The latest evil demon to bear its teeth and unsheathe its wickedness on the matter of Home Education is Ruth ‘Baroness’ Deech. She claims to be an ethicist. I put it to you that what she proposes by not only supporting this bill but calling for extensions to its core evils is unethical in the extreme.

First, lets do some easy picking apart.

In answer to a reply to her speech on the cruelly misnamed ‘They Work For you’ site, Ms Deech had this to say:

Ruth Deech
Posted on 9 Mar 2010 10:11 pm (Report this annotation)
It is insufficient to “take children’s rights seriously”, as home educators claim they do. Rights have to be enforceable by an authority outside the two parties involved, otherwise one is subject to the other. That is why we have a Bill of Human Rights. The same is true of “listening to the child’s voice” – there has to be a third party ensuring that that is the case.

[…]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2010-03-08a.106.0

There is much missing from this entirely insulting fob off. There are a raft of assumptions, assertions and nonsense that even people who have only a slight understanding of ethics would smell a rat at.

It is insufficient to “take children’s rights seriously”

Insufficient to whom? If it is sufficient for the parents, the owners of the children, then that is enough. Also, by leaving out ‘the’ before ‘children’s rights’ she is not talking about the natural human rights that inhere in each person, but the fallacious, suspicious and completely artificial ‘Rights of the Child’ concocted for the sole purpose of undermining the structure of family and giving access to children to paedophiles and the burgeoning ‘children’s industry’ that makes money from the existence children in a myriad number of ways.

as home educators claim they do

Home Educators are no different to parents who send their children to a school. There is absolutely no reason why Home Educators should come under this scrutiny. ‘We do not know what we do not know‘ is not sufficient cause to enact this legislation and to violate the homes of people who have done nothing wrong.

Rights have to be enforceable

Rights exist wether they are enforced or not. If the state creates the right to spinach, no doubt Ms Deech would claim that the mouths of all children must be opened under state supervision and that food be spooned in. The rights she is talking about are not real; they are fictions, concoctions and nonsense, no different to the utterly absurd ‘right to internet access‘ that is being trotted about.

Creating a right to internet access means that ISPs will be forced to provide minimum standards or even ‘free access’ (access at their expense) so that everyone can get online. With children’s rights it is access to the children of other people that is the goal, so that people are forced to conform to minimum standards set by the state at the expense of everyone’s liberty.

by an authority outside the two parties involved

Which two parties are under discussion? From our point of view, the family is a single party; the parents and their children are one unit. When the state makes demands of children (for example, to not be anti social) it is through the parents only; children are not able to take full responsibility for themselves or their actions; that responsibility falls to the parent, the owner of the child. It is completely illegitimate for the state to interpose itself between the parent and its children in the matter of education, diet, living arrangements, or any of these other purely private matters.

Some argue that a state is needed to be the protector of people’s rights. This is false. There have been stateless societies in the past that have existed for generations before being destroyed for one reason or another. A simple use of the Google will introduce you to the way it worked and will work.

By what authority does Ms Deech believe that she has the right to set herself up as the sole authority to act as arbiter and supporter of anyone’s rights? Why should everyone not be able to seek their own solutions to the problems that they have (or in this case, do not have). No matter what Deech says, a parent’s rights and wishes take precedence over her dark desires and prejudices.

It is clear that none of these people can be trusted; no reasonable person would put their children in the hands of the state. They lie, steal, murder, cheat, rape and expect to be paid and fawned over as compensation.

Ruth Deech and Mr Soley are not needed to ensure the safety or prosperity of anyone. They are not fit for purpose, unneeded and unwelcome, and I think that this is what rankles them the most; that there are thousands of people who exceed what their state can provide, who shun their predations and yet thrive. They prove that the state is not needed and this is why they must be utterly destroyed.

That is why we have a Bill of Human Rights.

Britain does not have a Bill of Human Rights of its own creation; it was forced upon this country by the EU. Even if Britain had created such a document for itself, if it lists rights that are the delusional fantasies of sick people whose Raison d’être is the control of other people, then such a document would not be worth the paper it is printed on.

The same is true of “listening to the child’s voice” – there has to be a third party ensuring that that is the case.

Once again, this line is from the family destroying paedophile’s charter. The parent is not trustworthy; only the monolithic, omniscient state can be relied upon to do this. It is utter nonsense of course, and even if it were true, we have seen during this annus horribilis that the people espousing this nonsense steadfastly refuse to take into account the wishes of children who have submitted their opinions when those opinions do not agree with submitting themselves for summary violation.

Note how there are now three parties, where before there were two parties.

You can’t make this stuff up!

Now on to the subject of this post; are the people in Parliament and the Lords ethical?

Ms Deech claims to be an ethicist. We note that she does not claim to be ethical merely that she has an understanding of the subject of ethics.

Lets assume that it is better to be ethical rather than unethical for the sake of this post; after all, it is not US who are after the children of other people. WE are the on the moral high ground in this matter from the off.

First, let us roughly define ethics:

Ethics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.

[…]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

and

… many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one’s feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.

Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.

Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the Apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.

Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing “whatever society accepts.” In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society.

Moreover, if being ethical were doing “whatever society accepts,” then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.

What, then, is ethics? Ethics … for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well founded reasons.

[…]

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.html

So, we can say that an ethical person (especially if that person is a public servant) in this context:

• does not rape (or facilitate rapists)
• does not steal
• does not murder
• does not assault
• does not slander
• does not commit fraud
• does not lie
• has compassion
• is loyal
• respects the right to privacy

Now.

The supporters of this bill are calling for access to children to be given to potential paedophiles against the wishes of parents, for no reason whatsoever, other than that they wish it.

We can say very certainly therefore, that:

• The supporters of this bill are going to steal money from constituents to make this bad magic happen.
• The majority of MPs voted for the unjustifiable calamity that is the invasion of Iraq, where over 600,000 people have been murdered
• The supporters of this bill are for the assault of children, since they are calling for force to be used to make them attend their schools.
• The supporters of this bill have slandered Home Educators.
• The supporters of this bill are basing the legislation on what some have called a fraudulent report.
• The supporters of this bill are basing the legislation on untruths about Home Education.
• Ms Deech shows a complete lack of compassion and empathy for the needs and right of others in her scandalous speech.
• The supporters of this bill who spoke against it but who voted for it under the whip are disloyal to their constituents.
• The supporters of this bill (and Deech in particular) do not respect the privacy of families. (ContactPoint).

These people including Ms Deech are the very definition of unethical.

They fail every test, are unethical by every measure. Even those in the house who are for Home Education are unethical, since they voted for a bad bill they knew was immoral and insupportable and which they did not in fact, support.

We can say for certain that violence against people and property that is not defensive is unethical. Anyone who participates in or orders the violent entering of another person’s home simply because the owner of that home does not conform to the prejudices and opinions of the violator is an unethical person.

Deech, Soley and all the other people who are calling for the registration, interrogation and violent kidnapping of children are unethical by definition, since violence will be used to make innocent, non agressing people obey their prejudices and unfounded beliefs.

There are no two ways about this. There is nothing at all wrong with expressing an opinion; everyone has the right to express their thoughts in any way they see fit. What is entirely unjustifiable to moral and ethical people is the use of force by the collective that has the exclusive monopoly on violence which Deech and Co control to make other people obey them.

This explains how the creation of false rights causes so many problems. If children have a right to education, and education is defined by the state, Deech and her cohorts, then they have a wide pretext for violating your family, in the most intrusive of manners, in the name of ‘protecting the innocent and defenceless’ where in fact no harm is taking place.

This is why it is so important to be able to define what rights are and what rights are not. When we define rights correctly, we find that there are a very small number of ‘root rights’ that inhere in you by virtue of your nature, that emerge as soon as you are alive and out of your mother’s womb. All of your freedoms derive from this small number of rights.

One of these rights is the right of property. The right of property has consequences that extend to every part of your life. Out of property rights comes your right to own the shirt on your back, and your right to fend off thieves who want to steal it from you. The most important of these real, natural rights is the property right you have in yourself; self ownership. From this right stems many of the other rights that are real; the right to free speech (someone stopping your printing press is violence against your property; the paper or studio where you create an disseminate your speech. In the same vein, someone putting their hand over your mouth to stop you speaking is assault), the right not to be killed (killing a person is stealing their life) and so on. Read about these rights in this book by Murray N Rothbard.

Man has a nature. That nature is fixed. The rules that his body obeys are defined by nature, and they are immutable. If the natural rights of each person are respected, then there is no need to concoct false rights at all. It follows quite logically that everyone has a right to be on the internet, since being on the internet is a simple matter of property in the computer you are using and your right to speak freely.

Once again, if you desire to defeat the unethical predations of the demonic Deech and her legions, you need to understand and accept that your children really are your property.

First of all, instinctively you know this. Secondly, since Soley says it is not so, you know for sure that it must be. Thirdly, Deech, Soley, Balls, and Morgana all want to exercise property rights over your children. How can they do this if children are not property? They want to control how and what your children learn, where they learn it, for how long they learn and what they then do with that learning after they have finished with them. They want to assess your children, examine them, interrogate them without you being there, and they will wrest them from you by force if you do not agree to any of their demands. They want to use the purely evil ContactPoint to number your children, like cattle, and you may not refuse to have your children in that database.

If these are not the acts of people behaving as if they own something, I do not know what is.

Children are property. That is a fact. The only question is whose property are they? Do they belong to the state and its monstrous predators, or do they belong to you, the parents?

People attempt to assert their right to control their children using a mishmash of the most flimsy of pretexts:

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

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

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

[…]

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=2486

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

If you do not accept this, you concede that the state is the de facto owner of your child. If you are not willing to claim your own child, then you may as well stop arguing against this legislation, because you are waiving your property rights and have no more of a moral claim to ‘your children’ than an unpaid au pair does.

If your number one priority is the protection of your child (and of course, it is, since you Home Educate), then you must accept the property rights position as it is the only position that offers you a complete defence, where you cannot be arbitrarily substituted for someone who can do ‘your job’ as well or even better than you.

Think also about the logical conclusion of these false ‘Rights of the Child’ and you not accepting that you own your children. If you decide to leave Britain for more free shores, it is entirely possible that you might find yourself blocked from doing so for the good of ‘your child’s development’. We have already seen that the Germans are willing to chase down their citizens (literally ‘theirs’ in property terms) to other countries to retrieve ‘their’ children; if you do not believe that it can happen to you, you may have a nasty surprise in your future.

Every cloud has a silver lining, even a cloud as dark as the one coming from these unspeakably evil and corrupt people. That silver lining is the total destruction of any fairy tale belief in Democracy, which for many people is now so completely discredited that there will never be any going back.

That is a good thing.

The rage is let lose on the Lords who would steal your children here.

Unfortunately for these three twisted and sick individuals, Home Educators in the UK have had many months to hone their arguments, to collect data that that completely refutes the state’s insane position and to cool down the incandescent heat of their ire until now it merely heats them enough so they can act.

Take a look at the words of Clive Soley:

I think McDuff is right about the lobby response but it’s good to get this out for debate. I also think Tech sums up the position of many when he says: “It isn’t your place to *allow* parents to home educate – that is the whole point!”

Tech. You are going to take us right back to the 19th century with that philosophy. Remember that was one of the arguments against compulsory education. The principle of home education is fine. The problem is how to ensure children do have the right to an education and how you protect that right. Most of the entries here seem to acknowledge that there can be problems but then try and avoid the difficult issue of how you ensure good standards.

I notice also a desire to duck the difficult problem of girl’s education for some groups who do not believe that they should have the same educational rights as boys. How do you answer that?

This legislation may need improvement so lets start from the right of parents to home educate and the question of standards and children’s rights. I am assuming that most of you believe that children do have rights. If you don’t please say so as that will clarify the position.

[…]

Clive Soley

Lets do this!

Tech. You are going to take us right back to the 19th century with that philosophy.

Who is the ‘us’ that this person is talking about? The state has no business compelling education, and taking us back to the 19th century would be a very good thing in the eyes of many people. The state is too big, too intrusive, and people like Clive Soley and Deech are perfect examples of how it has all gotten way out of hand. In the 19th century we can say one thing for sure; the centrality of the family was sacrosanct, and no parliamentarian would dream of legislating that the state should take the powers that are being discussed right now.

Remember that was one of the arguments against compulsory education.

And it was completely correct then, as it is now. The state does not own human beings, children OR adults. It is not the place of the state to compel people to be educated, to set the standards of education or to have anything whatsoever to do with this field of human activity. When Deech and Soley say that the state has a right to do this, this is nothing more than an assertion based on their own prejudices; just because they say the state has this right that does not make it true.

The principle of home education is fine.

We already know this, and we do not need you to confirm it. And what if you had said that it was NOT fine? Your word should not be law, or the initiation of law.

The problem is how to ensure children do have the right to an education and how you protect that right.

This problem is defined and created by you. It is not a real problem. Children do not have a right to education; education is a good not a right. When you say ‘YOU’ protect that right, if we concede that there is a right to education (which I do not) then from your own words, it is MY ‘problem’ to find out how to protect that right that inheres in MY children. It is not YOUR place to do it, since MY children belong to ME, and not YOU.

Most of the entries here seem to acknowledge that there can be problems but then try and avoid the difficult issue of how you ensure good standards.

Once again, what MY standards are have nothing to do with YOUR standards (the standards of the state). You are responsible for the schools that the state runs. You should concentrate all of your intellectual prowess on that elephant in the room, rather than immorally and unjustifiably interfering with the private lives of completely innocent people, who have and want nothing to do with you.

I notice also a desire to duck the difficult problem of girl’s education for some groups who do not believe that they should have the same educational rights as boys. How do you answer that?

No one is ducking this ‘difficult question’ save the ostrich posturing Parliamentarians; it is you and your colleagues who are ducking the problem of the large communities of people with different cultural norms, which is the cause of the very existence of the ‘problems’ that are fallaciously being conflated with all Home Educators.

If there is a problem with those groups, and you believe that it is your duty to stop them fulfilling their natural roles as dictated to them by their cultures, then you should attack that problem directly and leave the English who do not exhibit these cultural traits completely alone.

It is absolutely unacceptable and illogical to claim that you must inspect every family that home educates in England because an unrepresentative and small number of people who are not English choose to follow the culture of their original country by (for example) marrying off their girls at a ‘young age’. This has nothing to do with the majority of people in Britain, and not only the English; you can put a large number of people from other countries who do not carry on these practices – all of whom live here peacefully – into the category of ‘not a problem’ when it comes to the vile assertions of Delyth Morgan.

Finally, children who are girls do not have the same educational rights as boys, because as I said above, education is not a right, it is a good.

That, in a nutshell, is how I answer that.

This legislation may need improvement so lets start from the right of parents to home educate and the question of standards and children’s rights.

I have a better idea; let’s start from the proposition that you have no business legislating on this matter in the first place.

The only proper thing to be done with this legislation is scrap it entirely. The cause of its creation has been proven to be faulty, the man who wrote the report that inspired it has been totally discredited, and there is not a shred of legitimacy left to prop it up. Your best move now is to delete it completely and then take some time to learn what Home Education is, by doing some work on your own, rather than rely on the words of paedophile enablers, rent seekers, liars, social engineers, fake charities and charlatans.

As another smart person said, it is not in the gift of parliament to grant parents permission to Home Educate. This is non negotiable. Parliament cannot legitimately decree what a suitable education is, or how education should be delivered outside of schools that it does not organise. The standards that parents set for their children is not the business of the state or you and your colleagues. This is also non negotiable.

I am assuming that most of you believe that children do have rights. If you don’t please say so as that will clarify the position.

Children’s rights are nothing more than a fantasy concocted by social engineers and paedophiles who want to destroy the family so that they can have unfettered access to children.

Children are the property of their parents. As human beings, they have the same rights as any other human being. None of these rights are created by the state, but they instead, inhere in the human being from birth. Once the child reaches maturity, they then own themselves, as adults do.

Any position other than this, puts the state in the role of being the owner of children until they reach their majority, with the parent relegated to the level of an unpaid child minder who has to obey the state. This is nothing less than slavery.

You, Mr. Soley, cannot assert that you have the right to inspect a child without the consent of its parents, or kidnap that child by force to make it go to one of your schools, or steal a child from its parents to be given to other people to foster and then and also claim that the state is not exercising property rights over children. These acts are the very definition of the behaviour of an owner of something.

No false reasoning about ‘the rights of society’, or the ‘rights of the child’ can change the nature of these acts; you are claiming that you are the ultimate authority and property owner of all children, and that the power of the state trumps all moral rights and natural rights.

The area of ‘children’s rights’ is profoundly dishonest and sinister. It is corrosive to the family and unacceptable to all thinking and moral people. That you and your colleagues rely on this concept so heavily is a good indication of your natures.

Should you pass this legislation, no one who does not want to be affected by its sinister predations is going to be touched by it. People will leave the country, go into hiding or make arrangements that will prevent your agents from carrying out their illegitimate approaches.

You are on a hiding to nothing.

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

Now with that in mind:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then we have this:

Tower Hamlets accused of being infiltrated by Islamic extremists

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

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

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

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

[…]

Evening Standard

and then…

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

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

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

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

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

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

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

Telegraph

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

And then this:

Anger as National Front is consulted on race policy in schools

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

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

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

[…]

Daily Mail

Now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two related articles that swirl around the recent nonsense:

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

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

[…]

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

[…]

CNN

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

Now steel yourself for this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed West at The Telegraph

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

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

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unbelievable.

After a very nice day out, some evil lurker tricked me into clicking a link to a Madeline Bunting blog post.

It’s year 10’s English class in a London comprehensive. Forty kids are debating the purpose of a school. “Teaching social skills,” they suggest. Why do you need them? I ask, playing devil’s advocate. “To get a job.” Is that the only point of having social skills? “Yes, what else is there?” One demurs, hesitant and not entirely sure how to ­express herself. “No, there’s more to life than a job. There’s happiness. Social skills are needed to make you happy.”

Yet another example of why state run schools are some of the most poisonous places on the planet. Of course, this shameless, brainless apologist for the state and all its systems of control cannot question the very idea that children are sitting in a class segregated by age, brainwashed and almost incapable of speaking English.

Talking about ethics to these prisoners is completely absurd; first of all they are all in a classroom in a state of involuntary servitude. This is like discussing ethics with slaves. Secondly, the school that they are in has been paid for through by the coerced extortion of monies by the violent state; the notion of discussing ethics in this extremely unethical environment is a profoundly schizophrenic act. On an instinctive level, any child can feel that being in school by force, and in that form is completely wrong, an injury to them, and unethical.

If this demonstrates anything at all, its that Madeline Bunting has no idea of what is or is not ethical. If she understands what she is doing, then she is a state propagandist of the first order, who gains directly from the unethical nature of the state and its predations.

Amazingly in the comments to this drivel, someone actually (partially) gets it:

Any ethical/moral debate needs to embrace issues of ownership and control – a debate thet has been effectively abandoned in the 21st century. In particular we desperately need an intelligent dialogue about the ownership and control of our money system.

We need ask if there has ever been a more dysfunctional, immoral and unethical form of money creation than our current system, which allows the private creation of money in parallel with debt (i.e. credit) for the profits of financiers and at the expense of the people: Abraham Lincoln said that “the privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government?s greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles? the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.” Until we understand this we are morally bankrupt and economically enslaved to the financiers.

Ethical money means gold coins in the hands of the public. It means the complete removal of the business of money production from the clutches of government.

‘People’ like Madeline Bunting cannot understand this; they belong to the school of thought that holds money to be a sort of magic thing that ONLY governments can make. They are not interested in piercing the veil on this subject, and if they do, they hate where it leads, because to be ethical at that place means LESS government and not MORE and they are ALWAYS for more government.

It was a fascinating illustration of how deeply the instrumentalist values of the market have penetrated our everyday thinking when kids talk in this way.

Actually, what it demonstrates is that school is not a place to go if you want to learn how to think. It demonstrates that those children are nearly brain dead, like a drowned man brought up from the bottom of a lake and revived only to exist as a vegetable on a respirator. Thats what these children really are, and for the record, ‘kids’ are the offspring of goats, human beings have CHILDREN.

“Social skills” is the type of phrase management experts dreamed up to put a market value on a set of human characteristics.

Its called ‘socialization‘ when people like Madeline Bunting are talking about Home Education, and why that natural, beneficial and wonderful practice is not a good thing.

Cheerful, punctual, able to co-operate, take instructions: these are all marketable skills. But to many of these kids, equipping them for the labour market was the primary purpose of education. Any idea of it as enriching and deepening their understanding of what it is to be human and lead meaningful, contented adult lives, had been entirely lost to view. The one girl who offered an alternative was just as instrumentalist, only her goal was different: social skills were needed for not a job but for her personal happiness.

Oh dear.

Firstly, the marketable skills listed above (obedient to the state being the glaring omission) are exactly why schools were designed. They are factories that produce workers and nothing more.

Education that enriches and deepens the understanding of anything can be had outside of school, and in fact, many argue that it is only out of school that such things can be acquired organically. By using the phrase ‘lost to view’ she implies that none of the bad things schools do is deliberate, that somehow everything has evolved into this state by the accumulation of many innocently made bad choices over decades. No, that is not the case Madeline.

Now to the one girl who offered an alternative. On the one hand, Madeline decries the lack of schools providing enrichment, meaning and understanding so that students can be contented (happy), but when someone wants to get to the goal of happiness in a way other than she approves, this is ‘instrumentalist’.

This can be translated to, “be happy, but only in the way that I say happiness should be achieved”. Pure paternalist drivel of the most loathsome kind.

These were bright and interested 14-year-olds, but if you ran this argument in any other school, you’d probably get pretty similar responses.

This is why so many people are fleeing schools for Home Education.

The gap that intrigued me was the absence of any notion of being a good person, or of the many values that might not be able to command a market price such as being challenging, courageous, truthful, honest, spontaneous, joyful or even kind, compassionate.

This is absolutely astonishing.

These insane people, people like Madeline Bunting, are completely irrational, brainwashed anti-freedom monsters. They are the same sort of folk who associate the word ‘democracy’ with ‘fair’ and ‘just’, and in this particular instance, ‘free market’ with evil, greed, destruction, inhumanity and badness.

This paragraph is as wrong as a paragraph can be. A person who is ‘a good person’, who is challenging, courageous, truthful, honest, spontaneous (creative) and joyful has traits that are ALL highly marketable and desirable; employers desperately want people who have even a subset of these qualities, let alone all of them, and if you are a person who has them all, especially the essential trust quality, you will be LITERALLY worth your weight in gold.

How is it that this monster cannot understand that being trustworthy has a high market value? What sort of evil mind set produces a person that thinks being trustworthy is worthless to others?

It beggars belief.

I started with this classroom anecdote because it seems a good way to make concrete an absence. The central premise of the Citizen Ethics supplement published in this paper at the weekend (the full pamphlet can be downloaded on Comment is free) is that we have lost a way of thinking and talking about some very important things.

It is only the intellectual slave class of the state and their drooling followers that have lost the ability to think and talk about ethics in a coherent and rational way. From Matthew Parris and his nauseating and fawning noises of total allegiance to the state, to Henry Porter’s similar sickening concessions and total submission to the all powerful state as the final, natural, indispensable legitimate monopolist of violence, who thinks:

Don’t get me wrong: I’ve always believed that the democratic state must be given power to act on behalf of us

[…]

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=1499

These people, Bunting, Parris and Porter, none of them can explain how it is that the power to ‘act’ (murder, steal etc etc) can be given to them by people who do not themselves have that power or right.

This is the way of thinking and talking about very important issues that has been ‘lost’. Of course, many of us do not think that it has been lost at all; these aparatchicks deliberately tow the line that the state is legitimate, while they in fact know that it is not.

The preoccupation with market efficiency and economic growth has loomed so large that other activities, and other values, have been subordinated to its disciplines.

When Madeline talks about ‘economic growth’, she means the increase in pollution and consumption of resources. Economic growth does not need to mean an increase in destruction; it can come about by an increase in efficiency. The very internet that her shabby article was accessed through, the computer that I am writing this on, and the server that hosts these words are just the smallest example of what increased market efficiency really means.

Not a matchstick of wood was needed to make this transaction; this is what happens when people are free to invent what they like and use and share what they have invented in the way that they like; we get the internet. People without imagination, like Madeline Bunting, even though these miraculous cost free increases in efficiency are literally staring them in the face, still insist that economic growth is an entirely undesirable and negative thing. Its a lie of course, and there are many examples of people similar to her who made all sorts of dire predictions and miscalculations that made them look silly in hindsight, thanks to the relentless innovation of man, who continues to inspire and free us from useless toil and waste, in spite of the state and its brain dead boosters.

“You can’t buck the market,” said Margaret Thatcher

As evil as Margaret Thatcher may or may not have been, this statement by her is absolutely correct. You can no more buck the market than than you can cause light to be dark, water to be dry or change the nature of the universe on the most fundamental levels.

The market, market forces, the nature of man and of money are things that are a natural, spontaneously emerging consequence of reality. These consequences are governed by laws:

• F=ma
• Pe=mgh
• Ke=1/2mv²
• E=mc²

All of those are examples of laws that describe how nature works. They are reliable, inviolable, unchangeable and absolute.

Money is another thing that obeys strict laws, in the same way that energy is governed by laws. You cannot create something out of nothing; this is the truth in both physics and economics, the science of money.

Madeline Bunting and all of her Grauniad cohorts do not understand these facts. That is why they can print that ‘Quantitative Easing’ (printing money) is the solution to the problem of the current crisis. They believe, as a child does, that Santa Claus brings presents to all the good children in a single night. They believe that government creates jobs. They believe that government creates money. Of course, government does create money; what it cannot do is create value by printing words on paper that they pass off as money. Money does not have value, “because people believe in it”. This is the sort of fantastic thinking that these people soak themselves in, and they shun the warm dry towel of logic so they always stay wet.

Until Madeline Bunting and the other fools at the Graunaid and everywhere else in the media either decide to stop lying for the state or come to their senses, i.e. wake up from their delusions and magical thinking, you will never read a factual article in their papers that deals with ethics and money. Period.

, and no government has disagreed since.

That is a lie. The crash would not have happened if that were really true.

It was the adage that was used to justify soaring pay for the highest earners and stagnant earnings for the low-paid.

Jealousy politics raises its revolting head yet again. Rates of pay are always justified. People are never paid more than what they are worth. There is no such thing as ‘too much money’. These are the ideas of the fantasist where the world is an unjust place every second that men everywhere are not absolutely equal. There is no such thing as a ‘fair’ wage. Minimum wage laws hurt people, not help them. Minimum wage laws make jobs scarce. It is all the fault of the state and its insane supporters, the Madeline Buntings of this world, and everything I just wrote is true.

The market ruled, and questions of injustice, honour or integrity were all secondary or irrelevant.

The market always rules, just as gravity always pulls down, wether you like it or not. The crash is the market asserting itself against the delusionists who think that you can eat yourself fitter.

Injustice is the state stealing money while Madeline Bunting and Henry Porter cheer them on. These people are not honourable by any definition; they are for violence, theft, murder and enslavement of their fellow man. They have no integrity, as on the one hand they call for conditional rights and ‘civil liberties’ and then on the other, profess their undying loyalty and support for the state (Porter and Parris). Yes indeed, honour and integrity are secondary to these people, secondary to their love of the evil state.

A poll for the World Economic Forum last month found in 10 G20 countries that two-thirds of respondents attributed the credit crunch and its ensuing economic recession to a crisis of ethics and values.

And that tells you all you need to know about the depth of understanding of economics at the World Economic Forum and of Madeline Bunting. They know nothing whatsoever about economics.

The crash / credit crunch had nothing to do with a ‘crisis of ethics’ not even when you turn that phrase onto the murderous state and its insane lust for the printing press, because the state is fundamentally unethical, and so there is no possibility of crisis in ethics there, since there are no ethics to begin with.

Sir Thomas Legg declared in his final report on MPs’ expenses that there had been a failure of ethics.

Here we have a scandal over a thimble full of water dipped into the ocean of stolen money. The trillions stolen by these MPs to murder and enslave is not the scandal, but instead, Madeline Bunting wants you to believe that a few pennies here and there to repair the houses of, and to service and entertain the thieves, is the great crisis of ethics. Never mind that these people want to force all children into the very schools that even a monster like her finds disturbing, making illegal any better, natural human alternative that produces the people that she claims she wants to see coming out of the education system. Never mind that they mass murder, colonise and destroy at will, unquestioned by these Grauniad ‘journalists’; none of that is important; only the duck house of an MP is a crisis in ethics.

This is a classic case of the media diverting attention away from the true crimes to focus on the sensational, the irrelevant and the petty, while crimes of mass murder and unprecedented theft go unreported, and when they are reported they are justified with false reasoning. Appalling, unforgivable behaviour.

There’s a widespread perception that social norms have subtly and gradually shifted towards the centrality of personal self-interest. As long as it’s legal, it’s legitimate; no further individual judgment is necessary.

And here we have the call for all actions to be illegal, whatever they are. A permission based society where everything is illegal to replace the free society, where everything that is not illegal is legal. Madeline Bunting wants a world where you have to have permission to do everything, no matter what it is. That is the only way she will feel safe from the chaotic free system, where people are able to peruse their own ideas of what is or is not good. This is anathema to Porter, Bunting and Parris, who would have everyone under control of the monolithic state ‘for their own good’.

It is only the unfettered personal self-interest that has brought mankind the great achievements. Men working to fulfil their destinies as they see fit, working voluntarily for profit or not; this force of nature – man unleashed – is the only way we can have peace and prosperity in abundance. Madeline Bunting and her imagination-less monster companions would have us live without, for example The Google, because they want to enrich themselves by printing books. They would keep us in horses and carts to save the buggy whip manufacturers. They are the luddites, the fear soaked nanny statists, the health and safety fanatics; they are everything that is wrong with the west.

However much we may have laughed at the Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” line, we can now see how it seeped into powerful institutional cultures such as the City and parliament.

Greed is good. Greed is the manifestation of the desires of men to make things and to act in the world. Greed is self interest; the lust for knowledge, for a better toaster, for commercial space flight, for faster computers. Greed is what makes the world good. Greed IS good.

The City is a collection of private firms; it is not a ‘powerful institutional culture’ any more than a packet of yeast is. Yeast does what it does and people in business do what they do.

Parliament on the other hand is a criminal organization that is precisely like a mafia gang. It extorts money, murders (actually the mafia NEVER murdered as much as any state ever did) and uses violence to get what it wants solely to prop up its own existence. It is a parasite, a drain on the resources of the good, the innocent and the productive. Once again a Grauniad hack fails to make the distinction between private business and the state; but this should come as no surprise to anyone; these are the same people who think money comes out of a printing press.

Citizen Ethics was a project to ask nearly four dozen prominent thinkers what this was all about. Did ethics really have a role to play, and had it failed? First, despite plenty of disagreements, on one thing there was a clear consensus: ethics are crucial.

Whose ethics?

There are people who believe (correctly) that the Madeline Buntings of this world are fundamentally unethical, and they can prove it. Without stating the source of your ethics, its foundation, its basis, its formulation, this word is just another meaningless posture.

Ethics are not something that you can make up as you go along. It is not something that you can design by the pick and mix method, like some of the very confused people who want to be free in their lives, but who insist that others should be violently restrained, licensed, inspected and controlled.

Like economics and physics, there is only one set of ethics that is correct for man, within which he is able to act morally and when he acts in groups of people, all achieve their full potential in harmony.

This one set of ethics is not self contradictory, does not make exceptions that allow for unprovoked violence or theft or other immorality. It is complete, logical, and unassailable, just like the basic laws of motion, that produce predictable results every time ad infinitum. You know its name because you read BLOGDIAL: Libertarianism, as described by Murray N. Rothbard.

They are the underpinning to all political debate; they frame the questions we ask of ourselves and of our political economy and therefore do much to shape the answers we end up with.

And that is why if you start without the facts and the laws that govern reality, you will never be able to predict where the cannon ball will fall when it is shot, or put a spacecraft in orbit around Saturn. Without Newton’s laws you cannot do these things, and without Murray Rothbard and Libertarianism and Austrian Economics, you have no starting point based in the world as it actually is to be able to get to the correct answers.

They are vital to the civic culture in which both politics and economics are ultimately rooted.

Economics is rooted in immutable laws. The way men deal with each other ethically is rooted in what their true nature is. From those two things flows the shape of how the world should be.

So, as Will Hutton will do in his book, Them and Us, out in the autumn, if we really want to understand how some of the incredible myths perpetrated over the last couple of decades have gone unchallenged, we have to go back to some basic arguments of philosophy. What is justice? Who deserves what? What constitutes human flourishing?

What is justice? First we need to know what man is. Who deserves what? Once again, what is man, where do goods come from, what is property, who owns property, what is theft, what are rights, what are not rights; these are the questions that are answered by Murray Rothbard. What constitutes human flourishing? That is not for anyone to define except by those who want to impose their will on other people, I can tell you that for free.

Too many of these questions have simply been shelved for too long.

They have never been ‘shelved’ unless you are writing for the Grauniad, where they hold that they are the protectors of the revealed truth of how the world works. People all over the world are turning to Libertarianism because it is demonstrably true and because it tells us what is wrong with how the world is currently organized.

Austrian Economics can predict the crashes, why they happen and how money really works. On the contrary, rather than being shelved, these questions are being asked and answered more now than ever, and the Madeleine Buntings and Henry Porters of the world are running scared, because their false world view is crumbling before their very eyes, just like the Soviet Union disintegrated before the eyes of the people who believed in that immoral, unethical, unworkable system.

Questions of justice and reward were left to the market to resolve; questions of human flourishing were privatised.

Justice is the business of courts. Remuneration is an absolutely private affair. Human flourishing takes care of itself, just like weeds do. This is a perfect example of wrong thinking, where there is no distinction between the sphere of the state and the world of the private, where words have lost their meaning, where an ethical foundation is missing.

It was left to everyone to decide their own sequence of pleasurable experiences in life with little acknowledgement of how many of those depend entirely on mutual co-operation.

It is only through everyone deciding and taking their own path that all man can reap the maximum rewards. Men voluntarily exchanging causes mutual co-operation to spontaneously emerge; we need each other to achieve our pleasure, whatever that may be. Madeleine Bunting does not understand how the world really works. She does not understand where prosperity comes from, what prosperity is, how innovation works, how capital flows, and what man is.

The classic paradigm is sitting in a traffic jam in your 4×4 with its astonishing powers of acceleration rendered useless.

If all the roads were privately owned, and there were no speed limits, traffic would flow better.

One explanation for this abandonment of the debate is that we lost a language in which to think and argue about ethics.

There is no ME in your WE.

Perhaps this is partly attributable to the vexed legacy of institutional religion and the long shadow it still casts. The promotion of ethical behaviour has been bound up with particular institutions, and as they decline, it leaves a vacuum of authority.

I agree with the second sentence.

Who dares talk on this subject with confidence?

The Libertarians especially Lew Rockwell.

It prompts fear that any such discussions are really a Trojan horse for promoting a religious belief. There’s a suspicion that words such as “morality” tip us quickly into the kind of instinctive conviction made infamous by Tony Blair in which sincerity is regarded as an adequate substitute for careful reasoning.

Whatever the basis of your morality, as long as you do not bother anyone, what you choose to believe and how you choose to act is entirely your own business.

Even the language itself is mired in a history of social control; morality and virtue are words that are reluctantly used, since both still convey overtones of intrusive monitoring of (particularly female) sexual behaviour.

Unbelievable; this person talks about brainwashed children in schools and “intrusive monitoring of behaviour” in the same breath!

But since most of the contributors to this pamphlet express their commitment to ethics without any reference to religious practice, perhaps it is finally possible to move beyond these familiar anxieties and resume a task of ethical reasoning regarded through most of history as essential to being human. This is philosophy as the Greeks understood it – love of the wisdom to lead lives of meaning and fulfilment, not some kind of abstract game with words.

Ethical reasoning starting from where? And with whom? Whose definition of meaning and fulfilment? Violence is not an abstract or a game with words; what these people want is total violence against everyone who does not believe what they believe. They want children imprisoned in their brainwashing schools, so they they can indoctrinate them in THEIR ideas of what is and is not ethical, that they have muddled together from scratch.

Ethics is a word that derives from two Greek words, ethos for habit and ethikos for character, and it better fits what Citizen Ethics proposes rather than “morality”, which comes from the Latin word “mores” for social institutions and customs. This is not about reasserting conventions, a preconceived code, but about reinvigorating a habit, a process of reasoning to the perennial question: what is the right thing to do?

This is not the perennial question, and that a group of people should want to force their version of what the questions should and should not be is a gross form of violence. As far as I am concerned (and you can do and think whatever you like, I could care less as long as you do not interfere with me in any way whatsoever) the questions are, “what should I NOT do?”, “how can I DO NO HARM?” and all the other questions the answers to which will ensure that I never harm anyone else with violence either by my own hand or by proxy through the state or its agents. With this as the basis, a moral existence is a natural consequence; what you do with it, on top of it, voluntarily, is all bonus.

People who are interested in ‘doing right’ are the most dangerous humans in the world. They are the sort of people who come up with political correctness, affirmative action, miscegenation laws, minimum wage laws, censorship and ever other evil that decent people hate. All of those are a direct consequence of not having a properly operating ethical code that prevents the doing of evil, that does not define what man is and what his true relationship is with the world and with other men.

We wouldn’t claim there is a consensus waiting to be found – on the contrary, our aim is to provoke a noisy debate on what kinds of habits and characters we need to run the good society.

Is it now?

Habits are how animals behave; men do not act out of habit, they act from reason. Once again, who is this mythical ‘we’ that she speaks of, and why is the running of the ‘good society’ (whatever that is) the goal? Who decided this, and why should anyone be forced to go along with it all? The answer is they should not, and anyone who wants it forced upon everyone is violent.

To go back to the lovely kids in the classroom, what is the good society we want to inspire them with – beyond their future roles in the economy as workers and consumers? What habits and character can we offer them as conducive to deeply rewarding lives? If we don’t know plenty of possible answers to that question, it’s no surprise they don’t.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/21/ethics-failure-market-moral-code

• What is ‘the good society’?
• Who is the ‘we’ that wants to inspire other people’s children with it?
• Who is the group that decides what animalistic habits the children of today are going to be brainwashed to reflexively exhibit?
• Who decides what is or is not a man of good character?
• Who decides what is or is not a ‘rewarding life’?

And what an insulting condescending monster to assume that just because SHE does not have these answers, children cannot find them out for themselves by whatever means, without HER HELP.

The ever insightful Mimi Majick puts it plainly, “This woman knows exactly what she is doing; she is utterly wicked”.

I agree.

Now on to the document ‘Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis‘ which is hosted on Scribd… wait a minute, I thought Scribd was EVIL?!

No surprises here; an intolerable, appalling mishmash of violence, pronoun abuse, lies and vile collectivism.

Here is a nasty taste:

The financial and political events of the past year have given rise to a crisis of ethics. Bankers and MPs acted legally but without integrity, and we lacked a language to respond. How are we to articulate our misgivings? How can we regain our ability to reason ethically?

Bunting. What a joke!

‘The times call for new ethical understandings as much as remembering old ones’

Anyone who wants to redefine what a human being is or is not is your mortal enemy. That is EXACTLY what Bunting is saying here; ‘we’ (whoever that is, and we know she means the authors of this bad document and their sick followers) have to construct a new ethics; in the same breath she admits that ‘we’ (meaning actually THEY) do not have the language to create such an ethics. Very very DUMB!

WE NEED A PUBLIC LIFE WITH PURPOSE

Michael Sandel

NO ‘WE’ DO NOT!

So, as frustration with politics builds on both sides of the Atlantic, it is worth asking what a new politics of the common good might look like. Here are four possible themes.
A first concerns citizenship, sacrifice and service.

Slavery, theft and violence. Pure evil.

To achieve a just society, we have to reason together about the meaning of the good life

‘Reason together’; this translates to “we have to enslave everyone to obey the majority rule”. No thanks, and no sale!

HOW TO LIVE AS IF WE WERE HUMAN

In a world that has laid bare the pitfalls of individualism, we must learn once more to live in the real world, says the Archbishop of Canterbury

Apostate Christian calls for enslavement:

‘We have looked into the abyss where individualism is concerned and we know it won’t do’

There we go with the ‘we’ business again. Individualism (which is the true face of what it means to be a human being) is the only way that man can reach his full potential. Real Christians understand this through the idea that man has been given free will, and that this is the only way that he can actually choose good over evil.

These apostates want man to be FORCED to do what THEY think is good. That diminishes man entirely to a creature. But then, this is exactly what they want, and the very language they use to describe their brainwashed followers reveals this; this man has s FLOCK. Nuff said.

Self-interest and calculation have derailed our values. To get back on track we must remember the affective bonds that link us to one another

Mark Vernon

Heavens above, they are all INSANE.

Self-interest and calculation are the ultimate tools for enlightenment, prosperity and freedom. Without them, man is reduced to property.

our current moral discourse lacks a compelling vision of what it is to be human

It doesn’t have to be compelling, it only has to be true.

Ethics is a form of practical intelligence. Like friendship, we nurture virtues best by our engagement with others and the world. Such skills must be learnt afresh in every generation – another reason why a fixed, codified system never inspires: it contains little conception that life is to be lived.

This is completely false.

What man is is FIXED, just as the laws of nature are fixed. The result of setting the ideas and beliefs of what man is to zero every generation is so absurd that I can barely believe that someone would be stupid enough to print it.

The entire reason why man is able to do what he does is precisely because he can transfer information across generations. Each generation can do what it likes, but what they cannot do is redefine what man is or what right and wrong are. What is ethical and what is unethical is fixed. The result of not knowing what these set rules are is tyranny accepted as normal and ethical, as the people who write in the Guardian do. It would be like people having to learn mathematics from scratch every generation. I can tell you exactly what those people are; they are Gorillas and the other primates who never change, who act by habit and instinct only, who do not write anything down and who do not have any awareness of what they are.

By the nature of what knowledge is, there will always be a first person who correctly identifies and then codifies the one true ethics that emerges from the nature of man; that philosopher was Murray Rothbard.

He discovered and wrote down the ethical equivalent of Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica where the laws that describe what man is and is not and how he is governed by this immutable nature and the immutable nature of reality have been laid out clearly and completely.

Murray Rothbard’s triumph was to expose the absolute base of what man is as he exists. He did this without any reference to religion; it is purely logical and derived from reason only.

From this basis, everything else that you want to believe and any action that you want to take can be tested to see wether or not it is ethical. Libertarianism is unambiguous, clean, without contradictions and easy to understand. In the same way that Newton’s laws of motion can get you to the other planets with pinpoint accuracy, Murray Rothbard’s Libertarianism can get you to a complete understanding of the way the world should work, with absolute clarity and precision, with an infinite amount of space for any personal belief you wish to hold, an infinite amount of leeway for you to help others in any way you choose, to collaborate, exchange, build, grow, live, worship and be a total human being.

This is what the writers of this pamphlet DESPISE.

often on the fringes of critical debate, Islam has much to offer when it comes to the development of an ethics based on our common citizenship,

Tariq Ramadan

Uh oh…

‘Our’ Common citizenship? Of WHAT exactly? I am not a citizen of ANYTHING in common with you Mr. Ramadan. The same goes for you Rowan.

Ethics based on anything other than the true nature of man is worthless. Libertarianism, with its infinite space for any sort of belief, accepts every type of religion. What you believe is your own business. You are even free to offer it to others, ad infinitum. The only thing you are forbidden from doing is harming others or their property. You cannot steal, coerce or initiate the use of force against others, for any reason whatsoever.

And now, we have the very disturbing, suspiciously ineffective Shame (yes SHAME) Chakrabarti, who answers a questionnaire:

What’s the fundamental code we all should live by?
The simple code for living is equal treatment. There are all sorts of rights and freedoms we have and hold dear – freedom of speech, privacy, conscience and so on. And they can’t necessarily be absolute, but what we can say is that any changes to them have to be universal. So for example, take the issue of body scanners at airports. You can argue that it’s an invasion of privacy to have them, you can argue that it’s necessary to prevent terrorism, but what you can’t argue is that it’s ok to compromise someone’s privacy and not others. So it’s not going to be ok to isolate certain sorts of passengers, who look different maybe, and only use body scanners on them. It’s about equal treatment: if you make compromises on liberties, you make them for everyone, not just for some people. That’s paramount.

Equal treatment? Equally good or equally bad?. I think the answer is BAD, since this monster believes that rights are not absolute, but conditional on the word and by the leave of the ever present ‘we’, who will decide what ‘beneficial changes’ are to be made… universally of course… by the power of the omnipotent state, for which this witch is a shill.

Look at her treatment of body scanners; they are justified as long as ALL people go through them equally. These are the words of MONSTERS, and collaborators and TRAITORS, traitors to all souls everywhere… These words should make you BRISTLE with anger.

Clearly not one of the people who were invited to write for this document or answer the questionnaire have any idea of ethics, where they come from, or anything else about them. They are without a moral compass, evil, violent, control addicted, statist MONSTERS, ‘the enemy’ if you will.

Capitalism has been undermined by an abuse of the very principle that is its cornerstone: fairness. It is essential that we reclaim the idea of just rewards

Will Hutton

Profit is ethical to the extent it is proportionate to effort and not due to good luck or brute power

I’m not making these up, they are directly copied and pasted!

And finally, before I vomit all over my keyboard:

What would the economist John Maynard Keynes make of the state we’re in? We asked philosopher Edward Skidelsky to press Keynes’ biographer, his father Robert, on what the great man might say

‘The great man’

oh… no… I’mgoingto p-huuuuuurllllargh!!!!!!!!

Iceland is at a unique crossroads.

So is everywhere else, but this situation is unique only in size not nature.

Because of an economic meltdown in the banking sector,

Without saying what the precise nature and cause of this ‘meltdown’ is, you will never be able to solve this problem.

a deep sense is among the nation that a fundamental change is needed in order to prevent such events from taking place again.

You will never be able to change anything correctly without knowing the cause of your problems.

At such times it is important to seek a collective future vision and take a course that will bring the nation and the parliament closer together.

FAIL.

It is violent collectivism the Icelandic state that the root cause of your problems, Icelandic people!

On February 16th a parliamentary resolution will be filed at the Icelandic parliament suggesting that Iceland will position itself legally with regard to the protection of freedoms of expression and information. This suggestion for a future vision has sparked great enthusiasm both within the parliament and among those it has been introduced to.

FAIL.

The state cannot create rights. Freedom of expression is the right of all men. When there is no state, you have this freedom by default. There is no reason why a state free Iceland cannot be a data haven for all free people everywhere, who pay for the privilege of hosting their information on servers owned by Icelanders. You do not need a state to protect this right. Also, if other states where servers are housed decide to block Icelandic IPs, what are you going to do about it?

The main goal with the proposal is to task the government with finding ways to strengthen freedom of expression around world and in Iceland, as well as providing strong protections for sources and whistleblowers.

We have heard this before; when the state says it wants to strengthen something, they actually mean they want to regulate and destroy it. There should be no laws whatsoever regulating speech. That means no laws controlling the contents of any server or publisher with equipment installed in Iceland.

To this end the legal environment should be explored in such a way that the goals can be defined, and changes to law or new law proposals can be prepared. The legal environments of other countries should be considered, with the purpose of assembling the best laws to make Iceland a leader of freedoms of expression and information. We also feel it is high time to establish the first Icelandic international prize: The Icelandic Freedom of Expression Award.

This is completely absurd. First of all, who is going to define these goals? The state; the very people who claim the power to be able to give and take away rights; think about it, all the time the Icelandic state has either had or not had laws about this on its books, were you or were you not free to host whatever you like? Why all of a sudden should the decision of a few people unlock your rights, or extend them? These people have no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do with their computers. Who they connect those computers to, what is on them, who controls them; none of this is the business of the state.

They say they are going to take into account the legal environments of other countries… what, like Saudi Arabia? If I were an Icelander, I would rather not leave my freedom to communicate in the hands of these incompetent and immoral people, whose dangerous vaguearies (yes, ‘vaguearies’) will end up curtailing my freedoms.

As for establishing a price for Freedom of Expression, freedom of expression is a prize in itself, you dullards.

This proposal does not belong to any single group or party, but should be considered a joint project of all parliamentarians to find a harmonious tone of reconciliation in order to pull the nation out of these difficulties with something to achieve together.

Tones of reconciliation will never and have never put out fires. The problems of iceland need to be addressed once and for all. Violent collectivism (if I were you) should be abandoned completely and permanently. Fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and your corrupt state should be abandoned permanently. You can then start to build the sort of place that will be the envy of the world, which will attract billions in investment and the brightest people in the world.

We have already been in touch with, and introduced the proposal to, various interest groups whom this new legislation package might affect, including industry, media and civil society. So far we have only received positive feedback from all levels.

They are all stakeholders in the state; its no surprise that they are for it. Industry uses the violence of the state to destroy competition and steal the money of the population. Media is licensed by the state, uses it to keep rivals out and steal money from the public. The same goes for ‘civil society’, who, despite the definition, exist as creatures of the state, especially the fake charities and other organisations, that receive stolen loot from the violent state.

A keen interest has developed among the foreign press in relation to this legislative proposal, perhaps because all over the world the freedom to write news is increasingly being smothered. In their mind Iceland could become a reverse to tax haven: a journalism haven.

This is interesting language isn’t it?

Tax havens exist to protect the rights of the individual against the predatory and violent state; how is it that protecting free speech is different to protecting a man’s right to his own property? A haven for journalism is exactly and precisely the same as a tax haven; both of the exist to protect the rights of the individual against the predations of the state.

If you needed proof of the bogus nature of this adventure, that is surely it.

Here it comes…

The suggestions in the proposal for a legislative package would transform the possibilities for growth in various areas. Iceland could become an ideal environment for Internet-based international media and publishers to register their services, start-ups, data centers and human rights organizations. It could be a lever for the economy and create new work employment opportunities.

THERE!

They want people to ‘REGISTER’ their services; why on earth should anyone have to register their service with the Icelandic state? Web hosting is a PRIVATE CONTRACT between the owner of hardware and an individual or other entity; there is no need for the state to interpose itself in this PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT. And you must remember; if the state can REGISTER (in other words, LICENSE your website) it can also DEREGISTER your site if they choose – that translates to “shut you down and take you off line”.

This is not guaranteed protection of freedom of speech, this is the state colonising a previously free and private set of services so that it can find a rich stream of fees to keep its disgusting leech body alive.

If this proposal became a reality it could improve democracy and transparency in Iceland, as firm grounding would be made for publishing, whilst improving Iceland’s standing in the international community.

http://immi.is/

Democracy is illegitimate state violence, and Icelanders should abandon it. Without a state, there would be no need for transparency, since that opaque and evil entity that ruined and ruins people’s lives in Iceland would be gone.

Iceland’s standing in the international community is of no concern to Icelanders, who if they have any sense, want only freedom, no state and sound money. If they have those, their reputation amongst free people will skyrocket, attracting, as I said above, investment and brains. The phrase, “The international community” actually means the opinion of the rulers in other states. They are just as illegitimate and violent as the operators Icelandic government’s apparatus; who CARES what they think, everyone with two brain cells in every other state from Greece outwards is desperate to get rid of their state and the violent thieves that man the levers of them.

Once again it is perfectly clear; the answers to any particular problem will not come from more government, or the state. They just want more legislation, registration, controls and leech streams to further entrench and embed themeless in the lives of every person.

They lie reflexively, steal, murder and destroy, and anyone who is for them is a FOOL!

A diligent lurker sent us this job posting for Doncaster council, who are looking for someone to fill the position of ‘Elective Home Education Consultant’:

Elective Home Education Consultant

Reference:
0402774
Employer:
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
Location:
South Yorkshire
Salary:
Up to £100000
Benefits:
Solbury 9-12 Plus 3 spa
Job Details
ELECTIVE HOME EDUCATION CONSULTANT

DONCASTER LOCAL AUTHORITY (LA)

Required for April 2010.

NB This is a part-time post equivalent to two days per week and for one term only in the first instance.

The School Improvement Service is seeking to appoint an education professional to visit families who elect to educate at home.

The candidate appointed will be expected to:

• Monitor the quality of education for children who are being educated at home
• Provide feedback to a senior officer of the LA and to families
• Liaise with Education Welfare Service and Traveller Education Service as necessary
• Provide detailed notes of visit

For further information relating to this post please contact Caroline Greening on 736261.

Closing date for applications is 19th February 2010 12noon.

Interviews will take place on week commencing 8th March 2010.

If you have not heard from us by this date, please assume you have not been shortlisted for interview for the post.

Doncaster Council is committed to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, young people and adults and expects all staff and volunteers to share this commitment. This post is subject to an enhanced CRB check.

Many thanks for your interest in this vacancy.

Please be aware that this job closes at 12:00PM on 19/02/2010

Lets do this!

Elective Home Education Consultant

First of all, this is not a consultancy job. The correct title for this is ‘Elective Home Education Inspector‘.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

A limited liability company it seems! You do know about this do you not?

The School Improvement Service is seeking to appoint an education professional to visit families who elect to educate at home.

Home Educated children are NOT IN SCHOOL (even though sometimes they are called ‘HomeSchoolers’) and so it is entirely wrong that a person attached to ‘School Improvement’ should be entering the homes of private people to spy on what they are doing with their children. Families who elect to educate their children at home should not be subject to suspicion by default, guilt before being proven innocent, licensing or registration. Neither are they entitled to any special treatment or gifts or anything else from the state. They should be left completely alone to do whatever it is that they do, and they should assume full responsibility for whatever happens to them. Period.

The candidate appointed will be expected to:

• Monitor the quality of education for children who are being educated at home

This is entirely illegitimate. If parents want the progress of their Home Educated child to be monitored it is up to them to employ someone at their own expense to do this. Is it not the proper role of government to monitor the families who do not opt to partake of their ‘free’ ‘education’. Whatever the nature and quality of the education being delivered or not is the private affair of the family, full stop. It is no one else’s business and no one has the right to enter a person’s home to carry out an inspection of this kind. This is non negotiable.

• Provide feedback to a senior officer of the LA and to families

As I said above, this is not a consultation job; the person doing this it is an inspector; an inspector who gathers data and then reports back to the Company LA. Once again, families that want this service should pay for it themselves; also it is completely absurd that this inspector should provide feedback to the family that is being inspected. They already know what it is that they are doing. The subtext here is that Home Educators are not competent by default, and that they need some metrics provided to them to measure their performance.

• Liaise with Education Welfare Service and Traveller Education Service as necessary

What on earth does Home Education have to do with Travellers? Home educators can also be travellers… or not, but the two should not be conflated. What on earth is ‘Education Welfare’? You can have ‘education performance’, ‘curriculum compliance’ or any number of combinations that make sense, but education has nothing to do with welfare; Home educated children are being educated. They are at home, and so their welfare is not in question; if it is, then it is a welfare issue which is a separate thing entirely from education.

• Provide detailed notes of visit

So, this person is to be let into a house in Doncaster, so he can whisper into a voice recorder as he observes the goings on in a private household.

You cant make this sort of thing up.

Anyone who allows this sort of violation deserves everything that they get, and no, you DO HAVE A CHOICE.

Doncaster Council is committed to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, young people and adults and expects all staff and volunteers to share this commitment. This post is subject to an enhanced CRB check.

Let’t think about this.

Doncaster Borough Council Limited is going to hire a STRANGER, someone that THEY DO NOT KNOW to enter your home and ‘inspect’ you, who also do not know this STRANGER. This person, a potential paedophile, will be CRB checked… just like the other people who were CRB checked and who turned out to be monsters yet who had jobs giving them access to children.

Every paedophile in Doncaster (that has not been caught) is going to line up for this job. It is a part time job, so they can carry on with their other work while they prey on the innocent families of Doncaster, grooming them as they go, and be PAID for the privilege.

That Doncaster can claim that they have the best interests of people at heart, and that it will be OK because they are going to CRB check this inspector is beyond a joke.

The reality is that Concaster (yes, Con-caster) cannot vouch for the intentions of any stranger who they send into the homes of private people to do this nasty job. They are hiring someone who they do not know, and sending him to homes where they have no business. Even if they did know the person they are sending very well, that still does not lessen the insult of the idea.

The price of your privacy, by the way, is £100,000 per year. Thats what someone will be paid to force their way into your home, and then determine wether or not you should be home educating. He can report you to Social Services based on his personal prejudices and interfere with your life at will. There will be a huge queue of busybodies lining up to do this; many of them with a chip on their shoulder, drooling at the opportunity to lord it over other people, tell them what to do, frighten them, harass them, and potentially rape their children.

A retired teacher may take up this post. You know that means instant, blistering hostility to the idea that teachers are not needed to educate children, and the slightest perceived infraction will mean you are reported as being a bad parent. For 100,000 pounds a year and a pension for two days work per week and unlimited power to destroy… this is a dream job for monsters.

Whatever way you want to look at it, this job posting is a terrible indication of how the system of licensing and inspection is going to work. Potential paedophiles are going to be the ‘front line’ of this violation. It means nothing but trouble, guaranteed if you let them into your house. And do not forget, that these well paid potential paedophiles will have the power to DEMAND that they interview your children without you being there. If you refuse, your home education license will be revoked.

Incredible ay? Still, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Councils up and down the country are downsising, and the people who are being chopped are from Child Services:

Unions demand talks over Birmingham Council job cuts

The council needs to save millions from its budget

Union bosses want talks with Birmingham City Council over its plan to cut 2,000 jobs.

The UK’s biggest local authority needs to slash £69m from its budget and plans to cut 5% of its workforce in the process.

Unions say children’s services are expected to be hardest hit, with more than 1,200 positions that could go.

The council hopes the cuts can come mostly through early retirement and voluntary redundancy.

Tony Rabaiotti, of local government workers union Unison, said: “What the council is trying to do is offer a kind of moral blackmail to employees and that is not good enough. These are political decisions.”

Patrick Burns, BBC Midlands Today political editor, said the cuts showed it was the turn of the public sector to feel the pain experienced by the private sector last year.

“To some extent the public sector was protected from this initial wave of austerity,” he said.

“Well now comes Phase 2, where the public sector gets its share of this chill wind.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8510506.stm

Some councils will not be able to start this fiasco at all. There simply will be no money for it. As the New Zealand government has had to admit, spending money on monitoring home educators is a total waste of resources.

The coming financial collapse will wipe out these councils as we have known them. In the mean time, those delusional busybodies at Doncaster LA will use the cheapest possible people do fulfil ‘their duties’. Once again, depending on where you live, you may be left completely alone by your Local Authority. There are many ways you can get around this vile legislation and its animalistic implementors:

If you do not register, they cannot find you.
If they find you, you can refuse to deal with them by whatever means you like.
You can leave the country.
____________________ <<< insert your escape plan here There are a whole raft of ways that you can stay away from this nonsense. All you have to do is make up your mind that you will not tolerate this abuse, and then act upon that decision. Lets make one thing perfectly clear. You cannot ask for a free laptop from the government AND demand that you not be registered and inspected:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to allow home educating families to apply for home access laptop grants.

At the moment home-educating families are purposely excluded from the Home Access free laptop scheme for families on low incomes in England. We believe this to be discriminatory against families who strive to bring a nurturing and personal education to their children and at their own cost. Ed Balls said that children without access to the Internet at home are “…at a disadvantage to their peers…” yet is utterly at home leaving a tiny section of society in that very place: at a disadvantage to everyone else.

Please make the laptops available to home-educated children too. The current criteria is negligent and exclusive. More here.

What the hell?

Perhaps the home educators who are asking for free laptops are the ones that are ‘comfortable’ with registration and monitoring. Who knows? What is for sure is that this sort of utter bullshit makes the case for registration:

Exchange between Graham Stuart MP and Minister Diana Johnson, Bill Committee Thursday February 4th:
MP Graham Stuart: “A few weeks ago, when looking on the DCSF website, we found the programme that allows children to have a home computer and it said specifically, “but not if you are home-educated”. No access to IT then. The website said that on the very day the Minister told us how the Government wanted to change things.”

Ms Johnson: “That point presents an interesting issue. The reason why the home access scheme is not being made available to families who home educate is because we do not know who those families are. We have no accurate register to look to. Some families have put themselves forward and notified their local authority, but there is no accurate record. That is the problem, and the nub of the issue. We do not have an accurate record of families who are home educating.”

MP Graham Stuart: “Time and again we get the circular argument that we need registration before we can provide support. We have 20,000 home-educated children who are known to be registered with their local authority. Has that led to any provision for them? It has not.”

Reminder of Baroness Morgan’s answer to Lord Lucas, Tuesday February 9th:
“In order to be eligible for a Home Access Grant, the learner must have their education funded by an English local authority or the Department for Children, Schools and Families. When a learner is withdrawn from, or is not enrolled in school, the family opts out of receiving the statutory funding towards that learner’s education. As such, those who elect to educate their children at home will not be eligible to receive a Home Access Grant.”

And there you have it.

Diana Johnson makes a statement that is pure logic, “how can we give you your free sugary laptop if we do not know where to send it my pets?!”. Amazingly, there are some people who would sell their own children for a laptop. That is their right of course. What they CANNOT do is say that they are AGAINST registration of themselves as home educators (and the subsequent inspections), and then ALSO DEMAND that the state steal from other people to provide them with laptops (or anything else) without the state asking ANYTHING of them whatsoever. The state is answerable to the taxpayer, and they have a responsibility to allocate scarce resources efficiently. That is all the excuse they need to register you if you are going to ask for a ‘free’ laptop.

For all we know, the people who put up that petition at No10 worked for the DCSf, and were glove puppeting. That makes more sense than home educators begging for laptops whilst in the middle of an epic battle for their freedoms and the safety of their children.

FURTHERMORE

People in the know on teh internetz ask:

“Isn’t Doncaster one of the most incompetent LAs where lots of children die?”

the answer, it appears, is YES:

Doncaster Social services facing inquiry after seven suspicious deaths:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5505375.ece

!!!

EVEN FURTHERMORE
10,000 != 100,000

DUUUUUUHHHHH!!!

Thanks Billysu!!

EVEN FURTHERMORE STILL

The listing has been REMOVED by the employer:

Home Edders rock! ‘This vacancy has been withdrawn by the employer’! http://twitpic.com/12tztr £100,000 for a 2-day week :-)

But someone clever made a screengrab of it:

!!!

and here is another:

On BLOGDIAL we talk about ‘the idiocracy‘, ‘the eloi‘ and ‘the retards‘ when we point out the utter stupidity, numb headed waste of fleshness of many people out there, who collectively are ‘the problem’.

You need to see this film, if you want to watch them in action.

Now thanks to the internets and the Google and a blog, we have a clear window into the workings of these ‘people’. A fantastic thread demonstrating just how STUPID the millions of eloi out there on the internets are has emerged here.

It is clear that the deliberate dumbing down of the population through compulsory education has been a wild success. People from the top to the bottom of ‘society’ do not have the capacity (or where they have the capacity, do not have the language or training) to think.

Check out this comment:

Comment 366:

This is fantastic on so many levels:

1) If Google Buzz ends up becoming a bigger service than Facebook, we can thank this blog post and comment thread for siphoning off Facebook users.

2) This shows that the primary component of computer literacy is the ability to TRY SOMETHING ELSE when something doesn’t work. For every comment posted here, there dozens of people who tried multiple times to log into Facebook on this webpage. Not to mention how many times people tried before they got frustrated and commented about it.

3) People really type like that? I mean, I enjoy a LOLCAT as much as the next guy, but I would never intentionally write something like that. A Neanderthal banging on the keyboard with a club would be more coherent. What even possesses you to put four commas in a row: “,,,,”?

4) Now we know how far we are away from internet voting. Any system that could disenfranchise people simply because a popular enough blog decided to talk about “California Voting Logins” is not going to fly. RWW, Techcrunch, Lifehacker, and Chris Brogan could decide elections.

Posted by: John | February 11, 2010 10:45 AM

My friend, this is exactly why they will try and bring in internet voting.

Remember too that these people are ‘smart’ enough to use a computer, and when they can find it, use Facebook. They are the cream of the crop.

The horrible, inescapable truth is that thinking people are sharing this world with very stupid, illiterate, computer illiterate eloi, who would be harmless enough if they could not bother anyone, but the fact of the matter is they all have the vote, and they actively bother anyone that they can.

Comment 245

This comment thread is a perfect demonstration of how Sarah Palin will be elected President in 2012. If you’re not smart enough to type, wait for it, “facebook.com” into a web browser, you sure as hell shouldn’t be able to vote.

Posted by: mudfarmer | February 10, 2010 9:37 PM

We are not the only ones who are aware that these thick as shit people having a say in anything other than their own diets cannot be a good thing. They will vote for anyone, based solely on their junk food distorted feelings. It cannot possibly be right that these people in particular (leaving aside the illegitimacy of democracy as a whole) should be able to determine what you, a thinking person, can or cannot do.

And yet, this is exactly what happens.

Bring on the howls of how this will ‘disenfranchise’ people. If you are saying that, you are one of the brainwashed.

The next time you read about some ridiculous nanny state initiative, regulation or horror story, remember just who the people are that allow this bad magic to happen.

The morlocks are harvesting human beings by building the ID Card systems, they are harvesting children through ContactPoint. The passive, unthinking, eloi, who will go along with anything for some ‘free’ blinking trinkets are allowing it all to happen without even a shout; in fact, they like to be patted on the head like pets by their lords when they do not shout, as their rights are stripped from them and their children abused before their very eyes.

In a Libertarian space, there is a place for eloi and morlocks; they are rendered harmless because there is no state that can use their numbers to legitimise and finance theft, mass murder and every other violation and pure evil that they get up to. As long as there is a state, and these ‘people’ have a say in directing it, you can be sure that everything is going to get worse.

The BBC has lied yet again about biometrics. Paul Murphy is a BBC propagandist first class; watch him in oily action:

The scheme does free young people from constant requests for proof of age

This is a LIE.

Every time you go into this vile off-license, you will be asked to EITHER show ID OR scan in. Putting your fingerprint in that database does not excuse you from any future request to identify yourself, it merely changes the way that you do it.

This reporter is either mentally retarded or is deliberately lying to make the violation inherent in this system more palatable to the sheeple that get their news from TV.

And did you see the ugly pageant of fat, disgusting, brainwashed pieces of flesh all saying that its a ‘good thing’?

This is the enemy that people who want to be free are up against; brain dead blubber bodies who swallow anything they are told and who are then willing and eager to contribute to violence against anyone that does not believe and act as they do.

its had an enthusiastic response from all the people who have joined

Indeed; what about the response from the people who have NOT joined?

Furthermore, there are ‘young people’ do not have concerns because SCUM LIKE YOU deliberately fail to provide them with the larger picture; you only ever tell them tall tales about convenience and compliance. You peddle propaganda, pure and simple.

Rob Parker should not need a license to sell alcohol, and there should be no age restrictions on who can and cannot buy it. It is no one’s business who he sells his property to PERIOD, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a brainwashed promoter of VIOLENCE.

but people watching say “we don’t want alcohol sold to underage (sic) they’ll actually welcome this; they will say its a positive move”

Some people say?

Now the presenter demonstrates powers of telepathy as well as prognostication.

‘WE’ don’t want? So you use VIOLENCE against people who are not forcing their wares on anyone, just because “WE” want? Who is this “WE” that these BBC subhuman trash monsters keep referring to? For the record, once again, there is no ‘ME’ in your ‘WE’:

These violent scum are the same ones that want to control what you eat, what sort of car you drive, what you can and cannot think, and how you heat your house. They are the same dangerous and repulsive animals that want to force you to send your children into their brainwashing schools so that they can end up fat, brain damaged and turned into cattle like the pitiful creatures in this video clip. They are the same people who have no problem with the state stealing on their behalf for their own benefit. Their way of thinking is the root cause of entire problem, and you can identify it by its smell.

but what is there to worry about? Its a voluntary scheme, nobody’s got to do it

WHOTSITMATAAAAAHH INNIT?

This presenter, without a shadow of doubt, knows that HMG lost the data on millions of people, knows about how these systems are open to abuse now and in the future – he knows that is is presenting a fallacious ‘side to the argument’. We can see this because his questions are all the wrong ones and not the right ones.

He MUST know that this data could be subpoenaed by the police and then stored and abused by them. There is no way that they are not aware of all of this and how it can be used against you.

And yet they continue to lie and lie and lie again.

All we need now is a Climate Gate style release of secrete documents to totally blow away the NIR/ID Cards biometric net / security scam once and for all. As for the funded by theft BBC, their days are numbered, and every lie they tell presses on the accelerator of the engine of their demise.

I can’t wait to see it!

Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!

Austrian Economists on the ball.

Image from FOI2009.zip which contains the entire contents of the liberated CRU files, featuring the heads of well known scientists that smelled a rat, and who are detested by ‘Global Warming’ / ‘Climate Change’ / ‘Climate Chaos’ alarmists for telling the truth.

The CRU CLimate Gate affair continues to inform and outrage. With respect to FOIA requests, Home Educators will be familiar with this behaviour and bad, un-servant like attitude:

Professor Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, explains how he lobbied to overturn UEA’s FoI Officer’s instruction to answer FoI requests and schmoozed the person responsible for FoI appeals:

“When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA [a popular "sceptic" website] was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC [Vice Chancellor] is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with.”

Prof Jones’s colleague, Prof. Keith Briffa – who is a Reader at the CRU – spells out their attitude towards Freedom of Information quite neatly:

“I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private , inter-collegial discussion is just that – PRIVATE. Your communication with individual colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these “demands” undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is for this reason, and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe none of us should submit to these “requests”.”

This is of course absolutely disgraceful behaviour on the part of these academics and their institution. They might have felt this was an imposition or an invasion, and they may have felt that their research should have been out of the grubby grasp of the general public, but the law is clear.

This is a rare insight into the attitude within many public bodies towards transparency, and the refusal to accept the principle of the FoIA is undoubtedly all too common. While the people and the media love FoI for the power it disseminates, those who have lost their privileged status still resent it deeply.

Even more serious than their appalling attitude is the instruction by Prof Jones to his colleagues to delete emails that are apparently subject to an FoI request.

On May 29th 2008, Prof Jones instructs colleagues to delete emails in a message helpfully titled “IPCC & FOI”:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

AR4 is an IPCC report that Keith Briffa and others at the CRU worked on together, and at least one FoI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 expressly forbids – on pain of criminal conviction – destroying information that has been requested under FoI. As the Information Commissioner puts it:

If information is held when a FOIA request is received, destroying it outside of your normal records management policies will result in a breach of the Act. You must confirm that you hold the information and consider disclosure, subject to any exemption. It will also be a criminal offence to conceal or destroy information if this is done with the intention of preventing disclosure under either FOIA or EIR.
This offence is punishable with a fine of up to £5,000.

Tellingly, another email from Prof Jones later that year shows that UEA’s internal FoI team had evidently become concerned about his secretive actions:

“I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails”

If the FoI team were concerned that Prof Jones might be breaking the law – and even committing a criminal offence – on an area that they are legally responsible for, they should have reported him to the Information Commissioner. Perhaps his flowering relationship with the FoI officer and the Chief Librarian precluded this.

Happily, he’s never tried to become matey with us, so we’re reporting him and his colleagues to the Information Commissioner this afternoon.
Irrespective of how important your subject area is, what your views on the topic might be, or how much you dislike the person making the request, Freedom of Information is too valuable and too important to just be ridden over roughshod like this.

[…]

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/cru-foi-emails-taxpayers-alliance-reports-phil-jones-et-al-to-information-commissioner/

“Freedom of Information is too valuable and too important to just be ridden over roughshod like this.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Now.

I wonder what sort of dirty shenanigans went on over at the DCSF, who have refused to release information requested by some diligent and persistent Home Educators on the most flimsy of excuses? No doubt there are bombshell revelations hidden in their computers also, that if released, would cause scandals, heads to roll and misconceptions to be swept into the garbage, scuppering life changing legislation in the same way that the Global Warming / Climate Change ‘Carbon’ legislation would have done.

Once again, there is a common element to both the DCSF and the CRU refusal to release information; both of these organisations are intimately connected to the existence of the state, and in both, the people working there are not adopting the position of servants. The people who work at the DCSF are public servants, and scientists are in service to the truth, wether or not they take money from the state to do their work.

If there were no state, then there would be no problem with scientists making stuff up to steer policy and social engineer; there would be no apparatus to force their crackpot ideas onto anyone. The same holds true for education. Without a state, there would be no DCSF, Department of Education or any other apparatus to interfere with you and the good of education that you want too avail yourself of.

There is that foul smell again!

World Net Daily has a story that sounds like it could have come out of the Large Hadron Collider i.e. from the future of Britain:

By Bob Unruh

A prosecutor demanded jail time for two parents accused by German authorities of homeschooling their children, and he erupted in anger when the Nazi foundations of the ban on parents teaching their children at home was cited.

Juergen and Rosemary Dudek of Archfeldt, Germany, were given 90 days in prison last year because they homeschool their children. They received the sentence after prosecutor Herwig Mueller asserted it was the only sufficient punishment for the family’s “crime,” appealing a lower-court order to issue a fine.

[…]

Armin Eckermann, chief of the homeschool organization Schuzh, has attended the trial. He told HSLDA the judge said he thought a jail sentence was too harsh for the Dudek family, but the prosecutor “took a hard line.”

In Germany, many Christian families object to the public-school system because it advocates for sexual and social activities that conflict with biblical teachings. The sex-education program, for example, is explicit.

Mueller also erupted when Dudek asked local school officials called to testify if they knew the current laws that criminalize homeschooling are based on laws from 1938.

“All those Nazi laws have been suspended, and this one is democratic, and you’ve got to accept it, and that’s it,” Mueller argued loudly, reports said.

Dudek said the facts don’t support the claim.

“The ‘Schulpflicht’ – the laws that require school attendance – are on the books in the German states,” he said, “and have been traced back to the ‘Reichsschulpflicht Gesetz’ [federal compulsory attendance laws] which was passed in 1938. Except for the removal of references to the Nazi party, these laws are identical or substantially the same as the laws passed by Hitler’s government, criminalizing parents who keep their children home for school.”

Practical Homeschool Magazine has noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools and school-related issues.

In 1937, the dictator said, “The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, commented previously on the issue, contending the government “has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion.”

Drautz said schools teach socialization, and as WND reported, that is important, as evident in the government’s response when a German family in another case wrote objecting to police officers picking their child up at home and delivering him to a public school.

“The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling,” said a government letter in response. “You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. … In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement.”
Donnelly says the German characterization of homeschooling as a “parallel society” isn’t accurate, either.

“Homeschoolers are definitely a distinct social group but are not a ‘parallel society’ the way the German courts are trying to use the term,” Donnelly said. “The irony of German court decisions is their position that the state must teach ‘tolerance for diversity’ by forcing children into public schools and stamping out a diverse form of education recognized in all other Western democracies as a legitimate educational approach. Pluralism is supposed to stand for distinctive groups living peacefully together.”

HSLDA has reported the Dudeks believe homeschooling their children is the right thing to do, and they are determined to resist laws barring them from home education.

[…]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116976

These people are clearly insane; as insane as the monsters who are trying to enact the same regime in the UK, which, by the way, will not take into account the quality of the education you provide ‘your’ child if you are caught committing the crime of Home Educating. This is, to say the least, odd, coming from people who claim that it is their number one concern that children receive the best possible education. But you already know these people are lying about every aspect of what they are doing.

Read the rest of these stories for more glimpses into the future of Home Education in Britain:

State tries to deny homeschoolers vaccinations
War in homeschoolers spreading?
Police ‘nab’ 7-year-old homeschooler
State could take custody of teen homeschooler
Court orders Christian child into government education
Will homeschooling parents end up behind bars?
Homeschooling parents to appeal prison terms
Parents sent to jail for homeschooling
Government chases homeschool family
Judge: Homeschooling like driving drunk
Amendment protecting parental rights urged
Courts offer homeschoolers zilch, expert says
Court upholds Nazi-era ban on homeschooling
Parents sent to jail for homeschooling
Parents losing custody for homeschooling kids
Girl sent to psych ward for homeschooling, parents billed
Prosecutor wants homeschool parents jailed
Homeschool family reaches England
Parents race to escape before court takes kids
Truancy hearing targets homeschooling mom
Homeschoolers facing $6,300 fine
American missionaries targeted for deportation
Courts offer homeschoolers zilch, expert says
Court gives Melissa back to family
Western homeschoolers need political asylum from democracy
3 families face fines, frozen accounts
‘Youth worker’ lies about homeschool student
5 ‘well-educated’ kids put in state custody
Girl, 15, begs to return to homeschooling parents
Psych tests ordered for homeschooling parents
3rd Reich homeschool prohibition defended
Homeschool family told to give up 5 other kids
Homeschooler’s parents allowed 1 visit a week
Court-ordered foster care replaces psych ward
Homeschool student disappears from psych ward
‘Psych ward’ homeschooler case goes international
Court upholds Nazi-era ban on homeschooling
Constitution threatened by homeschool case

There is a common element to almost all the bad things that are and have been swirling around us for decades. Here are three examples.

We already know that ‘Global Warming‘ is junk science and a complete fraud. Now there are no doubts left for even the most ardent religious fanatic that spouts Anthropogenic Global Warming garbage or its latest incarnation ‘Climate Change’.

You can read the rundown at The Telegraph. Put plainly, these people have been caught with their pants down. They have been caught trying to nobble a scientific journal, deliberately leaving out data so that they can make their case and so on and so on; every single thing that honest scientists cannot do if they are to remain objective and true scientists, they have been caught doing.

This perversion of science and the truth is behind the Cap and Trade legislation that will destroy America’s economy. It powers the thinking behind the absurd ‘saved carbon’ displays that are attached to solar panels. (in this example one million pounds was spent on solar panels, whilst the castle itself is falling to pieces due to damp). It is behind the ridiculous and illogical ban on incandescent light bulbs. It is behind the absurd rainbow styled energy rating certificates that the EU mandates for all properties that are for rent or sale (the owner is forced to pay for inspection to get a certificate; a new burocrazy), and that even extend to devices. It is behind the proposed personal carbon trading schemes that will create an artificial economy based around ‘carbon’, where you will have to swipe an ID Card whenever you buy anything or travel anywhere.

These corrupt scientists have concocted a complex and difficult to penetrate lie, so that the world economy can be distorted and a few people can become billionaires in this new artificial economy that will sit on top of the real economy. They ignore the truth, suppress it and suppress and destroy the reputation of anyone that tries to uncover their lies so that they can personally benefit.

The same thing is happening with Education in the UK:

Government’s key adviser on Academies makes millions …from setting up Academies

A key Government adviser on Labour’s flagship City Academy scheme is now earning millions of pounds in fees from the taxpayer by setting up the controversial schools.

The scheme was at the centre of the so-called ‘cash for peerages’ scandal when police were called in to investigate claims that Labour was offering honours to businessmen who invested in the schools.

Now a series of leaked documents, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, reveal how the Government’s vision of local business helping to rescue failing schools has been replaced by fat-cat consultancy firms earning huge fees to set them up.

Daily Mail

If you have been reading BLOGDIAL you already know that Home Education has been under serious and increasing threat for over five years, culminating in a scandalous, fallacious and vile report by Graham Badman, that, precisely like the Climate Change scientists involved in the scandal above, revolves around the misuse of statistics, fabrication, baseless opinion and fear mongering, all of which is designed to engineer legislation whose sole aim is totalitarian control over people who were previously at liberty to live as they chose, so that a few people can make money out of the existence of children.

This fear mongering was supported by evil social workers and fake charities (NSPCC) who all repeated lies about Home Education for the sole reason that it would provide them with unprecedented access to children for financial and other, more sinister purposes.

Finally we have the spectacle of ‘Lord’ Mandelson and his nauseating and corrupt intervention into the workings of the internet at the behest of the buggy whip wielding entertainment industry.

The entertainment industry has been spreading false reports of heavy loses due to ‘illegal copying’ for decades, whilst suppressing any evidence that copying music helps expand the market for music products.

The frictionless distribution offered by the internet represents the greatest opportunity ever for artists to expose and profit from their work. Copyright was originally envisioned as a way to encourage creativity by guaranteeing the makers of works a short time period where they would have the exclusive power to control who can do what with copies of their works, after which, everyone would be able to exercise their property rights over the copies that they own.

Now copyright is a weapon that is being used to destroy the property rights of individuals, as well as the rights of speech of people world-wide.

This is being done by Mandelson at the direct command of the entertainment industry, who, if they could, would shut down the internet entirely to preserve their ancient and hopelessly broken business model.

These luddites (the book publishers and newspaper hacks are no better) would see the greatest invention since the Gutenberg Press crippled and made less useful, for no good reason at all, simply because they lack the skills and imagination to make use of it.

Now.

All of the matters above have one thing in common; the common stink that you smell whenever you encounter matters like this. That stink is the smell of THE STATE.

Without the state, none of these things could happen; they all rely on the state to ruin progress, rape, steal money and destroy life.

The monsters involved in Education rely on money from the state to do their evil with children. That includes the people who designed and sold ContactPoint, who are making money directly off of children. Without the state, there could be no ContactPoint contract.

The same goes for those academies; the contracts to create them could not exist without the state. Some argue that education itself would cease without the state running it. This is completely false.

Every evil to do with education comes out of the state’s involvement in it. The Home Education scandal in the UK is a direct result of the state provision of education, and compulsory schooling laws; were it not for that, there would be no ‘School Attendance Orders’ that could be issued to parents. If the state was not responsible for the education of anyone, which it should not be, the idea that Home Educators should be registered would never have arisen.

The state is the rotten smell behind it.

The blatantly corrupt and evil Mandelson, plainly and clearly acting at the behest of the entertainment industry, would not be able to create a new set of laws in addition to The Copyright and Patents Act if the state did not act on behalf of industry to facilitate the monopoly on ‘intellectual property’. As is made clear in the book in the previous link, we would all be better off in every sphere of life without copyrights and patents. The internet has partially demonstrated how a copyright free world could operate and bring huge benefits to everyone who consumes and creates works. If there were no state, there would be no threat of the crippling of the internet, and the even more astonishing threat of unlimited powers to do anything as long as it is in the service of protecting copyright.

The state is the rotten smell behind it.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax, a scam second only to the Federal Reserve System in its magnitude, is another example of how in the absence of a state, scientists would have little (or at least different) incentives for falsifying data.

Without a state mandating widespread changes in how people voluntarily interact with each other, it would be impossible to build a business on a lie like ‘Carbon Capture’ or ‘Carbon Footprints’, or gain employment based on a lie. Artificial stimulus of industries to cater to this Climate Change lie could not exist; the capital used to create them would be diverted into places where it is needed. An example of this is, once again, the incandescent light bulb. Capital has been diverted away from improving it and into new, unpleasant, poisonous bulbs. The incandescent light bulb, had capital not been diverted away from developing it, would have greatly exceeded its current efficiency, if indeed, that is what the market required of manufacturers.

The fact is that since AGW is false, energy efficiency is not a priority with regard to ‘carbon emissions’. You may want to spend less money on your electricity bill, but that is an entirely different matter to the artificial, state created pressure put on the light bulb industry, powered by corrupt and lying scientists.

Once again, the state is the rotten smell behind it.

The only way that everyone will be free to live to their fullest potential, is in a situation where there is no state. There is no need for a state. There is no need for one to protect anyone, ensure anything, to educate anyone or to foster creativity. All of these assumptions, that a state is needed for these functions, is false.

Finally, you cannot believe on the one hand, that we need a state for some things, but not others. As soon as there is a state, like a foul smelling weed, it will begin to rapidly grow and take over everything, killing every other living thing and strangling your liberty.

You cannot, on the one hand, be for your own individual rights, but be for the banning of smoking, or the banning of hunting, for example. If you are for the banning of anything by the state, you are against whatever rights you wish to claim for yourself. If you are for the taxing of the rich, so that they pay ‘their fair share’ then you are against your own individual rights, and furthermore, you are an advocate of theft by violence, as are the people who insist that ‘something must be done’ about Home Education, or ‘pollution’, or file sharers. The people who advocate these things are all violent types, and there is no escaping it. All of this is an unavoidable fact, and many people are having a great crisis in their lives because they are being unconsciously confronted with the stark reality that they hold and espouse two conflicting beliefs simultaneously.

Before you can begin to think clearly, you have to address the root of a problem and then align your thinking correctly so that there are no contradictions. The outcome might be unpleasant, but in the end, it is the only way to develop a mode of thought that when it is applied to or tested against anything, returns the correct, and logically consistent answer every time, giving you an opportunity to get to a solution.

The state is the cause of everyone’s problems. It destroys or distorts everything it touches. The sooner it has been gotten rid of, the better. This is the fact, the unspeakable, unthinkable fact that you must come to understand if you are interested in your rights and the protection of them.

Tory peers will use time pressure to thwart Gordon Brown’s ‘electioneering’ package
Queen’s speech focuses on pensioners, parents and economic recovery

Tory peers are ready to block most of the government bills to be announced in the Queen’s speech tomorrow, threatening to mire the final days of Gordon Brown’s government in frustration and delay.

Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader in the Lords, predicted that few if any of the bills announced amid tomorrow’s fanfare and pageantry would reach the statute book without the consent of Tory peers.

“We all know that this Queen’s speech is all about better electioneering and politics rather than the better governance of the country,” he told the Guardian.

“If these measures were so important they would have been in the legislative programme last year rather than being left to the last moment of the fifth term. That does not suggest they have the greatest priority or urgency.”

The government is expected to launch a total of 15 bills, encompassing measures to provide residential care for old people, new controls on the parents of antisocial children and a fiscal responsibility plan compelling the government to halve the public deficit within four years.

But as the government takes parliament into a fifth session for the first time since John Major in 1996 – when the Tories had to jettison legislation before the election the following May – Conservative peers can use the government’s lack of an overall majority in the Lords to block bills owing to lack of time before an expected May 2010 election.

Strathclyde said the Lords would not abandon its responsibility to scrutinise. His remarks underline the degree to which the Queen’s speech will be seen as the first draft of a Labour manifesto rather than a realistic legislative prospectus.

He said: “There are now only 33 legislative days left in the Lords between January and Easter [the most likely date for parliament’s dissolution]. That does not give much time at all to carry out the Lords’ proper duty to scrutinise legislation. Historically the Lords has taken its job of scrutinising legislation very seriously. We should not throw away that reputation or duty at the last moment.”

Strathclyde said it was “too early to say which bills we will allow through, but we will have to look at each bill in turn”.

Tory strategists know they will have to tread carefully not to be seen to be blocking popular measures, something governments perennially accuse oppositions of in the runup to an election.

Sources in the Lords said that in practice the government would have to jettison vast tracts of bills in order to get non-controversial clauses through. Even if the Conservatives do not have an overall majority, they can use the government’s lack of time to extract concessions.

The Lords tend to spend as long as seven weeks scrutinising a bill. Unlike the Commons, all amendments can be selected for debate and no time limit is set on how long an amendment can be debated.

Labour has 212 peers, the Conservatives 190 and the Liberal Democrats 71. Bills most likely to reach the statute book are those carried over from the previous parliament, including the equalities bill, the child poverty bill and the constitutional reform bill.

[…]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/17/queens-speech-tories-lord-strathclyde

Now whether or not you have the right to educate your children at home without interference rests on wether or not there is enough time to debate a bill.

All those who pick or bite their nails will no doubt be getting their plasters ready.

And what if there had been enough time? Would that make the result correct? It would be a great relief that this evil is killed, but really, the very fact that it has gone so far as to be actually drafted is a big wake up call to all those who think that they have any guaranteed rights.

Graham Stuart said in a speech:

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, said that she has been persuaded that a light-touch registration scheme for home-educated children would be appropriate. At first glance it looks as if that would offer benefits, just as with ID cards it seemed obvious at first glance that they would provide us with defence against terrorism and make us more secure. The more we gained an understanding of how ID cards would actually work and of the nature of the terrorist threat, the more the efficacy of ID cards to help us in that regard melted away. I would suggest that the idea of light-touch registration to make children safer or to make it more likely that they will get a suitable education will, on closer inspection, also melt away. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that people who move around the country will not be caught by the net, but the typical people who will be caught by it are those who live in one place, who are committed to elective home education yet have to face someone from a local authority coming and knocking on their door.

[…]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/16.htm

The problem with this of course, is that the ID Card fiasco, despite everyone shouting at the top of their lungs for almost a decade that it was a huge and immoral mistake, not only passed in a vote, but has had a vast fortune spent on it, and it is in fact being trialled right now in Manchester, despite the Tories saying they are going to scrap it.

Why should anyone have to put up with the violations in this bill for even one second, only to have the bill undone when these people realise what any idiot can, that it simply is WRONG. The answer to that question is that they should not have to wait, or be damaged, or disrupted or forced to pull up stakes and move on the word of a few venal and evil people. No one should have to suffer because these sinister busybodies do not have a complete understanding of technology and no morality.

Sadly, even if this bill is killed, the threat of other reviews and new bills will still be there and then there is the even bigger threat of the Lisbon treaty that can be added to without any review process whatsoever. If an anti Home Education article is added to that treaty, then all the states that are signatories will have to implement it, and of course, since most of the EU is already rabidly anti Home Education, you can expect no sympathy or help from them in that potential fight.

Its been said elsewhere, and here…

1. No more reviews into Home Education, no matter who is involved in them.
2. No new legislation regarding Home Education. Period.

Home Education is well understood and understandable for anyone who cares to spend a day on the Google. And now, for that speech:

Why cannot the Government adopt a humbler approach?

Because totalitarians are not humble.

Why can they not invest more money in research, enabling us to gain a better understanding of who is not at school and who is being educated at home?

Spending money on research is not an ‘investment’. Home Education is already very well understood. People who are educated at home are not the responsibility of the state. That money would be better spent in the failing schools that the state is already in charge of.

Why can we not be given a better understanding of where problems might lie among electively home-educated people?

All you have to do is ask, if you are interested, which apparently most MPs are not. In any case, there are no problems in the first place; the idea that there is a problem with Home Education is a fantasy concocted by people who want to make money off of children.

Why can we not have a voluntary registration system, perhaps involving additional financial support for families educating children at home?

There already is a voluntary registration system in place; you can register with your Local Authority if you like. This is hilarious coming from someone who used the ID Card fiasco as an example of what should not be done; the government first said that the cards would be voluntary, and of course, getting the card might be, but if you want to leave the country (renew your passport) you will have to be entered onto the National Identity Register by force… or you can never leave the country. Yes indeed, that’s really voluntary.

The present position is absurd.

It is absurd. They say the current system is unworkable, and that is true; the Local Authorities have been given duties that are beyond their remit in a free society. They have no business getting involved in family life in the way that they have been doing. The onerous and immoral duties that have been placed on these people should be removed; THAT is the way to solve the conundrum of them being given the responsibility for the supervision of Home Educated children but not the power to interfere with them.

A home educator told our Select Committee that one father had to pay £1,000 to cover the cost of GCSE exams taken by his daughter, although he was a taxpayer like the rest of us.

I do not know about anyone else, but if I had a daughter that wanted to take some exams, I would find the money so that she could take them, and not complain about it. That amount is far less than a decade of fees in a private school. In any case, this is a simple matter to solve. Schools that are examination centres should be required to allow anyone to come and sit exams just like the students who attend the school. Problem solved.

Why do we have to go down the compulsory route?

Because the people behind this are monsters, as are the people behind the fake charities that feed off of the existence of children. Without compulsion, the contracts for the licensing databases, and all the companies that are now lining up to offer training in ‘Elective Home Education’ would be worthless. This is what it really is about, and as long as those pressures are there, there will be vampires lobbying for these sorts of immoral measures.

Why do this Government always think they know best?

They are completely delusional, psychopathic monsters who are not acting in the best interests of anyone but whose sole driving impulse is to cause harm on a massive scale on every front that they can touch.

Why can they not work with people on a voluntary basis,

Because they believe they are the masters of the population, not the servants.

build up the picture and then and only then—with a complete picture and a real understanding of the risks in respect of safeguarding and education—come forward with proposals, which might involve compulsory registration if there is due and proper cause.

Even if, out of the alleged eighty thousand home educators, ninety percent of them were really terrible parents, that would not mean that the remaining ten percent should have their lives disrupted, and their rights wiped out. There are many types of bad person out there; we do not register everyone just because there are a few, or many ‘bad apples’. You are innocent until proven guilty. You should not have your liberty in any way curtailed just because there are other people who are bad. This is a fundamental principle of living in a free country and of liberty itself. That is why no legislation of this kind can ever be justified or moral. The ISA is another example of this sick and twisted thinking, straight out of the evil totalitarian philosophy of New Labour.

Due and proper cause does not currently exist, and I sincerely hope those aspects of the Children, Schools and Families Bill that deal with home education will not become law.

Once again, even if there are some bad parents, that does not mean that all parents should be interfered with. And wether the bill is passed or not, everyone will be working against its measures except those who will stand to profit from them, and the corrupt and immoral system that produced this travesty will be even further discredited, if that is even possible.

FURTHERMORE

Hansard does not record how many people were there to hear a speech, but according to the Daily Mail:

No one was there to hear this speech. And that photo from the ever lying BBC is cropped; the complete wide angle view shows nothing but row upon row of empty green leather

You can guarantee that none of the MPs not there to hear the speech will be reading Hansard to comb through the drivel to inform themselves before any vote, so this speech might as well have been given in the house of commons loos for all the influence it will have.

And on the same page as this, is an amazing tirade from Barry Sheerman:

Childhood ought to be protected, warns MP, as he reveals young pupils are staying up late to watch pornography

Children as young as five are imitating sex acts at school because they are being allowed to stay up late and watch pornography, a senior MP has warned.

Barry Sheerman, chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee, said that teachers are witnessing ‘disgusting’ behaviour in the classroom by pupils who are too young to know what they are doing.

Mr Sheerman, MP for Huddersfield, blamed the increasing amount of pornography that could easily be watched by children on satellite channels and over the internet.

He said Britain was ‘awash’ with promoting sexual activity to youngsters far too early in life.

In a Commons’ debate on the Queen’s Speech he said: ‘I think it is very serious the access to pornography to children.

‘You go to infant schools now and teachers say to me: “Children come here at five and six simulating sexual behaviour that they should know nothing about.”
‘We are a country awash with focus on early sexual activity.’

He said the amount of pornography on the internet and satellite television that was available to children ‘ disturbed’ him. He added: ‘I believe that childhood ought to be protected.’

His comments echo those of other MPs who are calling for tougher measures on ‘lads mags’ to ensure they are kept out of children’s reach.
Earlier this year a survey warned that teenagers said they had learned about sex from pornography.

Nearly nine out of ten 14 to 17-year-olds had looked at graphic images and nearly one in five viewed them more than once a week, according to research for Channel 4’s The Sex Education Show Vs Pornography.

Daily Mail

This government, wants to force decent people with unblemished children who are very sensibly running away from these insane asylums known as ‘schools’ to send their sons and daughters to be corrupted by the children described by Barry Sheerman.

If it wasn’t all happening you would not be take seriously if you said the words out loud.

This is also the government that wants to force all parents to expose their five year olds to sex education in state schools.

None of this makes any sense.

On the one hand, you have Barry Sheerman saying that children are not acting appropriately in state schools, then on the other, he is saying that any parent that does not want their children to be exposed to this is not being a good parent. Then the same people want to force all five year olds to have sex education, but with the same breath, say that ‘childhood ought to be protected’ and that these children are demonstrating knowledge about ‘behaviour that they should know nothing about’.

If they should know NOTHING about it, then how on earth can you advocate TEACHING THEM ABOUT IT?

And just what kind of lunatic would observe that some children are clearly being exposed to things they should not be seeing, but then insist that all children must be locked in rooms with these children from bad homes?

Any sensible person would say, “I am not having any part of it”. And damn them all to hell from whence they came.

Finally this is on top of the fact that these schools are fundamentally and systemically broken places, where if you send your child there, you risk them not being able to read, write or do arithmetic. Or know the difference between the ion form of an element and an element.

Three fat clown monsters want your children to march to their beat. You know their names. See how it runs:

They may just get away with it. Why? Because there are many intelligent, well meaning, thoughtful, dutiful and innocent people who believe in fairy tales and outright lies, like ‘democracy’.

[…] This travesty of a review and constant consultations are discrimination and prejudice against a law-abiding population who are shouldering the very important task of providing an education to their most precious children.

It is true; this is a form of vile discrimination, but it is more than that; it is a deliberate and premeditated project to snuff out the emergence of a properly educated army of thinking people, who would constitute a grave threat to the status quo.

Home educators should be honoured and encouraged, not vilified and harassed by a pretend and disgraceful shambles of a concoction thrown together by a bunch of people (Badman, Balls and the various LAs) who have reason to manacle home educators. Schools are dying. Everyone knows that a school education in many cases is tantamount to no education, therefore we must have alternatives in this country.

No, ‘therefore’ you and your home educating must be snuffed out. You are a forest fire that needs to be put out. You are a threat. Your children are a threat. Your success is threatening, because as people learn about what you were able to do, they rightly believe that they can do it too. A trickle becomes a torrent, a torrent of fire that is scorching out the belief that, for example, only a qualified teacher can teach a child, or even more shocking, that a child needs a teacher at all.

To cut the throat of other interesting and lively possibilities like home education is to cut the throat of a vibrant and economically sound Britain.

If anything is clear, its that these people do not know anything about economics. Economic illiteracy reaches from the the lowest person to the highest in this and almost every other country. It is a very big problem. As for interesting and lively possibilities, these monsters with no souls do not want anything lively to be anywhere within one hundred thousand miles of them. Why do you think they outlaw playing music in clubs and dancing in open fields?

The only reason Britain has lasted as a sovereign nation thus far is that Britain has been tolerant of minorities and encouraging of difference. This quality in our once-glorious country is disappearing fast and will leave Britain trailing along behind those devastated economies that treat people worse than pigs and snuffle up the left-overs of more primary nations.

Britain has lasted for such a long time on the momentum of the empire, and nothing else. Tolerance of minorities has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Government ministers must realise that they are actually accountable to the people. They must be aware that people have rights and work on that premise.

And if they do not, then what? What are you going to do about it? Neu Liebour does not in any way think that it is accountable to ‘the people’, in fact, quite the opposite. They do not accept that you have any rights other than the ones that they describe and grant you, and all of those, including the right to life, are conditional. That is the sole premise upon which they operate. That is why they believe that they have the power to enter your home and speak to your children without you being there, and they propose it without any fear that they will be stopped or in any way seriously challenged. What is even more nauseating than the fact that there are subhuman monsters that think they can do this, is the fact that there are parents who say out loud that they will comply with any such law should it be passed. I wonder just what it would take to make those parents say, “that is a step too far, and I will not do it”. I wonder, if they passed legislation saying that all parents must give their child up to a state run kibbutz upon birth, to be returned when they are 16, that these parents would say, “I am not sure if I am going to disobey this new law”. Just what sort of people are these, that they would obey such violations? What will it take for them to say, “enough is enough”? Teaching their children that they are required to submit to strangers is clearly not ‘enough’.

They must assume that people who seem to be doing their best ARE doing their best.

No they must not. This is pure projection; this is what you, as a reasonable person, WANT them to assume.

We are angry, and we have a right to be angry.

Anger is a good, not a right.

We have been slapped in the face with time-sapping and time-wasting consultations. We have been told that we are not fit to educate our children. We have been called child abusers. We have been investigated in case our children have been forced into domestic servitude or trafficking as sex slaves. We, mothers, have been suspected of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy (another charming defamatory statement). How much more do we have to put up with? How much defamation is TOO MUCH?

You tell us. It seems like there is nothing that the state can do to some people that will be too much. Like a pack of hungry wolves, the state knows when the prey has no fight left. Until you are willing to really put your foot down, these predations will continue until you literally have nothing left, and are torn to shreds.

Local authorities regularly treat home educators like enemies.

You ARE their enemies. You represent an element outside of the system. You are ‘the anomaly’. You can spread this systemic threat, by simply existing in the way that you do. Also, you live the sort of life that they are too frightened to live. They are intensely jealous of you. That is why they hate you.

They lie to home educators.

Home Educators LET THEM LIE. The law is available to everyone; they refuse to group together and set up legal defence funds, they refuse to hire lawyers on their own, and so they are WEAK and will be picked off like foxes picking off chickens. It’s as if they have no knowledge of the history of collective resistance and mutual assistance… it beggars belief that it goes on, and honestly, if they refuse to use the power that it at their fingertips, they deserve what they get.

They encroach on their time and energy, and they make up the rules to suit themselves. So MPs are intent on giving them MORE power?

Why not? What are you going to do about it either way? There is nothing that some parents will not obey, so their thinking is, “why not go all the way with every sick proposal that is imaginable and unimaginable?” Remember these are the same monsters who want mandatory sex education for five year olds; there is no depth to which they will not sink. This should be absolutely clear to everyone by now.

Where is democracy? Where is fairness?

THIS IS DEMOCRACY!!! ‘Democracy’ is not a synonym for ‘fairness’, ‘justice’, ‘decency’ or anything else that people routinely misuse that word for. Democracy is exactly what has produced everything that you hate and these attacks on you and your family. The sooner you wake up and understand this, the quicker you will get to the solution to your problems… or at least a real understanding of them.

Where do we look for justice? Not to Parliament, we fear.

Parliament is the seat of democracy.

What do we tell our children? That MPs don’t care about you or your rights? That they’ll listen to you but not take heed? That you can refuse medical treatment but you cannot refuse to be led away by a stranger to be questioned by yourself (no matter who that stranger is)? That your mother and father have to be on a list because they might hurt you and some faceless bureaucrat with ice in his heart might have to ‘check’ that you’re not being brutalised?

You tell your children THE TRUTH. And the truth is that democracy is the thing that is about to criminalise you and which abuses you and your family. It is the thing that steals from you, corrals you like cattle, and uses the fruit of your own labour to do it. If you do not tell your children this truth, then they will be slaves just like everyone else. Slaves to false ideas of what is right and wrong, of who and what they really are and what their true place in this world is. And you will have utterly failed them. AND YOU DO NOT LET THOSE PEOPLE INTO YOUR HOME.

I am sickened and disgusted by this whole farce, and wish I had never returned to what I considered ‘home’ from Canada. At least, in that country, home educators can do their duty in peace and be free from scurrilous attacks on them from people with dirt in their souls. http://www.threedegreesoffreedom.blogspot.com/

Go back there. At least you have a place to go to; many people do not have the means or the place to go. If you are going to stay here and obey, then you really should not waste your time complaining, since no matter what you do, they are going to try and crush you, and only a definitive ‘no’ will be of any real value. And make no mistake; this is just the beginning. There are unthinkable predations on the horizon that come right out of the best/worst science fiction dystopia scenarios, and Britain is where they are going to try them all first.

What a servant is and is not is central to understanding the proper role of government.

When the creatures who run this government and the apparatchiks who operate under them say they are public servants, they lie; it is the same perversion of language that permeates all of their speech. When they say they want to ‘strengthen Home Education’ they really mean they want to cripple and destroy it. When they say that they are ‘public servants’ what they really mean is that they are your masters. This is the way they behave, the posture they adopt when they respond to you and it is evidenced in everything they do.

Servants have characteristics:

• They are deferential
• They do not lie
• They follow proper etiquette when addressing their masters
• They do not command anyone other than other servants
• They obey their masters absolutely
• They cannot instantiate new servant classes
• They are under tight control and audit

The proper posture of a servant can be seen in the behaviour of the people who sweep the streets with brooms in London. When you pass by them, they accept your rubbish into their wheeled bins. They get out of your way when you are walking down the street.

Those people are acting as true servants – they defer to you; they respond to you by making sure they are not interfering with you, and they take your garbage from you without you having to drop it for them to then sweep up.

A street sweeper who is not adopting the posture of a servant would, when you offer him your garbage, ask you to drop it first, so that he may sweep it up, as he is a street sweeper, and not a garbage collector.

Any public servant adopting a posture other than that of an obedient street sweeper or other true servant is not a public servant.

Servants who are serving correctly do not lie to their masters. If a china cup is broken in the household, the proper servant says, “I broke it by accident ma’am”. If accidents like this happen rarely, it is forgiven, forgotten and life goes on. If however, the servant lies and says that she found it broken, then this servant is a liar, and must be sacked. This is the servant who will steal a spoon, who will steal money and do all other sorts of things; this is a servant who cannot be trusted. You would not be able to leave your house with that servant in place, and in the case of Parliament, you cannot leave the power to legislate and declare war in the hands of people who cannot be trusted; you will end up with bad laws and many wars and your money stolen.

Public servants follow proper etiquette when addressing their masters. When a properly behaving servant is asked, “why are my shirts not ironed and folded Isabel?” she does not say, “Please take this matter up with the ironing lady”. She will instead, apologise, then run down to the ironing lady and ask why the DEVIL the master’s shirts are not ironed and in place.

If a servant speaks out of place on a matter, she is apologetic and grateful for correction. She does not raise her hackles, huff and puff, suck her teeth and say, “well if you don’t like it, then lump it”. A true servant who behaved in this way would indeed, be told to ‘lump it’ and be dismissed on the spot.

True servants do not command anyone but other servants. The public servant in charge of street sweepers has the power to command the army of street sweepers that he is in charge of and that is all. He has no power to mandate anything or control anyone or any other aspect of garbage. He cannot, for example, tell you, the master, how to pack your rubbish bin; if he can do that, then he is your master and you are his servant.

Servants who are behaving in their proper role always obey their masters in all matters. If the venal liars who claim to be public servants were actual servants, they could never have illegally invaded Iraq, since the masters did not want this to happen. Each consultation that came up with a result that meant new legislation was not capable of being brought to debate, so total was its rejection by the public, would be obeyed absolutely and without question.

Servants do not act in the best interests of their masters against their masters wishes. No matter what the servant believes is best, the master is to be obeyed in all things at all times, without exception.

The final characteristic of servants that differentiates them from masters is that a servant cannot instantiate another class of servant. Only a master can create a new class of servant. A street sweeper or housemaid cannot hire on their own initiative, and neither can they create a new position in the household.

This demonstrates that, for example, the multitude of Czars that are being created are all illegitimate, since no servant can create a new role for filling by another servant.

In fact, servants cannot create or demand anything that will cause the master to expend money without his permission. When the stable master needs saddle soap, he takes it out of the budget allocated to the stables, which is regularly audited by the master. He cannot order replacement horses, or saddles or anything above a certain price without the express permission of the master. In this respect, servants exhibit another characteristic; they are under control.

Finally, in this equation there is another consistent factor; the behaviour of the master. In all cases, the master must behave like a master, and not a servant.

• When he asks a question, he expects an immediate, truthful and direct answer.
• He does not tolerate breaches of etiquette (insolence).
• He does not tolerate breaches of the instantiation rule.
• He sacks for deliberate misallocation of his monies.
• He sacks for disobedience.

If you do not treat a public servant like a servant, the servant is sent the wrong signals and she begins to behave in ways that are above her station.

Scullery maids are low in the hierarchy of the household, but they obey the mistress of the house in all things instantaneously. They do not owe a greater duty of obedience to the head housekeeper; this is precisely what the appointees of ministers are doing today; their loyalty is not to you, the master, but to the person who appointed them, who they consider to be their true master. You are nothing to them; you are a serf who is taxed to pay their wages. You are to be spied upon, numbered, vilified and squeezed for the pleasure of the true master; a servant running wild.

If there is to be any long term solution to the problem of bad behaviour of public servants, it is absolutely essential that everyone when dealing with these people treat them in the manner that they should be treated.

No master ever begs his servant, or behaves in a deferential way towards them. Masters give orders and make demands of their servants on penalty of the sack should they fail to obey or function properly.

Being a master does not give you license to abuse a good servant. Good servants are like good dogs; you pet them, treat them and treasure them. ‘Please’, ‘thank you’ and all other forms of courtesy are due to servants; being a servant is not the same as being a slave. This distinction is the crucial block that prevents servants from committing immoral acts against others on the orders of their masters. Slaves are compelled to murder on the word of their master, free men who are servants are not. That being said, a servant who is not acting as a servant can never be tolerated, and must be sacked, not only to protect yourself and your household, but as a warning to other servants that should they not behave correctly, the sack is a word away.

No one forces people to become public servants. If they are not willing to behave as proper servants, obeying absolutely the points that are listed above, then they should not enter into public service at all, and should work for companies (where by the way, they will be under a modern version of the sort of discipline that you find in a good household with servants).

Without competent masters who understand their position in all of this, public servants, like untrained dogs, will ride roughshod over you as if they were your masters, and we have all started to see what that looks like.

What are the five most important words in the computer industry?

1. What
2. Are
3. Your
4. Latest
5. Warez?

The luddites are at it again. Sith Lord Mandelson says:

Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, warned internet users today that the days of “consequence-free” illegal filesharing are over as he unveiled the government’s plan for cracking down on online piracy.

The real question is WHAT consequences. Everyone who has read the very enlightening academic work ‘Against Intellectual Monopoly’ knows:

• File sharing is not theft
• Patents retard progress
• Copyright hurts society

These are not assertions, but are provable facts.

The consequences of this ill considered legislation will be that people’s connections will be temporarily disrupted whilst doing absolutely nothing to stop the flow of files across the internets.

Anyone who knows anything about computers or file-sharing or the decades old, bigger than ever, Warez scene knows this.

Mandelson, speaking at the government’s digital creative industries conference, C&binet, confirmed that the internet connections of persistent offenders could be blocked – but only as a last resort – from the summer of 2011.

He added that a “legislate and enforce” strategy was the only way to protect the intellectual property rights of content producers.

This is of course, a lie.

The intellectual property rights of content producers are not violated by people who makes copies of files with their computers, any more than sharing a light from a candle diminishes the light of the person who owns the first lit wick:

“He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.”

Thomas Jefferson

What people copy when they share files are not physical objects, but ideas. Every file is a unique number, and nothing more. It is a representation of an idea, and when you copy it, you merely recite that number using a machine, allowing another machine to listen to it and ‘write it down’ for you. Nothing is lost when this happens. Nothing is ‘stolen’ and in fact, filesharing improves the condition of man and it also benefits the people who made the first copy. The question is how are the people who made the first copy going to be able to make a living out of doing it. Many people have ideas.

Lets be clear; you sharing a file that you got from someone is in every way legitimate if two people are sharing files consensually. If however, someone hacks into a computer in a studio and then shares files that are not released, that REALLY IS stealing, since the owners of those copies had not released them to anyone. Once you get a copy of a record, tape, CD or file, and the transfer to you was legitimate, i.e. did not involve violating someones consent to give it to you, those copies are YOUR copies, and you can do whatever you want with them and no part of that is immoral, including selling those copies.

Against Intellectual Monopoly goes into how this is so in detail; see in while you are at it, the section on the report of the 911 commission, and how that work made a fortune for the publisher who printed copies of it, despite there being no copyright on it.

And speaking of ‘Terrorism’ we all remember how the pathetic, discredited, whorish, corrupt and bias soaked BBC shamelessly and stupidly tried to equate Bittorrent with terrorism and the omni-present Paedophile threat, climbing down later with the statement:

First though, an apology. File sharing is not theft. It has never been theft. Anyone who says it is theft is wrong and has unthinkingly absorbed too many Recording Industry Association of America press releases. We know that script line was wrong. It was a mistake. We’re very, very sorry.

[…]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4758636.stm

I wonder how they are going to spin this Mandelson mandate that says filesharing IS theft.

But I digress.

The strategy, which will be officially set out in the government’s digital economy bill in late November, will involve a staged process of warning notifications with internet suspension as a last resort.

The vast majority of people in the country share files. This is the reality (and its not new; people copied cassettes before the internets), and it is an entirely good thing. The only way that you will be able to stop it is by shutting off or crippling the internet. The damage that a crippled internet will do to human progress will be incalculable.

The story of James Watt and his steam engine patent as recalled in Against Intellectual Monopoly is informative:

In the specific case of Watt, the granting of the 1769 and especially of the 1775 patents likely delayed the mass adoption of the steam engine: innovation was stifled until his patents expired; and few steam engines were built during the period of Watt’s legal monopoly. From the number of innovations that occurred immediately after the expiration of the patent, it appears that Watt’s competitors simply waited until then before releasing their own innovations. This should not surprise us: new steam engines, no matter how much better than Watt’s, had to use the idea of a separate condenser. Because the 1775 patent provided Boulton and Watt with a monopoly over that idea, plentiful other improvements of great social and economic value could not be implemented. By the same token, until 1794 Boulton and Watt’s engines were less efficient they could have been because the Pickard’s patent prevented anyone else from using, and improving, the idea of combining a crank with a flywheel.

Also, we see that Watt’s inventive skills were badly allocated: we find him spending more time engaged in legal action to establish and preserve his monopoly than he did in the actual improvement and production of his engine. From a strictly economic point of view Watt did not need such a long-lasting patent — it is estimated that by 1783 — seventeen years before his patent expired — his enterprise had already broken even. Indeed, even after their patent expired, Boulton and Watt were able to maintain a substantial premium over the market by virtue of having been first, despite the fact that their competitors had had thirty years to learn how to make steam engines.

The wasteful effort to suppress competition and obtain special privileges is referred to by economists as rent-seeking behavior. History and common sense show it to be a poisoned fruit of legal monopoly. Watt’s attempt to extend the duration of his 1769 patent is an especially egregious example of rent seeking: the patent extension was clearly unnecessary to provide incentive for the original invention, which had already taken place. On top of this, we see Watt using patents as a tool to suppress innovation by his competitors, such as Hornblower, Wasborough and others. Hornblower’s engine is a perfect case in point: it was a substantial improvement over Watt’s as it introduced the new concept of the “compound engine” with more than one cylinder. This, and not the Boulton and Watt design, was the basis for further steam-engine development after their patents expired. However, because Hornblower built on the earlier work of Watt, making use of his “separate condenser” Boulton and Watt were able to block him in court and effectively put an end to steam-engine development.

[…]

http://mises.org/story/3280

This chapter of Against Intellectual Monopoly goes on to describe how the rate of increase in efficiency of steam engines in the years of Watts patent was low compared to what happened after his patents expired; the rate of increase in efficiency shot up spectacularly when people were free to incorporate his ideas into their designs. Society benefited from these new machines, and Watt’s business was not harmed in any way.

It is abundantly clear that if the reason why copyrights and patents exist is to benefit society, then they should be abolished, since everyone is better off without them. This is not an opinion, but is a fact based on research.

“It must become clear that the days of consequence-free widespread online infringement are over,” Mandelson said. “Technical measures will be a last resort and I have no expectation of mass suspensions resulting.”

There is no technical measure that can be implemented without fatally crippling the internet itself. If the goal is to reduce the internet to a Minitel level service, then this imbecile will succeed.

Even if it is not reduced to that level, the artificially and unnecessarily increased cost of access to the internet will have a distorting effect, as will the shifting of scarce resources inside every ISP, as they are turned from being service providers to police men for the monopolists.

Think about it. No one will be able to update their computers; the files for some updates can be 100meg. YouTube will be off limits, as watching to much of it will flag you. Unless they are going to sniff all of your traffic to see wether or not it is infringing, they cannot possibly cut people off for downloading ‘too much’. In any case, if you want to copy the contents of a CD, that is only 65megs, which is nothing in the days of broadband. A movie is 750meg, once again, nothing. This whole plan is absurd on every level, but most importantly, it is an immoral, culturally damaging plan that will retard the progress of everyone who uses the internet.

The legislation is expected to come into force in April next year.

Like so many other pieces of legislation, this one too will be totally ignored.

The effectiveness of the warning letters to persistent illegal filesharers will be monitored for the first 12 months. If illegal filesharing has not dropped by 70% by April 2011, then cutting off people’s internet connections could be introduced three months later, from the summer of that year.

Amazing. There is no evidence that downloading movies and music impacts on the sales of tickets or CDs.

Remember FOX’s film ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ that had a work print released onto the internets?

Lets look at the numbers for this movie:

Domestic Total Gross: $179,883,157
Distributor: Fox Release Date: May 1, 2009
Genre: Action / AdventureRunning Time: 1 hrs. 47 min.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $150,000,000

[…]

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=wolverine.htm

They made all their money back and more. Clearly these creative people were compensated despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people downloaded that work print.

What about ‘The Hulk’, which also had a work print leaked:

Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $134,806,913
International Gross $128,542,344
Worldwide Gross $263,349,257
Home Market Performance
US DVD Sales: $58,230,676 Weekly Breakdown
Production Budget $137,500,000

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2008/HULK2.php

That movie also was widely available on the internets, and yet, it made a huge amount of money.

There are now, suspiciously, many work prints available on teh inernets. The fact of the matter is that these studios know that leaked copies of movies have no effect on DVD and ticket sales, and might actually increase the two if the film is any good. And who, whilst in production, thinks they are working on a lemon?

Finally, for the biggest example of all, ‘Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith’, which was leaked days before its release:

Domestic Total Gross: $380,270,577
Distributor: Fox Release Date: May 19, 2005
Genre: Sci-Fi Fantasy Running Time: 2 hrs. 26 min.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $113,000,000

[…]

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm

That is a healthy profit, and of course, every Star Wars film is being actively shared every day, with no effect on the bottom line of LucasFilm. Once again, these leaks if they came from theft were immoral acts. This has nothing to do with the correctness of people who share legitimately obtained copies of works.

Are you starting to get the picture? Filesharing does not harm the bottom line of companies that are offering something that people want.

“If we reach the point of suspension for an individual, they will be informed in advance, having previously received two notifications – and will have the opportunity to appeal,” Mandelson added. “The British government’s view is that taking people’s work without due payment is wrong and that, as an economy based on creativity, we cannot sit back and do nothing as this happens.”

An economy based on creativity? The internet is the one of the most efficient ways that that creativity can be spread all over the world. By crippling it, Mandelson will be breaking the legs of this ‘economy based on creativity’.

Mandelson said that the strategy was a “proportionate measure that will give people ample awareness and opportunity to stop breaking the rules”. “The threat for persistent individuals is, and has to be, real, or no effective deterrent to breaking the law will be in place,” he added.

It is clear that ‘the rules’ serve only a handful of people and not the majority of people. Those made up, illogical rules that he claims are being broken are in fact, the thing that will push back the emergence of a culture never before seen by mankind, where fortunes beyond avarice will be made, everyone will be free to share and knowledge and good will spread everywhere.

Of course, this is precisely what Mandelson is against. These people are the snuffers out of light. They are for darkness, ignorance and are opposed to every natural instinct that man has.

They will be defeated. Just as Watts patents expired and steam engine efficiency shot up, Mandelson, Geffen and the monopolists will eventually be destroyed. Linux is destroying Microsoft Windows. Android is destroying Symbian. Human beings are not designed to live in chains as slaves, and they will do anything to get out of them. The question here is wether or not Mandelson and co will succeed in retarding progress like Watt did.

There would be a “proper route of appeal” for those that do have their internet accounts suspended, Mandelson said. He added that he did not want to see internet service providers “unfairly burdened” by the new system.

“ISPs and rights-holders will share the costs, on the basis of a flat fee that will allow both sides to budget and plan,” he said.

ISPs want nothing to do with any of this. They provide your connection, what you do with it is your business. BT is not responsible for the content of your phone calls, so why should ISPs be responsible in any way for what websites you look at or the files you transfer?

The staged roll-out of the strategy will see Ofcom assess the effectiveness of the warning notification system on cutting illegal filesharing, backed by the threat of legal action by rights holders and content companies, in about April 2011.

If the 70% reduction is not achieved the use of technical measures to cut off persistent offenders’ web access will be introduced by about July 2011.

[…]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/28/mandelson-date-blocking-filesharers-connections

How are they going to measure this number? Where did this number come from? These are the missing pieces of this article. But this should come as no surprise, since The Grauniad is a 100% Kool-Aid drinking anti-progress copyrights and patents promoter.

Anyone who knows anything about this knows that ‘piracy’ is good for business and the consumer. Tentatively, the people who make software have embraced superdistribution in the form of shareware and crippleware; the more copies you have in circulation, the more likely it is you are going to make money, either from donations or by someone making commercial use of your work.

Remember CoolEdit? That was a free sound editing application that you could download, that was very useful. Some people bought licenses for it, the majority did not. In the end, the people who wrote it sold it to Adobe for a very large sum of money. 16.5 million dollars in fact.

The shareware world demonstrates that people when left to their own devices will find out ways to make money off of their work. What Mandelson is doing is protecting the interests of people who do not have the imagination or means to adapt to the new conditions of business. In effect, they are like Watt going to parliament to ask that his patents be extended. In fact, Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act is an example of this happening successfully.

The question you have to ask is this; are you going to allow these small minded, computer illiterate, venal, nasty monopolists to cripple arguably the greatest invention that man has created to date? Are you going to allow them to retard the flowering of human knowledge and interaction that has literally changed the world?

Once again, it is up to business to grow a pair of balls and say that they are not going to take responsibility for the actions of the people they provide a connection to. If they do not, first they will be forced to police ‘piracy’ then they will be forced to police everything else the government does not like meaning speech.

Either way, even if the rise of the internet era of man is retarded by thirty years, it will come to pass, and scum like Mandelson will be swept away. They will be remembered as wreckers of civilisation, the new luddites, idiots, men without vision and the servants of monopolists.

And everyone will be able to look it up on the free internet.