has rights, including unpleasant people who own restaurants.
    • Insist that the state is needed to remove the rights of some people for the good of the whole.
    • Mischaracterise Libertarians as people who are against the rights of ‘minorities’, when the exact opposite is the case.
    • Use an endless stream of straw men to try and stamp a mark of disapproval on Libertarians.

    Libertarians are the most pure anti racists out there. The whole of Libertarianism rejects the idea that people have different or separate rights depending on what they look like, what they believe, or who they prefer to have sex with. They are also the most rights conscious and clear thinking. They are the sworn enemies of almost all conventional wisdom and every foul thing that comes from it.

    The logic of Libertarianism is unassailable, civilised, and completely embracing of all people; this may be the reason why it is greeted by such hostility by self selecting groups who make a living out of defining themselves by artificial and false distinctions. These groups are on to a good thing, and widespread adoption of Libertarianism would shut them down permanently. They would no longer be in line for special treatment at the expense of others, neither would they be able to exert control over other groups in any way.

    As Libertarianism continues to grow, we can expect more of these desperate and flailing attacks. When the mainstream gatekeepers of public opinion start to delve into the writings of Murray Rothbard, they will find much that is offensive to them, and they will try to use what they find there to demonise and discredit Libertarianism.

    Unfortunately for them, the very act of exposing these ideas will cause hundreds of millions to embrace them, because Libertarianism makes perfect sense and is in perfect tune with the true nature of man.

    When men are living in a state of liberty, people’s feelings are going to be hurt. There are going to be bad people. There are going to be people who discriminate. There are going to be people who offend others with their ideas. All of these things are a price worth paying for liberty, such is the sweetness of that condition.

    Nick Clegg opens Pandora’s Box

    Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

    Nick Clegg makes another fatal error by offering unconditionally, to scrap the laws that the public want scrapped. Once the lists of legislation to be repealed start to be compiled, he will panic and have to backtrack, whereupon he will be correctly accused of welshing on the offer.

    Nick Clegg: tell us the laws that you want scrapped

    Sure thing, add these for starters.

    The most radical redistribution of power from the state to the people for 200 years is to be made by the new coalition Government, Nick Clegg is to claim.

    The public will be asked what laws they want ripped up, in far-reaching reforms designed to put back faith in politics, the Deputy Prime Minister will say.

    This is nothing to do with having ‘faith’ in politics. Faith is the exclusive purview of religion… of course to some the state is a religion… but we will leave that for another time. This is about getting government out of our lives and off of our backs. Permanently.

    The reordering of power will sweep away Labour legislation and new criminal offences deemed to have eroded personal freedom.

    This is not ‘reordering power’ it’s an offer of relinquishing power.

    It will involve the end of the controversial ID cards scheme, the scrapping of universal DNA databases in which the records of thousands of innocent people have been stored and restrictions placed on internet records. The use of CCTV cameras will also be reviewed.

    All good.

    Dubbed the Great Reform Act, the measures will close down the ContactPoint childrens database. Set up by Labour last year, it includes detailed information on all 11 million youngsters under 18.

    Paedophiles, marxists, fake charities and statists are all weeping into their cereal right now.

    In addition, schools will not be able to take a childs fingerprint without parental permission.

    They should not have this ability in the first place. It’s like saying, “schools will not be able to tattoo serial numbers on the arms of children without parent’s permission”. A school is not a tattoo parlour or a police station, where fingerprints are normally taken.

    In an attempt to protect freedom of speech, ministers will review libel laws, while limits on peaceful protest will be removed.

    Mr Clegg said the Government wanted to establish a fundamental resettlement of the relationship between state and citizen that puts you in charge.

    I hear weasel words….

    In a speech in London he will say: This Government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state. This Government is going to break up concentrations of power and hand power back to people, because that is how we build a society that is fair.

    The word ‘fair’ is beginning to irk me in a very volcanic way. Libertarians do not accept that majority rule is ‘fair’ and that handing the illegitimate power to steal and use violence on others is ‘fair’. You read BLOGDIAL. You know this!

    He will describe the plans as the biggest shake-up of our democracy since 1832, when the Great Reform Act redrew the boundaries of British democracy, for the first time extending the franchise beyond the landed classes.

    Redistribution of power is not a shake up, at least, it is not one that really matters. Only the diminution of power matters. Only the removal of laws matters. We have been saying this for ages.

    Mr Clegg has been the most vocal of the three main party leaders arguing for political reform since The Daily Telegraph exposed the expenses scandal a year ago.

    Today, he can put in train the measures which, he claims, will deliver a power revolution.

    As long as there is a gatekeeper like him, it will never happen in the way it should. We all know that when they get this list of laws, they will… weed out the ones that they simply cannot stomach. This will make the whole process illegitimate, as you would expect it to be.

    What is different this time, hopefully, is that after having been handed this laundry list of laws that should be repealed, and then Clegg and his statists refusing to obey, the reaction of the public just might be, “well, sod off then, I’m not obeying any more“. This is the only proper response; imagine if Clegg and co refused to remove miscegenation laws, or alcohol prohibition or anything that is so obviously contrary to your rights as a free human being. Would you throw up your hands and say, “oof marron, it’s the way of the world!”. Perhaps before, but now? after everything Britain has just suffered?

    He will say that reform will not simply mean a few new rules for MPs [or] the odd gesture or gimmick to make you feel a bit more involved.

    That means we expect REAL action to repeal EVERYTHING that people will no longer obey, even if you refuse to repeal it. I keep coming back to the issue of drugs, not because I want it to take advantage of this particular repeal personally (I despise habitual marijuana smokers), but because it is a perfect example of millions of people doing exactly what they want no matter what the law says. If Clegg really wants to return to some form of sanity, he is going to have to repeal all laws that restrict the imbibing of anything whatsoever. This means throwing out all drug classifications, and the entire prohibition infrastructure, without exception.

    I have a prediction to make.

    He hasn’t got the BALLS to do it.

    And of course, they will all give the excuse that the majority do not want this, but once again, if the majority wanted miscegenation laws, would that make them moral and legitimate? of course it would not.

    Mr Clegg will announce that he wants to hear about which laws should be scrapped to roll back the state encroachment into peoples lives.

    How does he want to hear this? Through what mechanism? Thankfully, in the age of the internetz, anyone can start a wiki where you can list the laws you want to see repealed. There are a few of these running right now, and for sure, there will be more to come.

    I think the deluge of requests will be very large… comprehensive in fact.

    As we tear through the statute book, well do something no government ever has: We will ask you which laws you think should go.

    And we will tell you which ones should go. Will you repeal them, or make glib, weasel word excuses for keeping them on the books? That is the question!

    Because thousands of criminal offences were created under the previous government. Taking peoples freedom away didnt make our streets safe.

    Obsessive law-making simply makes criminals out of ordinary people. So, well get rid of the unnecessary laws and once theyre gone, they wont come back.

    What he is saying makes sense of course, but what on earth is an ‘ordinary person’? Is an ordinary person someone who grows marijuana in their greenhouse? Or is that someone Mr. Clegg would call a ‘criminal’? Is someone who does $your_recreation_or_right_that_is_banned an ordinary person, or a ‘criminal’?

    That is the question: who decides what ‘ordinary’ is, and should there even be someone who defines what ‘ordinary’ is?

    We will introduce a mechanism to block pointless new criminal offences.

    OK fine.

    The measures to repeal so-called surveillance state laws will be included in next weeks Queens Speech.

    Under the coalition agreement, Mr Clegg and David Cameron said they would end the storage of internet and email regulations and email records without good reason.

    What is ‘good reason’?! In this case, ‘good reason’ is a gaping crater ten miles wide on an asteroid that is eleven miles in diameter.

    This is likely to mean the end of plans for the Government and the security services to intercept and keep emails and text messages.

    Good. The only purpose for that is to harass, humiliate and threaten ordinary people. There we go with the ordinary people bit again… I meant INNOCENT PEOPLE.

    The 224 million ContactPoint database can be accessed by 300,000 people working in health, education, social care and youth justice leading to fears it could be exploited or fall into the wrong hands.

    The readers of BLOGDIAL know all about ContactPoint.

    Mr Clegg will add: It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide. It has to stop.


    This will be a government that is proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state. That values debate, that is unafraid of dissent.


    You forgot the rest of the list of what ‘your’ government will be Mr. Clegg.

    All in all, the most important thing is the scrapping of ContactPoint, the NIR and the ID Card. Without them, a totalitarian police state is much harder, if not impossible to construct. Even if they do not repeal the prohibition laws, no one is obeying them anyway and so the decline an fall of democracy will continue unabated.

    Whatever happens, repeal act or no, it’s the end of things as they were, and the end of the power of the democratic state. If things go well, it will be replaced with the best possible alternative…



    It’s started. Melissa Kite in The Telegraph reels off some of her hated statutes to be excised:

    Be careful what you wish for. Nick Clegg says he wants people to send him ideas of bad laws that ought to be repealed.

    I hope the Deputy Prime Minister has an efficient customer services department in the Cabinet Office, because he is about to be inundated. He may need to set up a Ministry of Silly Laws to sift through all the suggestions that are going to pour in. Here are my submissions:

    Pet Passports: A law requiring you to take a photo of your cat’s face and stick it on a piece of paper claiming to be an official document is not the sort of thing that made this country great. If Mrs Pomfrey wants to stuff Tricky-Woo in a basket and take him to Cannes on the Eurostar, let her do it without paperwork, I say.

    The same goes for Horse Passports: We were told these were necessary to stop anti-inflammatory drugs getting into the food chain. Well, yes, or we could just white knuckle it and take a chance that the overwhelming majority of British horse owners won’t suddenly wake up one day and decide to turn their mounts into salami.

    Speed cameras: It would be more honest if the police set up road blocks, randomly flagged down drivers and charged them a 60 protection fee to continue their journey unmolested.

    The Licensing Act: Restrictions on small venues that rein in the more dangerous excesses of little old ladies holding tea dances in village halls. What say we just gamble on the Women’s Institute not playing heavy metal and trashing the joint?

    The hunting ban: Country folk still cannot quite understand why they are prohibited from killing vermin in the quickest way possible, while Halal butchers are allowed to hang animals upside down and slit their throats. Puzzling, to say the least.

    All health and safety regulations: Please, just let us injure ourselves. I personally would deem it a signal honour to take a conker blow to the head if it meant an end to being wrapped in state-sponsored cotton wool.

    Data protection: “Your call is being recorded for your own safety”. No it isn’t. It is being recorded because we are living under the lash of an overweening state stuffed with busybodies who need taking down a peg or two.

    ‘Verbal abuse’: A concept invented as a way of prosecuting middle-class people for losing their rag as they deal with all of the above provocations. It should not be an offence to shout or swear, or tell bureaucrats to file their forms where the sun doesn’t shine: it should be a basic human right.



    If the Telegraph had the same internet expertise as the Grauniad, they would already have a wiki up so that everyone could add their submission. It would automagically find the law that covers your pet peeve from a search term, populate the relevant fields and in two clicks you are done!

    Council of Europe: “Britain, it is time for you to give us your children”

    Monday, April 26th, 2010

    A lurking parent sent this in:

    Europe presses UK to introduce total ban on smacking children
    The Council of Europe says London needs to comply with 1998 ruling that said smacking violates children’s rights

    The UK will come under increasing pressure to ban all smacking and corporal punishment of children as the European human rights body steps up pressure for a change in the law.

    The Council of Europe which monitors compliance with the European convention on human rights will criticise the UK because it has not banned smacking more than 10 years after a ruling in 1998 that the practice could violate children’s rights against inhuman and degrading treatment.

    Could violate ‘children’s rights’?

    As you know, there is no such thing as ‘children’s rights’; this idea is nothing more than a pretext for the state to become the ultimate parent of all children.

    All of you people who subscribe to the concept of ‘non violent parenting‘ might cheer the EU on this matter, but beware; first they tell you that you cannot discipline your child through a slap, then they will tell you that your child has the ‘right’ to go to school against your wishes, and you will have no where to turn to to stop it.

    In fact, anything that your child wants that you do not want to give it will be a cause for the state to intervene; after all, they have a right to the internet, to TV, to school, to live without discipline, to sex, to eat whatever they like, and rights to things you cannot imagine that they have a right to.

    You let them in on this issue and you can forget bringing up your children in your own way. Period.

    “The campaign to abolish corporal punishment across the Council of Europe is gathering momentum; 20 countries have formally abolished laws allowing it in the past three years,” said Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, deputy secretary general of the Council of Europe.

    Obviously it doesn’t matter how many countries introduce something, that does not confer legitimacy to their actions.

    “The UK is one of the countries that has not yet implemented a full ban. In part, this is because the traditional parent-child relationship in the UK is one of authority [and] state intervention into family affairs is still not welcome,” she added.

    and quite right too. There is no reason why that should change. The French, Germans, Dutch, Belgians and all the rest of them can do whatever they like in their own countries. There is no reason whatsoever that Britain should adopt this insanity.

    We are talking about fundamental human rights,”

    No, you are not. You are talking about a fallacious, fictional and dangerous fantasy ‘Children’s Rights’, which are a statists dream.

    The state, through its role as the protector of these imaginary rights becomes the parent and owner of all children. The state controls all children, parents are sidelined and the fabric of human culture is re woven to include the toxic thread of the state as the strength of the cloth. It is pure, unadulterated evil.

    she said. “Not only do children have the same human rights as adults, but they are more vulnerable than adults. They need more protection and not less.”

    This is a very clever lie.

    Children do have the same rights as adults, but they are a special form of property partly because they are vulnerable. The proper people to have the property rights in a child are the people who created it. It is not moral, natural or correct that the state should seize children and own them or exercise powers and property rights in children.

    Children need protecting FROM the state not BY the state.

    Current law prohibits the use of force against children,

    Unless that force is being used by the state, which has a monopoly on the use of force and violence.

    but gives adults in the home and in some part-time schools and religious institutions a defence to the charge of assault in cases of mild force where they can show the punishment was reasonable.

    Corporal punishment is a very useful tool to maintain discipline in a school or the home. You can choose to use it or not as a parent. You can choose to send your child to a school where it is used to maintain order. That is your business; it is not the affair of the state.

    The first ban on smacking was not introduced in the UK until 1987, then extended to independent schools in 1999. Further laws passed in the past decade have prohibited the use of corporal punishment in children’s homes and state care.

    And now, children are running, literally wild in the streets, raping teachers, knifing them and everything imaginable and unimaginable beneath those crimes. Children who are properly disciplined from the off do not do any of this, and that is why schoolchildren in the 1950’s were so well behaved; they knew that if they got out of line there would be hell to pay.

    Since 2004, the law has changed further to make it harder for parents, or adults “in loco parentis”, to use the defence of reasonable punishment when they could otherwise be charged with assault.

    And Britain is suffering the consequences of this insanity.

    Concerns remain about smacking at home and in part-time educational institutions such as weekend faith schools, where adults using “reasonable force” can avoid prosecutions. Last month, Sir Roger Singleton, the government’s independent adviser on child safety, published a report that recommended smacking should be banned in all places outside the home, citing particular concern about part-time schools and places of worship.

    I wonder what Roger Singleton recommends to return discipline to schools? Why are these people so very keen to interfere with the private business of individuals? The sooner they are all consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

    “Protection against physical punishment should be extended to all forms of care, education and instruction outside the family,” Singleton said.

    ‘Bollocks’ as a wise Home Educator once said to me.

    However, the report stopped short of recommending a change in the law that allows parents to use corporal punishment within the home.

    “I have concluded that any attempt to define those family categories or circumstances to which the availability of the defence ought or ought not to apply would be cumbersome, bureaucratic, largely impractical and very difficult to communicate,” Singleton said.

    Interesting… WHY? They have no problem trying to pass legislation allowing them to enter the homes of people who Home Educate, why not do the same for this? Because there are too many properly operating families left in the country, and such a move would cause widespread anger that they just do not want to deal with. The incandescent rage of the Home Educators shone like a dawn before a hot summer day. Millions of parents in revolt to the same level would be like midday on Mercury in comparison.

    None of the three main parties have any specific policy on corporal punishment in their election manifestos.

    The BNP are for corporal punishment. You should read their manifesto (PDF), I guarantee you someone else is reading it, and agreeing with it.

    Earlier this year, two Liberal Democrat MPs attempted to introduce a clause in the children, schools and families bill which would have limited the lawful use of corporal punishment to parents and those with parental responsibility.

    You see? TOTAL LIB DEM FAIL once again! These people are your mortal enemies.

    Spare the rod, spoil the child!

    Ed Balls, the children’s secretary, has indicated that the government would support a ban on smacking outside the family, but not a full ban.

    Why not?

    This is the same bastard that wants your children to go to school because he believes that you are a child abuser if you do not send your children to be in his fat necked care.

    “Sir Roger’s report makes it absolutely clear that a child should not be smacked by anyone outside their family.

    Why not? If that task is delegated to another person, it is none of the business of the state. Children know that they are immune from discipline whey they are out of the home, that is why they are running wild!

    I believe this is a sensible and proportionate approach,” Balls said. But the Council of Europe is increasingly critical of the UK’s approach, likening the campaign to the move towards the abolition of the death penalty.”Specific places cannot be exempt from rights,” said De Boer-Buquicchio. “Rights pertain to human beings wherever they are and in whatever circumstances and whatever the setting.”

    This is nothing like the death penalty. This is about controlling families in a completely unacceptable way, not banning a form of punishment that only the state can mete out.

    Don’t be fooled by total scumbag Mr. Balls and his suddenly pro family stance; this is merely for the election. If he were to return to his office, he would go hog wild for implementing this evil ban and reintroducing his noxious bill to eradicate Home Education.


    It beggars belief!


    One of the great revelations of Libertarianism is the correction it makes to crucial words that are used in the English language. ‘Taxation’ is in actuality ‘theft’. ‘War’ is more properly called ‘mass murder’. ‘Conscription’ is, named correctly, ‘slavery’. All of these things and more, when they are called what they really are, can be put into the proper perspective so that you can think about them correctly. Without knowing what words really mean, you cannot start to come to a proper conclusion of any kind about the issues surrounding them. The same is true about the word ‘violence’.

    To get to the bottom of this, we need to separate the world of adults from the world of children, and we need to define the terms.

    Adults using force against each other is violence. Two men in a boxing ring thrashing it out is NOT violence, and neither is fencing, rugby or any other contact sport. Violence is a physical act of aggression committed by an adult against another, unwilling, non consenting adult.

    A parent whipping a child is chastisement, not violence. Chastisement is completely different to violence between adults, where one adult profits in some way from the injury or coercion or damage done to another adult. In chastisement, the child benefits from the lesson imparted by the pain involved in the punishment.

    For example, when a young child is walking with its mother down the street and she sees a ball in the middle of the road, she may (if she has not yet learned this lesson) run into the street to retrieve it, putting herself in mortal danger. When a child does this, the first response is for the mother to intone ‘NO!’ in a stern voice. Then, if the child bolts for the ball again, the mother intones ‘NO!’ accompanied by a sound slap. After a lesson like that, any normal child would forever more refrain from running into the road. That is the purpose of chastisement; to reinforce the gravity of a wrong act, its danger etc etc. Understanding by words is sometimes not enough to overcome the will to have fun, and this is where chastisement can communicate gravity where words are insufficient.

    Chastisement and punishment are not violence in the context of the parent and its child.

    We have all heard the phrase, “This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you”. That neatly sums up what the true nature of chastisement is; violence, apart from being adults against adults (equal classes of human being), hurts the victim more than the aggressor, and this is by design. Of course, in the case of chastisement there is no victim, since chastisement is beneficial and is done out of love, and not out of the desire for gain.

    Thinkers on this subject must be very careful about conflating the adult world, its relationships and interactions which are peer to peer, with the world of parents and their children which is one of owner of property to property.

    This property based relationship makes obvious the fact that if an adult who is not the parent of a child, spanks a child without the permission of the parent, that is an act of violence. Only the parent has the right to use or authorise the use of chastisement upon its children. All other adults have no right to punish or chastise or command a child, unless of course, that child is is infringing the property rights of that adult.

    It is incoherent and incomplete thinking, a fundamental lack of understanding of English and a mixing up of the adult world and the world of children and parents that started the entirely evil ‘children’s rights’ movement. The relationship between parents and children cannot and should not be conflated with adult relationships. As soon as you do that, you immediately end up with ‘children’s rights’, ‘hearing the voice of the child’, children ‘choosing their own religion’ and all other nonsense like that, all enforced by the state.

    Children are not free in the way that adults are free. Children and adults are not equatable in this respect, since one is a special case of the property of the other.

    Man’s domestic relationships and rules are of course, his own affair. Many parents today accept behaviour from their children which is appalling, shocking and incomprehensible to some. So be it. When those children misbehave in the streets, everyone knows who to blame. When they cannot sit still in a restaurant, everyone knows who to blame. When they climb upon statues and run hog wild in museums while on group outings we know who to blame. When they scream at the top of their lungs in a supermarket or other public place, we know who to blame. When they constantly interrupt, force the parent to take them out of a public space because they are completely hysterical and out of control… we know who to blame.

    Often the parents of such feral children are apologetic and embarrassed when their children go wild; it causes the observer of such bad behaviour to silently ask the question, “Why are you embarrassed? This is the type of child you are rearing with your style of parenting, you have nothing to explain to anyone, so why are you blushing with shame and embarrassment when your child ‘flips out’ in public?”.

    The fact of the matter is those parents who have children that do not know how to behave and who have no boundaries know perfectly well that their children are in fact poorly reared, and they are embarrassed because they know that their children’s disorderly behaviour reflects poorly on them. This is especially true when there are children who are properly parented side by side with wild children. You can see it everywhere; when well behaved children are called, “time to go home!” in a park they obey without question and get ready to go. The bad children whine, the really bad children start to cry, le mchant throw a tantrum and les Enfant terrible fling themselves on the floor in complete hysterics. Allowing your child to expose this sort of revolting behaviour to other people is simply disgusting. To some. Parents get to know what parks to go to and which to avoid, and which families to avoid also.

    But I digress.

    If we really want to change the world for the better, we all need to know our boundaries and stay within them. We might also consider the sort of children we are going to unleash on the world, and make sure the parenting that is provided to them imparts discipline as well as an understanding of what the world really is and what free people are. I have deliberately not touched on the subject of obedience; it is clearly tightly linked to chastisement and its application. This whole area contains many elements that make it difficult to strike a balance for some, especially since it involves your offspring and an uncertain future that is almost certainly going to be filled with bad people. There is no greater teacher than experience, and for those that have more than one child, it gets easier as time goes on, and those in extended families have it even better.

    One thing we can say for sure is this; all aspects of parenting are a strictly private affair and its completely up to you to parent in whatever way you feel is appropriate. It is also up to you to pick and choose who you associate with; those parents with children who are intolerable to one group are either included or excluded from your social circle and that is the end of it. This is perfectly natural; “birds of a feather, flock together”. As long as no one tries to force you to live like them, or accept behaviour that is repulsive to you, everyone can live in peace, share information, share public spaces, opinions and enjoy their lives. It is only when someone thinks they are right and then tries to make you obey them that trouble starts.

    Hypocritical and violent ‘information tsars’ attack Google

    Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

    Google ‘not interested’ in privacy, say information tsars

    Google has repeatedly shown a disappointing disregard for safeguarding private information about its users, the privacy officials from 10 major countries have said.

    Britain’s Information Commissioner Chris Graham and equivalent officials from Canada, France, Germany and Italy were among the signatories to a letter to the search giants chief executive, Eric Schmidt, which condemned the way the company has delivered both its Streetview mapping service and its Buzz product, which was conceived as a rival to social network Facebook.

    The letter, organised by Canadas Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, calls on Google to lay out how it will meet concerns about its use of public data in the future, and says that it has violated the fundamental principle that individuals should be able to control the use of their personal information. The search giant has already acted to address a number of the points now raised in the letter, but said that it had no further statements to make on its privacy policies.

    The launch of the Buzz network in February sparked an international wave of protests because it took information about email users most common correspondents and automatically built each individual a network of followers. This meant that links which people wished to keep private could immediately become public.

    Google Streetview, which provides an eye-level picture of almost every street in dozens of cities around the world, continues to cause concern about the adequacy of the information [Google] provides before the images are captured, the commissioners said. The product has also been launched some countries without due consideration of privacy and data protection laws and cultural norms, they added.

    In a statement Google said that it had quickly rectified the problems that caused Buzz users concern. We have discussed all these issues publicly many times before and have nothing to add to today’s letter, the search company said. Of course we do not get everything 100% right. We try very hard to be upfront about the data we collect, and how we use it, as well as to build meaningful controls into our products.

    The commissioners, however, said that they remain extremely concerned about how a product with such significant privacy issues [as Buzz] was launched in the first place.


    The hypocrisy of the state is a bottomless well full of the excrement of a thousand years of violence, theft, lies and bastardy. They remain extremely concerned about how a product with such significant privacy issues [as Buzz] was launched in the first place. What an extraordinary statement, especially coming from the people who issue mandatory Passports, ID Cards, forced enrolment in ContactPoint and all the other harmful things that these states have deployed, knowing full well in advance that they were harmful to the privacy of the people who would be forced into being violated by them.

    Lets think about what Google DOES NOT DO, compared to what these states DO DO.

    Google does not:

    • FORCE people into a National Identity Register, where your fingerprints are taken BY FORCE.
    • Operate a system of MANDATORY passports where if you want to exercise your right to travel, you need their permission in advance.
    • FORCE people to apply for and carry a driver’s license to drive their own cars
    • FORCE people to carry an ID Card when they leave their own houses
    • FORCE people to ‘register’ their children at birth
    • FORCE people’s children onto databases like ContactPoint
    • FORCE people to reveal their private banking transactions to facilitate theft
    • FORCE private companies to violate the privacy of their users
    • SPY on people’s telephone conversations
    • SPY on people’s emails
    • READ people’s snail mail to spy on them
    • FORCE people to be locked into their violations and predations with no opt out
    • FORCE people to _________ their own ________ so that they can __________

    Google is a provider of VOLUNTARY SERVICES that exist on a PRIVATE NETWORK OF COMPUTERS that is the internets. In this respect, they are absolutely moral, clean and without blemish of any kind. You do not like their services? Go to Yahoo, Hotmail or the devil for all they care. Google will not hunt you down with guns and murder you for refusing their voluntary services, unlike the state.

    All of these purely evil people, namely Jennifer Stoddart Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Alex Trk? Chairman, Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Liberts (France), Peter Schaar? Commissioner, Bundesbeauftragte fr den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit (Germany), Billy Hawkes ?Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland, Yoram Hacohen ?Head of the Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority, Francesco Pizzetti? Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy), Jacob Kohnstamm? Chairman, College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens (Netherlands)?Chairman Article 29 Working Party, Marie Shroff ?Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand, Artemi Rallo Lombarte? Director, Agencia Espaola de Proteccin de Datos (Spain), Christopher Graham? Information Commissioner and Chief Executive (United Kingdom)

    Are ALL guilty of working for criminal and immoral organisations that routinely steal, murder and violate the property and privacy of hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis. There is no escaping this, and they have a huge amount of PURE GALL attacking Google in this way.

    When these idiotic, violent, violating, computer illiterate agents of the state offer:

    giving people simple procedures for deleting their accounts and honouring their requests in a timely way.

    so that the state has none of the information they hold on citizens, THEN and ONLY THEN will they be in a position to say ANYTHING to Google. The state should not have a monopoly on privacy violation; this is what it has now, and that is unacceptable to any decent person with a properly formulated code of ethics.

    While we are at it, we must make special mention of Germany and Canada, who outlaw speech that they find objectionable. Obviously (you read BLOGDIAL after all) you know that what anyone feels about a particular speaker is irrelevant. Freedom of speech is a non negotiable absolute. It is entirely illegitimate for the state to proscribe strings of words.

    But I digress.

    These people, these unproductive, unethical parasites, have a hell of a nerve writing a letter to a company that provides a useful and completely voluntary service to anyone who wants it.

    People do not like being on streetview. This is understandable. If all the roads were private, then streetview would be impossible. The people who own the streets would have the right to exclude the streetview cars from travelling down their roads. Libertarians WIN again!

    Of course, this would not stop people making drawings of what is on a street and publishing them; those would be just as useful as photographs and would not violate anyone’s privacy.

    Thankfully, Google has some balls:

    As we have written before, there are definitely questions to be asked over the privacy implications of StreetView and the so-called ‘joined-up’ online world Google is creating with phone, email. social networking, GPS mapping and, potentially, medical records all being held on the database of one large multinational company.

    Well, it seems that Google took the accusations to heart and – in a wonderfully catty reaction – has today published a a tool that shows how often governments around the world have either asked it for data on users or asked that data be removed from Google search results.

    This ‘Government requests tool’ (click here to view the fascinating table) reveals some very interesting results. As explained by tech site

    Top of the list of user information requests is Brazil with 3,663 inquiries, reflecting the strength of Googles Orkut social networking system in that country. The US comes second with 3,580 requests and the UK third with 1,166, the highest in Europe by a considerable margin.

    Brazil also tops the lists of information removal, with 291 requests. Germany comes second with 188 and India third with 142, edging out the US, which made 123 requests.

    Congratulations should go out to Google for publishing this table and revealing the extent to which Governments around the world are prepared to lean on internet-based companies – and potentially control what we see on the web. Congratulations are also due to our Information Commissioner for recognising the privacy issues with StreetView etc.

    It further proves that it is not just state databases we should be concerned about.


    Actually, Big Brother Watch is wrong about the non state databases being something of concern; it is only the state’s mandatory access to private data that causes the problem, not the fact that company owned databases are used as a tool. If there were no state, there would be no threat from databases because it is the violence of the state that makes a database dangerous.

    Google and more recently Talk Talk are demonstrating that they have some guts and are not willing to passively be the apparatus of the state.

    At last, a ram amongst the sheep!

    The REAL Chris Mounsey Andrew Neil interview footage!

    Thursday, April 15th, 2010

    Here it is:

    Chris Mounsey is right in what he thinks of course (except his views on copyright!), and all reasonable, rational people understand that he is free to use whatever language he wants on his blog, which is his personal property.

    The entire English language is at his disposal to use in whatever way he sees fit. In my humble opinion, using expletives in a blog post is less offensive than mass murder and all the other revolting crimes of the state, or journalists who write pieces to excuse those crimes, or newspaper editors whose only purpose is to reinforce the system that makes mass murder possible.

    Chris Mounsey is a free thinker. It is a badge of honour to be ridiculed by the likes of Andrew Neil:

    Resistance to Liberty
    We can now see that the rapid growth of the libertarian movement and the Libertarian party in the 1970s is firmly rooted in what Bernard Bailyn called this powerful “permanent legacy” of the American Revolution. But if this legacy is so vital to the American tradition, what went wrong? Why the need now for a new libertarian movement to arise to reclaim the American dream?

    To begin to answer this question, we must first remember that classical liberalism constituted a profound threat to the political and economic interests the ruling classes who benefited from the Old Order: the kings, the nobles and landed aristocrats, the privileged merchants, the military machines, the State bureaucracies.


    In all societies, public opinion is determined by the intellectual classes, the opinion moulders of society. For most people neither originate nor disseminate ideas and concepts; on the contrary, they tend to adopt those ideas promulgated by the professional intellectual classes, the professional dealers in ideas. Now, throughout history, as we shall see further below, despots and ruling elites of States have had far more need of the services of intellectuals than have peaceful citizens in a free society. For States have always needed opinion-moulding intellectuals to con the public into believing that its rule is wise, good, and inevitable; into believing that the “emperor has clothes.” Until the modern world, such intellectuals were inevitably churchmen (or witch doctors), the guardians of religion. It was a cozy alliance, this age-old partnership between Church and State; the Church informed its deluded charges that the king ruled by divine command and therefore must be obeyed; in return, the king funneled numerous tax revenues into the coffers of the Church. Hence, the great importance for the libertarian classical liberals of their success at separating Church and State. The new liberal world was a world in which intellectuals could be secular could make a living on their own, in the market, apart from State subvention.

    To establish their new statist order, their neomercantilist corporate State, the new conservatives therefore had to forge a new alliance between intellectual and State. In an increasingly secular age, this meant with secular intellectuals rather than with divines: specifically, with the new breed of professors, Ph.D.’s, historians, teachers, and technocratic economists, social workers, sociologists, physicians, and engineers. This reforged alliance came in two parts. In the early nineteenth century, the conservatives, conceding reason to their liberal enemies, relied heavily on the alleged virtues of irrationality, romanticism, tradition, theocracy. By stressing the virtue of tradition and of irrational symbols, the conservatives could gull the public into continuing privileged hierarchical rule, and to continue to worship the nation-state and its war-making machine. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the new conservatism adopted the trappings of reason and of “science.” Now it was science that allegedly required rule of the economy and of society by technocratic “experts.” In exchange for spreading this message to the public, the new breed of intellectuals was rewarded with jobs and prestige as apologists for the New Order and as planners and regulators of the newly cartelized economy and society.

    Rock on Chris Mounsey, and next time, bring your army with you!

    Mark Thomas: “Stealing is OK as long as you vote for it”

    Thursday, April 8th, 2010

    Now that election season is in full swing, all the violent, misguided, deluded statists are coming out of the woodworks to claim that their brand of violence is the best.

    Mails are circulating the internets asking people to look at The Green Party, The Venus Project, and SIMPOL (Simultaneous Policy)… all bogus, all violent, all garbage.

    The Green Party is particularly vile:

    Green Party policies on equality and diversity are based on core principles of recognising rights and responsibilities and that a healthy society is based on voluntary cooperation between empowered individuals, free from discrimination based on race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, religion, social origin or any other prejudice.

    In respect of rights, the Green Party goes beyond the liberal notion of individual rights, which fails to recognise that the current inequitable distribution of resources means that individuals and groups with the most power claim their rights, and those with less power find their rights denied. The rights of minority and less powerful groups suffer. For the Green Party, individual rights are vitally important, but in addition it is important to ensure that all minorities, as well as less powerful groups, are enabled to flourish. This requires positive action on the part of the state and employers.


    Greens are the greatest threat to Liberty ever. In their hands, the state will become the weapon that completely eliminates human liberty. Browse through their site for yourself….absolutely REVOLTING.

    And check out their education policy:

    Education is a right, not a privilege, and should be free to people of all ages. Good education is about more than academic knowledge it is also about physical and mental health, creative and artistic development, and practical and social skills. We want an education system that nurtures peoples desire to learn throughout their lives. Education should promote equality, inclusivity, and social and emotional well- being, and schools should be at the heart of communities.


    The old chestnuts. Education is not a right, or a privilege. It is a good.

    and now on to the meat in the sandwich.

    Mark Thomas, ‘enemy of the state’ (not) chimes in with his own brand of thievery, thuggery and brainwashing in the Grauniad:

    With the utmost modesty I can claim, with the aid of audiences up and down the country, to have created the ultimate political manifesto. Each night audience members are asked to suggest policies, which are then discussed and voted upon. The policy that wins the most votes joins the manifesto. On Tuesday night the crowd decided upon two policies: to re-nationalise the railways and to introduce a maximum wage although to be fair, fining people who wear Ugg boots came a close third.

    None of this is remotely funny.

    The railways were the property of businessmen who laid out their capital to build them. They were then stolen by the state, financed for decades with stolen money, and then sold to a different set of businessmen. Now, these people want to steal them again.

    Stealing is stealing, wether it is done by a group of people voting for it or an individual burglar.

    What I would like to hear from these folks is how they think that a vote turns the act of theft from a crime into a ‘not a crime’. I would also like them to explain how a vote transfers the power to steal from individuals to their agents. Mark Thomas would (I presume, who knows?) agree that he himself does not have the right to steal from anyone, so how can he transfer a power that he does not have to others?

    Its an interesting question. Its also interesting to ask if this same magic works for any act; can people who do not have the right to take life, vote to take life? Can they vote to defy gravity?

    I wonder….

    The manifesto has built up over the year and contains policies varying from “MPs should not be paid salaries but loans, like students. MPs often get highly paid jobs on leaving parliament as a consequence of having attended parliament, they should therefore repay the loan” to “the introduction of a Prohibition of Deception Act” and “Dog owners who do not clean up after their dogs should be forced to wear the offending turd as a moustache for the rest of the day”.

    Once again, this is not funny. Violence is not funny.

    “What is to happen to these policies of rare genius, Mark?” I hear you cry in a desperate and needy whimper. The answer and the wait are over. The Manifesto has a candidate standing in the election.

    Ebury Press (publishers of the People’s Manifesto) agreed to fund a candidate,

    Hmmm! They VOLUNTARILY agreed to fund him, or did you vote to threaten the publishers that if they did not hand over the cash, you and your ‘democracy’ would steal the money from him and close him down?

    After all, you have all voted to steal Richard Branson’s trains and lines from him, why not steal the money from Ebury Press do do what ‘needs to be done for the good of society’?

    What stopped you from just steaming into their offices and beating the heck out of them till they handed over all their cash?

    and so we began the selection process. People were invited to submit themselves as candidates (via a website) and asked various probing questions about their policy priorities, what local issues should be highlighted and details of their campaign strategy.

    The selection process started with the question “Why do you want to stand as an MP?” Anyone who responded using the words “public service”, “duty” or “needs of the community” was immediately rejected. My favourite answer, incidentally, was: “I’m not doing much for the next five years.”

    All unfunny, all illegitimate.

    Kushlick is a great candidate,

    There is no such thing as a ‘great candidate’.

    with a history of campaigning.

    for what exactly?

    Readers of the Guardian might recognise his name, as he has written in these pages on the issue of drug prohibition.

    Complete abolition or continuation and enforcement? These details actually matter.

    This is Kushlick’s subject, having worked firstly as a drug counsellor before going on to help set up Transform, the advocacy and research foundation working to end the global war on drugs and replace it with an effective, humane and just system of regulation and control.

    So continuation and enforcement through the violence of the state; ‘Prohibition Lite®’. SHAME.

    Not surprisingly, his main policy is the legalisation of all drugs, but he has selected four other policies he sees as priorities:

    1. The introduction of a Tobin tax (Robin Hood tax) on foreign financial transactions.

    Violent theft of private property by the state.

    2. The Daily Mail should be forced to print on the front of every edition the words: “This is a fictionalised account of the news and any resemblance to the truth is entirely coincidental.”

    Not funny. Violent control of the press, ‘fairness doctrine’.

    3. There should be a referendum before going to war.

    Let me get this straight, ‘we’ should only murder when a majority of us agrees that its OK. Once again, a simple vote cannot make what is inherently wrong, right.

    By this logic if a simple majority of people who are voting agreed to invade Iraq (for example), for no reason whatsoever, that would make it perfectly legitimate to ‘go to war’ with them, with all that entails.

    This is irrational, murderous, childish and COMPLETELY INSANE thinking.

    4. MPs should have to wear tabards displaying the names and logos of the companies with which they have a financial relationship, like a racing driver.

    Not funny. There should be no state, no MPs ect ect.

    Oh dear me.

    Kushlick’s campaign website and details will be online soon. There is an election rally on 20 April in Bristol at the Metropole: further details to be announced. Anyone wishing to help support Kushlick’s efforts in Bristol West should go to the People’s Manifesto Facebook page. In the meantime, let us celebrate the first candidate to declare: “The most important ‘special relationship’ isn’t with the US, but with your mum.

    Your ‘mum’ should have taught you all that stealing is not right.

    I’m afraid that these people are very deep in the illusion, the Matrix, where they do not posses even the slightest morsel of information to help them understand what it is they are asking for, who is really stealing from them, why things do not work, and what they need to do to solve these problems.

    They are all brainwashed to believe that they have the power to do violence against others, and that this is entirely legitimate as long as there is a vote.

    Appalling, and entirely unsurprising.

    The State comes after Wikileaks

    Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

    The owners of Wikileaks are under pressure from both the Icelandic State and The Great Satan:

    • WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact
    • WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining
    • If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible.
    • Two under State Dep diplomatic cover followed our editor from Iceland to on Thursday.
    • One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computers seized.Thats
    • We know our possession of the decrypted airstrike video is now being discussed at the highest levels of US command.
    • We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike.
    • We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Dont think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks.

    Those tweets demonstrate that WikiLeaks is considered a real threat, and that the state is going to do anything they can to shut them down; at the very least, they will use the same amount of pressure they put on Cryptome and its owner. They might go further. Who knows?

    What we can say for sure is that the people who run WikiLeaks, after they have changed their trousers, need to very seriously consider what they are doing and what they are promoting.

    On the one hand they are promoting IMMI which translates to, “we support the violent state” and then on the other hand, they shout “DO NOT WANT” when that very same state comes after them.

    You cannot have it both ways.

    You cannot be FOR the state when it is doing something that you agree with and then be AGAINST the state when it is doing something that you do not like.

    It is 100% guaranteed that whoever is harassing Wikileaks from the Icelandic government believes absolutely that they are justified in doing what they are doing, as odd as it may seem to decent people. This is the problem; the state is a monster on a leash that obeys whoever the owner of the leash is. Wikileaks promoting IMMI control the leash for what they like, against the wishes of and at the expense of other people, and the people following them use that same monster on a leash to trouble them. The only way to be free of it is to KILL THE BEAST and BURN THE LEASH.

    Icelanders and in this case Wikileaks need to understand that the state itself is their problem. They need to reject it, reorganise to exist without it, and do it NOW while the beast is wounded.

    Democracy will be the death of Britain

    Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

    Those paying attention know that David Chaytor MP thinks that all children are owned collectively in Britain, and that the parental rights of ownership of children are secondary to the prior claim of the state.

    Now with that in mind:

    What Mr. Chaytor is saying is that the community (the state) has a prior claim on your child; that your child is the property of those people from birth, and that you have no say in what is best for that child. The community is the parent of your child.

    This opens up a whole slew of questions. WHICH community does your child belong to? If you are a part of a community that believes that honour killings are perfectly legitimate, should your child be subject to that, simply because other people believe it?

    If you live in Tower Hamlets where there are literally dozens of different communities living together, which particular group should take precedence over your right to own and rear your own child?

    As you can clearly see, the only way that everyones rights are protected, and all children are reared in a way that is suitable to them, is that NO ONE but the PARENT should be able to say what is or is not good for a child.

    It is very encouraging that there are Home Educators out there that at least in part, understand that the state does not own children. The more people are woken up to this fact, and then to the reality that they in fact own their children or someone else does, the less likely it will be that there will ever be another Badman report written by the next imbecile in waiting who wants to impose her personal prejudices on total strangers and free people.

    Then we have this:

    Tower Hamlets accused of being infiltrated by Islamic extremists

    A London borough is accused of being infiltrated by extremists after a Government minister said activists were trying to oust him by covertly gaining control of his local Labour party.

    Tower Hamlets council is alleged to have fallen under the influence of the Islamic Forum of Europe and is braced for further claims in a TV documentary to be broadcast tonight.

    But former mayor Ken Livingstone and a spokesman for Respect MP George Galloway both suggested that Dispatches, to be broadcast on Channel 4 at 8pm, amounted to scaremongering against Muslims.

    Mr Livingstone, who follows Tower Hamlets politics closely, said: This furore smacks of racism and Islamophobia. Of course Tower Hamlets council is not infiltrated by Islamists. Just because some people are Muslim and go to the mosque is not argument enough that they are Islamists.


    Evening Standard

    and then…

    Islamic radicals ‘infiltrate’ the Labour Party
    A Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an Islamic social and political order in Britain.

    The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve mass mobilisation of voters.

    Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.

    They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether its at local government level or national level, he said.

    They are completely at odds with Labours programme, with our support for secularism.

    Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and corrupted his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years.

    In a six-month investigation by this newspaper and Channel 4s Dispatches […]


    And there is another article in the Daily Mail on this same subject.

    And then this:

    Anger as National Front is consulted on race policy in schools

    White extremists have been consulted over government policy on tackling racism in schools.

    A team reviewing race relations policy for Children’s Secretary Ed Balls held a meeting in a hotel with a member of the National Front.

    It is understood an approach was also made to the British National Party, although the BNP denied it had been approached by the review team.


    Daily Mail


    All you need is one braincell to see that there is a very big problem here. This problem has nothing to do with the particular ideologies involved in these articles. The problem here is democracy.

    No matter what the people above believe, democracy gives them control over you and your property, simply because they have a large number of members.

    What democracy does is allow anyone who can gather enough people to legitimately overrun a country and change it to their tastes. Depending on what side you are on, ‘change’ means liberate or destroy.

    The National Front wants to kick all ‘blacks’ out and create an ultra far left Britain. Neu Labour wants to rape your children, catalogue and number you like farmyard animals and steal your money and property. The Muslims want you to live under Sharia Law. The Greens want you to live like a cave man and sterilise you to satisfy their false god ‘Gaia’. Each one of these groups are identical in that they want absolute control over you. They all use the same tool to do this; democracy.

    People whining and complaining about the National Front or the ‘islamist infiltrators’ are not thinking clearly. Both of these groups are using perfectly legitimate, legal means to achieve their ends. Their only crime is that they are not yet in a position of numerical superiority to wrest control from the current regime who do have numerical superiority. Anyone who rails against these groups and who also is FOR democracy is not playing with a full deck of cards; democracy IS what these people are practicing. Democracy is not a synonym for ‘fair’ or ‘just’; it is a system of politics where whoever gets the most votes makes the laws. That is all it is; it is not a religion to be followed, it is not even a great tradition; it is in fact a very dangerous way of running a country, and by its nature it is immoral, since it uses coercion as its instrument of control.

    The only way to permanently de fang these people and to protect yourself from their predations and their philosophies is to remove democracy in its entirety, and replace it with a Libertarian space, where the number of people who think a certain way and grouping together can not be the source of you losing your rights or your family or your property.

    In a Libertarian space, you have absolute rights that are real rights. These rights inhere in you as a human being, and are not granted to you by a state, which would not exist in a Libertarian space.

    What are real rights? Watch this for an explanation. What we can say for sure is that there is no such thing as a ‘right to healthcare’ or a ‘right to education’, ‘black rights’, ‘gay rights’, ‘woman’s rights’, ‘children’s rights’, or any of the myriad other false rights that the state has concocted and enshrined in their illegitimate laws over the years.

    All human beings have the same number of rights, and it is out of these rights that the basis of a free country can be built, where all people share the same advantages without any group controlling any other.

    Take for example, the business of marriage. Gays have been whining for ages that they cannot marry. The fact is that they have the absolute right to marry, and always have had this right, because they are human beings. Marriage is a private contract between people; note that I do not say two people; the rights and wrongs of polygamy are no one’s business save those who practice it.

    In a Libertarian space, there is no state to certify your marriage; if you say you are married, then you are married. How you perform the ceremony, what your arrangements are is nobody’s business but yours and your partners. Of course, people who are married in any particular way have no right to force others to accept them and their arrangements; they have an absolute right to their property, as do you, and this is non negotiable.

    You can worship in whatever way you like, live in whatever arrangement you like, and do whatever you like. If gays contract to have children by surrogacy or by adoption, that is totally their affair; it is not the business of anyone to interfere with the private interactions of individuals in any way whatsoever, as long as they are not doing harm to anyone, and by ‘harm’, Libertarians do not consider that teaching or not teaching any particular philosophy can be construed as harm.

    In a Libertarian space, women have the same rights as every other human being; to name two (which are actually one, since the first gives rise to the second), they have the right to property and they own themselves. This means that they have the right to have an abortion performed uponthemselves. Or to abstain from abortion. They have the right to give birth in whatever way they see fit, and there being no State, it would be impossible for home birth to be outlawed or anything else to do with the biology of women. Under Libertarianism, women would at last be truly free, to live without the threat of coercion by anyone, in all matters, no matter what they are.

    If you want to gain the full picture of what living in a Libertarian space would be like and what its foundations are, you need to read ‘For a New Liberty‘ and ‘The Ethics of Liberty‘ both by Murray Rothbard. You can download these books for free, or buy the physical copies.

    The fact of the matter is that as time goes on, areas of Britain are going to undergo demographic change. Libertarians have no problem with this. What it does mean however, is that these people, whoever they are or whatever it is they believe, will be able to use democracy to violently control their neighbours, and that means you.

    The type of life you will be able to live will depend solely on where your house is; if you live in Tower Hamlets, your daughter will not be able to walk in the street without having her head covered, should the council be taken over by a group that wants to introduce sharia law, and they introduce it, and 51% of the people living in the borough agrees with it.

    This is a simple fact of democracy and maths; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of philosophy the 51% believe. Should the council there be taken over by Greens, you will find that the entire borough is made car free. Those people who own cars will lose their ability to use their property in that borough, and there would be nothing they can do to stop it. There is no authority to appeal to, since the green majority is the authority. They could levy swingeing garbage taxes, a scientifically baseless ‘Carbon Tax’, a tax on families that have more than one child; the sky is the limit. Literally.

    Effectively, you have no guaranteed rights under democracy; all you have is what the state deems fit to give you at any one time, based on the prejudices of the majority. You may have thought that you were free to Home Educate in ‘a properly running democracy’, or that you were free to smoke in pubs, light your house in whatever way you like, own whatever breed of dog you like, shoot pistols as a hobby, leave your house and walk the streets without having to carry a license to do so (a national ID Card). In fact, all of these things were not your right, but merely what the state had not bothered to legislate on.

    If you want to restore and keep your liberty, if you want to be free of the eternal danger of democracy, you have to get rid of it, because it is absolutely guaranteed that its usurpations are only going to get worse, and when the people who are the usurpers hold ideas that are as different to yours as different can be (The National Front or New Labour for example) the usurpations will be beyond intolerable. Remember; legislatures exist to write new legislation, they almost never repeal it. Even if the people who ran ‘your’ democracy were just like you in their philosophy, in order to justify their existence, they need to keep generating legislation. That means eventually they will come round to dealing with you and your hobbies, lifestyle and whatever else you do that does not currently have legislation governing it.

    Do you you really want to continue living under the constant threat that one day, your way of life is going to be outlawed? Are you not sick and tired of having to justify the most basic rights that you posses to the army of imbeciles, liars, perverts, collectivists, and human garbage who lust after you and your property?

    If you are sick of doing this, then you need to have to hand, a pattern for living that will allow everyone to be free without requiring coercion of anyone. A way of living where there is no possibility of a group of people taking a monopoly on the use of force to make you bend to their will. That pattern is Libertarianism.

    You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be for your own rights, but against other people having theirs. You cannot support the use of violence to make your personal beliefs the law, whilst at the same time, complain that others are grouping together to outlaw your practices. In other words, you cannot be FOR democracy and FOR liberty at the same time. The two things are mutually exclusive; democracy always leads to someone having their rightssuppressed; Libertarianism leads to everyone having free use of their rights and no one being able form a collective to destroy them.

    Finally, on the subject of ‘human rights’, your rights do not come from statutes, and as stated above, there is no ‘right to education’; education is a good, not a right. Your right to control and educate your child has nothing to do with the United Nations declaring that you have this right. Your rights inhere in you, and are born with you. If you use these sorts of flimsy arguments to define your rights, you will be standing on thin ice, since these false rights that are created by statute can be arbitrarily rescinded, leaving you without any basis or argument for what is yours by birth.

    Some declare that because, “I look after my children 24/7, that gives me the right to say how they are educated”. This is not logical a basis for an argument to explain why you alone have the right to say how your children are educated. We can break this argument very simply: if you have a Philippino nanny that looks after your children 100% of the time, does that confer any rights over your children to her? Of course it does not, and in fact, you can sack her at any time.

    Some argue that, “I know my child better than any other person; that gives me the right to say how they should be educated”. Once again, this is false. If you send your child to boarding school from the age of seven, the teachers there will know your child better than you do; does that confer the right to control your child to that institution? Of course not. The schools know that you own your children, which is why they say they act in loco parentis while your child is in their care.

    You are not acting in loco parentis with your own children; that is why these arguments fail. You, by virtue of your property right in your child, are the ultimate, top level director of that child’s life. If anyone tries to short circuit this through arguments like David Chaytor’s or the other collectivists and ‘education experts’, they are actually attempting to become the owner of your children.

    Who has the right to say how a child should be educated is a matter of property rights. The only way to construct an irrefutable, irrevocable, closed, and defensible position that resists all attacks is to understand that your child is your property.

    All parents instinctively know this, but some lack the language to express it, or are so brainwashed by this collectivist society that they bristle at the idea that their children are property. The fact of the matter is that until you adopt this natural and correct idea of the true nature of your children, you are putting them at the mercy of the small number of people who write the statutes, and hand down diktats of what your rights are and are not. The very same people who confer a right upon you are able to take it away from you; this cannot be acceptable to any thinking person. If the UN, like the League of Nations before it, ceases to exist, will your right to educate your child as you see fit suddenly cease to exist also? Of course not. Depending on institutions for the definition of your rights is building your house on sand.

    Learn what rights are and what they are not. Understand what a human being is, understand what property is and you will suddenly be basing all of your beliefs on solid rock.

    For a New Liberty
    The Ethics of Liberty
    both by Murray Rothbard.

    You can download these books for free, or buy the physical copies.