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 Maddow’s 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.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/freedom-of-association145.html

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.

Objectives:

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:

Penalties:

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

Criminal:

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.

Administrative:

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.

[…]

http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm

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.

BAHRAIN

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 importer’s 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.”

BANGLADESH

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 People’s 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.”

IRAQ

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.”

KUWAIT

Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Custom’s document

“[The vessel entry document asks the ship’s 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.”

LEBANON

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…”

LIBYA

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.”

[…]

http://www.bis.doc.gov/antiboycottcompliance/oacantiboycottrequestexamples.html

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.

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.

Ok….

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.

Thanks to the lurker who pointed us to this blogpost:

The Failure of Democracy
Let’s just take a look at some of these headlines:

=> Coalition government: take cover for the £3,000 tax bombshell

=> David Cameron’s coalition is off to a green start

=> Coalition government: outcry over Capital Gain Tax plans

What do you do if you’re opposed to paying more taxes and subsidising more corrupt green nonsense? What do you do if you’re opposed to anything the ‘Glorious Coalition’ government does?

Simple.

You can’t do anything. Yes, you might say you could vote UKIP or BNP, but these will always be fringe parties. Perhaps if I actually believed in democracy myself I would be wasting my time in stuffy church halls stuffing envelopes with UKIP literature, but there’s really no point. Because whatever you do, the British government always gets back in again.

And here lies its problem. Because the British government has always been very clever at hiding itself behind the skirts of its political puppets, who wave blue, red, and yellow rosettes around every five years, to persuade us that ‘things are going to change’.

But now it is very obvious that nothing has changed. And that it is impossible for things to change. However you voted, whatever you did, you have legitimised this dreadful rotten government, which is already stuffed to bursting with cronies fighting over how they can help themselves to the pelf generated by more tax rises.

And they cannot be replaced. The only hope is that they self-destruct (which is likely). However, self-interest could still see them hold themselves together ad infinitum.

But fear ye not, pilgrims. This simply marks another nail in the coffin lid of democracy, as an idea which can be sustained with a straight face. We will see more and more turning their backs on the politicians and refusing to be their playthings. What we are witnessing is the gradual death of democracy as a relevant idea for the future of humanity.

What the Greeks knew, throughout the entire Athenian experiment with democracy, is that mob rule is volatile and dangerous. Which is why they abandoned the experiment so quickly. We should have learned from their mistake. And never toyed with this horrible form of government ever again.

May the next death of democracy be swift. It is happening before our eyes. Let us just hope that more than a handful of us can actually see it, through the lens of all the propaganda our schools shovel into our brains about how marvellous democracy is. Yes, vote against Trident and get a Trident-supporting government in place. Vote for inheritance tax cuts, and get a government in place which hates the wealthy. However you think, whichever way you vote, you get the ‘Glorious Coalition’.

The British government has never been so naked. Democracy has never been so visible as a sham.

[…]

http://angloaustria.blogspot.com/2010/05/failure-of-democracy.html

It reads sweetly.

Essentially what is in front of everyone is a choice between Libertarianism and evil nonsense like Fabian Socialism and the myriad variants of collectivism.

Since socialism cannot produce prosperity and is completely contrary to human nature, Libertarianism is the ultimate destination since it is the only sustainable, just and reality based way of being for humans. As the state crumbles and ‘society’ does not completely break down, i.e. people start to realise that they do not need a ‘Health and Safety Executive’ to order them to conform in matters of risk, that if there are no speed cameras, CCTV, local councils, state grants and anything else that comes from the state, the sky will not fall – when this dawns upon them, the spell will be broken. Forever.

The problem is that many people do not know what Libertarianism is, and these people are Libertarians but do not know it. There is a small proportion of people in the population, like Ed Balls and the evil Milliband brothers who actively reject humanity and Libertarianism in favour of collectivist totalitarianism. What this small minority of sociopaths wants is in the end irrelevant, since economics is going to shut their foul dreams down. Remember too that most normally functioning and informed people are Libertarians; the ones that are not are either not normally functioning (violent sociopaths) or are not informed (believing that ‘capitalism is a con game’, capitalism is ‘$INSERT_FALLACY_HERE’, we need the government to license the exceptions etc etc).

And for the record, when I say ‘sociopath’ I really mean it. Look at this list of characteristics of sociopaths, and note how well it fits with the character of every New Labour politician:

• Glibness and Superficial Charm
• Manipulative and Cunning
• They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
• Grandiose Sense of Self
• Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
• Pathological Lying
• Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
• A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
• Shallow Emotions
• When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
• Incapacity for Love
• Need for Stimulation
• Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
• Callousness/Lack of Empathy
• Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
• Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
• Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
• Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
• Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
• Irresponsibility/Unreliability
• Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
• Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
• Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
• Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
• Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
• Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Other Related Qualities:

1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

Point of interest: in the 1830’s this disorder was called “moral insanity.”

Shocking isn’t it? All of these characteristics can be seen in any one of the New Labour politicians you would care to name, male and female, without exception.

These people really are insane and the longer they are able to control you, the worse off you are going to be….until now that is.

Finally, the end of the road for democracy is in sight. All of the money (the value created by entrepreneurs and productive people) has been used up, and the collectivist democracies are bankrupt. Sadly for places like Iceland, there are not enough people who have read any Rothbard, and they are going to replace their old, discredited and bankrupt state with a new one. It will not last long however, because all the other predator states will fall before they can entrench themselves.

Or maybe not? Who knows?

One thing is for sure; business as usual is off the table. New Labour has left a debt-bomb under every desk in government in the form of last minute contractual commitments that the coalition is going to have to defuse. This is the act of criminal sociopaths, and is just what you would expect from scum like Ed Balls.

There is no one in the world who has the capability to solve this problem. This problem is analogous to a ten mile wide asteroid discovered six hours out from earth impact. No force on earth, no combination of forces can fix this using the tools of Keynesianism and statism. They both have to die for everything to move forward, and that is the great breakthrough.

The money is finished. Its GAME OVER. No one is going to stand for being a mug in the greatest bank robbery of all time.

Your job now is to understand what is happening and to rid yourself of the fallacious ideas that brought everything to this sorry place in the first instance. Your job is to make sure that you do not do anything to prolong the agony of democracy. Your job is to survive and make sure that you and your offspring never become part of the problem.

The Libertarian Party Manifesto is the only party manifesto that has an extensive section dedicated to Home Education. You should read it, so see what the other parties should have included in their documents.

Home Education

The Party will dismantle barriers to Elective Home Education, including the repeal of new measures being planned by other parties in or out of government.

Although the Party will be implementing a Voucher System roughly along the lines implemented in Sweden[1], this will not mirror any clamp-down or coercive programme directed towards Home Educators that exists there. One of the cornerstones for us as a Party is to dismantle monopolies, not remove one only to replace it with another.

This raises important issues in regards to the funding of Home Education. We need to strike a balance between preserving the freedom of parents and children with that of Taxpayers, who, we must never forget, are being coerced and forced to fund government spending on pain of imprisonment.

On the one hand parents may wish to be free from any State control, while Taxpayers have a right to expect the State to spend their taxes prudently. The nub is “prudently”, as it immediately becomes a value judgment and a collectivised one at that.

Our position is that we would not prevent people Home Educating, nor would be demand any kind of “notification” across the board, which can rapidly become a Trojan Horse for State control[2].

However, should the Educator request that the taxpayer fund such education – take the State’s Shilling as it were – there would need to be evidence that the funding was in fact delivering an education [3]. It is

unreasonable for anyone to demand no strings funding from the Taxpayer and we feel that genuine Home Educators will understand this point completely.

In exchange for Taxpayer funding we would expect, in almost all cases[4], improvements in literacy and numeracy over time, where literacy is one of reading, writing, comprehension and critical reasoning. We are not interested in curriculum specifics and to be so would be irrational – one of the reasons some choose Home Education is due to their rejection of a centrally controlled and imposed curriculum, regardless of if that centre is National, County, City, Borough or even Parish[5].

Should even this be unacceptable to some Home Educators, they will always be at liberty to decline the funding and its attendant measurements for a period of time or throughout. Our Policy will not demand “all or nothing”, “now or forever not” or “once and forever more” conditionality upon the funding, which would be coercive, in our view, and may distort decision-making.

In summary, it is not unreasonable to expect that Taxpayer funded spending come with strings attached, but that one shall be free to decline the funding and, consequently, the strings. Educational funding is no exception.

[1] This differs from the Conservative Party approach, which still retains central control, commissioning, granting and approval powers. Fake, in other words.

[2] The idea of notification has been touted by others, including the Liberal Democrats:

The unasked question: is the “present job” of the Local Authority necessary, correct or beneficial? What is also ironic is that there are cases where the education of children by the Local Authority in schools is “of poor quality or non existent” and that is sometimes the motivation for Parents or Guardians to embark on Home Education in the first place. The problem with notification is that it rapidly becomes registration then an approval process – “granted until refused” then “refused until granted” – backed by monitoring, box ticking, targets, curricula and logistics such as teaching environment. The conceit of many that the State “owns” children, “knows best” or they need to be tagged/tracked like livestock is not lost on the Libertarian Party. We reject such self-serving notions.

[3] Blank cheques will create all manner of unintended consequences when one considers that a child might “yield” £’000’s pa in cash each year for a parent.

[4] In some cases this might not apply due to the particular child and this must be taken into account.

[5] It is important to remember that under the Libertarian Party approach to a Voucher System with its removal of barriers to the formation of educational establishments and micromanaging thereof, Educators will be free to form their own arrangements including whatever level of cooperation they are comfortable with, up to and including no longer being “Home” Educators once educational establishments form that meet their needs or forming such themselves.

[…]

http://lpuk.org/

Another paid / placed-through-bribery article by the ubiquitous anonymous writer at the BBC is selling a TV programme for The Discovery Channel. The same article appears in the Telegraph.

The programme is about aliens, and as usual, if this regurgitated PR is anything to go by, it is going to be full of the same unscientific nonsense as all mainstream media ‘documentaries’ about this very interesting subject. In fact, a more interesting documentary would be about the reactions of people who believe they are scientists to the subject of UFOs.

Here we go!

Aliens almost certainly exist but humans should avoid making contact, Professor Stephen Hawking has warned.

TOO LATE!

1. Aliens already know we are here
2. They have made extensive contact on many levels
3. There is nothing that any human can do about it

In a series for the Discovery Channel the renowned astrophysicist said it was “perfectly rational” to assume intelligent life exists elsewhere.

And so, by proclamation, it is all of a sudden ‘rational’ to assume that intelligent life exists elsewhere. ALL HAIL THE HIGH PRIEST, WHO RELEASES US FROM OUR DARKNESS!

The next barrier for the ‘rational’ to break through is to accept that alien life has been here, is here, and that there is nothing the Gods of Science® can do about it. Most of them cannot even find the balls to discuss it, such is their total fear of this subject and its implications for their status.

But he warned that aliens might simply raid Earth for resources, then move on.

There is absolutely no basis for this statement whatsoever.

They just as likely might treat the Earth like an amusement park or a zoo. They could use it as a laboratory. They could quarantine it. They could use it for any conceivable or inconceivable purpose. The point is that when non scientists (Sagan, Schostack, Blackmore, etc etc) talk about aliens, we must remember that they have refused on principle to look at any of the good UFO evidence. They take the posture of ostriches, don the robes of high priests, and make proclamations. These people are not in any way read in this subject, they know, literally, nothing about it, are not scientific in their thinking and should be scrutinised when they talk about it.

One thing is for sure; if aliens can get here, they can reach practically any star they like, either in person or with robotic craft. There is no need for them to come and ‘raid’ the Earth. For WHAT exactly? All the minerals you could possibly want can be found on other planets or synthesized…. the idea that they would come here only to steal is COMPLETELY ABSURD, leaving out completely the fallacious idea that human beings are the first owners of this planet and its resources. For all we know, some alien race might have a prior claim, having terraformed this place for their own use. Who knows? One thing is for sure, to superimpose human frailty, culture, nonsense, ignorance, technology, economics and rationale onto alien races is fraught with dangers. Attributing your petty primitive motives to other people (and they are people) is the precursor to misunderstanding and calamity.

“If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans,” he said.

I actually agree with this, but not for the reasons that Mr. Hawking is suggesting. Columbus landing in America was one group from the same species encountering another less advanced group. The more advanced group was a criminal gang of primitive murderers and looters, not scientists. Primitive murderer looters kill and steal. That is completely different to scientists from another species and planet coming to collect plants and animals for study.

The danger from alien contact will be (and I have written about this before) the complete abandonment of human culture in favour of alien culture.

You think we have it bad now with a multiplicity of religions and nut-cases, imagine what would happen if and advanced race of beings landed here and gave us their book of philosophy. Billions of people would switch to it… after all, “it is SUPERIOR is it not” will be the rationale.

In the space of a few years, the world of humans would be changed forever, the culture of man discarded for the culture of other beings, and if not discarded, distorted beyond all recognition.

May God forbid it.

Prof Hawking thinks that, rather than actively trying to communicate with extra-terrestrials, humans should do everything possible to avoid contact.

What professor Hawking thinks does not amount to a hill of beans. He doesn’t know the facts of this matter, has not done his homework, is literally ignorant about this subject and is years behind the curve.

He explained: “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.”

Actually this is not the case at all. We only have to look at good science fiction to see how intelligent life might develop into something that we would want to meet that is very different to us; so different that it would be difficult to communicate with them on the most basic of levels, even though we might share technologies with them. Try reading Joe Haldeman’s ‘The Forever War‘ to find out about that. I’m sure you can think of your own examples, science fiction fans.

In the past probes have been sent into space with engravings of human on board and diagrams showing the location of our planet.

Radio beams have been fired into space in the hope of reaching alien civilisations.

Prof Hawking said: “To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational.

When you do the math with your mathematical brain, you have to do all of the math to the end and not stop at the equals sign, or two levels up from the final balanced equation. You do not get the full marks for saying x² = y²; you only get 100% for the final answer of x = y. Hawking and his science cult devotees and junior priests all do the math that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that intelligent aliens must exist, but then they refuse to finish the calculations that would prove that they are, without a doubt, here, right now, which would then make obvious the conclusion that what we should be doing is looking for them here.

Finishing the equation means coming to a set of conclusions that will give us a set of predicted phenomena to look for. If we start to detect these phenomena, and then rule out all other explanations, then we may have found them. One thing is for sure, if it is taboo even to look, they will never be discovered, even though they might be right over your heads every day.

“The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.”

No, it is not. The real challenge is to break through the despicable, unscientific and shameful wall of ridicule and irrationality that prevents the scientific method from being applied to this subject.

The programme envisages numerous alien species including two-legged herbivores and yellow, lizard-like predators.

Back to the PR for the programme. CGI Porn!

Another picture from that set is on the Telegraph article. Taryn Fritz PR (or whoever it is) is doing a sterling job.

I am now going to make a scientific hypothesis combining my observations of fractal geometric forms and the results of the small amount of space exploration that man has managed to do between his murderous rampages.

In three dimensional space living and non living forms are to a large extent self similar, with a large amount of variety. Meteor craters always take on the same shape, as do crystals, fish and anything else you can mention. There is variety in these objects, but they are all self similar.

We have seen that on other planets, craters look like craters on earth. The same goes for all geologic artefacts like weathering and any geologic form you can mention.

Now. There is no reason to suppose that a creature that lives under water on Europa is not going to look like a crab or a fish or a giant deep-water volcanic vent tube worm. The chemistry of life doesn’t matter as much as the fact that the life has formed in three dimensions under gravity; all life that we are going to find will conform to shapes that we would recognise as life on Earth. If we find any life that does not fit any model that we are familiar with, then it is a pattern of a common form that we do not recognise, but which nonetheless is probably not unique. There have been forms of life on earth that no longer exist on Earth that bear littler or no relation to anything living, like the Hallucigenia.

The form of life will always alter to fit the gravity of its environment; this is the most important variable, over chemistry and pressure. Pressure doesn’t matter as much as gravity; crustaceans, worms, jellyfish, cephalopods and fish exist in variations under two tons per square inch. Chemistry doesn’t matter as much as gravity; we have found the badly named ‘extremophiles‘ that live under conditions that seemed ‘harsh’ to biologists trained to believe the false idea that life only exists in a very small gamut of ideal conditions.

You are not going to get bipeds in a zero gravity soup of life supporting chemistry. You will however, get snake forms and flagellating creatures on different scales.

On Europa, you are going to find crustaceans, worms, jellyfish, cephalopods and fish and all other sea forms that we are familiar with. That is a wager I will make with anyone.

The idea that extra terrestrial life is going to be drastically different to life on Earth is irrational; it is a part of the xenophobia that scientists have about alien life, where in every thought and utterance they seek to ‘push away’ alien life. They do this by saying that intelligent aliens cannot possibly get here in space craft. They do it by saying that alien life will not be anything like us, but instead will be totally unfamiliar to us. Both of these views are simply not true. Aliens that come here are humanoid shaped because that is one of the ideal shapes that intelligent forms end up in under gravity. As I explain above, all the other non intelligent shapes we are going to find will exhibit self similarity to the forms that we are familiar with.

Scientists still want to believe that humans are unique in the universe. This is a leftover from thousands of years of non understanding and religion. If they truly believed what they say about their quasi religious ‘Theory of Evolution’, they would not be dealing with this subject in this way.

But Prof Hawking conceded most life elsewhere in the universe is likely to consist of simple microbes.

[…]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8642558.stm

This is not scientific thinking.

The most abundant life on earth is microscopic and in the oceans. Does that mean that there are not billions of intelligent space faring creatures on the ‘dry’ parts of Earth? If the same proportion of ‘microbes’ to bipedal space faring creatures was replicated across only the Earth type planets, then there would be BILLIONS (Sagan voice) of bipedal, space faring intelligent beings in this galaxy, coming from worlds that are BILLIONS of years older than the Earth.

Once again, if you are a believer in the religion known as Evolution, it is irrational to believe that microbes can exist on a stable planet for billions of years without evolving into more complex intelligent life forms, and there are many planets in the galaxy that are much older than the Earth. On these planets, the Darwinists must concede that intelligent life would have an opportunity to develop there if it developed here, or, they must explain why the Earth is unique, which, by their own math, it cannot be.

These people have painted themselves into a corner. They have to admit that alien life exists or they cannot explain why life is here on Earth. They have to admit that complex alien life must exist, otherwise they cannot explain why it arose here on Earth. Finally, they have to concede that intelligent alien life must exist, otherwise, they have no explanation for intelligent life on Earth.

In the corner they have painted themselves into, stands a clutch of bipedal alien beings and their very odd transluminal space craft, waiting to confront them with their own ignorance.

All scientists who mocked the idea of bipedal aliens visiting the Earth will be utterly discredited forever and consigned to the ranks of the people who burned Giordano Bruno, or who those foolish cultists who laughed at the people in the list at the bottom of this post.

The programme makes a concession to the reality of ‘Spacefaring Aliens’ where “…a fleet of “nomadic” aliens enters a wormhole opened with technologies that are beyond human comprehension.” but once again it fails to do the final part of the math; given the huge numbers of alien races that MUST exist, and the fact that they WILL be space exploring, and that they are BILLIONS of years ahead of man in age, with technology that we can not comprehend, the inescapable conclusion is that they ARE capable of getting here, they DO get here REGULARLY and the ETH explanation of the UFO phenomenon is CORRECT.

Environmental Hysteria

Because they know that the vast majority of Americans would reject their real agenda, the environmentalists use lies, exaggerations, and pseudo-science to create public hysteria.

EXXON: The environmental movement is cheering the criminal indictment of the Exxon Corporation for the Alaska oil spill, with the possibility of more than $700 million in fines. The one shortcoming, say the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, is that Exxon executives won’t be sent to prison.

Exxon cannot be allowed to get away with an “environmental crime” which despoiled the “pristine wilderness of Alaska,” says Attorney General Richard Thornburgh. But the legal doctrine underlying this indictment is inconsistent with a free society, notes Murray N. Rothbard.

Under feudalism, the master was held responsible for all acts of his servants, intended or not. During the Renaissance with growing capitalism and freedom, the doctrine changed so there was no “vicarious liability.” Employers were correctly seen as legally responsible only for those actions they directed their employees to take, not when their employees disobeyed them. But today, we are back in feudal times, plus deeper-pocket jurisprudence, as employers are held responsible for all acts of their employees, even when the employees break company rules and disobey specific orders-by getting drunk on duty, for example. From all the hysteria, and the criminal indictment, one might think Exxon had deliberately spilled the oil, rather than being the victim of an accident that has already cost its stockholders $2 billion. Who is supposedly the casualty in the Justice Department’s “criminal” act? Oiled sand?

In fact, Exxon is the biggest victim. Through employee negligence, the company has lost $5 million worth of oil, a supertanker, and compensation to fishermen, or the cost of the clean up. The total bill could be $3 billion.

Yet every night on television, we were treated to maudlin coverage of oily water and blackened seagulls, and denunciations of Exxon and oil production in “environmentally sensitive” Alaska. Though why it is more sensitive than, say, New Jersey, we are never told. In fact, environmentalists love Alaska because there are so few people there. It represents their ideal.

Despite all the hysteria, oil is – if I may use the environmentalists’ own lingo – natural, organic, and biodegradable. As in previous oil spills, it all went away, and the birds, plants, and fish replenished themselves.

The Exxon oil spill was hardly the “equivalent of Hiroshima,” as one crazed Alaska judge said. And who knows? Oil might be good for some wildlife. This year, the salmon catch is almost 50% bigger than any time in history.

WETLANDS: One of the great engineering achievements of the ancient world was draining the Pontine Marshes, which enabled the city of Rome to expand. But no such project could be undertaken today; that vast swamp would be protected as wetlands.

When John Pozsgai – an emigrant from communist Hungary – tried to improve some property he found this out. After buying a former junkyard and clearing away the thousands of tires that littered it, Pozsgai put clean topsoil on his lot in Morrisville, PA. For this, the 57-year-old mechanic was sentenced to three years in prison and $200,000 in fines, because his property was classified as wetlands by the federal government.

After ordering a bureaucrat to “get the Hell off my property,” Pozsgai was arrested, handcuffed, and jailed on $10,000 bail. Quickly tried and convicted, Pozsgai’s brutal sentence will – said the prosecutor – “send a message to the private landowners, corporations, and developers of this country about President Bush’s wetlands policy.”

John Pozsgai has a different view: “I thought this was a free country,” he told The Washington Post.

RUBBISH: In Palo Alto, California, citizens are ordered to separate their trash into seven neatly packaged piles: newspapers, tin cans (flattened with labels removed), aluminum cans (flattened), glass bottles (with labels removed), plastic soda pop bottles, lawn sweepings, and regular rubbish. And to pay high taxes to have it all taken away.

In Mountain Park, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta, the government has just ordered the same recycling program, increased taxes 53% to pay for it, and enacted fines of up to $1,000, and jail terms of up to six months, for scofftrashes.

Because of my aversion to government orders, my distrust of government justifications, and my dislike of ecomania, I have always mixed all my trash together. If recycling made sense – economically and not as a sacrament of Gaia worship – we would be paid to do it.

For the same reason, I love to use plastic fast- food containers and non-returnable bottles. The whole recycling commotion, like the broader environmental movement, has always impressed me as malarkey. But I was glad to get some scientific support for my position.

Professor William L. Rathje, an urban archaeologist at the University of Arizona and head of its Garbage Project, has been studying rubbish for almost 20 years, and what he’s discovered contradicts almost everything we’re told.

When seen in perspective, our garbage problems are no worse than they have always been. The only difference is that today we have safe methods to deal with them, if the environmentalists will let us.

The environmentalists warn of a country covered by garbage because the average American generates 8 lbs. a day. In fact, we create less than 3 lbs. each, which is a good deal less than people in Mexico City today or American 100 years ago. Gone, for example, are the 1,200 lbs. of coal ash each American home used to generate, and our modern packaged foods mean less rubbish, not more.

But most landfills will be full in ten years or less, we’re told, and that’s true. But most landfills are designed to last ten years. The problem is not that they are filling up, but that we’re not allowed to create new ones, thanks to the environmental movement. Texas, for example, handed out 250 landfill permits a year in the mid-1970s, but fewer than 50 in 1988.

The environmentalists claim that disposable diapers and fast-food containers are the worst problems. To me, this has always revealed the anti-family and pro-elite biases common to all left-wing movements. But the left, as usual, has the facts wrong as well.

In two years of digging in seven landfills all across America, in which they sorted and weighed every item in 16,000 lbs. of garbage, Rathje discovered that fast-food containers take up less than 1/10th of one percent of the space; less than 1 % was disposable diapers. All plastics totalled less than 5%. The real culprit is paper – especially telephone books and newspapers. And there is little biodegradation. He found 1952 newspapers still fresh and readable.

Rather than biodegrade, most garbage mummifies. And this may be a blessing. If newspapers, for example, degraded rapidly, tons of ink would leach into the groundwater. And we should be glad that plastic doesn’t biodegrade. Being inert, it doesn’t introduce toxic chemicals into the environment.

We’re told we have a moral obligation to recycle, and most of us say we do so, but empirical studies show it isn’t so. In surveys, 78% of the respondents say they separate their garbage, but only 26% said they thought their neighbors separate theirs. To test that, for seven years the Garbage Project examined 9,000 loads of refuse in Tucson, Arizona, from a variety of neighborhoods. The results: most people do what they say their neighbors do – they don’t separate. No matter how high or low the income, or how liberal the neighborhood, or how much the respondents said they cared about the environment, only 26% actually separated their trash. The only reliable predictor of when people separate and when they don’t is exactly the one an economist would predict: the price paid for the trash. When the prices of old newspaper rose, people carefully separated their newspapers. When the price of newspapers fell, people threw them out with the other garbage.

We’re all told to save our newspapers for recycling, and the idea seems to make sense. Old newspapers can be made into boxes, wallboard, and insulation, but the market is flooded with newsprint thanks to government programs. In New Jersey, for example, the price of used newspapers has plummeted from $40 a ton to minus $25 a ton. Trash entrepreneurs used to buy old newspaper. Now you have to pay someone to take it away.

If it is economically efficient to recycle – and we can’t know that so long as government is involved – trash will have a market price. It is only through a free price system, as Ludwig von Mises demonstrated 70 years ago, that we can know the value of goods and services.

[…]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/anti-enviro.html

From his priceless ‘Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto’

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.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#pix

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

Human progress is based on the copy, the ideas materialized emulation by others in the past, improving competitive creations of others, on the combinations of various ideas with its own original contribution minimal.

ll, before you can view the DVD we had rented at the video library on the corner, we have endured this message Authorities us hammering the message that copying a movie would be robbery as ugly prying her handbag at a little old. This defense simplistic, bordering on immaturity, intellectual property is based on a false intuition and pass a basic, yet critical distinction in this debate: the tangible property are to exclusive use (if someone takes away my phone portal I can not call), while intangibles like music, inventions or ideas in general are not (a copy of a CD does not listen to it).

Basically, the function of property rights is to avoid conflicts that may arise in connection with the use of an asset or resource. According to the liberal principle of ownership, the right to decide on the use of the property belongs exclusively to one who has the fairest claim on it, that is to say who gave him the usefulness first or who has received a legitimate third.

In this framework, intellectual property has no coherence. Go back further in time and observe the man of antiquity occupy a parcel of land and start cultivating difficulty depending on local rainfall, becoming de facto owner of the land. Now let the other side of the country where the peasant has never set foot, someone who has developed an irrigation system. The implicit logic of intellectual property would entitle the latter to prevent our farmers to use irrigation technology development and then claim royalties for each use. But we immediately understand that by doing so, the developer of the irrigation system violates the property rights of peasants by forbidding it to do what he wants on the parcel of land it occupied first. Under what the peasant could not copy and use this irrigation technique on his plot?

Depending on context, copy can be inelegant or even dishonorable. It is embarrassing that we take advantage of us and it is logical to try to avoid that. But there are many legal ways to take advantage of people, from adultery to the false promise through emotional blackmail or despotism to a subordinate. The laws are there to punish crimes, not to impose good manners and protect us from our naivete innocent.

Ultimately, why raise a hue and cry on the ass on the copy? This fact, however much a part of life, we copy the behavior and continuously take the ideas of others without feeling remorse or design the quirky idea that people would feel so abused. Human progress is based on the copy, the ideas materialized emulation by others in the past, improving competitive creations of others, on the combinations of various ideas with its own original contribution minimal.

One can understand the irritation of an artist who sees his music downloaded from Internet or copied several times in succession. But if today we had to pay royalties to the heirs of the inventor of the supermarket, light bulb or the telephone, the artist would defend it or criticize it for the fact enjoy legal privileges at the expense of other competitors and the rest of society? This artist would he think that the legislation should be amended to “protect” against the copy a style of dress, a new architectural structure, a new mathematical formula or a new dance step?

Throughout the last two centuries, the United States, the trend has been to extend the time limits of copyright with the evident intention of artificially prolonged legal monopolies very profitable for certain businesses (14 years, there has been any the life of the author plus 70 years). The patent law is so far from his stated goal that emerged are the companies “trolls” who are solely dedicated to patent “inventions” and get royalties without ever producing anything or, to put it another way, to extort businesses that they produce on the basis of these ideas.

There is no “right to culture” and therefore it is perfectly legitimate that artists employ various modes of exclusion which makes it more difficult to copy – as in his time, kept jealously secret Sistine Chapel partition the Miserere of Allegri, Mozart again until this work of memory. But they have no right to appeal to the state to protect their interests at the expense of consumers’ freedom and taxing the sale of CDs or continuing users as criminals who unload the music made available by d others on the Internet. Not to mention the fact that if we paid for everything that we “copy it” routinely, we would be ruined at the end of the day.

http://www.contrepoints.org/Copier-n-est-pas-voler.html

“Copier n’est pas voler”

French…. so beautiful!

This just flashed across my screen:

Now lets take a look at this which is an interesting site, where they ask questions like:

Why can’t Africans decline the bad constitutions that condemn them to death?

Which is a very good question. Not only for ‘Africans’ but for anybody, anywhere.

Those in the know understand that any state, no matter how small turns eventually into a big state. No constitution can ever protect your rights in the long run, because someone, somewhere, will either just ignore it entirely or chip away at it until it becomes meaningless. No matter how it is drafted, either by a group of highly moral and intelligent men, or in an ‘Open Source’ manner (whatever that means) the idea of a written constitution as a means to create a supreme law is flawed.

Then we have this really interesting ‘declaration of individual sovereignty’:

Declaration of Individual Sovereignty

I, ____________________(Name) being of sound mind and judgment do hereby on this ______________________(Date), Declare myself a Sovereign Individual with no authority or law above me, but that of the one true, eternal, and almighty God.

• As a Sovereign Individual I have the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Prosperity.
• As a Sovereign Individual, I declare and reserve, without qualification by any present day State in Africa, the following inherent and inalienable rights and liberties:
• To freely practice my religion and openly share my beliefs and convictions with others.
• To self-ownership – the free and voluntary use of the attributes and powers inherent to my body and mind and of my property for whatever purposes I deem fit, with no legal precondition regarding its effect on my body and mind or on my property.
• To property-ownership – the wages and compensation received in exchange for the labor of my body, the thoughts of my mind, and all the efforts of my work. No association or governance has the right to take any coerced levies, fees or taxes from me. Any and all payments, physical or mental contributions must be voluntarily arranged, agreed upon, signed and documented beforehand. I have the right to protect myself from theft by people and associations.
• To freely express myself in speech, writing, thoughts, media, art, and every other form. This right is not to be limited by labels of slander, defamation, or hate; nor constrained during times of emergency, public danger or distress.
• To the privacy of my person, papers, communications, home and property, against any search or seizure.
• To freely associate with any individual, and to form voluntary agreements and contracts with other individuals. This includes the right to form privately held for-profit businesses, social organizations, charities, local Cantons, dispute resolution organizations and religious organizations for my benefit and the benefit of my family.
• To freely and voluntarily enter into marital arrangements with any person of my choice and to reproduce by the conception, birth and rearing of my children who themselves will have the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Prosperity.
• To freely assemble, march, protest, and demonstrate with other individuals both in public and private.
• To freely travel within Africa from place to place without permit, license, passport, or permission from any authority.
• To own, carry on my person, conceal and use firearms for the protection of my property and the defense of myself and others in my home and in all public places.
• To self-defense against any form of force or fraud, whether initiated by an individual or associations. This right of self-defense includes the right to take another person’s life in defense of my person, liberties, family, or property.

The enumeration in this Declaration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage my other natural, essential and sacred rights and liberties retained in my individual Sovereignty. I hereby recognize these rights both for myself and all other sovereign individuals, whose same rights I will always respect.

I hereby declare these rights and freedoms for the entire world and all of humanity to know and recognize them as God-given, and thereby acknowledge my individual sovereignty.

SIGNATURE____________________

With this declaration in place and the means to enforce it, who needs a constitution at all? Why would you need to collaborate with other people, or a ‘steering committee‘ to draft a redundant constitution?

While we are at it, where does ‘Africa’ end? The land mass currently called ‘Africa’ connects to Saudi Arabia at the country called ‘Egypt’, last Time I checked; what is to stop those ‘Saudi’ people saying that ‘Saudi Arabia’ now extends into ‘Africa’?

It’s an interesting question.

Presumably anyone who gets to the shores of ‘Africa’ can call themselves an ‘African’ and claim all the rights that ‘Africans’ claim through this document.

All good, according to Libertarians.

I happen to agree 1000% that Hong Kong, Dubai style transformation can happen anywhere in the continent of Africa if the conditions are correct, and the building of such a place is long overdue.

No matter what comes out of the efforts of these particular people, its clear that Liberty is on the minds of everyone, and not just living under a more liberal government that steals and murders less than the previous one; people are interested in REAL liberty, where there is NO STATE WHATSOEVER.

‘Africans’, you are going to need lots of guns, and yes, because no one has ever done this before, it is going to work!

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 everyone’s 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.

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=2217

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 it’s at local government level or national level,” he said.

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s 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 4’s Dispatches […]

Telegraph

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

Now.

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 upon themselves. 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 rights suppressed; 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.

Two related articles that swirl around the recent nonsense:

(CNN) — Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

[…]

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

[…]

CNN

There you have it. Men who are monogamous are on average of a higher intelligence.

Now steel yourself for this:

The case of Khyra Ishaq and the problem of child sexualisation show up the failures of the big state

Two stories on the Today programme this morning brought into sharp relief the inability of social engineers to see what they are doing to British children. One was the appalling case of Khyra Ishaq, the girl starved to death in Birmingham by her mother and her boyfriend. The preceding item featured everyone’s favourite shrink, Dr Linda Papadopoulos, who condemned the sexualisation of children and called for restrictions on lad’s mags, sexy music videos and, more ominously, school lessons about “gender equality” (dog whistle Marxism, if such a thing exists).

As my colleague Gerald Warner has pointed out, the authorities and media have leapt on the fact that Khyra was homeschooled, using it as an opportunity to plug the Badman report, the Government’s sinister crackdown on homeschooling.

That Khyra is not typical of homeschooled children is an understatement – most parents who take this unusual step are conservative, decent, loving parents who simply see that, for all the good a loving home can do, peer pressure can undo it. They don’t want to send their child to the local comp where they’ll learn little else but how to speak Jafaican and t0 avoid appearing to be interested in learning, as is the prevailing ethos. And, for that matter, they don’t want their children to be indoctrinated with citizenship classes, second wave feminism, directions to the nearest Marie Stopes clinic or other sacraments of the state religion.

For girls being sent into modern centres of learning [cough] there is the added pressure of sex, and of sexual bullying both by boys and girls. Censorship and gender equality classes are not going to significantly change this prevailing atmosphere, which is a market problem: throughout history societies have swung between periods of promiscuity and Puritanism, but what’s different now is that the welfare state has fixed the metronome in an artificial position. Whereas in non-social engineered societies the fear of poverty and squalor would exert pressures towards chastity, and likewise periods of wealth would cause people to let their hair down, so that every part of society would find its equilibrium, the state now artificially prevents this process through cash incentives.

Khyra was not put at risk by homeschooling, but she certainly was put at risk by the fact that she lived with a man who was neither her biological father nor married to her mother – children raised in these circumstances are 100 times more likely to be murdered at home before they hit 18 than children raised by two biological parents. And yet the state incentivises these non-family forms, which is about as logical as subsidising cigarettes or cage fighting.

Khyra’s father had left his wife and six kids to the care of the state, which today plays the role of stepfather to millions of British children; she lived in a housing association property, a single mother with a council flat and zero confidence, and almost predictably, a sinister and violence-prone man moved in and dominated her (just like in the Peter Connelly case).

If our lawmakers really wanted to stop children being sexualised on the one hand and abused on the other, they must realise that the state is the problem, not the solution.

Ed West at The Telegraph

I do not know who ‘Ed West’ is, but he is ABSOLUTELY 1000% spot on with all of this. Check out the ‘furthermore’ part of this post.

If you subsidise something, you get more of it. This is true of everything, including single mothers who squeeze out as many children as possible, knowing that for each child they produce, a bigger house is required, until they can secure for themselves a SEVEN THOUSAND POUND A MONTH home in Maida Vale, living next door to millionaires at the expense of the milk cows (the british public).

The cause of all the problems in the UK is the state. Without the state stealing money from the milk cows, there would be no ‘social services’ to entice women to have children out of wedlock for the sole purpose of scoring a mansion for themselves. People from all over the world, rather than risking their lives to get to Britain, would shun it completely if there were no welfare state and guarantees of mansions for those who manage to produce enough children.

Even if you believe in the idea that the state is legitimate, and that it is legitimate for the state to steal from the many to redistribute wealth as seen fit by parliament, you cannot refute the idea that this system has a capacity – an upper limit after which the system must break down completely.

But I digress.

Ed West points out what we have been saying on BLOGDIAL for years:

• Home Education is ideal parenting
• Home Educators are the best parents
• Home Educators are the most dedicated parents
• Home Educators are the most decent parents
• Home Educators are the most intelligent parents
• Home Educators are the most hard working parents
• Home Educators are most insightful parents
• Home Educators are the most resourceful parents
• Home Educators are the most community minded parents
• Home Educators are the most diligent parents
• Home Educators are the most natural parents

The children of Home Educators outperform all others in every metric you care to use.

These characteristics are the exact polar opposite of the anomalous, savage, unnatural, beastly, promiscuous, immoral, subhuman trash that are now being held up to be representative of what Home Education is about.

The people who are making this fallacious and scandalous assertion know exactly what they are doing, LYING, and they are the lowest form of human garbage imaginable.

If you accept that legislation has any validity at all, any sensible person knows that you should draft it not using the statistically insignificant cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with what you are legislating for as the basis, but you should legislate for the societal norm.

In the matter of Home Education, there is no need for legislation at all, since there are no cases of Home Education being linked to abuse and Home Education is simply full time parenting.

What this corrupt, paedophile natured government is doing is analogous to legislating against locust swarms because there have been cataclysmic meteor events. The two are not related in the first place, and secondly, you cannot by legislation, prevent the terrible and rarely occurring things that happen in life; bad things happen; that is part of being alive, and there is nothing you can do to stop them from happening. All of this is quite separate from the absurd idea that parents should be registered and monitored simply because they are with their children. Only a sick minded monster would suggest such a thing, and New Labour is full of these creatures.

This is the same twisted mentality where people cry out for the banning of kitchen knives because a sole person is killed by one or even (and Im not making this up) banning Venetian Blinds because a single child was strangled by the cord that operates them in a bizarre and astronomically unlikely accident. But even those examples break down when we discuss Home Education, since the pretext for this new legislation does not even exist.

What is very satisfying is the fact that there will be no money for any of this. No one is going to obey it. There are a million ways around it should the scumbags pass it into law. The Tories have promised to scrap it. From whatever way you look at it, this paedophile project of Ed Balls, Graham Badman, Delyth Morgan and all of these purely evil, sinister, destructive, anti-family monsters is going to stall at worst, and be utterly scrapped at best.

Their diseased philosophy is being discredited on a daily basis. Libertarianism (wether people know they are libertarians or not) is spreading like wildfire. These people are finished in the same way that the controller class of the Soviet Union were finished when as they saw their herd of cattle turn, trample and gore them.

Some lurkers have asked why we have not picked apart the recent dribbles of the lying BBC re Home Education. We have already done this at length, and really, measures should have been taken to PREVENT those new and vile articles appearing, instead of simply reacting to them again.

The BBC is going to continue to lie because someone is bribing them to. Until someone goes in there and bribes them not to lie, they are going to continue to do so.

Look at this map very carefully:

View The Abuse of Children in Care Settings in a larger map

This is a map showing the locations of incidents of the abuse of children in care settings. All the blue points on this map show a case where abuse took place despite CRB checks.

The priceless Alison says:

Putting professional child abusers on the map

As Balls, Badman, Birmingham Council and the BBC shamefully continue to breach the bounds of decency in the wake of Khyra Ishaq’s tragic death by cynically seeking to shift the blame from serial failures on the part of social services on to home education (because the child had stopped going to school when she was already giving profound cause for concern), we thought it was time to pronounce our own verdict: professionals cannot be trusted.

To demonstrate just how many dangerous teachers, nursery staff, doctors, nurses, social workers, police officers, youth workers and other ‘caring’ professionals there are out there, we have put a selection of state sanctioned professionals-turned-child abusers firmly on the map.

Liz Davies, the social worker who blew the whistle on the Islington care homes paedophile ring in the 90s, is arguably best qualified to comment on how and why things went so wrong for Khyra and she has done so eloquently. Disappointingly for the bigoted Balls et al, home education doesn’t come into it; rather it was the abject failure of so called professionals to intervene in what was a clear cut child protection case.

A highly respected social work lecturer and practitioner with specialist expertise in child protection, Liz Davies shares our own low opinion of Lord Laming, whose Every Child Matters recommendations were said to have been informed by the Victoria Climbie case but who we know was simply putting in train the citizen surveillance agenda already decided years earlier in Lisbon. The ‘child protection’ cover story may have worked on the BBC and most of the non thinking masses, but it is increasingly hard to sell as more and more children die as a result of skewed priorities and the failure to focus and target resources on the most vulnerable children. Children like Khyra who were already known to be at serious risk.

We at Home Ed Forums have become increasingly concerned by this government’s blanket claims that children are safe in schools, nurseries and other non family settings as long as they are in the care or company of ‘vetted’ professionals. So much so that we’ve been linking to news reports of the activities of a never ending stream of professional child abusers who have used their ‘trusted’ status to take evil advantage of vulnerable children. Our abuse of children in care settings got so long we thought we’d produce a map to demonstrate the prevalence of abuse by the very people this government has deemed suitable to work with our children. These are the sort of people Balls and Badman believe should have unrestricted access to private family homes and direct access to home educated children alone without the oversight and protection of their parents. Blogdial has already spoken on the perils of the paedophiles’ charter that has their distinctly dodgy backing.

Meanwhile, Hollie Greig is still awaiting justice, but there’s no sign of an investigation, review or even a peep from the BBC. Perhaps that’s because the presumption of innocence is now only selectively applied.

Do feel free to email us new entries as we will (sadly) be putting more child abusing professionals on our map.

Home Ed Forums

Anyone who thinks that CRB checks and the new ISA check have the power to stop crimes from happening is totally insane. The only thing a CRB check does is give criminals unfettered access to their prey. As long as they never get caught, the CRB check is in fact a license to abuse since all the morons out there will take this as a certificate of worthiness instead what it really is, a red flag that you are in terrible danger.

It is my opinion that anyone who wants to work for a ‘service’ that inspects other people’s children is immediately suspect. There are no doubt, people who actually believe that they will be doing good by becoming a ‘social worker’, but as I see it, these people are nothing more than busy bodies, nanny statists, control freaks and potential paedophiles. It is simply not natural to want to earn money to control, kidnap and be the parent of the children of complete strangers. This is of course, completely different to being a paediatrician or a nurse; those people are completely honourable in their professions because their role is not to control, but to heal. Yet, those noble people are being prevented from doing their jobs by the pernicious CRB check system:

Children have missed out on surgery because of “chaotic” Government regulations, medical professionals say.

The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) warned their members could not cover absences or work at different hospitals due to Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check restrictions.

Young patients either had to wait or travel long distances to see a surgeon at a different hospital, due to “overzealous” interpretations of the rules by NHS trusts and long delays in returning results, it said.

The RCS said medical staff with an enhanced CRB check should be allowed to work in any hospital, and pointed out the restrictions prevented trainee paediatricians from gaining experience in different areas.

Some trainee surgeons went through more than 10 separate checks in two years, according to the college president John Black.

This is what happens when you leave madmen in charge of a country. They have turned Britain into an insane asylum, with the lunatics, paedophile shielders and peeping toms in charge.

The only proper response is to have nothing whatsoever to do with them on any level. That means not begging them for laptops or any other favours, funding or anything at all. They are completely illegitimate, immoral, un-ethical and dangerous.

Now that many people can see this clearly, they really must make the correct choices, like not paying the BBC TV License. They should do this and then never pay again. The BBC is a factory of lies that has colluded most viciously in the denigration of Home Education. Anyone who continues to pay for them to lie in this way… you get the picture.

The Tories have said that they will not allow this paedophile enabling legislation to stand, should they be elected:

Tories would scrap new duty for parents that educate children at home

The Tories would scrap a new duty that requires parents who educate their children at home to be registered with councils.

Michael Gove, the Shadow Schools Secretary, said that he would block plans which “stigmatise” home educators.

Under the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which has almost finished going through Parliament, local authorities will setup databases of home-educating families and visit them to ensure that standards are met.

It came after a report into home education by Graham Badman, a former headteacher and director of children’s services, published last summer, who said that there was a need for greater regulation.

[…]

Mr Gove said that he thought parents who educated their children at home did a wonderful job. He said: “Government should support them and we won’t allow the current Government’s plans to stigmatise home educators to get through.”

Mr Gove promised that clauses of the Bill relating to home education would never become law if the Tories won power in the general election.

[…]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article7040152.ece

If you are the voting sort, and you are Home Educator, if you do not vote Tory, you deserve everything that you get.

Lest you misunderstand me, I am completely aware that the Tories are going to run a bad government. It is the nature of the whole business. That being said, your number one goal in voting should be to 1) punish the paedo-enablers of New Labour. 2) gamble that the Tories will come through on this promise, which will not only cost them nothing, but which will actually save them money. Even if they fail to deliver on this promise, they will not have the money to run this appalling system of home innovations and paedophile grooming.

If the Tories do win, you can expect a short reprieve from inspections, monitoring, home invasion, paedophile grooming and a complete end to autonomous learning. During that reprieve, if you do not organise professional PR to counter the lie machines that are used against you, you are very foolish indeed.

Lets take a look at the current spate of bad press.

• Everyone knew in advance what the date of this trial was going to be.
• Everyone knew that after it, there would be a torrent of bad press deliberately crafted to smear Home Education while the odious Bill was passing through the house.

Instead of using a professional PR firm to prime, inoculate and inform all the journalists in advance of this trial and the inevitable bad press, there was no professional campaign whatsoever, save a pathetic, entirely reactive damage limitation exercise, where the participants speaking for Home Education were appended to the end of each piece for the sole purpose of satisfying the ‘journalists’ need to be seen as presenting a ‘balanced picture’.

If what newspapers and the BBC say is so very important, it is obvious that a professional, full time approach to handing perception is an absolute necessity. The map in this post is an extremely powerful image. Imagine it appearing in a national newspaper as part of an ‘explainer’ detailing why CRB checks are complete nonsense. It doesn’t take too much imagination to work out that it would have a huge impact, just as full colour spreads in Grazzia and Tatler would have to explain to those brain dead MPS that Home Education is the most desirable form of education out there, and that Britain is one of the best places to do it – a sphere that Britain is actually leading in for a change.

If this doesn’t happen, if no professional, full time PR firm is engaged to educate every sector of the public about Home Education, then we will be at the same place we are now when Labour return, perhaps with the unctuous monster Ed Balls as Shadow Prime Minister. When they are elected with him in charge, you can say goodbye to Home Education once and for all.

And they WILL be re-elected, I assure you, barring a revolution in Britain.

This full time PR endeavour has only one purpose; to make it psychologically impossible for any MP to consider any controls on Home Education. It should be anathema to them; they should bristle at the suggestion of controlling or interfering with Home Education. The only way this is going to happen is through a properly funded, professionally run PR campaign as I have described, with a small number of people in absolute control over it.

MPs are completely ignorant about Home Education. Most journalists and newspaper editors are also ignorant. None of them can use The Google. If you do not take the information to them on a silver platter (Vogue, Tatler, OK, Gruaniad, Observer, Sunday TImes) then they will never get the ‘opportunity’ to learn what they need to learn, and when the next changeover comes, you WILL be steamrollered. This legislation will be dusted off, added to to make it one thousand times worse, and then Prime Minster Ed Balls will roll it up into a tight cylinder and shove it down your throat while his ‘wife’ the Education Secretary holds you down.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Ambrose Evans Pritchard wrote in The Telegraph:

[…] David Cameron views the NHS as sacrosanct, but that is precisely what must be cut. It is anachronistic that you cannot obtain prescription drugs without going through a doctor — wasting everybody’s time — as if doctors these days reach a better decision in two minutes than well-informed patients with an acute self-interest in getting the matter right.

[…]

Telegraph

Later in the comments, he retracts and says this is ‘silly’ but it in fact is not silly at all, and is perfectly reasonable and sensible on several levels.

First of all, there is no reason why the state should be able to interpose itself between me and the manufacturer of anything that I want to consume, wether that be paracetamol (there are regulations restricting how many packs you can buy at one time), beer (when and where you can buy it and in what measures), bowls of fruit (selling by the bowl is illegal) or anything whatsoever. It is my absolute right to buy anything that someone wants to sell to me. Period.

They say that “A man who is his own doctor has a fool for a patient”. I have an absolute right to be a fool and to medicate or immolate myself as I see fit. Any compromise in this regard instantly turns me into the property of the person who makes and enforces the restrictions on what I can or cannot do to myself.

There is another aspect to this that should also concern everyone; state collectivised medicine (what the americans call ‘single payer’) reduces the efficacy of antibiotics and strengthens the lethality of pathogens.

Drug companies exist to make a profit. In a socialised system of medicine where all pharmaceuticals are either free or heavily subsidised, medicine has no real price. When you are prescribed antibiotics on the NHS, their value to you is zero. You have no incentive to finish the course since you did not have to pay for them. These drugs are also overprescribed because they have no value; they are ‘free’.

This lack of real prices and subsequent over prescription has the unintended consequence of creating what are now known as ‘superbugs’; deadly and highly resistant strains of infection that are immune to the battery of antibiotics at the disposal of doctors.

If there were no subsidies of antibiotics, the drug companies, knowing that overprescription would kill the market for these drugs in the future (no one would buy antibiotics that no longer work), would raise the price of them until people took them seriously, in both meanings of that phrase.

Getting a course of antibiotics would no longer be a simple matter of asking for them and then being handed them for nothing. If a course of antibiotics cost £200 the buyer would be reluctant to purchase them without great consideration; she would think long and hard about wether or not the symptoms she was suffering really indicated that the application of a course of antibiotics was necessary, rather than paracetamol or whiskey and lemon, because there would be a real cost to saying ‘yes’ to them. Also, when the need was determined to be real, you can guarantee that the course would be finished on schedule; medicine that costs that much would not be thrown away half way through the course; everyone who bought antibiotics would finish them. We know that people failing to finish courses of antibiotics adds to the problem of strong strains of pathogens; market driven pharmaceutical supply would solve this problem. The manufacturers of antibiotics would have a vested interest in reducing the use of these drugs so that they can keep selling them in the future. The way things are now, wether or not the antibiotics work they can sell them to the state, ad infinitum, no matter what the future consequences are.

This is only one benefit of people being freed to buy any medicine they like over the counter in a free market. Many people die from adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals; whatever that number is, it will fall dramatically once medicines have a true market price. The pharmaceutical companies would still make huge profits, because the prices of these medicines would be market based. Over consumption of pharmaceuticals would drop dramatically, since people would not be able to eat them like candy.

Take another example; people with hypertension. A woman with essential hypertension can be put on three or more drugs to control it, and receive these drugs ‘for free’. Once you start taking them, the current wisdom is that you are on them for life. If these drugs had a market price, they may constitute an unacceptable long term financial burden, forcing the patient to adopt lifestyle changes to reduce her blood pressure. It also may be the case that since so many people suffer from hypertension, the cost of medicines that treat it would be driven down until they were as cheap as aspirin, especially the drugs that are now patent free. Who knows? What we do know is that in those two scenarios, the patient is better off; in the first, she has a disincentive to begin a course of medicines that she will be hooked on for the rest of her life, in the second, those same medicines that she becomes dependent upon are cheaper than bottled water thanks to the free market.

Involuntary collectivised medicine, i.e. socialised medicine run by the state, is a bad idea with many unintended consequences that are bad for health. It destroys freedom, harms patients, makes disease worse, causes people to be coerced away from natural remedies and should be completely abandoned for a 100% voluntary free market in medicine and pharmaceuticals where the state has no part whatsoever in its operation, regulation, administration or anything of any kind.

A Home Educating family from Germany has just been granted political asylum in the USA. This is highly significant:

Homeschooling Family Granted Political Asylum

Immigration Judge Says Germany Violating Basic Human Rights

In a case with international ramifications, Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman granted the political asylum application of a German homeschooling family. The Romeikes are Christians from Bissinggen, Germany, who fled persecution in August 2008 to seek political asylum in the United States. The request was granted January 26 after a hearing was held in Memphis, Tennessee, on January 21.

“We can’t expect every country to follow our constitution,” said Judge Burman. “The world might be a better place if it did. However, the rights being violated here are basic human rights that no country has a right to violate.”

Burman added, “Homeschoolers are a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress. This family has a well-founded fear of persecution…therefore, they are eligible for asylum…and the court will grant asylum.”

In his ruling, Burman said that the scariest thing about this case was the motivation of the government. He noted it appeared that rather than being concerned about the welfare of the children, the government was trying to stamp out parallel societies—something the judge called “odd” and just plain “silly.” In his order the judge expressed concern that while Germany is a democratic country and is an ally, he noted that this particular policy of persecuting homeschoolers is “repellent to everything we believe as Americans.”

The italics are my emphasis.

Of course, this is exactly what is happening in the UK, with its new fascist law. Under this new law, if a family in the UK fails to apply for a state license to home educate, the quality of home education is not to be taken into account in any proceedings, a home education license is to be automatically denied, and an School Attendance Order is to be issued.

This is not the action of people who are interested in the welfare or education of children, it is the act of people whose sole concern is that everyone is registered.

‘Embarrassing for Germany’

“This decision finally recognizes that German homeschoolers are a specific social group that is being persecuted by a Western democracy,” said Mike Donnelly, staff attorney and director of international relations for Home School Legal Defense Associaton. “It is embarrassing for Germany, since a Western nation should uphold basic human rights, which include allowing parents to raise and educate their own children. This judge understood the case perfectly, and he called Germany out. We hope this decision will cause Germany to stop persecuting homeschoolers,” he added.

The persecution of homeschoolers in Germany has been intensifying over the past several years. They are regularly fined thousands of dollars, threatened with imprisonment, or have the custody of their children taken away simply because they choose to home educate.

The Romeikes expressed relief when they heard the decision.

“We are so grateful to the judge for his ruling,” said Uwe Romeike. “We know many people, especially other German homeschoolers, have been praying for us. Their prayers and ours have been answered. We greatly appreciate the freedom to homeschool we now have in America and will be building our new life here,” he added.

Donnelly testified at the hearing on January 21, telling the immigration Judge that homeschoolers are persecuted all over Germany.

‘Ignoring the Truth’

“There is no safety for homeschoolers in Germany,” Donnelly said. “The two highest courts in Germany have ruled that it is acceptable for the German government to ‘stamp out’ homeschoolers as some kind of ‘parallel society.’ The reasoning is flawed. The fact is that homeschoolers are not a parallel society. Valid research shows that homeschoolers excel academically and socially. German courts are simply ignoring the truth that exists all over the world where homeschooling is practiced. They need to look beyond their own borders.”

In 2003 the highest administrative court in Germany, which interprets its federal Constitution, ruled in the Konrad case that it was permissable for parents who have jobs that require them to travel—such as circus performers and musicians—to homeschool, but homeschooling was prohibited for parents who wanted to for reasons of conscience. The highest criminal court said in the Paul-Plett case in 2006 that the government was allowed to take custody of children whose parents want to homeschool for reasons of conscience.

Reasons of conscience, and your right to act by their motivation is an essential freedom that everyone has. It is the same for conscientious objectors, people who will not eat meat, etc etc. For a german court to rule in this way, that it is OK for people to home educate for reasons related to MONEY but not conscience, is an accurate indicator of the pure evil that resides in the bosoms of Germans. And once again, this is not just the German government that is on trial here; just as it was in the 1930's the German people cannot claim that "I know nothing" A German family has FLED due to this persecution. They are all culpable. PERIOD.

Donnelly challenged the reasoning of the German courts.

“It is ridiculous for German courts to say that homeschooling is allowed if you have practical reasons but disallowed if you have conscientious reasons,” Donnelly said. “This is simply about the German state trying to coerce ideological uniformity in a way that is frighteningly reminiscent of past history. Homeschooling is a growing social movement all over the world, and the Germans want to stamp it out based on a fabricated notion that homeschoolers are a ‘parallel society.’ Germany’s treatment of homeschooling families is worthy of condemnation from the international community. I am proud that a United States immigration judge recognized the truth of what is happening in Germany and has rendered this favorable decision for the Romeike family.”

German homeschoolers have been organizing and trying to draw the attention of German politicians. It has been difficult. Juergen Dudek is a homeschooling father who had been sentenced to 90 days in jail for homeschooling, but whose sentence was reduced to a $300 fine. He noted that officials in Germany have no appreciation for homeschoolers who think differently than the state.

‘Send a Loud Message’

“It is incredible to me that these officials give absolutely no weight to our faith or other conscientious objection to attendance at the public schools,” said Dudek. “We have had a number of families who are not homeschoolers, but who know that the German school system is failing, who called us to encourage us. In our re-hearing the judge issued a decision reducing our sentence from jail to a fine but was totally dismissive of our reasons for wanting to homeschool. We have always been encouraged by the support of American homeschoolers, and we hope that this decision will send a loud message to the German people that what our country is doing is wrong.”

A board member of the Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit, an organization working for freedom for homeschoolers, said that the ruling would be helpful to homeschoolers in Germany.

“This decision reveals to the rest of the world that the German state acts outside the mainstream of Western democracies. Germany is in the company of countries like China, North Korea and others where fundamental human rights are not respected. Germany’s behavior exposes the totalitarian character of the German school law that takes away a parent’s right to educate their children. A decision on behalf of the Romeikes puts blame on the German government and is a serious warning to Germans officials to change their policies and further accept the rights of the parents. We hope that the decision will send a clear message to authorities in Germany to make changes right away!”

Mike Smith, president of HSLDA, also applauded the decision.

“It’s recognition that the German state is persecuting homeschoolers,” he said. “We are pleased to have been able to support this courageous family, and we hope and pray that this decision will have a decisive effect on German policy makers who should change their laws to recognize parents’ rights to educate their own children.”

http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/201001260.asp

What this jugement says is that Germany is an illiberal and unfree country, where illegitimate and immoral Nazi era laws, rather than being removed from the statute books, are being enforced with a ferocity, zeal, fervour, glee and intensity worthy of the original Nazis.

This Jugement means that any worker from the evil Jugendamt who tries to come to the USA to kidnap Germans on this most absurd of pretexts will be told in no uncertain terms to go back to Germany. Contrast this with the shameful way that France treats Germans on the run from the Nazis.

This story is going to cause Germans to re-assess their perfect society to which no parallel is to be allowed. This judge is calling all of Germany a state that is not fit for free people.

The Swedes should look very seriously at their Utopia and how the world perceives them; what is for sure now, is that any Swedish family that wants to escape their fascist government now has a country where they can escape to and be guaranteed that they will be protected. All they have to do is get on the plane without having their children kidnapped before it takes off.

The Romeikes are going to find that they have landed on their feet. They are now in a country that not only accepts Home Education, but it is also a place where there are millions of Home Educators. They will have a great Home Ed social life. In the USA Home Educators are highly organised; it is a place where there are services and publishers that will be happy and eager to serve them. The Universities are competing to attract Home Educated people to become their pupils. It is a place where Home Education and its practitioners is not a sponge cake soaked in bitter and foul ideologies where irrational, negative, serf minded and noxious people are desperate to control others whilst demanding freedom for themselves.

And best of all, they will not have to be constantly looking over their shoulders… it’s a place where they can be free!

Should they be foolish enough to set foot in Europe, they can expect to have their children kidnapped on the spot of course.

FURTHERMORE

Read this shameful article in Der Spiegel, which shows that the German public and in this case, the press, are completely culpable:

Religious Persecution?
German Home-Schoolers Granted Political Asylum in US

Why the question mark? These people are being persecuted because they are Christians. PERIOD.

A family of evangelical Christians who said they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs in Germany have been granted political asylum in the US. The couple fled to Tennessee so they could home-school their five children, which is illegal in Germany.

They did not ‘say they were being persecuted’, they WERE being persecuted!

Most asylum seekers in the US tend to flee wars or dictatorships, but one German family moved to the American South in 2008 because they believed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. On Tuesday an immigration judge in Tennessee agreed, and granted them political asylum.

A shameful, Nazi law promoting scumbag wrote this article. CLEARLY they did not BELIEVE they were being persecuted, they WERE being persecuted, and that is why they were granted asylum.

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who are evangelical Christians, say they were forced to go the the US because they wanted to educate their five children at home, something that is illegal in Germany.

Judge Lawrence Burman issued the ruling on Tuesday in Memphis, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association, which is representing the Romeikes.

The family left Germany after several run-ins with authorities.

They FLED Germany, to avoid being fined, imprisoned and having their children kidnapped by the state. That is a little different from ‘leaving Germany’.

The parents had ignored repeated orders to send their children to school.

As is their duty and right. The writer inserts this as if it is a proper pretext for the law to act.

German state constitutions require parents to send their children to public or private schools and they can face fines or even imprisonment if they don’t comply.

Now this Nazi is trying to put a spin on the true origin of the law, Hitler, by saying that ‘German state constitutions’ require school attendance. This shameful lack of acknowledgement of the origin of this evil law makes the writer complicit in it and the persecution of this family and all other Home Educating families in Germany.

In October 2006, police came to the Romeike home and took the children to school.

This is not right, understandable, moral or defensible. That it is stated as a plain fact is nauseating.

In November 2007 Germany’s highest appellate court ruled that in severe cases of non-compliance, social services could even remove children from home.

‘Severe cases of non-compliance’… is that all it is? ZIEG HIEL!

Uwe Romeike told the Associated Press that the 2007 ruling convinced him and his wife that “we had to leave the country.” The curriculum in public schools over the past few decades has been “more and more against Christian values,” he said.

A decent parent.

‘The Freedom to Choose’

Lutz Görgens, a German Consul General in Atlanta, Georgia, said in an e-mail statement that German parents had a range of educational options for their children. Mandatory school attendance in Germany ensures a high standard of learning for all children, he said.

This is a lie, and a distraction. No matter what schools are on offer anywhere, the parent has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to educate their child in any way they see fit, and this is not the affair of the state in a free country.

“Parents may chose between public, private and religious schools, including those with alternative curricula like Waldorf or Montessori schools,” said Görgens.

If you cannot choose no school, you have no choice. Only a brainwashed Nazi boosting official like Lutz Görgens could put forward this rationalisation.

But Romeike was not comfortable sending his children to public school anymore. He said three eldest children had had problems with violence, bullying and peer pressure. “I think it’s important for parents to have the freedom to choose the way their children can be taught,” he said.

The couple took the kids out of school in the southern state of Baden-Württemberg in 2006 and were fined around €70,000 ($100,000).

Par for the course; the state dolls out theft, followed by violence.

In 2008 Romeike, a music teacher, sold his collection of pianos and rented out his home in the village of Bissingen. The family now live in Morristown, Tennessee, in the so-called Bible Belt. Like many of their neighbors they teach their children at home.

And MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS you pathetic beast.

The decision on the family’s political asylum could still be overturned if the US government appeals the ruling. But Mike Donnelly, the attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association, said he hopes Tuesday’s ruling will influence public opinion in Germany — which is part of the reason his group offered to represent the Romeikes, he said.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,674312,00.html

First of all, why would the US Government appeal this ruling? On what grounds?

Once the news of this gets out, it is unlikely that anyone in the US will go against this family. The millions of Home Schoolers in the USA will make such a deafening noise (or at least, in a perfect world that is what would happen) no politician would DARE call for this family to be sent back to the reich.

SHAME SHAME SHAME on DER SPIEGEL!

This astonishing document is snarfed from the TPUC site:

+++++++

This is taken from nocounciltax.com

OK – so now the cracks are really beginning to appear.

I am indebted to my good friend and fellow Freeman on the land, for allowing me to use his documentation for this:-
Let me fill you in on the background so you have the case history:-

“Jim” (As we will call him”) is a Freeman on the Land along with us (More on that here www.TPUC.org & www.thinkfree.ca) – and a few months back he decided (Like many of us) that he wasn’t going to pay the UNLAWFUL Council tax that they were trying to enforce upon him via thier unlawful statute legislation. So he stopped paying:-

In due course he started receiving the threatening letters until one day the “summons” appeared on his doormat. (Note: A summons is merely an invitation to attend their place of business to discuss a punishment – its an offer – Read more – just as the Council Tax Bill is an offer to contract with them – read more on this)

The “invitation” was to appear before Wirral Magistrates Court for a hearing concerning the issuing of a liability hearing. Now as we all now ALL magistrates courts are merely a trading styles of the “run for profit” company called “Ministry of Justice” – see below and you can get a copy of the document I have acquired clearly showing:-

1. The corporate status of the Ministry of Justice
2. The Directors (Lord Falconer of Thoroton & Others)
3. The fact that Ministry of Justice has County Court Jugements against it
4. The trading styles of MOJ (Top right – which includes “Magistrates Courts”

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE IS A BUSINESS

Now call me blonde but I would say this is pretty damned conclusive that we are dealing with a corporate court convened by a corporation to simply lift money from you and I.

So … “Jim” jotted the council a little letter which is shown below:-

FIRST LETTER TO WIRRAL COUNCIL

Jim sent this letter about THREE WEEKS before the date that the hearing was due to be heard on.
So … the DAY BEFORE the hearing, Jim received a phone call from the Wirral Council LEGAL DEPARTMENT and what they said was staggering …

THEY WERE GOING TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION FOR A LIABILITY ORDER!

1. Now this is incredible that on the back of one letter they decide to withdraw and more importantly confirms the following:-
2. Council tax is UNLAWFUL, as you and I well know that if these leeches had once ounce of a lawful case for taking this money then they would fight it to the death

They KNOW Council Tax is unlawful and are simply robbing those who haven’t woken up to the facts yet to the tune of £140,000,000,000 per annum (thats 140 BILLION of our money!)
So, Jim being the experienced fellow he is – asked them to email him with confirmation that they were going to withdraw and printed below is their email.

WIRRAL COUNCIL CONFIRMATION OF WITHDRAWAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LAWFUL CASE

Jim then asked for further clarification in a formal letter and here is the letter that they sent!

LETTER FROM WIRRAL COUNCIL CONFIRMING THEIR WITHDRAWAL FORM COUNCIL TAX LIABILITY HEARING

Then Jim asked them to confirm in writing that because there was now NO LIABILY that the council tax was no longer due
This is the letter they and this is probably (in my opinion) one of THE single most important documents in the fight against Council Tax as it PROVES beyond ANY DOUBT that we DO NOT HAVE TO PAY this UNLAWFUL COUNCIL TAX.
Look at the bit in red!

LETTER FROM WIRRAL COUNCIL CONFIRMING THAT COUNCIL TAX DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PAID

So not believing a word of the Council or the courts Jim rocked up to the court on the morning of the Liability hearing and standing as a Freeman on the Land asked the Judge to confirm the withdrawal of the other side which the Judge duly confirmed. The judge then told Jim that he needn’t have turned up and then Jim hit with it.
“I know that sir, but there is the small matter of mys costs”

BAM! – They were not expecting that one!

So, Jim has now duly entered a claim for costs of £1,400 against Wirral Council which is still ongoing at this time as the courts are trying to play silly buggers with Jim – he has even had one judge step down and refuse to adjudicate in favour of his costs – as you can see – its a stitch up!

Anyway – Jim has some other things planned and I will keep you abreast of developments but there you have it.
A UK Council running away from a court hearing because they KNOW they dont have a LAWFUL leg to stand on and the whole Council Tax is a scam to relieve you and I of money.

+++++++

Now. After having read that, and caught your breath after having counted from one to ten slowly, you need to ask yourself two questions.

These are questions you have to answer for yourself before you consider ‘registering’ with them, accepting delivery of an SEO, or engaging with these creatures in any way whatsoever.

If I were you, I would have a close read of the articles at TPUC, and then try and explain to yourself how it is possible that these people can do what they are doing.

It is amateurs who have one big bright beautiful idea that they can never abandon. Professionals know that they have to produce theory after theory before they are likely to hit the jackpot. Francis Crick

A student once asked me, “Dr. Pauling, how do you go about having good ideas?” and I answered: “You have a lot of ideas and you throw away the bad ones.” Linus Pauling.