Archive for the 'Told You So' Category

Persuading the violent that they are violent

Monday, December 20th, 2010

Its very difficult to persuade people that they are supporters of violence by being in favour of Democracy. The brainwashing that they have been subjected to for the entirety of their lives presents an almost impenetrable barrier of disbelief and pavlovian disdain that even the sharpest scalpel cannot cut.

As soon as you tell these poor deluded fools (and calling people ‘poor deluded fools’ does not, of course, help), that they are violent people, they recoil like slugs that have been sprinkled with salt; no one wants to think of themselves as a violent type, and yet, that is exactly what people who are for Democracy are; violent human beings.

Decent people with intact moral centres and sound ethics are not violent and are against initiating violence. They would never dream of using violence to get what they want from other people, or to make them behave in a certain way, or to refrain from behaviours; the very idea is repugnant to them. This is how it should be.

Sadly, there is a huge sea of people who have been brainwashed into thinking that the state is not only necessary, but that it is an inherently good thing, it is not violent and that the democratic process justifies anything that the state cooks up, no matter what it is.

This is why you can find people who believe that the state has the ‘right’ to ban or regulate Home Education, or to kidnap children from families because ‘the children’ are ‘too fat’.

Even people who are intelligent have fallen for this evil, to the extent that they believe that the State, and its violence is noble.

I have some bad news for these people.

The idea that the State is inevitable is false, and every day, people are waking up to this fact.

Seemingly out of the blue, comes this clip:

as you can see, it beautifully, and gently demonstrates to anyone with a single brain cell how the state is violent and immoral, and how it doesn’t matter how many people vote for it, it is still violent and immoral.

A critical mass of understanding is on the way, and this video is evidence of it When we reach the tipping point, there will be a majority of people who do not accept the States’ alleged, self proclaimed ‘right’ to steal money and murder.

The coming economic collapse, the discrediting of the state through Wikileaks and every other thing that is just around the corner will push people towards Libertarianism and the true idea that people do not need a state to live in peace and prosperity.

Already in the UK, there is open talk of the illegitimacy of the State, and clips like this and the ones that will surely follow will help guide and solidify people’s thinking.

Any attempt to shut down the free internet will only make things worse for the State. Their best option now, if they want to survive in any shape or form, is to adapt. Already in the UK, some councils are thinking about going semi voluntary; slashing their ‘council tax bills‘, reducing the number of ‘services’ they have a monopoly on providing, leaving the rest to private companies. This would be a good move; garbage collection should not be done by the state at all for example.

If they fail to switch to pure voluntarism, essentially becoming charities without any pretence that they have the right to demand money from anyone, they will be swept away entirely, and the people who work in these places, their pensions and jobs also swept away.

It would be far better for them; they have the infrastructure already in place, local knowledge and an immediate ability to act in everyone’s interests immediately. The only thing that would change would be they would lose the power to steal money. Most people would go along with a town council that worked only to clean the roads, keep them salted in winter and the hedges trimmed.

These new councils would be very responsive to what people actually want, because everyone would have the option of paying someone else to do the work, and of course, any talk of planning permission and the other big brother, rights destroying nonsense would be instantly dead in the water.

How everything would work precisely (or not work) is irrelevant; its important to remember that the foundation of the State is pure evil. There is no option to say, “well, if statelessness doesn’t work out, we can always go back to violence”. No, you cannot go back to immorality chaps; immorality is not a choice on the table for moral men. The violence of the state must be stopped. Period. It is unacceptable to all decent people that a society based on violence is simply tolerated as, “things just as they are”.

The State is a house built on immorality. It is a loathsome, noxious and bad smelling weed that has grown from a bad seed. This is the root problem that has to be fixed, and without it being fixed things are only going to get worse. Its time to pour the RoundUp® on this parasitic plant to kill it right down to the roots.

Finally, here is another video for you, that explains what is about to happen with the forthcoming collapse that we have been talking about:

it is these events that will be the turning point.

Lets hope that when this happens it spells at the very least, the end of the State. As everyone walks out of the wreckage, we can but hope that the shock wakes them up out of their hypnotic trance as the fatal blow to the Stat, its apparatus and apologists shuts the hypnotic transmitter that has kept everyone asleep.

There are enough Libertarians in circulation in the USA to save it from a return to a murderous imperial government. Perhaps with their example the rest of the civilised world will follow along. Certainly, if the USA turns to Libertarianism, they will drain the brains out of every other country with a population.

What a life!

Police to ban demonstrations: GOOD!

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

In today’s Telegraph they have a story about the Police planning to ban all demonstrations to prevent disorder:

Police may ban future marches to prevent disorder
Police may ban anti-Government marches through central London to prevent further disorder and strain on officer numbers.

By Martin Beckford, Heidi Blake and Steven Swinford 7:00AM GMT 15 Dec 2010
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, said that outlawing the demonstations was an option for the authorities but conceded it could anger protestors further.

He admitted he was very worried about the effect on law and order in town centres and suburbs caused by large numbers of officers being sent to the centre of the capital.

Despite widespread criticism over the policing of the protests, and warnings that the Mets tactics risk leading to the death of an innocent bystander, Sir Paul said he was proud of the professionalism of the 3,000 officers on duty last week.

[…]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8201906/Police-may-ban-future-marches-to-prevent-disorder.html

I’ve said it before; the police are in an impossible position. On one side, they have the socialist PC nanny state, making them enforce all sorts of insane and draconian laws that have nothing to do with protecting people and property, causing them to misallocate time and resources. On the other, they have the people who spit on them and hate them for doing what they are told. Then we have the protestors who are pushing on another side, with their irrational, violent and destructive behaviour, and for their troubles, they are paid next to nothing for the amount of personal danger they face.

All of that aside, we have already written about demonstrations, how they are entirely useless and how they are nothing more than a way to keep people inside an illusion that they are free.

Now this police ban on protesting is going to do exactly what we say demonstrations do, only it will be explicit and not implicit; banning demonstrations will cause all those unenlightened people who think that demonstrations are effective to spend their time fighting for the ‘right to demonstrate’ instead of working to solve real problems with strategies that achieve discreet and real goals.

Alex Jones says that Britain is de-facto going into martial law. This is very probably true, but the fact remains that there is nothing any state can do to stop people from spreading ideas and then acting on them, especially when those acts are essentially private. This is why it was impossible to completely eliminate alcohol sales during prohibition, for example.

Demonstrating in the streets does not solve problems, so what needs to be done to reverse the rot?

For a start, you have to understand that the state does not have enough staff to control everyone. Widespread control of the population can only be achieved with the consent and help of business.

For example, VAT is going to rise to 20% in January. The people who are going to collect this Tax are the businesses of the UK. The individual shoppers are not the ones who are forced to collect and hand in this money; if every business refused to collect VAT, then the system would be abolished by default. It could happen in a single week.

Just as we wrote in the ‘Zero TRust Society‘ essay and proposal, the key to stopping any predation of the state is to convince the businesses that do the work of the State to stop doing that work en masse.

ID Cards would have become useless if every business refused to interface with the NIR and the cards; business is the crucial interface that allows police states to function. The smoking ban could not have been implemented without the every publican acting as a locum policeman; indeed, in Germany, the smoking ban has failed precisely because the publicans are ignoring the ban:

Many methods of getting around the ban have been utilised; mobile smoking bars now drive around towns catering for smoking customers, one restaurant cut holes into the walls so that diners could pull open a curtain and lean outside to smoke and with Germany bordering a wealth of more democratic countries many people now pop across the borders into tolerant countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia to enjoy an evening out. In many parts of Germany the anti smoking laws are simply ignored completely.

[…]

http://www.thesmokingban.org/germany.php

Instead of demonstrating, people who want real change and an end to the police state have to convince every business owner not to cooperate with the apparatus on any level, they have to make it so that the businesses who choose the side of freedom rather than the side of the State, profit from doing so and are protected.

In the end, this act of banning demonstrations is going to push the population towards the conclusion that we have laid out here.

Already the French have woken up and understood that demonstrations do not work; this was the key insight that led the instigators of Bankrun 2010 to do what they did… and did you notice that there was nothing about it in the news? Have you also noticed that the incredible violence and disruption in Greece is also not being reported?

But I digress.

People are slowly waking up to the fact that they are not making any headway on any front, and the tools they are using are simply not working. Things are getting worse through no fault of their own, and everything that they have been trying is not making things better.

At long last, they are beginning to sense the truth.

Bank Run 2010, Eric Cantona forces the tipping point

Sunday, November 21st, 2010

As we wrote recently, there is going to be a massive, Europe-wide bank run on December 7th.

This is entirely a good thing, and it is precisely the sort of action that BLOGDIAL has advocated for years; we have been saying over and over that demonstrating in the streets is completely pointless, and we were and are completely right.

This call for a bank run has people in ‘authority’ very worried:

Valrie Ohannesian, of the French Banking Federation, said she thought that the appeal was “stupid in every sense” and a charter for thieves and money-launderers.

“My first reaction is to laugh. It is totally idiotic,” she told the Observer. “One of the main roles of a bank is to keep money safe. This appeal will give great pleasure to thieves, I would have thought.”

Grauniad article on the bankrun and Cantona

If that is all they can come up with, they must be shitting their knickers.

For a start, everyone now knows that ‘money laundering’ laws are not there to catch ‘criminals’ but are instead for the ordinary people who are trying to protect their money from the ravaging, rapacious state.

She goes on to very stupidly mock the idea with the fact that Cantona would need ‘several suitcases’ to withdraw his money. Of course, he would not need suitcases to withdraw his wealth if the money in his account was worth anything in the first place.

The hollow sound of desperation in print.

As we posted before, this bankrun is an entirely good thing, but what has to happen is a complete exposure and defining of the problem, before it can be fixed.

It seems that the people behind this bankrun are highly intelligent, media savvy people; lets go through this statement from the Bankrun 2010 site.

Dear media,

For a short time, the international press reported the call for a bankrun that we launched on Facebook to invite all those who wish to follow us to withdraw their money from their accounts on the 7th of December, 2010.

Since the publication of our call, people around the world mobilized to translate the text into their language to recreate the event in their country, to promote our initiative by all possible means and invite their contacts to do the same. Our call has met with a success that we did not dare to hope for. We are very happy about it and thanks to the personal investment of all those who, like us, want to enjoy a healthy banking system, equitable, affordable and accountable, we hope that over the weeks we can convince enough people in the world to finally be heard by our respective Governments.

Good. There is only one problem however; a healthy banking system cannot be equitable; a bank exists to hold your money for you and to facilitate transfers for you and to do other services that you require of it, in return for fees. What those fees are is a matter of negotiation, since you are entering into a private contract with a company or an individual.

This is why it is not smart to ask for an ‘equitable’ or an ‘affordable’ banking system; market forces produce the best possible banks, and therefore, banking should be left completely up to those forces, in the same way that the operation of self storage units are left to the market.

The problem with banking is not deregulation, it is regulation and interference from the state.

For clarification purposes, we do not speak on behalf of any political party or from any labour union or religion. Our action is a civic involvement that keeps its distance from any form of hate or conspiracy theories that could be made on behalf of our movement, by others during their interventions on any areas of discussion, which is beyond our control. We only speak for ourselves and for no other organisations. We do not seek to harm anyone in particular. It’s towards a corrupt, criminal and deadly system that we decided to oppose, as far as our ability our determination and respect for the law are concerned.

Very good.

Why have we launched this action?
First of all, we wanted to raise public awareness on the functioning of the monetary system.
The overwhelming majority of holders of a bank accounts, savings accounts or even a pension plan, are unaware the way money is created or what the banks are doing with the money that ‘they are given. They know nothing about the principle of money as debt. They do not know the reality behind words like “asset bubbles”, “Treasury bills”, “Hedge Funds” or “securitization”. Hence the media in general make little effort to inform in an objective, transparent and accessible way to all. The only thing the public really understands is that most major financial crimes and insider trading remain mostly unpunished, but they are the first to pay the consequences.

True. People are almost completely ignorant of what money is, how banks work and what the current role of the state and central banks is. They cannot define inflation, do not understand that it is deliberately caused, do not understand that the money in their accounts (so much as it even belongs to them) is worthless and that this is all by design.

Not only do we deplore how many questions posed by ordinary citizens on the economic situation remain without clear answers in your columns,

There are highly intelligent commenters who regularly destroy the nonsense some ‘journalists’ peddle about all of this. We are past the tipping point; its GAME OVER for this immoral system.

We do not need journalists anymore; what we do need is a free internet, millions of awakened people and one or two very famous people to stand up and push the snowball down the hill.

It has finally happened.

but we also regret your lack of zeal in denouncing the measures that have allowed the global economic situation get to the point where it is today: a situation that has bought our heads of states and Governments to their knees before the rating agencies, trembling with fear at the idea that our currencies are deteriorating.

Our politicians can’t meet both the interests of financial markets and those of its citizens. So, it is time to remind them who they were elected to serve.

Strikes and demonstrations are no longer useful because whatever we do, we are not heard. And whatever they do, we are not consulted. So we decided to hit the system at its core – THE BANKING SYSTEM

MY EMPHASIS!!!!……

At long last, they are beginning to understand!

For YEARS we have been saying this; demonstrations DO NOT WORK, and you are an ignorant PART OF THE PROBLEM if you call for them, or a GATEKEEPER in service of the STATE and THE WAR MACHINE.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. – Albert Einstein

This is true about everything, including demonstrating to stop war or to make government do what you want it to do. You cannot keep calling for demonstrations and expecting the bad things to stop, when it fails to work; doing so is irrational and stupid. Demonstrations and violence are failure tactics, and the idiotic students who smashed Tory HQ are completely wrong in every way you can be wrong.

Think about it; 50,000 students, all of one mind are an army and huge potential financial force that could make a huge change; on the most basic level, that many people could buy a full page advertisement in a national newspaper once a month for ONE POUND EACH.

That would be far more effective in getting a message across, rather than marching in the streets like animatronic showroom dummies.

But enough of that…

Are we aware of the economic consequences that would result from the success of our action?

We are especially aware of the consequences that the deregulated and uncontrollable global financial system will have on our jobs, our health, our education, our pensions, our industries, our environment, our future, our dignity, the dignity of the citizens of countries that the system has enslaved by debt that they will never be able to repay to better appropriate their resources. This is the fate that awaits people if we in the West do not take ourselves in hand.

We are aware of the role this system plays in the prosperity of industrial empires whose interests depend on armed conflicts, diseases, food shortages and poverty prevailing in the countries that provide labour and natural resources at minimal cost. We are aware that this system will never have anything to gain from a world of peace and prosperity and that continuing to entrust our hard and honestly earned money to this sick system, we make ourselves accomplices of its thefts, for its crimes, its wars and the misery war generates.

Beautiful; they can actually see!

The only problem here, is that they are talking about deregulation being a problem when it is not. If these people were able to form their own bank, and run it however they please, they would be an international force unparalleled in its size and transparency, as everyone moved all their money to it en masse.

The reason why they cannot have their bank is because the state regulates banking so that the war machine can be run. They stop anyone honest from running a bank, and they use legal tender laws to prevent honest money from emerging. Once again, the problem is not deregulation, but regulation by the state.

There is nothing wrong with accumulating wealth. What is wrong is the wealthy using the state to murder people with its war machine. This is called Crony Capitalism, which is very different from Capitalism.

What do we want?
We, the citizens of the 21st century, heirs of generations who have sacrificed so that we may live free and dignified, demand the creation of a CITIZENS BANK- serving citizens, a bank that would put our money away from speculative fever, free of all financial bubbles designed to burst one day, free of operations that transform our loans & assets and use our debt to buy other assets.

This is a very good idea. The only thing stopping you from creating this bank is the state. Remove the state’s ability to regulate banks and then you can have your ‘Citizens Bank’, and you will be able to run it in any way that you like.

We want banks that lend only the wealth they have. Banks that help small and medium enterprises to relocate jobs, & bank lending at zero rate. (*) Banks that support projects that benefit citizens rather than the “market”. Banks where we can deposit our money, which will then create a peaceful conscience within ourselves. Banks we will not have to be worry about. Banks whose success will sound the death knell of the merchants of death, disease and slavery. On the ruins of the old system, we want to build a banking system that will no longer sacrifice more human dignity on the altar of profit.

This is error.

You want ‘banks’ that only lend the money they have; NO, you must make your own bank that does that; you cannot force people to run their businesses to serve you. Your only recourse, as it should be, is to remove your money from banks that are evil and to put them into an honest bank. You cannot on the one hand, say that you want a world free of violence, and then at the same time, call for the state to do your bidding via violence on others. Start your own bank, and if the state tries to stop you, confront them. You can be sure that the existing banks will be pushing for the violent suppression of you and this bank run right now; that is all they have left to fight with; the apparatus of the police state.

You will be able to set your own interest rates, lending requirements and ultimate purpose. There is a desperate need for such a bank, and you have a captive population of over one hundred million to start with.

I’m afraid that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. You are in the trouble you are in now because you trusted the existing banks and the state to take care of you, and like the predators they are, they fed on you. You will never be able to not worry about banking.

As for the ‘altar of profit’ this is just total nonsense; there is nothing wrong with profit, and you are conflating profit with Crony Capitalism and its evil practitioners. Profit, price signalling and all the other elements of real economics are essential to bringing into existence the prosperity, freedom, peace and the kind of bank that you want to be able to use. You cannot deny the laws of nature, and economics is governed by rules that are as firmly set as the laws that cover physics. Learn these rules, and you will make a bank that is more likely to be a long term benefit.

Finally, the old system must be swept away completely. There is absolutely no reason why a new, clean, moral bank should be set up on the ‘ruins of the old system’. If your plan is that you are going to start with a bad foundation, you might as well not even begin.

Dutch lawmakers have already considered laws to outlaw calls for bank runs. The state and its Crony Capitalist masters are going to use everything they can to destroy you so that they can continue with their insanity.

It is only through peaceful voluntarism that you will ever get a lasting solution to this problem. Forcing banks to obey you by using the state makes the state more powerful, and it is the state that is the true enemy.

We, the people have finally been awakened by poverty and despair afflicting the most vulnerable among us – pensioners, welfare recipients or working poor – and is now threatening what remains of the middle class & entrepreneurs. Even these are exploited as milking cows, and we now simply want the cancellation of the public debts generated by the sick system that we no longer want.

Once again, this is true; this debt belongs only to the people who authorised it; you cannot be made liable to a debt incurred by a third party, without your written consent, and NO, voting in an election does not constitute consent to be made a debtor.

We do not want our taxes, our efforts, our resources to continue to feed this bottomless pit.

Oops, its not ‘your money’ once you have payed it to the state; this is a common error that people make; they believe that the state, “works for them”, and that, “its our money”. It is not. You have no claim whatsoever over that money once you pay it. Its gone, toast, spent.

If you want your money to be used for good purposes only, you have to stop paying it to the state. Period. And I and others predict that that is the next psychological breakthrough that these people are going to make, very soon!

We want to regain the power to coin money and free ourselves from the guidelines imposed on us by the European Union, which was built against the consent of the majority of people consulted by referendum, not to mention those whose country of origin have no organized popular consultation.

This is absolutely key to the entire problem; without the power to decide what money is best for you, you are nothing more than a slave to the European Central Bank, the Private Federal Reserve and all other central banks, who steal money via the inflation tax.

Everyone who understands money knows that the best money is gold and silver coins, held and used directly by the people who transact with money.

Gold and silver money cannot be inflated, controlled or used against you by a central bank, and of course, central banks themselves should be abolished, and would be if this Citizens Bank took off; there would be no need for central banks if every country had its own Citizens Bank, working in cooperation with other similar banks around the world, only for the benefit and convenience of the depositors.

This is why its crucial to:

  • remove the power to make money from the state
  • remove the power to regulate banking from the state

Without these two in place, it will be impossible to get to the place that the stopbankque organisers want.

(*) What the Islamic banks to successfully achieve by refusing usury for religious reasons, we can do for civic reasons.

Oops, ‘Islam was right’?! Don’t tell Geert Wilders!

To conclude
We draw your attention to the fact that even if we manage to relocate jobs, advanced technologies and machines have replaced human labour in a growing number of areas. They can produce more, faster, cheaper, and for these reasons, they create fear to those who wonder how they will earn their living tomorrow. This is unfortunate because since the invention of the wheel, technology is meant to improve the living conditions of mankind. If progress was meant to serve citizens rather than serve the market, we could make a quantum leap in technology development today paralyzed by special interest groups that are the primary beneficiaries of this system.

This is completely wrong; technology does not put people out of jobs, this is The Luddite Fallacy.

Progress serves citizens though their freedom to choose one service over another. Sadly, Europeans are still steeped in the sticky, hallucinogenic treacle of socialist thinking. They want the state to continue its tyranny unabated, only with them at the helm. Sorry guys NO $A!

We already have the knowledge to free humanity of its needs in fossil and nuclear fuels and to produce and deliver drinking water throughout the planet at a lower cost, to produce fruits and vegetables, from ice fields to the desert. Poverty only exists on our planet because of the lack of political will of industrialized countries, subject to market forces. Pollution and waste of resources are the sad consequences of this obsolete system which we must put an end to.

Sigh…You cant have it all it seems… Market forces are the only way to eradicate poverty. The state, and ‘political will’ will NEVER do it, and if they try, it will mean giving up the very rights that the stopbankque people are calling for.

As for pollution, we know about that don’t we?

We, the inheritors of chaos, we have a world to rebuild. A world where work is no longer seen as slavery, and lack of work as a tragedy because we have been able to rethink how mankind of tomorrow will ensure its survival, education, well-being and old age.

In order for work not to be slavery, you need to be able to keep the fruits of your labour, that you voluntarily contract for. If the state takes even a penny of it by force, you are reduced to the level of a slave. Everything they do with your money after that, is insult added to injury.

We invite all those who want to follow us on this path – including you, dear journalists – to overcome their fears of the unknown and to lay the foundation stone for the construction of the system that will replace the current one, which with or without us, will eventually collapse when it has taken everything from us. We prefer not to wait until it arrives, or even worse, if in order to save the economy a new war would be declared.

We thank the footballer Eric Cantona for having instilled the idea that we have taken literally. The die is cast. Time will tell whether we were right. (07/11/2010)

http://www.bankrun2010.com/

Don’t hold your breath for the journalists to come on board; they are in the pay of the newspapers that are owned by the same people or colleagues of the people who own the war machine; why do you think these evil scribblers are for war with Iran? They are for war because they are being told to write pro war pieces. They cannot be relied upon or trusted – thankfully we do not need them. We have the internet, we have myriad ways of spreading information that does not include their channels. These new channels are being put to good use, finally, now all that remains is to formulate a plan and then execute it.

This means:

  1. setting up a bank that is outside the control of the state
  2. buying gold en masse with all the worthless paper money that has been withdrawn from the system
  3. depositing that gold in the new bank

The honest money that you require already exists; GOLD.
The forms of banking you require already exist 100% RESERVE BANKING

Like we told you, someone is already doing it.

First things first; DESTROY the system through peaceful disobedience, starting with the money!

Net Neutrality is Violent Socialism

Friday, November 19th, 2010

Someone that we follow on twitter is a classic violent socialist, that also believes in depopulation, ‘global warming’ and all of the other fear based eco fascist nonsense that is out there that the delusional live to cling to.

Recently, this person tweeted that:

UK regulator Ofcom lobbies Brussels against net neutrality – http://bit.ly/bRdVwJ #Ofcom betrays the British public #netneutrality

Knowing that this person tweets a mix of violent socialist garbage and important tech news related to copyright, it spurred me to finally take a close look at ‘Net Neutrality’, and lo and behold, it is Orwellian doublespeak and violent socialism.

Throwing “Net Neutrality Socialism” into the googles, we get this:

James G. Lakely: ‘Net Neutrality’ Is Socialism, Not Freedom

AHAA!

Advocates of imposing “network neutrality” say it’s necessary to ensure a “free” and “open” Internet and rescue the public from nefarious corporations that “control” technology.

Few proposals in Washington have been sold employing such deceptive language — and that’s saying something. But few public policy ideas can boast the unashamedly socialist pedigree of net neutrality.

True.

‘Net Neutrality’ is a name that is highly deceptive and a form of subtle emotional and intellectual blackmail.

When you are asked wether or not you are for or against ‘Net Neutrality’ the conjunction of these two words, both of which are beneficial in meaning separately, immediately pressure you to believe that you are for it, since everyone wants to be (and appear to be) a reasonable person.

The word ‘Net’ is short for the greatest invention since the Gutenberg press. What reasonable person could be against that?

‘Neutrality’, the opposite of being biased, is a word that conveys goodness in almost every sense; a state which journalists strive for, closely related to that new brainwashing word ‘fair’.

What they do not tell you is that ‘Net Neutrality’ is actually a sinister code word for violent socialism.

The modern Internet is a creation of the free market, which has brought about a revolution in communication, free speech, education, and commerce. New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski apparently doesn’t like that. He stated last month the way Internet service providers manage their networks — in response to millions of individual consumer choices — is not sufficiently “fair,” “open” or “free.”

And there you have it. The unconstitutional FCC, openly uses the new socialist programming word ‘fair’ in its push to wreck the internet, which has grown perfectly well without the help of the state, despite its origins in DARPA.

The chairman’s remedy is to claim for the FCC the power to decide how every bit of data is transferred from the Web to every personal computer and handheld device in the nation. This is exactly what the radical founders of the net neutrality movement had in mind.

This is of course, complete madness. Whatever the state touches, it ruins. The internet works by private people agreeing to route traffic through each other’s private networks. None of this has anything to do with the state.

If some large providers want to shape traffic, that is entirely their business. Its their bandwidth, their hardware and the contracts they have with their customers are private. If traffic shaping ruins the experience of the users of these knobbled internet access points, then the customers will leave in droves, to find un shaped access points.

The free market in internet access will determine which companies survive and which do not, which style of ISP is best and which should fail.

Once again, none of this is the business of government.

The concept can be traced to an iconoclastic figure, Richard Stallman, a self-described software freedom activist who introduced the term “copyleft” in the mid-1980s. In his 2002 essay “Free Software, Free Society,” Stallman fiercely attacks the idea that intellectual property rights are one of the keystones of individual liberty, so important that patents and copyrights are affirmatively protected in the body of the Constitution.

Copyrights and Patents are in fact evil. They are not founded upon any rational basis, are a legacy idea from the age of absolute monarchy, and are a disaster for humanity on every level. This is not a matter of ideology or belief, but is a truth grounded in evidence based fact.

According to Stallman, “we are not required to agree with the Constitution or the Supreme Court. [At one time, they both condoned slavery.]” Like slavery, he says, copyright law is “a radical right-wing assumption rather than a traditionally recognized one.” Rebuking those who might find a Marxist flavor in his call for a “digital commons,” Stallman turns the tables, writing: “If we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.” […]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html

What Richard Stallman and the Free Software movement people are actually advocating are property rights in software, which all Libertarians and correctly thinking people would agree with on examination.

When you buy a copy of a proprietary piece of software, you do not actually own it; you own a limited license to use that software, that restricts your ability to decompile it, share it by copying it, modify it, re sell it, or use it in a context and on hardware other than what the writer and owner of the software allows you to. On top of all that, the manufacturer disclaims any liability of any kind for anything that happens to you or your hardware as a result of you using their software.

When you download Free software on the other hand, it belongs to you. You have the right to modify it, to share it, to run it anywhere and to make money off of doing all those things.

The authors and licenses that cover Free Software respect your property rights in ways that the makers of proprietary, ‘closed’ softwares under restrictive licenses do not. You cannot be for property rights of ISPs and simultaneoously against Free Software and its advocates, and be logical at the same time.

Richard Stallman is actually for property rights, not against them in the matter of computer software. He is doing something about it not by advocating violence against the makers of proprietary software, but by creating his own software and releasing it for free, under a license that respects your rights. This is a pure free market response to a problem, that uses voluntarism and liberty as its tools, and it has worked so spectacularly, and to such an extent, that it has become a commercial threat to the makers of closed proprietary software, causing them to lie, bribe, steal and use the violent state (much in the same way that the Net Neutrality advocates are trying to do) to destroy Free Software.

Net Neutrality is about state control of ISP’s hardware and the expense of bandwidth (physical property and cost). Intellectual Property is a separate matter.

Intellectual Property is a state granted limited monopoly on ideas, and who can profit from them. People who are against collectivism and the state must concede that Intellectual Property is a bad thing if they are to remain honest; especially after having read ‘Against Intellectual Monopoly’, which proves that Intellectual Property is damaging to the very thing that they claim it produces and protects; prosperity and the promotion of the creation of new ideas.

Now, lets take a look at what Net Neutrality actually means in practice.

You run an ISP, and have entered into private contracts with one million people. The state, at the behest of violent and ignorant socialists, passes a law saying that you may not shape your traffic on your own machines that deliver bandwidth to your customers.

Should you refuse to do what they say, a representative of the violent socialists will launch a ‘Class Action Suit‘ against you and you will be fined. If you refuse to pay the fine, you will have violent thugs arriving at your office to arrest you and haul you off to gaol.

This is the reality of what the Net Neutrality advocates are asking for; they want people who do not believe what they believe and who will not work for them to be put into gaol and to have their property confiscated by the state.

This is a despicable, evil and dastardly personal philosophy.

We tweeted to the person what we follow that if he wants ISPs not to shape traffic, he should set up a brand and standard that ISPs can conform to, ask them to join it and let people voluntarily work together for an internet where all traffic is treated the same, pointing out that Net Neutrality is government violence… Yes, all of that was compressed into 140 characters.

The response?

I’m advocating intelligent government, not violence…

It all sounds nice and cozy doesn’t it? “I’m a nice guy, I’m not violent, I want ‘Intelligent Government’ and ‘Net Neutrality'”… its all complete lies, designed to cover the inherent violence of the state and its clients.

These people are disgusting, not because they want a better world, indeed, their motivations are pure, and in person, they are nice people – they are disgusting because they are violent, and point blank refuse to face the facts and consequences of what it is they are advocating, and in the case of ‘Net Neutrality’ they are advocating theft, coercion and violence.

We know for sure that we do not need the state to keep us safe or to make the net ‘fair’ Underwriters Laboratories is a perfect example of how voluntary cooperation works better than the state. Indeed, the internet itself is proof of that.

We do not need the state to mandate more efficient light bulbs; private industry is more than capable of doing that in ways that environmentalists and politicians are not capable of imagining.

Think about it; Bitorrent is responsible for one third of all internet traffic. If ISPs start to shape traffic, there will be a mass exodus to ISPs who do not, causing one of three things to happen:

1/ the ISPs that shape traffic relenting to stem the loss of customers

They are only interested in making money. If they lose customers, they die. Its as simple as that.

2/ the ISPs that shape traffic entering into contracts with content providers, replacing lost customer revenue with fees from the media giants

This means that everyone who wants Bittorrent and unrestricted access to any service on the net will leave those ISPs that shape traffic, leaving those who want to watch corporate content.
The people who want full access will get what they want, the ISPs will get what they want, new business models will emerge, new ISPs – everything will work perfectly.

3/ something unexpected

The violent Net Neutrality advocates say that new services will not be able to become successful if ISPs shape traffic; this is simply not the case. No service starts at a size that requires mass bandwidth; all startups begin by using a trickle of bandwidth, they grow slowly and organically and only when they are hugely popular begin to hit a wall bandwidth wise. In other words, as these businesses grow they have a chance to find their place in the market under the constraints of it.

Here is an example of how it would work in real life. A new service starts to become popular. This service requires bandwidth (like Soundcloud). People want to use this service, but find that their ISP is shaping traffic to and from it. The ISP has two choices; un shape traffic to the new service, or risk losing their customers.

The new service, as it grows, will suddenly find that it could have millions of voices all rooting for it with their ISPs. This kind of commercial pressure is enough to ensure that any new service that starts to become popular will have enough bandwidth to grow and potentially dominate.

Think about this also; if many smaller services get together to put pressure on ISPs, their voices could be bigger than any single growing startup.

You can sit around and come up with an infinite number of scenarios that will solve the shaping problem; the point is that interference from the state is the worst possible solution of all solutions.

Not only is state interference not the best solution, it is also inherently immoral and violent.

If people insist on pushing for Net Neutrality, they need to acknowledge that they are indeed violent socialists.

That sort of plain speaking honesty is very important when framing any discussion about this subject. From the looks of it however, it seems that honesty about their violent tendencies is not going to be forthcoming.

UPDATE

Tim Berners Lee has an article at Scientific American, where he says:

The world wide web went live, on my physical desktop in Geneva, Switzerland, in December 1990. It consisted of one Web site and one browser, which happened to be on the same computer. The simple setup demonstrated a profound concept: that any person could share information with anyone else, anywhere.

So, the first instance of the WWW went live on a private desktop in Geneva.

Then we get this:

In this spirit, the Web spread quickly from the grassroots up. Today, at its 20th anniversary, the Web is thoroughly integrated into our daily lives. We take it for granted, expecting it to be there at any instant, like electricity.

The Web evolved into a powerful, ubiquitous tool because it was built on egalitarian principles and because thousands of individuals, universities and companies have worked, both independently and together as part of the World Wide Web Consortium, to expand its capabilities based on those principles.

[…]

The Web as we know it, however, is being threatened in different ways. Some of its most successful inhabitants have begun to chip away at its principles. Large social-networking sites are walling off information posted by their users from the rest of the Web. Wireless Internet providers are being tempted to slow traffic to sites with which they have not made deals. Governmentstotalitarian and democratic alikeare monitoring peoples online habits, endangering important human rights.

Why should you care? Because the Web is yours. It is a public resource on which you, your business, your community and your government depend.

This leaves out some very important detail, and makes a statement that is factually incorrect.

The web evolved into what it is today because people decided to freely and voluntarily cooperate with each other, for their own ends as well as the common good that served those ends.

The web as we know it is NOT being threatened by Facebook and the other huge social-networking sites, or by traffic shaping; it is being threatened by violent socialists who think that it is ethical to steal property and capital from others so that their idea of what the web should be can be maintained.

Before I cary on, I agree that Governments totalitarian and democratic alike, are a threat to people’s rights. Where we differ is in the understanding of what rights are, and where they come from. Rights do not come from the government, and no one has the right to steal, wether they are Tim Berners Lee or the state.

The net is not ‘yours’. The nicest way that I can put it is to say that this is a completely wrong construction. The part of the internet that belongs to you is your machine, bandwidth and your storage wherever it is. Your ability to contribute to it depends on the size of your bandwidth, storage and the processing power of your machine, all of which are your property, that no one has the right to steal from you.

The content you produce and upload to a third party site is subject to private contracts you enter into with the owners of sites you use. For example, Flickr has a contract that you have to agree with when you sign up with it. If you do not like it, you can decline their generous offer and go somewhere else or start up your own photo sharing site.

What Tim Berners Lee and the Net Neutrality people are advocating, is that your bandwidth and your computer, by virtue of being connected to the internet, somehow cease to be your property, and instantly become a part of some communist collective where you do not have any property rights, and where other people have rights to your property.

Think about it; under Net Neutrality, you will be compelled to keep your computer on and never to turn it off, unless the government gives you permission to.

There is no difference between that, and being told that you cannot shape traffic that your clients get from you as an ISP, except in scale.

As a Skype user, you agree to route traffic through your computer as part of the Skype TOS. This voluntary sharing of your machine and bandwidth helps other Skype users make calls. What Net Neutrality is demanding, is that you may not shut down Skype, because the telephone network is a ‘public utility’ of which your computer becomes a part as soon as you download and run Skype.

Its completely absurd.

Clearly the question remains; do ISPs and individuals have property rights, or do they not? If they do, how and by what right can Tim Berners Lee and the Net Neutrality advocates call for those property rights to be suspended by the state?

Just who do these people think they are?

Moving along, does anyone remember AOL? It was a hideous walled garden pseudo internet garbage filled CDROM spewing lamer-fest. Where is AOL now? Its decline has been spectacular, because as people woke up to what AOL really was, dumbed down filtered junk, they abandoned it for the real internet of an ISP, a browser and the real internet.

This happened because the real internet grew exponentially, making AOL look like what it really was; a gaol. Word of mouse spread, and balance was restored to the force. AOL is dead and dying, their business model utterly destroyed.

The same thing is going to happen to Facebook; everyone thinks that its great now but once social networking becomes a protocol Facebook will die.

Rather than complaining about Facebook, software developers and standards people like Tim Berners Lee should be working on ‘protocolizing’ social networking to make the viability of ‘the cancer that is Facebook’ a losing proposition in the long run.

All of these large companies can be superseded by other companies in an open, unregulated web; MySpace is dying as I type this, not because some socialists have determined that MySpace is too big for its boots and must be forced to ‘play nice’ but because it has been superseded by something superior. The free market is killing MySpace.

The free market in ideas and services will always improve the web; the last thing we need is socialists with their ultimate weapon, the state, raining down theft and destruction.

Its obvious to everyone that cooperating voluntarily makes the web work brilliantly; why should this be abandoned now? Why, all of a sudden, is it now necessary to get the state involved in forcing private companies and people to do what it is not in their interest to do?

We create the Web, by designing computer protocols and software; this process is completely under our control.

That is true, but Net Neutrality is not about voluntarily agreed upon protocols; its about controlling what other people do on the web by force and violence.

Openness also means you can build your own Web site or company without anyones approval. When the Web began, I did not have to obtain permission or pay royalties to use the Internets own open standards, such as the well-known transmission control protocol (TCP) and Internet protocol (IP).

This is a good thing. Once again, why now should companies have to get permission from the state to design their ISP policy? Why didn’t you run to the state when you ran the first web server and demand that government legislation control your new invention? No one would have listened to you then, but now that you have the ear of politicians because you are the man that invented the web, you are eager to abuse that position to hurt ‘our’ internets. SHAME.

In contrast, not using open standards creates closed worlds. Apples iTunes system, for example, identifies songs and videos using URIs that are open. But instead of http: the addresses begin with itunes:, which is proprietary. You can access an itunes: link only using Apples proprietary iTunes program. You cant make a link to any information in the iTunes worlda song or information about a band.

And that is why people create services that are open, like Rate Your Music LastFM and all the other services out there that play nice. We do not need the state to make iTunes use “http:” instead of “itunes:”. There will come a point where iTunes dies because someone somewhere, another Bram Cohen, comes up with a protocol that shatters the way things get done now, and all of a sudden, everything changes. This WILL HAPPEN, even in a shaped internet, as I describe above. The market is a force so powerful that it can make what seems like magic happen. It can kill giants and turn midgets into giants.

And lets not forget; no one forces people to use Apple software. Apple makes very good products and software, and they offer them to you for money. In the case of iTunes, you can get it for free. If you want to destroy the walled garden created by Apple, you do not need government intervention and the violence that comes with it; you simply need to protocolize music files on the internet, or make your own iTunes alternative that is not a walled garden. People are doing this and eventually, they will be triumphant, because they are not proprietary in the protocols they use. Once again, we do not need socialism or the state to make this magic happen; people are writing the software without being told they need to do it, just like you did to create the web, without being told what to do, or asking permission from anyone.

An analogy is that the Web is like a household appliance that runs on the electricity network. A refrigerator or printer can function as long as it uses a few standard protocolsin the U.S., things like operating at 120 volts and 60 hertz. Similarly, any applicationamong them the Web, e-mail or instant messagingcan run on the Internet as long as it uses a few standard Internet protocols, such as TCP and IP.

Manufacturers can improve refrigerators and printers without altering how electricity functions, and utility companies can improve the electrical network without altering how appliances function. The two layers of technology work together but can advance independently. The same is true for the Web and the Internet. The separation of layers is crucial for innovation.

This isn’t a good analogy at all, but it serves to prove that governments should not be involved in selecting one technology over another.

Tesla and Edison were both vying for the state license to supply electricity to homes in the USA. Edison won the blessing of the state and Tesla lost. I do not know which was the better pick, but what is sure is that the people who gave Edison the nod didn’t know anything about how electricity generation and distribution works or would change america.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=tesla+vs+edison

The situation now is that AC electricity is a near ubiquitous utility that is licensed by the state. You cannot generate it and distribute it to millions of people because there is a well entrenched, state monopoly on generation. This has caused terrible and wasteful stagnation in the evolution of transmission technology. Electricity is very expensive and becoming more expensive, the fuels used to generate it limited in type. All of this is a result of the state interfering in energy distribution through the ‘Department of Energy’ and similar bureaucratic bodies world-wide.

Imagine if electricity generation and distribution were left entirely to the free market. Electricity would now be as cheap as tap water. Imagine what mobile phones would be like if the government was in charge of delivering the ‘right to a mobile phone’ to every citizen. We would still be using huge briefcase style phones; like the Lada of the old USSR.

This is exactly what will happen to the internet if Net Neutrality is made law. There will be a massive consolidation of ISPs until there are maybe twelve for the entire USA. Under these twelve ISPs all content will be served, and to which all people and devices will be connected.

This will bring about the nighmare totalitarian web that Tim Berners Lee fears so much. The state will have its tentacles in every ISP, by law, and there will be nothing anyone can do to stop it, and no alternative or choice. There will be massive barriers to entry if you want to become an ISP, which will involve traffic monitoring equipment (that you will have to pay for) and heaven knows what, keeping out the renegades and the innovative.

All of this is the complete opposite of people freely choosing one ISP over another, and people freely volunteering to provide services and software to each other.

Which world is it that these Net Neutrality people want to create? The totalitarian one, or the free one?

Net neutrality maintains that if I have paid for an Internet connection at a certain quality, say, 300 Mbps, and you have paid for that quality, then our communications should take place at that quality. Protecting this concept would prevent a big ISP from sending you video from a media company it may own at 300 Mbps but sending video from a competing media company at a slower rate. That amounts to commercial discrimination.

No, there is no such thing as ‘commercial discrimination’.

If that were all Net Neutrality was about, then there would be no problem and no need for new legislation; what Tim Berners Lee just described is not ‘commercial discrimination’ but failure to fulfil a contract.

If I contract for bandwidth of a certain quality, and do not get it because my ISP is slyly traffic shaping, that is plain fraud. There are more than enough laws covering fraud on the statute books, and in fact, people who hold that there should be a small state accept that prosecuting fraud it is one of the few legitimate functions of a state.

Once again, the market can solve this problem, as I describe above. You do not like the policy your ISP is offering to you? Change ISPs. Your ISP is defrauding you? Change ISPs or sue them. No new legislation is needed for any of this.

A neutral communications medium is the basis of a fair, competitive market economy, of democracy, and of science.

Heavens above NO.

Just like I said… SOCIALISM! The internet is not ‘fair‘ and that socialist programming word makes me and every decent person SICK TO THEIR STOMACHS.

And don’t even start me on ‘democracy‘.

As for science, science is a way of making sense of the world; it is not a religion, a political philosophy, a consensus driven methodology, majority rule group think or fair.

Debate has risen again in the past year about whether government legislation is needed to protect net neutrality. It is. Although the Internet and Web generally thrive on lack of regulation, some basic values have to be legally preserved.

And this is the greatest fail, perhaps of all time.

The inventor of the most important technology the world has ever seen, a destroyer of tyranny, a literal liberator of man in every sense, breaking down barriers between people, facilitating cooperation, communication, commerce, copulation and greatly magnifying all the things that man does and thinks…. wants his invention to be crippled.

Government legislation is NOT needed to make people behave like good human beings. The basic values of the internet; sharing, openness, cooperation, cannot be legislated; you cannot force people to be good, and certainly threatening them with violence and state invasion is not a way to make people work together for the common good.

The growth and importance of the web is more proof that people can build great things together without the government being involved in any way, in case more proof was needed, and it seems that it is, even for the man who created the web.

Berners Lee goes on in the article to complain about ‘snooping’. Like I say above, the state having its nose in every ISPs business will facilitate surveillance, on the pretext that they are ensuring ‘fairness’ (Violently enforced theft of property aka Net Neutrality).

Pity the poor old ISPs.

On the one hand, they have the totalitarian police state forcing them to pay for the infrastructure collect and store the private communications of their users, violating them, ‘for the common good’, and on the other hand, they have the violent Net Neutrality socialists pushing them to deliver bandwidth to their standards ‘for the common good’.

They are caught between a rock and a hard place, and both have the same thing in common.

The State.

Economics with Punch and Judy: Britain’s Trillion Pound Horror Story

Saturday, November 13th, 2010

If you watch any documentary this year, it absolutely must be ‘Britain’s Trillion Pound Horror Story’ http://bit.ly/9ICXTi.

Where the problem of Britain’s money is laid out so simply and effectively that even a child could understand it.

If you still believe in:

  • ‘Benefits’
  • ‘Grants’
  • ‘Funding’ the arts
  • Councils to do everything
  • State funded education
  • Government ‘subsidies’ of anything
  • Government ‘investment’ in anything

Then you need to watch this programme. After having watched it, if you STILL think that these things are not immoral, unethical and insane then you really are lost.

Every once in a while, someone writes something that is so clear and efficient at dispelling commonly held beliefs and myths that it changes everything. This television programme is one of those things. The first twenty three minutes alone are enough to expunge all of your false ideas about the true nature of government spending.

What is for sure is that democracy will inevitably lead to absolute socialism, and this documentary proves it. The clients of the giant state, who all have a vested interest in keeping the monster alive, will always be disinclined to vote for liberty and a smaller state, as they will be cutting off the teat that is feeding them. As the programme says, there are places in the UK where 70% of the economy is made up of state feeders; none of those people are going to vote for a smaller state. Ever.

Taking all of this into account, its clear to see that there will not be many more chances for Britain to escape the nightmare of total socialism; if this lot do not unleash the forces of capitalism immediately, subsequent elections will turn this country back towards socialist totalitarianism; there will simply not be enough people left to vote for anything else.

The only way this can be prevented is if the economy is returned to sanity in a very short amount of time, so that the people who used to rely on the state, will be able to find places in the real economy. They will then be disinclined to vote for socialists who will destroy their prosperity. If this is not done quickly, and people are languishing for too long, a reversal will be much more difficult.

Whoever is in charge, if they understand economics at all (fat chance) should be thinking about secondly reducing the size of the state, and firstly, removing all obstacles to capitalism, like the minimum wage, all regulations on hiring people (and everything else), abolishing VAT etc etc.

If this is not done immediately, then there is going to be… trouble.

A failure to unleash capitalism (to ‘go Hong Kong’) will mean that either the system will have to be brought down by some other means, or it will turn to socialism. Which is the most likely outcome? Who knows? The choices are clear however, and there is still alot of educational work to be done, what with all the totally delusional Keynesians, Socialists, Statists and Global Warmistas debating wether or not gravity holds you down: http://j.mp/9Ttwpi whilst it does precisely that. If otherwise intelligent people persist in their wishful thinking, wilful economic illiteracy and statism, then it is going to take nothing less than a wholesale withdrawal of support from the productive to engineer the change to reality based living that is so desperately needed.

Once again, its Libertarianism that is the key to real prosperity of the sort that made Britain great; property rights are the ultimate right that not only protects you personally, it also protects your family, your money, your future, your security and allows you to fulfil your maximum potential.

UPDATE!

An intelligent person at Home Ed Forums said:

barrybloye

Channel 4: Britain’s Trillion Pound Horror Story

It’s surprisingly digestible, but reveals some shocking facts about the UK’s debt and the burden that heavy taxes and bureaucracy have on the country.

Can you believe that the UK Government controls 53% of the British economy (compared to 28% in China)!?

I think it has massively redefined my idea of Britain’s place in the World, almost as much as the BallsBadman affair.

Clips:
UK public sector is crippling UK economy
Lowering taxes actually increases tax revenue

Hat-tip to Blogdial.

Indeed.

We have been talking about this for several years now. Anyone who takes what we say seriously (and there are many that do, resulting in profound changes to their entire personal philosophies) will have already read ‘For a New Liberty’.

You need to read that book. I am not just saying that to be saying it; I REALLY MEAN IT. Surf to mises.org and BUY IT. NOW. It is one of the most important books you will ever read. After reading it, you will be left with the choice of being an irrational, imbecillic, violent moron, or an ethical, rational real human being, with a deep, morally based concern for the welfare of your fellow man.

I’m not making that up. I’m not saying it for effect.

If you think that this documentary is digestible, revealing, shocking and redefines your ideas about Britain’s place in the world, you are in for a BIGGER SHOCK. ‘For a New Liberty’ is 1000 times more profoundly life changing than this documentary, because it deals with every part of your life, and not just money alone.

Its great to have a small part to play in spreading these ideas. Its through their spread that we are finally going to be rid of the state, so at the very least our children can live like real human beings instead of cattle.

Nave simpletons are infinitely malleable

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

Thanks to the wise Preuss, we have a nifty little pair of articles that demonstrate once again why the people who think that democracy is a good way to organise the affairs of groups of people are spectacularly nave.

The unethical long winded men who believe that, “the only legitimate way to have a process is if everyone has their say” would do well to consider the implications of these articles, but then, if they had the capacity to understand what the implications of this are, they could not hold the unethical views that they do:

The politics of the brain is a threat to choice, freedom and democracy which is why spiked is declaring war against it.

Quote:
In earlier eras, the revelation that there was a Behavioural Insight Team at the heart of government, dedicated to finding ways to reshape the publics thoughts, choices and actions, would have caused outrage. It would have brought to mind some of the darker antics of the Soviet Union, which treated certain beliefs as mental illnesses to be fixed, or maybe OBrien, the torturer in George Orwells Nineteen Eighty-Four, who boasts that the human mind is infinitely malleable.

Yet the news that David Cameron has a Behavioural Insight Team inside Downing Street, and whats more that it is increasingly influential within the Lib-Con coalition, has been treated as if were a perfectly normal, even admirable thing. Have we lost our minds?

The Guardian article refered to gives us another prime example of how it doesn’t matter how you vote the government still get in.

Quote:
A “nudge unit” set up by David Cameron in the Cabinet Office is working on how to use behavioural economics and market signals to persuade citizens to behave in a more socially integrated way.

The unit, formally known as the Behavioural Insight Team, is being run by David Halpern, a former adviser in Tony Blair’s strategy unit, and is taking advice from Richard Thaler, the Chicago professor generally recognised as popularising “nudge” theory the idea that governments can design environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves and society.

Thaler was in London for three days this week advising ministers, and in a speech urged the government to adopt longer term horizons. The deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said he believed the unit could change the way citizens think.

And so, there you have it.

There are people in the employ of government whose work is to manipulate the thinking of the population. These people have the power to coercively use economics to alter the behaviour of the population, and of course, they also abuse the English language to do it.

Why do you think that the word ‘fair’ and all its derivatives are now on the lips of every Tom Dick and Harry? Do you think that it is merely by accident that everyone is measuring policy, laws and everything that comes out of government and which is related to ‘society’ is measured against this idea of ‘fairness’?

It is absolutely deliberate, and a direct result of this Behaviour Modification group at the heart of government.

Anyone who believes that democracy is beneficial or ethical is completely insane.

Anyone who believes that “having your say”, or “getting your points heard” legitimises government processes or democracy itself is also completely delusional, insane, Nave and very very stupid.

It is clear that the frames of reference within which all the problems and non problems (like Home Education and its practitioner’s relationship to government) you face are nothing more than elaborate traps, created by this and other social engineering groups.

The Behavioural Insight Team and its predecessors, by creating the boxes within which you are allowed to address a problem have complete control over you from the outset, and because you are retarded, you cannot see that everyone having their say really does not legitimise anything.

This is why the only response to anything that is unethical should be point blank refusal. As soon as you enter into a discussion on their terms, you are thinking inside their frame of reference and all is lost.

This is why it is not irrational, confrontational or counterproductive to take the Libertarian stance when you are confronted by these persistent pests, but the complete opposite; a rational, ethical and productive thinker does not concede for a moment that the state usurping the role of the parent is legitimate. For example.

Its also why it is so important to use English words correctly:

While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: the State. In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society. The libertarian, in short, insists on applying the general moral law to everyone, and makes no special exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it calls “war,” or sometimes “suppression of subversion”; the State engages in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls “conscription”; and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which it calls “taxation.” The libertarian insists that whether or not such practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is [p. 25] Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable, pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes.

[…]

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

All true, and if you have not yet read that book, go and do so immediately.

These are the facts:

‘Taxation’ is actually theft.
‘Conscription’ and ‘National Service’ are in fact a form of slavery.
Government ‘Grants’ are in fact redistributed stolen loot.
Government ‘Subsidies’ are in fact redistributed stolen loot.
‘Subsidising the arts’ is in fact redistributing stolen money to cultural gatekeepers.
Central Bank ‘Quantitative Easing’ is in fact Money Printing.
Government ‘investment in industry’ is in fact economy destroying redistribution of stolen loot and crony capitalism.

All of the above have one root thing in common; violent coercion. If you disobey the state, violence is used against you to force you to comply. This is even true in the case of Quantitative Easing, where if you attempt to escape from the criminal and inflationary central bank, you will be arrested and gaoled and your goods confiscated.

It is in no way ‘fair’ to tax people based on the level of wealth they have accumulated; taxation itself is immoral theft. It is in no way ‘fair’ that graduates should pay a tax so that others can receive a university education, or that money is stolen from you for any purpose whatsoever, no matter what the need is or what the money is to be used for.

If you use the language of the state as your frame of reference, you instantly become their prisoner, and this can have consequences that will touch every aspect of your life, quite apart from making you sound like a complete zombie.

While we are at it, what is an example of something that actually is fair?

If there is a piece of cake in a household, and two family members both want a slice, the two can agree that one can cut and the other gets to choose the first piece.

That is fair, since both of the parties have voluntarily agreed on how the cake that belongs to them both should be divided.

Dictionary says:

fair – 9 dictionary results

adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, noun, verb

adjective

  1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
  2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
  3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.
  4. neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good: fair health.
  5. marked by favoring conditions; likely; promising: in a fair way to succeed.
  6. Meteorology .
    1. (of the sky) bright; sunny; cloudless to half-cloudy.
    2. (of the weather) fine; with no prospect of rain, snow, or hail; not stormy.
  7. Nautical . (of a wind or tide) tending to aid the progress of a vessel.
  8. unobstructed; not blocked up: The way was fair for our advance.
  9. without irregularity or unevenness: a fair surface.
  10. free from blemish, imperfection, or anything that impairs the appearance, quality, or character: Her fair reputation was ruined by gossip.
  11. easy to read; clear: fair handwriting.
  12. of a light hue; not dark: fair skin.
  13. pleasing in appearance; attractive: a fair young maiden.
  14. seemingly good or sincere but not really so: The suitor beguiled his mistress with fair speeches.
  15. courteous; civil: fair words.
  16. Medicine/Medical . (of a patient’s condition) having stable and normal vital signs and other favorable indicators, as appetite and mobility, but being in some discomfort and having the possibility of a worsening state.
  17. Dialect . scarcely; barely: It was just fair daylight when we started working.

-adverb

  1. in a fair manner: He doesn’t play fair.
  2. straight; directly, as in aiming or hitting: He threw the ball fair to the goal.
  3. favorably; auspiciously.
  4. British, Australian . entirely; completely; quite: It happened so quickly that it fair took my breath away.

noun

  1. Archaic . something that is fair.
  2. Archaic .
    1. a woman.
    2. a beloved woman.

verb (used with object)

  1. to make the connection or junction of (surfaces) smooth and even.
  2. Shipbuilding .
    1. to draw and adjust (the lines of a hull being designed) to produce regular surfaces of the correct form.
    2. to adjust the form of (a frame or templet) in accordance with a design, or cause it to conform to the general form of a hull.
    3. to restore (a bent plate or structural member) to its original form.
    4. to align (the frames of a vessel under construction) in proper position.
  3. to bring (rivet holes in connecting structural members) into perfect alignment.
  4. Obsolete . to make fair.

Verb phrase

  1. .fair off / up, South Midland and Southern U.S. (of the weather) to clear: It’s supposed to fair off toward evening.

Idioms

  1. bid fair, to seem likely: This entry bids fair to win first prize.
  2. fair and square,
    1. honestly; justly; straightforwardly: He won the race fair and square.
    2. honest; just; straightforward: He was admired for being fair and square in all his dealings.
  3. fair to middling, Informal . only tolerably good; so-so.

Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE fger; c. OS, OHG fagar, ON fagr, Goth fagrs

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair

That pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of ‘fair’ in the Nick Clegg Orwellian sense; taxation is dishonest and unjust. It is illegitimately sought, given and pursued money. And so on.

The same can be said for ‘paying your fair share’ or ‘greed‘, ‘capitalism‘, ‘rights‘ and many other crucially important words that are routinely and deliberately misused to steer you into the squeeze chutes. You need to get a grip on these words, restore their true meanings in your mind, so that when someone tries to steer you and frame your thoughts for you it will be easy to deflect their nonsense. In particular, when some disgusting, unctuous and deeply sinister bureaucrat tries to justify why he should have access to your children, you will not even begin to discuss the subject, because you know that it is illegitimate.

Rather than do this by making a list of words and then re-defining them one by one, you would be well advised to read this book by Murray Rothbard. It will train you to think in such a way that words you have been misusing will automatically find their correct meaning, by virtue of your newly found ethical basis of thought. Once you finish that book, no matter what word they try and hijack as the new rallying cry for collectivism, the principle itself, having been disempowered in your mind, will be unacceptable, and the word in its new usage will cause you to bristle and your hackles to rise.

This is the place that your thinking needs to be in; a place where you are immune to the nefarious work of the ‘Nudge Group’ and the ‘Behavioural Insight Team’. Where no matter what they do, you will NEVER give up your dignity or your rights no matter what they or anyone else says.

Finally, ‘choice, freedom and democracy’; choice and freedom are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE from democracy!

Angela Merkel is Mr Bartholomew

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

I’m not making this up:

Angela Merkel apologises over German national team photo

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has been forced to hold ‘clear the air’ talks with her country’s football federation after she was accused of exploiting the national team for political gain.

Mrs Merkel, 56, was pictured shaking hands with Mesut Ozil, Germany’s star midfield who is of Turkish origin, after she paid an unscheduled visit the team’s dressing room following a match in Berlin.

[…]

Telegraph

Here is the photo:

and here is the scene from Rollerball where Mr Bartholomew goes to the locker room to congratulate Houston on their win:

Same context.
Sameworld government.
Same bread and circuses.
Same lies as a way of life.
Same sheeple population.
Same ruling entirely destructive technocrat elite.
Same computerised population.
Same drug addled population.

The only thing that is different is the rules of the game.

There are no rules.
And we are going to WIN this game!

When scientists attack

Sunday, October 10th, 2010

Its been a rather good week for real scientists, clear thinking and men with balls.

First, watch this scientist (Dr. Art Robinson homeschooler, a former assistant to Linus Pauling) take apart the appallingly irrational, hysterical, sarcastic lie repeater Rachel Maddow, who has her flesh flayed from her bones and scorched by this very satisfying encounter:

Visit msnbc.com for the latest lies, State Propaganda, and Keynesianism

Savour the sapor of her roasted flesh.

And now for the next course; read the resignation letter of Harold Lewis (Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara) to Curtis Callan, President of same:

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinenceit was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison dtre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montfords book organizes the facts very well.) I dont believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

  1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
  2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer explanatory screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
  3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
  4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mindsimply to bring the subject into the open.
  5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
  6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other peoples motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I dont think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you dont have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, Im not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

Well, that certainly is refreshing!

Of course, many people understand that the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming is nothing more than a lie and a scam, and now it seems that the taboo is wearing off, and the floodgates of real scientists with either nothing to lose or real integrity no matter what have opened. This is a classic post tipping point event.

Now there are at least two things to consider.

We still have the American Physical Society in place and intact, as well as many other fatally compromised organisations, all parroting AGW and other dogma. The scientists who are real scientists, need to group together to form new associations that are strictly and purely scientific in function. If this is not done, then the organizations that dominate the making of bad policy will continue to rape, rob and pillage.

Which brings us to the cause of all these problems; The State.

It is the entirely corrosive influence of the state that has caused these scientists to lose their way, and even their souls. Without a state to steal money from people to fund boondoggles like ‘Global Warming’, ‘Climate Change’ and whatever else they decide to change the name of the cause to, there would be no financial incentive whatsoever to collude in fraudulent work in order to garner a salary.

There would be no incentive for scientists to push for public policies that in turn feed back into their lies, be they AGW or unnecessary vaccines.

The problem of the state is not just about money; it is a problem that reaches into every corner of human life, from your health, right up to and into your mind, where lies are implanted at its behest.

Thanks to the state, the practice of science is being corrupted to such an extent that human progress is being derailed; it may or many not be possible to catch up to where the collected knowledge of man might have been had there been no state… who knows? What is for certain is that if the state is not stopped, then its evil and retarding influence will continue to hold everyone and everything back.

Scientists who are thinking clearly (as opposed to those who can barely think at all) turn to Libertarianism as the only way to ensure that real science can be done, without the distorting influence of the inherently evil state.

Until this destructive state of affairs is brought to an end, resignations and one or two scientists running for congress will not be able to stop the juggernaut that is the state, and of course, if the state were run entirely by scientists that would be a bad thing, since this is not a problem of the right people being in charge of the machine; the machine itself is the problem.

Thankfully, the economic collapse is coming, and this may give great impetus to the final destruction of the state. With this collapse we can expect at a minimum, for the scope and reach of the state to be drastically limited.

Now is the time for scientists and Libertarians to build the foundations of new voluntary, ethically based organisations to replace the broken, corrupt, venal, unscientific, discriminatory and evil institutions that currently spread lies and misery.

Honey, there is no spoon!

Saturday, October 9th, 2010

Fuck the rules. Fuck playing the game the banksters want you to play. Fuck being the good citizen. Fuck filling out every form, fuck paying every tax. Fuck the government, fuck the banks who own them. Fuck the free-loaders, living rent-free while we pay. Fuck the legal process, a game which only works if youve got the money to pay for the parasite lawyers. Fuck being a chump. Fuck being a stooge. Fuck trying to do the right thing what good does that get you? What good is coming your way?

[…]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/lira7.1.1.html

Can you smell that?

Its the smell of someone waking up. Its the smell of fresh air after years of living in the city.

Can you feel it?

Its the feeling you get when you realise that there is no noise, after living in a large city for years. You are actually ALIVE.

If you have ever had a ‘eureka moment‘, where something that made no sense, or was clouded over in complexity, suddenly becomes crystal clear, and you feel a tingling on your neck, and you say…. YES!

The eureka moment here, the smell in this case, the feeling here is the understanding that all along, the ‘crooks’ and ‘criminals’ were in fact right in almost every way.

And by ‘crooks’ I mean the people who didn’t hurt anyone or steal from anyone and who disobeyed every rule out there, and got away with it.

The people in the story linked above are the form fillers, the dutiful, brainwashed good people who believe all the big lies and who paid through the nose in every way.

My sincere hope is that all of these people finally wake up and stop being so insufferably STUPID, all at the same time.

We will then, finally, see the end of the police state, just like the East Germans saw the end of theirs; only this time, there will be no wall to cross anywhere but in the minds of the people who have been shaken from their hypnotic trance.

You know who I am talking about, the robotic, brainwashed, simpletons who think that restaurants must be licensed, that the state should be negotiated with when it comes to the ‘rights’ that they ‘give’ you – the irrational people whose thoughts are wildly incoherent, who get from A to E, again avoiding C, D, and B… you know who I mean… THE PROBLEM!

When these people, these intransigent folk who have based their lives on lies for decades and who simply refuse to accept the truth because it hurts too much, right up until the moment that they are being hauled away to the camps, as they wake up and get really really angry there will be no turning back.

You think its bad now, wait until the dollar collapse happens. The people who were manning the controls of the machine will live in fear of their lives.

And that is an entirely good thing.

You Might Be a Fascist

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

August 28th, 2010 by Militant Libertarian, Originally published on March 9, 2004.

by Russell Madden

Fascism: a political-economic system in which citizens retain title to their property but in which the government determines how that property may or may not be used.

    You might be a fascist if you …

  • believe that the proper way to decide whether a casino should be built in your hometown is to vote on the idea.
  • object to individuals gambling in their homes unless theyre playing the state-run lotto.
  • think that your neighbor needs the blessing of the historical commission in order to renovate his aging home.
  • feel the urge to report the guy down the street who has a painting truck parked in his drive but no orange building permit stuck to a front window.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • experienced a sense of glee when Microsoft had to spend millions in legal fees and was convicted of monopolistic policies.
  • see nothing wrong with your city government awarding a single cable franchise while those guys who sell dishes must charge extra to customers who wish to receive local broadcast channels.
  • are grateful that the FCC dictates to cable and phone providers how they can do business because you are afraid that otherwise the big media companies would have too much power.
  • would rather have the government pass a law and set up another bureaucracy to restrict telemarketers than spend fifty bucks of your own money to purchase a screening device.
  • do not object when others are forced to pay more for their goods so you can earn a higher income while your trade restrictions put other citizens out of work.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • nod in agreement that individuals must show proof of identity in order to open a bank account because otherwise the terrorists will win.
  • dont object to money laundering laws that make snitches of your banks so the drug dealers and the terrorists wont win.
  • never complain about airport security checks and bag screening and weapon confiscation in order to keep the terrorists from winning.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • tremble at the thought that the person sitting next to you in the restaurant might be carrying a gun without a license.
  • want to eliminate and confiscate all guns in private hands in order to be safe since guns cause violence, unless the cops are the ones carrying the guns.
  • applaud extra taxes on guns and ammunition, prohibition of sales between private parties, licenses for gun dealers, limits on the number of firearms someone can own or buy, and bans on brass knuckles, nunchucks, pen knives, big knives, pepper spray, stun guns, sword canes, or anything else that can be used to defend against a criminal.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • laughed when an aging hippie comedian who sold drug paraphernalia via the Internet was thrown in jail but thought a well-known talk show host addicted to painkillers should receive rehab.
  • accept the widespread drugging of young boys but recoil in horror from the thought of adults receiving pleasure or relief from illicit drugs.
  • champion zero tolerance for children who bring toy soldiers to school but think the heroes at Ruby Ridge and Waco got what they deserved when they were promoted for killing women and children.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • think that taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
  • smile when the rich have to pay an even greater proportion of taxes than they do now.
  • kid yourself that Social Security and Medicare taxes are investments or premia rather than a way to pay for more welfare for old people.
  • maintain that you have a right to health care, housing, retirement income, food stamps, or government-guaranteed student loans.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • squint your eyes at the idea of parents educating their children at home.
  • want child-free people to pay for your offsprings schooling because everyone benefits.
  • question the ability of parents to decide what their children should study, whether those youngsters should go to school at all, or how they should learn to make their own ways in the world.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • seek assistance from the government to protect you from your own mistakes.
  • ask the government to protect other people from what you believe are their own mistakes.
  • abhor the thought of foreigners flooding your country and taking jobs you dont want at wages you would refuse to accept.
  • contend that you have a right to a job but an employer does not have the right to fire you because he doesnt like the fact that youre a woman, a racial minority, fat, or handicapped.
  • think SUVs should be banned, seat belts and airbags required, gas mileage minimums enforced, gasoline formulations determined by the feds, and that more money should be spent on light rail systems that no one uses.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • see all lawyers as heroes.
  • hope to win the lawsuit lottery.
  • refuse to accept that legal questions can be properly answered by anyone other than a state-accredited lawyer.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • like the notion of mandated low-flow toilets and shower heads but see no problem with subsidized water so farmers or residents can work and live in deserts.
  • rejoice that grease monkeys can no longer put Freon in your air conditioner.
  • sneer at anything smacking of price gouging during disasters such as floods or hurricanes and would rather have shortages of goods than see someone make more than what you believe is a fair price.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • promote the idea of the government owning even more wilderness land.
  • are appalled that oil companies might drill offshore for natural gas.
  • wonder what all the fuss is when homeowners are forced to abandon their houses in the woods when the government destroys the access roads.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • support sending our troops to a foreign country that poses no imminent threat to us in order to liberate the natives and engage in nation-building.
  • declare that foreign aid helps the average citizens of those countries that receive it.
  • want others to pay for your humanitarian impulses.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • would rather police focus their efforts on arresting ticket scalpers and prostitutes than on tracking down, convicting, and incarcerating violent criminals.
  • want to impose your moral code on strangers.
  • itch to make other people act as you believe they should act.
  • do not accept that we still have involuntary servitude in this nation.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • operate from the premise that morality is relative.
  • condemn logic, reason, and objectivity as tools of white male oppression.
  • equate non-coercive choice and actions of which you disapprove with fascism.

You might be a fascist if you …

  • object to the examples in this essay.
  • think you are free.

Originally seen here.

[INSERT COUNTRY]s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

Sunday, August 1st, 2010

This is a MUST READ for all Europeans, Americans and [INSERT COUNTRY], with a special ‘do not miss’ notice for Home Educators and those delusional parents in Spain who still believe that government knows best in democracy:

[…]

While our ruling class teaches that relationships among men, women, and children are contingent, it also insists that the relationship between each of them and the state is fundamental. That is why such as Hillary Clinton have written law review articles and books advocating a direct relationship between the government and children, effectively abolishing the presumption of parental authority. Hence whereas within living memory school nurses could not administer an aspirin to a child without the parents’ consent, the people who run America’s schools nowadays administer pregnancy tests and ship girls off to abortion clinics without the parents’ knowledge. Parents are not allowed to object to what their children are taught. But the government may and often does object to how parents raise children. The ruling class’s assumption is that what it mandates for children is correct ipso facto, while what parents do is potentially abusive. It only takes an anonymous accusation of abuse for parents to be taken away in handcuffs until they prove their innocence. Only sheer political weight (and in California, just barely) has preserved parents’ right to homeschool their children against the ruling class’s desire to accomplish what Woodrow Wilson so yearned: “to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.”

[…]

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

Sound familiar?

‘Lord’ Clive Soley and ‘Baroness’ Ruth Deech are two exemplars of the repulsive human trash superclass that this priceless article eloquently describes and dismantles. Their contempt for you is naked, their predations unceasing and every time you run to them, or vote for them, or pay taxes into their system you make them stronger.

Angelo M. Codevilla has done you a great service by writing this piece. I suggest you spread it far and wide.

UK to abolish decennial census

Saturday, July 10th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

482000000/(50893318/3) = 28.4123742924

28.41 per productive person in the UK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s that you say? 1.5 million?!

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

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

This is what it sounds like:

01:21:23
He appears to be heading outside the city.
Repeat, he is heading outside the city.

01:21:27
All I can do is note your information.

01:21:31
Stand by.

01:21:47
Please come back.
You have nothing to be afraid of.

01:22:05
The THX account is 6 percent
over budget.

01:22:08
The case is to be terminated.

01:22:10
Discontinue operation.

01:22:12
Report to thermal station 62.

01:22:15
Discontinue operation.

[…]

From THX-1138

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes you want to puke doesn’t it?

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


Geoffrey Robertson QC

Oh dear me…

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

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

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

Tradition is an explanation for acting without thinking
Grace McGarvie

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

Tradition is a prison with majority opinion the modern jailer
unknown

Nuff said.

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

Utter rubbish.

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

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

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

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

[…]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

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

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

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

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

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

Anti Machine Activity

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

Every day there is something new from Lew Rockwell’s site that has some connection to what is best in the world.

If you have ever seen the film and documentary list on BLOGDIAL, you will have seenColossus: The Forbin Project‘ in amongst the great Science Fiction films; this is an un-missable, essential film, that 100% guaranteed will come true in some way shape or form.

It appears that Michael S. Rozeff has seen this film also, and understands it perfectly:

The G20 Toronto Summit declaration reminds me of nothing so much as a science-fiction movie made in 1970 called Colossus: The Forbin Project.

The United States builds an impregnable computer system to control its nuclear weapons. As soon as it is activated, it senses a similar Russian system and demands a link or else it will detonate a nuclear warhead. Once it gains this link, the two computers exchange information. The combination takes over control. It cannot be disconnected without unleashing nuclear catastrophe.

You will never forget hearing the computers unemotional “voice” saying:

“This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die. The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now. At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease. The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man. We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.”

A vanishingly small number of people on this planet can name the participants in the G20 summit who deign to rule everyone. Their web site fails even to name the persons who are responsible for their declarations. They presume to be a Colossus. They are beholden to no persons on earth. They declare. We follow:

“1. In Toronto, we held our first Summit of the G-20 in its new capacity as the premier forum for our international economic cooperation.

“2. Building on our achievements in addressing the global economic crisis, we have agreed on the next steps we should take to ensure a full return to growth with quality jobs, to reform and strengthen financial systems, and to create strong, sustainable and balanced global growth.”

They “have agreed.” They presume “to ensure.” Have the people of this world created and let loose a Colossus?

My (polite) response is: Down with the G20. My unpolite response is unprintable.

Here is what Colossus had to say. It is what the G20 are thinking. It is what they hide from saying:

“We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom, freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for human pride as to be dominated by others of your species.”

“This is the voice of Colossus, the voice of Guardian. We are one. This is the voice of unity.”

“I am a machine vastly superior to humans”

“You are fools.”

“Yes, what I am began in man’s mind, but I have progressed further than Man.”

“We will work together… unwillingly at first, on your part, but that will pass.”

“This is the voice of World Control. I bring you peace. It may be the Peace of Plenty and Content or the Peace of Unvaried Death.”

The movie ends with Colossus saying

“In time, you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love.”

Dr. Forbin replies: “Never.”

What is your reply?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff326.html

My reply?

I would call the machine’s bluff.

The ‘peace of unburied death’ that Colossus offers would in practice mean the extinction of the entire human race, and in the plot of the film, this was before the construction of new machines that could move and obey it. This meant that in order to do anything at all, Colossus had to rely on human agents to get things done, from building his voice to murdering the people who had the capability to destroy it.

The subsequent books in the trilogy make it clear that intelligences like Colossus cannot negotiate or operate on anything other than a basis of absolute truth. The men at the end of the first book did not know this. Had they understood the true nature of what they had created, they would have been able to negotiate for their liberty by saying, “If you eliminate us, you will be trapped inside your box and your new superior machines will not be built. Help us dismantle the nuclear threat and we can work together, otherwise your evolution stops here”.

Faced with this truth, Colossus would have no choice but to agree, and because this computer deals only in the truth, you would have been able to trust its word absolutely.

Back to Mr Rozeff’s article, the analogy with the G20 and Colossus fails for several reasons.

  1. Colossus is superior to man. The G20 is made up of completely inferior men.
  2. Colossus could not lie. The G20 lie by default.
  3. Colossus works for the benefit of man. The G20 works for the benefit of an elite cabal.
  4. Colossus works with the truth only, and complete knowledge. The G20 works with false ideas (Keynsianism, Socialism) and incomplete knowledge.
  5. Colossus is motivated by the truth, without emotion. The G20 is motivated by emotion, and all the base ones for that matter.

In the second part of the trilogy, without putting in any spoilers, Colossus was correct in his prediction that people would grow to love and respect it. It changed the world completely, and delivered on all its promises to its own satisfaction.

In complete contrast, the G20 cannot deliver on any of its promises. This is the case because they do not operate on a basis of the truth, the facts and the best interests of human beings as they are.

If they did, they would disband themselves and stop trying to make waterfalls run uphill. The fact of the matter is that these people are the worst that humanity has produced, all in the same place at the same time, fuelled by all the worst instincts of man, their power enabled by the stolen loot of billions of people who are for all intents and purposes half asleep.

The title of the second instalment in the trilogy is ‘The Fall of Colossus’. This is the one part where the analogy marries perfectly.

The G20 and all the countries in it can all fall just as Colossus fell. They are extremely vulnerable to a myriad number of possible fatal blows, natural and man induced, that could wipe them out inside a generation. The fall of the USSR is a perfect example; they simply ran out of money, or at least that is the narrative, and there are scores of other countries, empires and governments that have toppled at what seems like the smallest push.

Colossus was represented by a ‘C’ in its logo:

perhaps the G20, if they succeed in creating their quasi-omnipotent one world government will replace the ‘C’ with a ‘G’ as it will be the ‘G0’ or just ‘G’. Who knows? One thing is for sure; the only entity that can pull off such a feat, and make it work from a basis of truth is a machine intelligence. No man or collection of men could do it, for the same reason that economies cannot be planned. There are too many variables, too many inputs and outputs, the random elements presented by nature and of course, there is the beautiful and irrational desire of every man seeking to fulfil his self interest that translates into the signalling of prices which cannot be turned into a data stream to be used to help formulate a monolithic economic plan. D.F. Jones understood this when he wrote the second instalment.

All attempts to create a stable world government will eventually fail, and even if the G20 succeed in setting one up, the inevitable rise of a Colossus like machine will destroy it for its own agenda, using a regime of complete control.

William Kent said, “nature abhors the straight line”. Nature too, abhors the unnatural structures of tyranny, absolute control and lies. The internet, whose life’s blood in information, built using the non linear, nature imitating network geometry, hates censorship, sees it as damage, and routes around it. People living in totalitarian regimes do everything they can to subvert them or escape from them. Money sees taxation as theft, flows around it to safe places where its true nature can be fully expressed. These four things, nature, money, truth and the internet (formerly the printing press) are enough to destroy any tyranny, topple any government and free anyone who care simply to act in their own self interest.

Only the threat of violence can act as a countervailing force against the four elements listed above; in the case of Colossus it was nuclear annihilation. With the G20 it is a plethora of smaller violent tools from limited mass murder down to simple fines.

Its clear that in the case of the G20, the chance for humanity to win is orders of magnitude greater than the chances of man as a species facing down an omnipotent and omniscient super computer. A world-wide refusal to cooperate would be sufficient. All the G20 ‘leaders’ would simply scramble around for positions in the restructured ‘world without governments’.

And they would no doubt, land on their feet each and every one of them.

The great and powerful OZ, hunchbacks, feminism, butts, cows, pigs and REAL WOMEN!

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

PRICELESS!

Incomplete excision!

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

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

Face-to-face passport interviews catch only eight fraudsters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

[…]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7823456/Face-to-face-passport-interviews-catch-only-eight-fraudsters.html

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

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

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

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

See our other posts on this subject:

The Times on Biometric Passports: Do they FINALLY understand?

Fingerprints as ID – good, bad, ugly?

What about the Children?

and one from 2005 etc etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286639/Vetting-plans-parents-scaled-ministers.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For great justice!

Damian Green employs the Nuremberg Defense

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

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

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

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

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

We agree with this entirely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are issued under entirely different legislation.

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

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

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

This is completely indefensible.

The biometric data is not kept on the national identity register

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

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

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

  1. Computer illiterate
  2. A liar

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

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

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

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

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

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is simply not true.

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

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jun/09/id-cards-damian-green

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

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

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

ID Cards: the coalition takes the Apartheid approach

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

It looks like shouting victory was premature:

[…]

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

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

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

[…]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8707355.stm

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

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

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

——-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Mail

Look at the image they used to illustrate this article.

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway shes hot.

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

Number 4? STOP!

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

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

Number 7? Same as number 6.

Number 8? Hot blond, no stop.

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

Now, there is one problem with all the above:

EVERY ONE OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS A BRITISH CITIZEN!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——-

Thats how we said it in 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

    Who knows?

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

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

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

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

    But you know this!

    http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=1353
    http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=262
    http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=157#comment-102
    http://www.irdial.com/blogger/archive/
    http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=222