Archive for July, 2009

A Handbook for Deniers

Monday, July 13th, 2009

Since the esteemed climatologist Al Gore declared that “the debate is over,” it seems the number of scientists denying both this fact and the accuracy of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis has continuously increased. Perhaps the “skeptics” have found the courage to speak out at this point when AGW has become universal religion and the movement’s leaders are calling for “global governance.” The threat from this movement is much clearer now and the ultimate goal of the AGW prophets is finally spelled out, which of course has nothing to do with environment or climate.

The “global warming” movement is now calling for enormous “investments” in certain public policies and new political institutions to supervise people’s and firms’ emissions of CO2. To most scientists in climatology this change in the movement’s agenda is most likely unexpected; if you are not used to the political game you are not prepared when your opponent makes his politically obvious (in normal situations denoted “irrational”) move.

Of course, the debate is not primarily between scientists even though such debates do exist. The literature in peer-reviewed journals in the relevant scientific disciplines have since long disproved the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. It has even been established that the global warming according to reliable data sources ended in 2001, despite the fact that CO2 emissions are greater than ever and continue to increase.

The AGW hypothesis with man-made climate change through emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gasses lives on, however, as politicians and the media find in it an extremely powerful thesis that makes people feel both vulnerable and defenseless and desperate for “help.” Politicians need a threat to increase their realm of power and make the masses cling to their belief in government, and the media needs disasters to attract readers and viewers (selling real news is a long-gone idea in mainstream media). To be honest, climate change is the perfect issue for the fascist state – it is a win-win game for powerful politicians, their buddies in the media, and big business.

Yet more people seem to realize that things don’t add up and that there is another side to the story, which is not generally allowed to be told. Even though most people still believe “we” are to blame, a thesis we are fed from cradle to grave by our all-too-mighty government through public schooling and media outlets, the number of people doubting the truthfulness of the theory is growing. This is why the mainstream posse needed to increase the level of blame in the overall blame game; people doubting man-made global warming were compared with holocaust deniers. People with no connection whatsoever with the study of weather and climate did not hesitate to join their fellow state worshipers, like the ignorant-of-economics-economist Professor Krugman.

Most of us laymen AGW skeptics have been dismissed with the proclaimed truth that “scientists all agree” (which really means “talking heads all agree”), but a lot of people are nevertheless beginning to doubt. We may be approaching a tipping point, at which politicians will be desperate to find another made-up disaster to rally support for their destructive policies. In other words, this may be an opportunity to not only get rid of the climate change scare – but also force the “noble” savages back to their Platonic caves.

One way of doing so is to be ready for and engage in the discussion – and do so wisely. This is the purpose, I believe, of Joanne Nova’s comic-book-style The Skeptic’s Handbook (PDF), in which she describes how to “[r]ise above the mud-slinging of the Global Warming debate.” The book shows how to use the existing and scientific facts properly and how not to accept non-answers such as referring to authority or cheap ad hominems. It also supplies the facts and the only points that matter. It is a short manual for constructively pursuing debates with AGWers and in that sense it is truly a “skeptic’s handbook.”

Perhaps Newton was right in that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” and that this is applicable to public political discourse. There is just a slight delay between the action and the reaction, just like there is a proven time lapse between increase in temperature to increase in CO2.

by Per Bylund

From Lew

Philip Johnston gets a whiff of Java

Monday, July 13th, 2009

Philip Johnson writes in the Telegraph about ‘the database state’ and how evil it is. It feels like he has had a whiff of coffee and is waking up. What he REALLY needs are some smelling salts:

Beware Labour’s quest for a database state

There’s no reason why the Government should know so much about us, argues Philip Johnston.

By Philip Johnston

Here is a good idea. Instead of handing over personal information to the state, why don’t we keep it and control it ourselves?

Indeed. That is a really good idea. I have another one. Why not, instead of handing over all your money to the state, why dont you keep it and control it yourself Philip? If you do that, then they would not have the means to build the database state that you are so rightly frightened of.

Simple, eh? For a start, it means the state would not be able to get its hands on these data, which most of us would consider a good thing, not least when they get lost. It would also be significantly cheaper than the industrial quarrying of private information to be held on vast central government databases, which is estimated to cost a mind-boggling £16.5 billion a year, a lot of it spent on repairing IT projects that have failed to work properly.

Exactly. And the cost of keeping this data would be spread to each and every person. They would keep what they want, store it how they want (on hardware or on paper or in the ‘white meat’ between their ears), and share it with whom they like on whatever terms they care to agree with.

Anyone who has the temerity to suggest that the database society may have a flaw or two is often accused of neo-Luddism, usually by those who have a vested interest in its expansion. No one is suggesting that we should not exploit the extraordinary benefits of storing data.

I have to say, in the eight years of BLOGDIAL I have NEVER heard people who are against ID Cards or invasive databases being called ‘luddites’. And once again, who is the ‘we’ in this section? Who is it that decides what is or is not a benefit? This is central to the problem; what is the proper role of government.

But there is a similarity here with those who raged against the machines in early 19th-century Yorkshire – a feeling of powerlessness, an inability to control something that can have an enormous influence on our lives.

No, its is not that at all.

The luddites did not understand how business and innovation work. They (and you) would have been well advised to read ‘That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen‘.

This is one of the great subjects of our times because it is the same one that has exercised the minds of political philosophers since Plato: to what extent should the state be able to control the individual?

Ummm, you mean should there be a state at all? Its like asking, “should people be robbed every other day of the week starting Mondays or Tuesdays?”

Doesn’t work does it?

In this age-old battle, one thing is clear – information is power, and the state is now in a better position than at any time in history to possess it and access it easily. It does so, it says, for our own good.

Information is not power. Cooperation transferees the illusion of power. Information by itself is not enough to compel obedience. The fall of East Germany and the Soviet Unions are proof of that. Those were two societies with deeply invasive and all pervasive surveillance systems that could not withstand the pressures that caused them to collapse.

Under Labour, a programme, known as Transformational Government, was established a few years ago to develop the database society and to obtain what the policy papers call “a single source of truth” about the citizen, based on their behaviour, experiences, beliefs, needs and rights. Why should the state want to have “a single source of truth” about us?

Links or it didn’t happen.

In a lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies, in London this Wednesday, Damian Green, the Tory frontbencher, will tackle this question head on; and it is heartening to see that the Tories, in opposition at least, have understood the dangers here. Government, says Mr Green, can do harm even when it is trying to do good,

Some people say that government can only do harm.

though I am by no means convinced that it really is seeking “to do good”. All states collect information on their citizens.

‘Their’ is used here in the form that suggests that people are the property of the state. This reflexive use of language to describe people as the property of government is everywhere. It is a testament to the effectiveness of brainwashing over decades. Free people are not the property of anyone. Free countries do not have citizens; in a free country, the citizens have a free country, the citizens own the government… etc etc.

However, the amount they are able to collect depends upon the technology, which is clearly available nowadays, and the constraints placed upon its capture by the legislature. Such constraints are remarkably few in the UK compared to other democracies. How have we gone so quickly from being the country you would most expect to resist these tendencies to the one that adopted them so meekly?

It is simple. The abuse of language. Fascism is renamed ‘Transformational Government’. Journalists talk of ‘a country’s citizens’ as if people are the property of the state. They talk of ‘the social contract’ which is a fantasy. They refuse to address the true nature of anything, especially money, self ownership, ownership of property. To sum up, they absolutely refuse to be serious and question the core assumptions of their lives and ideas.

Mr Green has identified 28 state databases on which personal information is kept, from the obviously necessary, such as the PAYE collection system

And here is a perficio exempoator of what I just described above. Philip Johnston says it is ‘obviously necessary’ that the PAYE system collection should exist.

to some that are impossible to justify, like ContactPoint, which will hold the details of everyone under the age of 18 in England.

And again. This description of ContactPoint is very poor. ContactPoint is the compulsory database of all eleven million children in the UK, that will be accessible by over one million government workers from council workers on up. You see? by describing ContactPoint as something that ‘will hold the details of everyone under the age of 18’ you deny access to the true nature of the beast, thus preventing people from the vital starting point that will allow them to come to the correct conclusion; that ContactPoint is one of the most evil things ever created by a British Government.

The Conservatives have promised to scrap or modify many of these if they win power; but they might find in office that the temptation to hang on to the data is too tempting.

True. Nevertheless, whatever government is in place, none of these databases mean anything in the absence of cooperation. This is what Johnston misses entirely. He means well though…

What is needed is a complete reversal of the assumption that our personal data is the state’s to possess.


Why should it?

It should not. And it should not do many of the other things that it does that you do not yet accept that it should not do.

This is the question that should be answered by the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” brigade. It is not as if letting the Government handle all of this information is secure, cheap or efficient. More importantly, it is inimical to any notion of individual freedom that a central bureaucracy should possess so much personal information about us; and, no, giving private data to the state, which has the power to misuse it to our considerable disadvantage, is not the same as having a Tesco Clubcard.

The smell of coffee… finally.

Mr Green puts forward a number of proposals for reform, including US-style security-freeze laws, which allow people to lock access to their data;

The only word that should be applied here is DELETE. No one should have data about them stored without their permission. PERIOD. Just as you should not be compelled to be a party to a contract without your consent, you should not have data stored about you that you do not consent to have stored, or even worse, shared.

an “open source” system which does not dictate the technology adopted by users from the centre;

Nice try, but open source is not the problem here. To collect and store or not to collect and store is what we are discussing. The operating systems and file formats can be discussed later.

and a right to see who has accessed personal information, the so-called audit trails.

Once again, having the ‘right’ (another misuse of English by the way) to see who has violated you and when is not the issue; that you should not be subjected to violation at all is the entire point.

Health records, for instance, would be better kept by GPs and by us as individuals.

True. And despite what Stephen Glover says about Google storing your health records, they would in fact, be a perfect solution.

Google could store your health records, uploaded by you under a pseudonym known only to you and your doctor. Google would know that your pseudonym was a diabetic for example. They would display ads for diabetic related goods and services right in your account, without knowing who you are. You get highly efficient, completely private, secure hosting of your medical records, that you can ‘take with you’ wherever you go, advertisers get highly targeted adverts to precisely the people who need to hear from them… and you have to pay NOTHING for the service.

Sadly, journalists are for the most part computer illiterates. And Stephen Glover really is like the Luddites Philip Johnston describes above in this particular instance; Glover cannot see how Google storing his health records could possibly be a good thing, because he does not understand how Google works, how anonymity works, how the internets work, and he cannot imagine several steps down the line in a hypothetical scenario thanks to this missing information.

Oh yes, and I forgot; with Google, you would be able to delete your medical records with the press of a button and would be able to control with absolute precision, who can and cannot access your medical records.

There are personalised electronic card systems available which can hold our medical details without them being available to government agencies, yet which are accessible by hospitals when we need them to be. This would eliminate the need for the NHS database and be practically cost-free. Instead, we are spending upwards of £12 billion on a centralised data system that hardly anyone wants.

There you go again with the ‘we’.

And BLOGDIAL has been talking about there being no need for centralized databases for some time now.

There is now an assumption that the state should know everything about us and be able easily to access that information.

And this assumption, like all the others, needs to be countered actively. You go second.

This is justified as being good for us because it facilitates the provision of services that may be to our advantage,

It is not good for ‘us’ it is only good for THEM, and it is only to THEIR advantage.

and on the grounds that anyone who is unhappy with the prospect must be concealing something nefarious. It is time we took back control over our own lives.



True. Next time, watch the pronouns.

Graham Badman: Liar by omission

Sunday, July 12th, 2009

Graham Badman’s scandalous, biased, immoral and utterly vile report on Home Education contains a submission from The Church of England. By selectively omitting parts of the entire submission, Graham Badman has engaged in what is called ‘a lie of omission’:

Lying by omission
One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. If a husband asks his wife if she’s at a bar, the wife may tell her husband she is at a store, which is true, but lie by omitting the fact that she also visited a bar.


Lies of Omission:

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it’s a gross violation of another person’s right of self-determination.


It is one thing to give your opinion, and say that you believe that Home Education is not beneficial, or that Home Educated children are not safe, or more likely to suffer abuse (even if that is statistically not the case as this analysis of comparative abuse stats demonstrates), but it is quite another to deceptively misuse the authority of the voice The Church of England by selectively quoting from their submission, which comes to a conclusion that is the polar opposite of the conclusion you want to manipulate everyone reading the report to come to; that the laws governing Home Education need to be changed. Had this been a scientific paper, Graham Badman would now stand convicted of academic fraud, and his paper would be thrown out by peer reviewers, and his reputation permanently tarnished:

Wow, there’s yet more on the dodgy nature of the Badman report.

Well done those HEors who pursued this line; if they end up working for the investigative team on Private Eye, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised. You can bet they will go in search of the truth like dog after a bone and won’t be fobbed off with phoney stats, headlines and soundbites.

Reading Graham Badman’s report, you would have thought that the Church of England were fully in favour of clamping down heavily on home educators. Badman achieves this effect by quoting highly selectively from the C of E submission.

From the Badman Review of Home Education, Section 4.8:

…the Education Division of the Church of England states its concern:

“that children and young people not in formal education are missing the benefits and challenges of learning in community with their peers. Children who do not go to school may not experience the social and cultural diversity encountered there; they will not learn how to deal with the rough and tumble of everyday life; they may never meet people with different faith and value systems. All such encounters, even the difficult or painful ones are enriching. We are concerned not only with the five Every Child Matters outcomes, but also with the spiritual well-being of all children and young people.


Spiritual well-being arises not only from being cared for in a loving family and/or faith community, but also in encounters with people of different opinions and backgrounds; in learning to listen to a variety of opinions; to encounter diversity and the riches and life-enhancement it can bring. Spiritual well-being depends on living and taking a full part in community life. Children and young people in schools learn about and from the five major religions. This may be a difficult part of the curriculum for home educators to provide, yet it is vital for the Government’s community cohesion agenda that all children learn in a balanced way about the variety of religious values and practices, and to be encouraged to question their own beliefs and practices.”

Badman however somehow failed to mention that the Church of England actually concluded their consultation submission with the following:

“We have seen no evidence to show that the majority of home educated children do not achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes, and are therefore not convinced of the need to change the current system of monitoring the standard of home education. Where there are particular concerns about the children who are home-educating, this should be a matter for Children’s services.”

Home educators have subsequently received reassurances from the Church to the effect that the C of E does indeed stand by the conclusion above.

“We stand by our position as laid out in our original submission and hope that those with an interest in this subject will read our full position rather than relying on selected extracts. We understand that there are a range of deeply-held views on this subject and are grateful for your appreciation that the CofE’s position was more nuanced that was perhaps suggested in the Badman report.”


Dare to Know

The statement from the Church’s representative is a diplomatic way of saying that Graham Badman’s report misrepresented the Church of England’s position on Home Education.

Graham Badman has demonstrated a totally appalling lack of integrity. What a completely disgusting and insulting piece of trash. This report should not be the basis of new legislation; in fact it should be the basis of an investigation into the low standards of the people who generate reports like this, and that investigation should produce new rules and minimum standards that should apply to the writing of these reports so that they are at a minimum, peer reviewed in the same way that scientific papers are peer reviewed. If this was the standard, phrases like ‘I believe’ would invalidate a report like Graham Badman’s because personal belief is not a basis for scientific understanding of fact.

Every day, thanks to the hard work of Home Educators, this report is becoming more and more discredited. Soon it will be seen for what it really is; a worthless smear piece with no rigor, no peer review, chock full of hearsay, glaring omissions and baseless opinions.

Michael Moore: Capitalist pig!

Sunday, July 12th, 2009

Michael Moore Gets It Wrong
Michael Moore has been working on another documentary. This time, he’s taking on capitalism:

“The wealthy, at some point, decided they didn’t have enough wealth. They wanted more — a lot more. So they systematically set about to fleece the American people out of their hard-earned money.”

How ridiculous is that? The wealthy, and everyone else, almost always decide that they don’t have enough wealth. People ask their bosses for raises. We invest in stocks hoping for bigger returns than Treasury Bonds bring. “Greed” is a constant. The beauty of free markets, when government doesn’t meddle in them, is that they turn this greed into a phenomenal force for good. The way to win big money is to serve your customers well. Profit-seeking entrepreneurs have given us better products, shorter work days, extended lives, and more opportunities to write the script of our own life.

On Thursday, Moore announced the title of the movie: Capitalism: A Love Story.

It’s a title I might have picked to make a point opposite of what I assume Moore has in mind.

Moore also fails to understand is that it was not “capitalism” run amok that caused today’s financial problems. In reality, it was a combination of ill-conceived government policies and an overzealous Federal Reserve artificially lowering interest rates to fuel a bubble in the housing market. Then it was government that took money from taxpayers and forced banks to accept it.

Moore ought to understand that, because he makes a good point when he says his movie will be about “the biggest robbery in the history of this country – the massive transfer of U.S. taxpayer money to private financial institutions.”

That is indeed robbery. It sure doesn’t sound like capitalism.


Let us go further with this.

Michael Moore believes that people have the right to make the movies that they want with their own money, and that they also have the right to distribute them, and that people have the right to watch whatever movies they like, and to pay a price that they are willing to pay to see movies in theaters and buy DVDs of them.

This belief has made him more than one hundred million dollars.

Like all delusional people, he believes, for example, that his morality applies to everyone but him. Its OK for him to make $100,000,000 dollars out of his films, but when someone else makes money from what they do then that is ‘greed’, ‘capitalism’ and ‘fleecing the American people out of their hard-earned money’.

This smells like more than simple hypocrisy; I am guessing that it is something very different, and psychological in nature. This man almost certainly has an autistic spectrum inability to empathize with other people. Other people are not real; only MICHAEL is real, and only MICHAEL is good. When MICHAEL makes a hundred million dollars, its OK because “its ME”, “I am good. I am not a greedy person”. When I sell movie tickets, I am not fleecing the American people out of their hard-earned money, I am ‘just selling tickets’. Selling tickets and making a profit on my movies is not ‘capitalism’ its FAIR…. BECAUSE ITS ME, because I am GOOD and not EVIL and GREEDY like those capitalists.

Look at the last part of this episode of 20/20. Private health care, for profit is EVIL… but if it is ME (MICHAEL) who needs am urgent visit to a private fat farm (health clinic), then it is not evil… BECAUSE ITS ME!

Michael Moore is a capitalist. He uses capital (either his or someone else’s) to make movies, speculating that people will want to buy tickets to see his work in cinemas and buy DVDs of them. If no one watches his film, then he loses his money, his capital investment, and no one is there to foot the bill but him. If many people watch them, then he alone (and his distributors) make a fortune as the same work is played over and over and people pay tickets to see it and buy copies of it reproduced hundreds of thousands of times on DVD.

Michael Moore’s right to make movies and sell them is no different to the right of a farmer to sell his fruit, or a butcher to sell his meat, or of a car manufacturer to sell his car, or a watch maker to sell watches or any manufacturer of goods to sell their goods.

He cannot have it both ways; he cannot say that it is good for him to make a vast fortune out of manufacturing films, and that it is bad for others to interact with people freely with each other.

What these sorts of people never like to look at are difficult subjects like the actual nature of money, and how the American people are being fleeced – literally – by the Federal Reserve and their worthless fiat currency. They are the same types that put the cause of the ‘financial crisis’ down to ‘greed’ and ‘capitalism’ when in fact it has nothing to do with either.

They are the same types that are against war, but who stubbornly refuse to look at the root cause of it. They blame guns for violence, blame businessmen for unemployment, think that wages come from capital and not production and on and on and on.


Frances Stonor Saunders vindicated again

Friday, July 10th, 2009

More lies, deception and this time, maybe a slip up from the liars at totalitarian central known as Neu Liebour:

A Big Brother row erupted last night after the minister in charge of ID cards expressed a desire to load them with sensitive personal information such as medical records.

The Home Office insists the microchip contained on the controversial cards will store only basic details such as name, date of birth, a facial scan and fingerprints.

But Home Office Minister Alan Campbell has told MPs that a ‘future Government’ may want ‘to bring forward proposals to add to the amount of data held on a card’.

In a late-night Commons debate on Monday night he added: ‘Some people, including me, would quite like additional data on an identity card.

‘I am personally persuaded that if there were an ID card and it had scope for further information-some of that information, for my personal circumstances, would be a good thing.’

Opposition MPs accused the minister of inadvertently revealing the Government’s true agenda to store medical and even criminal records on the chip.

LibDem home affairs spokesman Tom Brake said: ‘As soon as this unnecessary scheme is rolled out, the Government will seek to store more and more information on it in the dubious name of security and personal benefit. This illiberal, unworkable and unforgivably expensive scheme must be scrapped immediately.’

Last month Home Secretary Alan Johnson announced the £5billion ID cards scheme would no longer be compulsory.

A plan to force airport workers to carry them was dumped, along with a long-term commitment to legislate to make the cards universal once 80 per cent of the population has one.

But anybody applying for a passport will still have to sign up to the National Identity Register and could be fined up to £1,000 if they do not keep their records up to date.

Ministers insist people will be keen to carry the cards as they will make life more convenient and make it easier to open bank accounts.

Last night the Home Office denied Mr Campbell had revealed a secret agenda.

A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said: ‘When we issue ID cards later this year there will be no spare capacity to hold information beyond that already laid out in legislation.’


Imagine a world where, as is the case with your drivers license in the UK, you can get points on your license to exist: your ID Card.

The police put points on your card because you dropped litter accidentally… actually, it will be a CCTV camera connected to a computer that will scan your face and then put points on your ID Card automagically.

This is what the future is going to be like if ID Cards and the NIR are not utterly and completely abandoned.

Once again, Frances Stonor Saunders is prescient on this:


There will be spaces on this database for your religion, residence status, and many other private and personal facts about you. There is unlimited space for every other details of your life on the NIR database, which can be expanded by the Government with or without further Acts of Parliament.


That is from famous ‘Anonymous Email’ that we love to quote at BLOGDIAL, and that fascist Andy Burnham said was ‘ridiculous’.

Not so ridiculous now is it?

Of course, what the Anonymous Email says about this insanely evil scheme is true; there is literally unlimited space for extra details to be stored, and when the vicious totalitarian lie machine Alan Campbell says, “there will be no spare capacity to hold information beyond that already laid out in legislation” he knows he is lying. Even if the card had no electronics in it at all, the NIR has the potential to have all the space they need to hold everything about your life from the day you are born to the day you die.

When they swipe your card, your records will come up, including all your medical records, your ‘criminal’ convictions, your bank transactions, the names of your spouse and children, your travel records… EVERYTHING you have EVER done, EVERYWHERE you have ever been, EVERYTHING you have ever bought, and if you use email, write on a blog etc, EVERYTHING you have ever written.

And that is ALL BOMB BAD.

Unity in Diversity

Friday, July 10th, 2009

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev pulled his ‘new world currency’ from his pocket at the G8:

There is a website for this currency. Lets see what its manifesto says:


ART. 1
"Unity in diversity" is the foundation that drives this initiative, which started up in 1996. Its aim is to bring people together and go beyond national stereotypes. Its historical importance is even greater than its economic one; it is a goal built on faith, common hope, and the unification of cultural and spiritual roots.

ART. 2
The relationship between Europe and America, and between the United States and many Countries from the five continents, is based on common cultural traditions and sustained by a parallel vision of the world. It is driven by the highest concepts of brotherhood and peace. These relations are cultivated through global dynamics whose purpose is to fulfill social, political and economic objectives, in full respect of the values and national identities that found countries' respective constitutions.

ART. 3
It is therefore our wish to bring to life the project for a common currency, which has been given the provisional names, "Eurodollar/Dollaeur" (initially), "United Money", then "United Future World Currency". It would symbolize not only the economic, but also the human, social, political, and spiritual bonds between the Nations of different Continents that hold similar ideals.

ART. 4
The common currency project is a highly important step towards bringing people together. It is a means of understanding, provides reference and reinforces different identities that share principle objectives. Competition in respective markets remains free, and the basic principles of participating countries' national identities will be safeguarded.

ART. 5
We are determined to raise awareness of this project among as many people as possible in all Continents. We are focused particularly on the active involvement of young people, especially from schools. Indeed, young people represent the strongest, most concrete vehicle for spreading this initiative. They are also the potential future beneficiaries of this large step forward towards unification and the creation of a world that responds better to the requirements of the new Millennium, as it gradually breaks down social and ideological barriers.

ART. 6
Renewed cultural interest in the Economy comes as a result of shifting perceptions of currency as a whole. This follows on from the debate opened by the introduction of the Euro. Through this Project, students, including from a very young age, can become familiar with basic economic issues. The latter are increasingly important in a new society of widespread wellbeing.

ART. 7
A joint Committee will be selected. It will include experts from a wide variety of disciplines. Everyone will be free to offer their own contribution to the project. This committee will also form the Jury that selects the most interesting ideas, proposals and projects demanded by different initiatives underway.

ART. 8
There will be an information and support campaign to coordinate working groups, committees and clubs, implemented through organizations, bodies and associations. There will be a consideration period for all contributions regarding the expansion, comparison and development of: issues and technical problems; optimizing legislative instruments and procedures; and fulfilling the obligations of the new Currency.

ART. 9
Trials will be carried out at important international events, aimed at awareness, education and promotion. "United Money" currency (banknotes and coins) trials will be entrusted to the best international professionals and experts in the appropriate fields.

Time will be set aside to explore technologically-advanced security and counterfeiting issues, which a future Currency will have to keep in check. This will involve the most prestigious and trustworthy public and private bodies, including universities and companies.

ART. 10
It will be the responsibility of the world's future citizens and the governments they put in place to make our Project a reality. This project is driven by a firm belief in the unification and co-existence of different peoples. It aims to promote an increasingly equal distribution of the planet's resources and human intellect.

Rome and Brussels, March 21st 1996
New York, January 12th 2000.
Milan, February 17th 2009



Notice the words and phrases that are missing from this manifesto:

Fiat Currency.
Control of Money Supply.

and the most glaring omission…


What is this money backed by?
What is it made of?

Unless this new currency is made out of Gold that will be distributed directly to the people who are going to use it, i.e. the public, it will be no better than any of the other Fiat Currencies that are currently circulating. All of them are flawed, all of them rob the people who ‘own’ them by inflation.

They have some interesting crypto enhanced banknote ideas:

but it is meaningless when we are talking about the nature of the money itself. The fact of the matter is that counterfeiting of banknotes is not what causes instability of currencies; it is the printing of banknotes by governments that causes inflation and currency instability. Of course, the government will have the private keys to sign every banknote – an infinite number of them if it wanted to. These notes will have no more intrinsic value than the now totally discredited dollar.

That image is from a page called ‘The Tests’. If this currency is made of 999.9 gold, there is no reason to test anything. I will accept it myself. Why? Because GOLD IS MONEY. Once it is in my hands, it cannot be devalued by inflation. It retains its value. It is, in fact, the perfect store of value. A commenter on a Grauniad article about the ‘financial crisis’ said that, “we need to have a standard of money that we understand in the same way that we understand what a meter is”. DUH Grauniad socialist, that thing is GOLD.

Sadly old ‘Dimi’ and his cohorts didn’t have the balls to simply declare a Gold Ruble and have done with it. The silly name of this currency and all the fluff surrounding it, like that absurd manifesto makes this thing reek of unseriousness. I could be wrong, and this could be the beginning of the restoration of real money. I might have missed the part where it says this is a money made entirely of gold, and where the notes are backed by gold. Lets see.

One thing is for sure though, if it does not conform to the laws of Economics, then it is doomed to fail.

Child safety checks are like Section 28, says Pullman

Friday, July 10th, 2009

Legislation that will require all authors who visit schools to be registered on a national database has been branded "Labour's Section 28" by bestselling author Philip Pullman. Section 28, or clause 28, a controversial piece of Conservative legislation, aimed at preventing the promotion of homosexuality in schools, was scrapped in 2003.

From November 2010, professional and voluntary staff working regularly with children in sectors including education will need to be registered on the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) database.

Pullman said: "This is Labour's Section 28—the implication being that no adult could possibly choose to spend time with children unless they wanted to abuse them. What will it say to children? It'll say that every adult is a potential rapist or murderer, and that they should never trust anyone."

The His Dark Materials author added: "Naturally I shall have nothing to do with any such 'clearance', and in consequence, I suppose, 
I shall never be allowed into a school again. I shall regret that very much, but I refuse to be complicit in any measure that assumes my guilt before I've done anything wrong. The proposal deserves nothing but contempt."

Trollogy author Steve Barlow branded the legislation "undemocratic", "ineffective" and "in violation of one of the cornerstones of English law—the presumption of innocence until proved otherwise".

Authors will need to register with the ISA through an umbrella organisation and pay a one-off £64 fee. A spokeswoman for the Vetting and Barring Scheme at the Home Office confirmed that specialist children's librarians, and those librarians and authors visiting schools, would need to be registered. Currently, checks are at the discretion of local authorities. Foreign authors visiting UK schools would also have to register, as will booksellers going into schools once a month or more.
Chair of the Children's Writers' and Illustrators' Group of the Society of Authors Celia Rees said: "We have a number of reservations because it is not clear how people will be affected by this, and what the costs and process of application will be. I am sure that, as more people become aware of it, there will be a groundswell of opinion against it."

However, author Gillian Cross backed the new checks. She said: "I understand entirely why people are enraged about the whole child abuse suspicion frenzy, which is particularly hard on men. It is nevertheless true that many children are abused. Theirs is the real suffering, and if checking can help to prevent that, I'm not opposed to it. Though I would be interested to know how often CRB [Criminal Records Bureau] checks have actually prevented known abusers from working with children."

Cross said that the scheme that replaces the current Criminal Records Bureau checks could be better as it is automatically updated rather than being repeated annually.


The Bookseller

This madness, like all other madness, will one day just go away. People will scratch their heads, and wonder how it was that people went so completely mad.

Thankfully there are people out there who will simply not comply.

If everyone refused to comply, all the schools in the country that rely upon and who enjoy visits would cry out for the system to be abolished.

Of course, Home Educators can group together and invite whomever they want into their homes, without having to consult with or receive permission from anyone.

But you know this!

What a German auto manufacturer has to do to get 5,000 tires for his cars

Friday, July 10th, 2009

This is from an article by Lew Rockwell.

If the environmental religion is not stopped in its tracks, you will see all of these steps replicated in the name of ‘saving the planet’.


Certainly Bush used 9-11 to consolidate his power and the neoconservative intellectuals who surrounded him adopted a deep cynicism concerning the manipulation of public opinion. Their governing style concerned the utility of public myth, which they found essential to wise rule. The main myth they promoted was that Bush was the Christian philosopher-king heading a new crusade against Islamic extremism. The very stupid among us believed it, and this served as a kind of ideological infrastructure of his tenure as president.

Then it collapsed when the economy went south and he was unable to sustain the absurd idea that he was protecting us from anyone. The result was disgrace, and the empowering of the political left and its socialistic ethos.

The talk of Hitler in the White House ended forthwith, as if the analogy extended only when nationalist ideology is ruling the day. What people don’t remember is that Hitlerism was about more than just militarism, nationalism, and consolidation of identity politics. It also involved a substantial shift in German domestic politics away from free enterprise, or what remained of it under Weimar, toward collectivist economic planning.

Nazism was not only nationalism run amok. It was also socialism of a particular variety.

Let’s turn to The Vampire Economy by Guenter Reimann (1939). He begins the story with the 1933 decree that all property must be subject to the collective will. It began with random audits and massive new bookkeeping regulations:


How To Brainwash A Nation

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

“This amazing interview was done back in 1985 with a former KGB agent who was trained in subversion techniques. He explains the 4 basic steps to socially engineering entire generations into thinking and behaving the way those in power want them to. It’s shocking because our nation has been transformed in the exact same way, and followed the exact same steps.”

Sound familiar?

That Elephant THERE!!

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

Database to track vulnerable children scrapped by Government

A multimillion-pound Government computer system swamped in red tape is to be scrapped after experts said it was a danger to vulnerable children, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

By Heidi Blake

Heidi, how could you…. FAIL like this?!

Local authorities have spent the past four years implementing the Government's £72m Integrated Children's System (ICS) amid threats that critical funding would be cut if they did not comply.

This is fascinating. How much autonomy do these Local Authorities have? If they refuse to implement something dangerous, like ICS, and actually work FOR the residents in the boroughs they run, they are permitted to DO THAT? If this is the case, Local Authorities could bill themselves as proper servants by listing the things they DO NOT DO, like use 'anti terror' laws to spy on the people they are serving, or not interfering with Home Educators, whom they also serve.


But the system, described by staff as "an unworkable monster", generated stacks of paperwork 6ins thick for every child, had no way of tracking the siblings of abused children, and absorbed up to 80 per cent of social workers' time.


'No way of tracking siblings'… this sounds like something another database CAN do that Heidi has, quite inexplicably failed to mention in this article..


In response to a damning assessment of ICS by a group of Government-appointed experts, Baroness Morgan, the children's minister, has written to councils telling them they can abandon the controversial record-keeping system. She has left the responsibility for its replacement in their hands.

This is the dictionary definition of Disingenuous:

dis·in·gen·u·ous   (d?s’?n-j?n’y??-?s)   

  1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who … exemplified … the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).
  2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
  3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.

dis’in·gen’u·ous·ly adv., dis’in·gen’u·ous·ness n.
Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means “insincere” and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as “tough love.” This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning “playfully insincere, faux-naïf,” as in the example “I don’t have a clue about late Beethoven!” he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world’s foremost concert pianists.

Baroness Delyth Morgan KNOWS that ContactPoint is planned to be unleashed, and that the capabilities of ICS are a sub set of what ContactPoint will be able to deliver. To say, "you can do what you want" is simply absurd… its a sort of sideways lie. Absolutely disgusting.

Officials last night raised fears that vulnerable children were still at risk because it could take years to build a working alternative.

Heidi, are you COMPLETELY MAD? How can you write an article about this without at least Googling children database vulnerable UK many results about ContactPoint come up… for heaven's sake, BUY A CLUE.

Tim Loughton, shadow children's minister, said: "Ed Balls has finally had to admit what front line social workers have known all along – the Government's Integrated Children's System was at best a waste of money and at worst a danger to children.

And the same can be said of ContactPoint, only magnified to include EVERY CHILD in the UK.

"This system wasted more than £72 million of taxpayers' money, but the human cost to child protection and to the social work profession has been much higher."

ICS, which stores case records about children at risk of abuse, was introduced in the wake of the Laming report which revealed that information-sharing failures at Haringey Council led to the death of Victoria Climbie in 2000.

It is not information sharing failures that lead to the deaths of children. Databases cannot save children, or stop crime or prevent anything bad from happening. All they can do is put money in the pockets of contractors and take away the privacy of the people who are put in them.

Social services, when they have information about children at risk, should act on that information; sharing it with other people who also fail to act means that nothing is done. Its hot potato protection.

But the Social Work Task Force appointed this March to review child protection practices after the death of a second child in Haringey, Baby P, issued a damning verdict on the Government system.

In a letter to the Department for Children, Schools and Families this May, the Task Force called ICS a "burdensome process" which kept social workers "tied up in bureaucracy" and away from their duties on the front line.

And now, magnify that bureaucracy by the total number of people in the country who are going to be on ContactPoint, ELEVEN MILLION and you begin to get an idea of what a nightmare they are in for. ContactPoint is going to make people less safe, from the statistically insignificant number of people who are actually at risk to the vast, completely safe majority, who are now going to have their personal and sensitive data exposed to all and sundry, should ContactPoint go online.

An Ofsted report published last Friday found that Haringey council was still failing to protect vulnerable children and identified faults with ICS as part of the problem.

Blame the database? What did these people do BEFORE they had computers? Were people more safe before or after the implementation of databases? Are these tools actually getting in the way of people doing the real work that they are meant to be doing?

It stated: "The risks arising from these system dysfunctions are that data are unreliable, managers cannot easily track progress on cases and in some cases professionals… do not have access to critical child protection or safeguarding information."

And ContactPoint is going to magnify this exponentially. Also, the database tables for ContactPoint are going to need to be expanded dramatically in order to store all the information that is mentioned in that last blockquote and more. This means that ContactPoint as it is designed now, is just the skeleton of an even more intrusive monster system that is going to develop incrementally.


In her letter to councils, Baroness Morgan told councils she was "making it clear that local authorities will not be required to comply with the published specifications for ICS in order to receive capital funding".

Because ContactPoint is around the corner. Pure EVIL.

She added: "ICT systems which support children's care should be locally owned and implemented within a simplified national framework".

Called ContactPoint. There cannot be any social workers who do not know about ContactPoint. They must be scratching their heads at why she is not referring specifically to it in this communication. Perhaps she did. Heidi has not let us know. She failed to mention ContactPoint at all ini this article. Absolute unmitigated FAIL.

Local authorities had previously been forced to use Government-authorised computer systems, known collectively as the "Integrated Children's System", in order to qualify for crucial funding.


But despite telling officials they could abandon the Government model, the children's minister denied that ICS was effectively being scrapped.


She said in a statement: "Part of developing a highly skilled and professional workforce is ensuring that the IT system social workers use is accessible, workable and secure.

Databases can never be secure. Highly skilled workforces existed before databases. This is nonsense on stilts.

"The Social Work Task Force agreed that ICS is the right system but made a number of recommendations. Today we are driving this change forward."

How can it be the right system, but be optional, and now abandoned? Oh yes, hot is cold, day is night, and 2+2=9.

Council officers said they would have to "junk" the Government's specifications and start again from scratch.

Whith whose money? And what this will do is put massive pressure on government to expand the capabilities of ContactPoint; why have lots of little unconnected databases when you can save money with economies of scale by rolling out ContactPoint 2 that has tables for everything everyone could possibly need?

This is the chess game that this dying bunck of Aparatchicks is playing. If they scrap ICS now, they believe it will be harder for the Tories to scrap ContactPoint since the Local Authorities up and down the country were told to destroy their bespoke systems. The Tories will also be forced to expand ContactPoint to save money as I described above.

Sadly for Mutterschwein of Drefelin ContactPoint is being scrapped because it is dangerous and immoral. No matter how much efficiency it provides or what its capabilities are, it should be scrapped because its existence is an affront and danger to all decent people in the UK.

No matter how difficult you make it with these pre death of Neu Liebour moves, nothing can change this. Your police state apparatus is going to be dismantled and you are already disgraced for overseeing and agreeing with its implementation.

Andrew Christie, Director of Children's Services at Hammersmith and Fulham, said: "The Government has left social workers and vulnerable children at the bottom of a black hole that it will take years to climb out of.

Actually, this is an opportunity for you to build something clean and decent that does what it needs to do without being immoral or dangerous.

"We have already spent a huge amount of time and money implementing this labyrinthine system and now we will have to spend more time and money unpicking it and retraining staff."

But you MUST do this to be a moral person, so GET ON WITH IT and don't complain.

Staff at Kensington and Chelsea council, which had its funding cut for refusing to implement ICS in 2005, said they were being "inundated" with requests from other councils wanting to buy the alternative system they have built.

I wonder how it works?

RBK&C is also the council that publicly voiced skepticism about ContactPoint and offered shielding to whoever wanted it:

The Council has reservations about the scheme. These include concerns about the lack of publicity surrounding it and about security and confidentiality issues.

There are 33,000 children in Kensington and Chelsea. The Government expects their details to be included on ContactPoint and has made the Council responsible for the upkeep of that information.

The Government wanted the first 17 councils that are introducing ContactPoint to be using it from April 2009, with other councils – including Kensington and Chelsea – following in due course.

Although glitches in the system may delay the start date, the personal information of children living in the borough will be available to those first 17 councils as soon as they ‘go live’. Information on ContactPoint will include name, address, gender, a unique identification number and name and contact details of the child’s parent or carer. It will also show the child’s GP practice, health visitor, school and school nurse but not the detailed information that a GP or school would have.

The Government currently estimates that around 390,000 people who work with children will be able to access the database nationally. They will be fully trained and follow strict confidentiality guidelines.

Safeguards and confidentiality
Although the Government maintains that the security of ContactPoint is of paramount importance and that it has been rigorously tested, Kensington and Chelsea Council is concerned about security issues and the ability of the database to keep information about children who are adopted confidential.

At the time of writing representatives from the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) were still trying to remedy security issues that had been identified in the system.

The Government has proposed something called ‘shielding’ as an extra measure to protect children and families from harm. Shielding means hiding details of the child’s, young person’s or family member’s whereabouts and reflects the fact that the Government accepts that a small number of children, young people and their parent(s) may be put at significant risk if their whereabouts become known. If a child is shielded, only their name, date of birth, gender and unique number will be visible.

The Royal Borough is encouraging parents and carers to consider shielding for their child or children. The Council will deal with each request for shielding individually and according to its shielding policy. Parents or carers who want the Council to exercise its discretion regarding their data should get in touch as soon as possible. Children and young people themselves can also apply for shielding.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is determined to support the best interests of its children and to address the understandable anxieties of parents/carers. Any request to ‘shield’ a record should include the reason why ‘shielding’ would safeguard the child. The Council will need to verify the applicant’s relationship to the child.

To enquire about shielding contact the CAF and Integrated Working Team on 020 7598 4694 or email:

What do you think?


I think you should not be implementing it at all. I think you are morally obligated to refuse it. I think ContactPoint is going to be scrapped.

America Solidarity

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

In November 2008 millions of people came out on to the streets of America for freedom and an end to the Bush regime. Whilst the November election was a pretext for the protests – elections have never been free or fair in America – it has opened the space for people to come to the fore with their own slogans.

The world has been encouraged by the protestors’ bravery and humane demands and have been horrified by the complete betrayal they have faced. It was hoped we would see a different image of America – one of a population that refuses to kill even after 30 years of living under Fascist rule.

The dawn that this movement heralded for us across the world was a promising one – one that aimed to bring America into the 21st century and break the back of the political American empire internationally. They never had a chance.

This is a movement that must be supported.


We, the undersigned, join America Solidarity to declare our unequivocal solidarity with the people of America. We hear their call for freedom and stand with them in opposition to the Fascist regime of America. We demand:

1. The immediate release of all those kidnapped and imprisoned during the recent, bogus ‘War on Terror’ and all political prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

2. The arrest and public prosecution of those responsible for the torture, rape and atrocities and for those committed during the last 30 years

3. Proper medical attention to those wounded during the illegal invasion of Iraq and treatment for the ill-treated and tortured in prison. Information on the status of the dead, wounded and arrested to their families. The renditioned must have access to their family members. Family members must be allowed to bury their loved ones where they choose.

4. A ban on torture and kidnapping

5. The abolition of the death penalty and prohibition. The end of regime change, assassination and military invasion and color revolutions as a tool os foreign policy. The withdrawal from every corner of the world of american troops, and the closing of all american military bases world-wide

6. Unconditional freedom of expression, thought, organisation, demonstration, and strike

7. Unconditional freedom of the press and media and an end to restrictions on communications, including the internet, telephone, mobiles and satellite television programmes

8. An end to compulsory schooling and gender apartheid

9. The abolition of discriminatory laws against home educators and the abolition of the department of education

10. The complete separation of the state from the monetary system, restoration of the independence of the judiciary, religious freedom and family organization as a private matter.

11. The complete restoration of all articles The Constitution of the United States of America (except Article 1, Section 8 and Amendment XVI) and the restoration of Gold backed Dollar

Moreover, we call on all governments and international institutions to isolate the United States of America and break all diplomatic ties with it.

We are opposed to military intervention and economic sanctions because of their adverse effect on people’s lives.

The people of America have spoken; we stand with them.


A Social Worker responds to the Badman and Balls show

Monday, July 6th, 2009

A lurker sent this in; it is from ‘Barefoot Social Worker a radical social work perspective’:

Growing calls for greater regulation of home education need a social work response. Social workers are being asked to exercise greater controls over families who reject state education and keep home educated children under closer surveillence. This move is authoritarian and inconsistent with social work values and should be strongly resisted.


Apart from the threat to civil liberties there are serious questions to be asked about whether local authorities should be taking on additional responsibilities at a time of financial cutbacks. There is a workforce crisis in child protection social work and many frontline workers are already struggling to cope with large caseloads. Extending the social work role with home educators is definitely not a priority while high-risk cases go undetected.

Hilary Searing


It seems that there are some social workers who are against the Badman and Balls show.


The fact that there are SOME against it makes the problem just the same… if you are unlucky. If you fail to win a home in a decent place, you will be subjected to a ‘post-code lottery’ for Home Education where if you live in a place where there is naked hostility to HE, you are going to be brutally harassed, whereas if you live somewhere else, you might never be troubled at all. Clearly this is unacceptable; you cannot leave to the judgment (or lack of judgment, or prejudices) of individuals wether or not a family’s way of live is ‘acceptable’ or not. We have just seen what happens when the completely insane are let lose to exercise their power, judgement, mad appetite for destruction on people that they do not like for whatever reason. The future will be one of a wide spectrum of abuse like that, from ambushes and kidnapping down to incessant nuisance letter writing and everything in between. The law must not be altered to allow ANYONE to harass or interfere with Home Educators. Period.

It would be nice to hear social workers saying, “this is a step too far, we will not cooperate with the Badman and Balls proposals”. Teachers are already refusing to operate the levers of the police state; its up to professionals to refuse to destroy Britain by pushing back from their side.

What is a ‘Psikhushka’?

Monday, July 6th, 2009

Please read this article in the Telegraph, which describes how a father was ambushed in front of the school his children were attending by social services:


Details of yet another shocking case, which comes to its climax in a county court in eastern England this week, have recently been placed in the House of Lords Library. This follows a comprehensive investigation carried out on behalf of the family by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who, as a hereditary peer, does not sit in the Lords, but has passed his dossier both to an active life peer and to this column.

Until six weeks ago, Mr and Mrs Jones, as I must call them under reporting restrictions, lived happily with their three young children, two sons and a daughter, aged under 13. Mr Jones, a business consultant, is related to various European royal families and his brother is a senior Army officer seconded to the UN. If he has one weakness, as he admits, it is to refer to these connections, as he did to the heads of the schools attended by his two older children, saying that he was particularly concerned for their security. He asked that he could be allowed to drive into the school grounds when picking up his daughter, because he did not want to leave her waiting, potentially vulnerable, in the road outside.
The headmistress agreed to this, but, concerned about other children's safety, contacted the local police, who in turn passed on their concerns to social services. The result of this was that, on May 18, when Mr and Mr Jones, accompanied by their younger son, arrived at school to pick up their daughter, they were met by a group of strangers, one as it turned out a female social worker. She asked, without explaining why or who she was, whether he was Mr Jones. When she three times refused to show him any ID, he was seized from behind by two policemen, handcuffed and put under arrest.

He was driven by a policeman to a nearby mental hospital where he was told that, because of "a number of concerns", he was being detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and "sectioned" under S.2 as of "unsound mind". His wife, it turned out, had been similarly arrested, for loudly protesting at the handcuffing of her husband and the forcible seizing from her arms of her young son. The three children had been taken into care by social services.


This is a comment from this blog post about this deeply disturbing story:

I too was shocked by this latest example of State terror. I agree with everything Gareth says. But what's happened here is no different from the post-Stalin Soviet Union. There, people who, it was decided by some lowly apparatchik, were "insane" because they had criticised the state implicitly or explicitly in some way were routinely sectioned, their children sent to orphanages and their futures wrecked.

They were forced to put all their energies into clearing their name, but they often never saw their children again regardless of whether they achieved this, or not. And "common sense" was regarded as a bourgeois concept. Apparently, that's exactly how it's regarded in socialist Britain, too these days.

The comparison between the UK and the Soviet Union of 1955-85 is not just some convenient satirical device for political point-scoring, it now must be viewed as a genuine one.

Personally, I think just before the social workers and their bosses, the police and theirs, the magistrate and the psychologists who with an abusive diagnosis "sectioned" this man and forced him into the British equivalent of a Psikhushka, and the government who created this climate of justified fear in its ongoing war on the middle classes, are all summarily fired, the headmistress who started the whole process should be. She's the worst of the lot.

None of them is fit to sweep our streets. They are the real danger to society. They should be treated as such.

What the hell is a ‘Psikhushka’?!

Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union

In the Soviet Union, psychiatry was used for punitive purposes. Psychiatric hospitals were often used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally; as such they were considered a form of torture.

Psikhushka (Russian: психушка) is a Russian colloquialism for psychiatric hospital. It has been occasionally used in English since the dissident movement in the Soviet Union became known in the West.



What this story means is that no one is safe in Britain. You can be picked up at any time for merely saying something that an apartchick does not like. You have no avenue of redress, no court to appeal to and no way to fight back.

Another blogger chimes in BLOGDIAL style:

That gives us ground to lock up and remove the children of all those MPs who voted for their children, and the children of celebrities, to be exempt from the child database then, does it?


Actually, no it doesn’t, because THEY say what reality is, NOT YOU.

What should happen is this:

The magistrate (who is on the board of governors of the Psikhushka where this man was held, i.e. totally corrupt)
The ‘social workers’
The police officers who ambushed him
The school head who made the call

Should all be named.
Should all be prosecuted for aiding and abetting kidnap.
Should all be fined and or imprisoned.
Should all be fired and lose all benefits.

Everyone involved in this should be tarred and feathered. It should happen immediately, and not after a long procedural delay. An example must be made of them to strike fear into any ‘social worker’ or the people they swirl around who thinks that they could do this to another single person in this country.

If that does not happen, every other ‘social worker’ will take this as a message that they can do anything they want with a guarantee of complete immunity.

The question is, who is next, and under what trumped up pretext are they going to snatch some children and lock the parents up? Just when you thought it could not get more insane, it does.

Dorchester County Sheriff: “Weed is good. Weed is right. Weed works”

Monday, July 6th, 2009

South Carolina, it seems, is finally beginning to see sense. When the police start talking like this, its clear that we are post tipping point on this subject, and that the age of, or should I say, the second age of prohibition is nearing its end:

Dillon – State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) agents, flanked by police chiefs from the state’s largest cities joined 16 elected sheriffs today at South of the Border to announce their support for legalizing and taxing marijuana.

“Weed is good. Weed is right. Weed works,” said Dorchester County Sheriff B.D. Squire, spokesman for the group.
The event marks a turnaround for the state’s law enforcement officers who have counted on weed-related fines and confiscated drug money to fund their militaristic uniforms and ‘SWAT’ like attitude towards the state’s marijuana users and sellers. The officials would like to see South Carolina enact legislation to legalize and tax weed and corner the southeastern market in a way similar to the way Georgia’s lottery siphoned valuable revenue from the state’s coffers and in a way similar that our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax brings customers all the way from the northeast.

Democratic and Republican leaders from the general assembly are intrigued by the idea.

“This is perhaps one of the no-brainers in terms of bringing us back to fiscal health,” said Hugh Leatherman, the senate finance chairman.
“There was a half-million dollar bust a couple weeks ago in Berkely County,” said state Agriculture Secretary Hugh Weathers, “if that pot was taxed at anything near the rate of tobacco… well that would be about $500 million straight into the state coffers. Can you imagine what kind of income we’d pull in if it was planted on proper farms and not just in little patches in the woods? We wouldn’t be having a ’stimulus’ debate because we wouldn’t need the money.”

“The effects of this would be enormous,” said University of South Carolina Economics Professor Lester Nestman. “Obviously tax revenue would be huge, but we’d likely also see a surge in tourism all over the state, you’d have all manner of stores springing up at every border crossing, and I can’t even imagine how popular farmers’ markets would become. On a related note, just the mention of this possibility has caused an overnight jump of 38% in undergraduate applications to the university.”

Reactions in the business community were mixed. Cigarette executives were outwardly dismissive of the idea, but a source at RJ Reynolds speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the company was actively looking for land to build a Marijuana packaging facility outside of Latta, near the North Carolina border.

Gregg Propps, a Charleston-area distributor for Little Debbies brand snacks was less reserved in his response.
“Are you kidding me? Holy crap, this is awesome. This is going to put my kids through college… but maybe I’ll send them to school in another state.”

Now that really is astonishing news. After all that wasted money, all the people put in gaol for no reason, people killed, lives ruined, the police say, “we are bored with playing SWAT, lets make some money!”.

We call it ‘Idiocracy‘.

Mandatory genital examinations for all UK schoolgirls to stop female circumcision

Saturday, July 4th, 2009

In a move backed by children’s charities today, Baroness Delyth Morgan has announced routine mandatory checks on the genitals of all female children in England and Wales for signs of circumcision. The yearly examinations are to take place in the homes of every British family with a female child.

An amazing, impossible headline and story you would say yes? The fact of the matter is however, that this is exactly what is being asked for by Baroness Delyth Morgan, with her absurd and insulting assertion that Home Education is a cover for arranged marriage, and that all Home Educators need to be registered and then examined regularly to make sure that arranged marriage is not taking place.

A blogger we admire, Renegade Parent, has actually been called a racist for questioning the logic of this. She is right to say that this is insane, and her logic in this matter is flawless.

Arranged marriage does not occur in the families of the ‘ethnic British‘, who are the majority in this country. To force EVERYONE to be regularly examined for ‘signs of arranged marriage’ by compelling them to register with their Local Authority and then to submit to arbitrary inspection in their own homes is therefore, totally insane.

Only those people who come from cultures that do arranged marriages (which by the way, is their absolute right) should be targeted, if anyone is going to be targeted at all. Of course, if you target one type of person based on their ‘race’, the politically correct lunatics will accuse the government of being racist and of using racial profiling, both of which would be true in this instance.

There is no reason whatsoever to check ethnically British families (or the families of Trinidadians, Jamaicans, Americans, Canadians, Russians etc etc) to see if arranged marriage is taking place. The fact of the matter is people with a different culture, one in which arranged marriages are normal, are now entrenched here. You have to accept them for what they are, since they have no intention of changing their ancient and completely legitimate ways. It’s either that, or destroy your own culture and ways in a vain attempt to try and force them to adapt, i.e. erasing the rights of parents, destroying civil liberties, dismantling the family, making the state a third parent just as New Labour are doing right now.

None of this has anything to do with racism. It is common sense.

This attack on Home Education is completely baseless, evil and fraudulent. The people behind it are weak minded, paranoid, delusional, ignorant, tunnel visioned family wreckers, who if they had one brain-cell and shred of decency between them would have researched Home Education and seen that it is taking off in the USA and world-wide reaching over 1.5 MILLION children in the USA alone and that it is something to be encouraged, not banned, like their spiritual leader had it banned. US State legislatures are now routinely removing the artificial and immoral barriers to Home Education whilst Backward Britain™ created by Neu Liebour is moving in precisely the opposite direction, turning Britain from one of the best places to Home Educate into one of the worst places.

How. Stupid.

Back to the subject at hand. Let’s look at it another way for the lulz (courtesy of Mimi Majick); imagine this statement from Baroness Delyth Morgan:

All girls in the UK are to be screened for testicular cancer. We are doing this so that we do not appear to be sexist in our quest to eliminate this terrible disease.

These examinations would obviously coincide with the proposed mandatory checks for female circumcision.

You think that is insane of course, and that nothing remotely like it could ever happen… and you are WRONG.

The deadly anti cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil has been proposed for BOYS as well as girls. If I remember correctly, only the female of the species has a cervix. Home Educated people of course, are up on their anatomy, unlike their state schooled counterparts.

These people are completely mad, and when the little boy (in this case Renegade Parent) stands up and says, “the empress has no clothes” the morons come out of the woodwork and start calling names. Well, I have some news for you morons; 2+2 always equals 4. It will always equal 4, until the end of time. You are WRONG.

Baroness Delyth Morgan, Graham Badman, Ed Balls and all the other creatures of the night are wrong in what they think, what they do, what they propose and the conclusions they come to. They are the wreckers of civilization, the enemies of common sense and liberty and their time has come to an end, even if they do not yet know it.

Finally, to Renegade Parent directly, you are a voice of pure common sense, a true voice for liberty and the rights of man. People like you are what made this country great. We support you, we know that you are correct, and join with you in denouncing these pig ignorant brainwashed monsters that are trying to kill everything that is good.

Even if you were to say something that we do not agree with, we defend your right to publish it. I have said it before; this is what distinguishes us from the rabble, the sheeple, the sleeple and the eloi; our philosophy does not require anyone to obey us, whereas their philosophy requires everyone to obey them.

We are the best.

And that means YOU.

New Labour’s New Low: Alan Johnson

Friday, July 3rd, 2009

Alan Johnson puts himself in line behind the Home Secretaries that are total, unrefined scumbags with a piece made of unedited weasel words published in the Guardian. It is a very telling piece, and secures Alan Johnson’s place as lower even than Jacqui Smith in the league table of imbeciles liars and monsters that have drunk from the poison chalice that is the position of Home Secretary.

We need identity cards, and soon
Identity fraud costs the UK £1.2bn, and untold misery, each year. ID cards are a cheap and effective way of fighting back

Alan Johnson MP, Thursday 2 July 2009 16.00 BST

There are only two possible reasons why Alan Johnson has written what he has written.

1) he is a totally mentally retarded, incompetent imbecile that has no idea of what has happened with ID cards since Blunkett, and doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to understand what it all means, and doest have the common sense to find out before making an insane pronouncement like this.


2) he is a totally evil, totalitarian by nature, piece of human garbage.

Either way, he is not fit to be the Home Secretary, and cannot be trusted with the wings of a dead fly, much less his new appointment.

Our identity,

It is not OUR identity, it is YOUR identity in this context, you collectivist SCUMBAG.

the information that makes us unique, is something that we get called upon to prove each day, when we are opening a bank account, renting a flat, proving our right to work.

This is absolute GARBAGE. For generations people have been living without ID Cards and transacting everything they do without any problem whatsoever. Till this very day, you can go to your bank, walk up to a teller, inform her you want to make a withdrawal and that you have forgotten your cheque book. If it is your branch, they will give you your money on the spot, since they know you as one of their customers.

THAT IS HOW THE WORLD WORKS you trust destroying jackass. No one needs ID cards except YOU, so that you can exert total control over everyone to the extent of stopping people from buying teaspoons without your explicit approval.

The whole country is on to what this really means; you cannot lie and spin this one anymore. You have LOST; get a fucking grip and kill it with fire, then at least you will be known as the man who killed the ID Card and the NIR instead of being just another in the line of subhuman monsters that tried and FAILED to enslave the great British people.

It is this unique information that fraudsters and criminals want and this is why we guard it so carefully.

Actually, you incredible, ignorant, lying worm, it is YOU who cannot guard unique information carefully; in fact YOU are completely incompetent and careless with other people’s unique information, and you have hurt people with your incompetence.

Shredding machines, once only found in offices, are now found in many homes as people protect their personal information by destroying personal bank and billing information.

And of course, this is an example of people looking after their own security, and taking steps to protect themselves. What you are proposing will make all the shredding in the world worthless. You want to expose everyone’s personal details to all the people who should not have it IN ONE GO, just like you pathetic swines did with the leaked DVDR of 25 million Child Benefit records. You are stupid. VERY STUPID. You are more stupid than all the Home Secretaries since and including the CHUD Blunkett; you trott out all of their discredited nonsense knowing full well that the tide has turned and that no one believes this garbage any more. You are more stupid than them because you apparently cannot learn. And like I say above, if you know that what you are saying is wrong, then you are a LIAR.

The introduction of identity cards is a simple means of helping you, and I, protect our unique identity from fraudsters.

You idiot. We all know now that it is far from simple. We all know that it does not help you protect your identity from fraudsters; in fact, we all know that the OPPOSITE is true; putting yourself on the NIR EXPOSES your unique identity TO fraudsters, the main one being YOU since you are committing an act of blatant fraud by lying in this way about something that you know to be FALSE, trying to sell it knowing that it does not have the capabilities you claim it has.

Identity fraud costs the UK economy £1.2bn on average each year and causes misery for tens of thousands who fall victim.

Even if that number is true, SO WHAT. It is not the place of government to provide identity services, there is no single ‘UK Economy’ that these frauds against individuals can be charged against (and in any case, the money that is defrauded goes right back into that same economy, you simpering prat.) and as for the misery, the misery that MILLIONS of people would have suffered as a direct result of this ID Card would far outweigh the value of the individual pain from fraud.

You cannot do simple math. What a joke!

At a cost of just £30, the identity card is a cheap way of helping fight back.

Not only is it not cheap, because no one needs one, it is not a way of ‘fighting back’ in fact, it is quite the opposite. That fee is actually being paid to put you into a system that makes you less safe and which increases the probability that your identity will be compromised and fraud perpetrated in your name. This is more night is day, hot is cold, wet is dry, war is peace babble. You are full of FAIL.

So, despite the headlines that would have readers think otherwise, I’m not scrapping identity cards – I’m committed to delivering them more quickly to the people who will benefit most.

Then you are committed to FAILURE. You are committed to lying, totalitarian doctrines and the control freakery of your predecessors. You are a NOTHING, you are not your own man, you are just a pawn, a loser, a cog in the machine, a waste of flesh. You are going down with Neu Liebour; no one will even remember your name. You will leave government without having brought anything to the table except the spork that you used to eat your share of the spoils.

I know that some of you have real concerns about the government’s motives for introducing the card. When I announced this week that I would make identity cards wholly voluntary it was because I believe that there are real benefits that will make the card an attractive proposition for many people.

This is classic doubletalk. If the concerns are real, then something is wrong. Also, the incredibly insulting move of ‘making the cards voluntary’ is not fooling anyone you shit for brains loser; we all know that the NIR is the key to this insane scheme, and that your fingerprints will be the ID Card.

I think the case for identity cards has been made,

I think it is abundantly clear that you cannot think at all.

but understand that getting a card will be a big decision for some people. Easy or hard, I think it should be a voluntary decision, one that people choose to take, because they agree and welcome the benefits an identity card will provide.

Utter drivel.

In particular, I’m pleased that the government will be looking at bringing forward proposals for pensioners aged 75 and over to receive an identity card free of charge.

Actually, it is those people more than anyone who can remember what Britain used to be like, and who mourn for the country that everyone loved so much and to which you have done so much damage.

I also want to see young people with identity cards.

Young people want to see you given the red card and sent off. Other people want a worse fate for all of you.

They will not only act as a proof of age for the individual

You want a Britain where there IS NO INDIVIDUAL. THat is clear. And as for proof of age, once again, this is not needed in this or any other country. The laws restricting alcohol to certain age groups are absurd, and they are being used as a pretext to bring in the NIR / ID Card whose scope and powers are way beyond a simple check to see how old you are. Everyone knows this now, you FAIL every time you say this because you are repeating old lies that no one believes… its like you are living out of temporal sync whit the rest of the world. We have ALL BEEN PAST THIS POINT. These LIES will not work anymore.

but also empower communities tackling underage drinking and crime

This is complete crap. ID Cards cannot tackle underage drinking, and they will do nothing to combat crime. Once again, old chestnut nonsense. And no, if you repeat it one million times it will not suddenly become true. Idiot.

by enabling local retailers, including pubs and supermarkets, to help ensure they aren’t selling restricted goods, such as knives and alcohol, to those who are underage.

retailers are doing so badly that if they did not sell anything to anyone who wants it they would go out of business. And what the HELL does ‘restricted goods’ mean? We know it means teaspoons, but what it REALLY means is ‘anything we decide in the future that you should not have without having to show ID’ which means almost anything, since they are now asking for ID to buy teaspoons. We do not want a world where you have to show id to do everything, and we are not going to have it. ID Cards are finished. The whole country knows what they mean and how evil they and you are.

And this is why I have taken the decision to speed up the rollout of identity cards by announcing that alongside people in Manchester, residents in the wider north-west will also be able to apply for a card in the new year.

Meaningless. We will not do it, and those small numbers that do will end up having a piece of plastic that is the ultimate souvenir of Neu Liebour, apart from the mass murder, emptying of gold reserves on the cheap and every other disaster they presided over.

People believe in protecting what they have and what they have worked hard to achieve

And you and your evil colleagues believe in stealing what people have, destroying what people have worked to achieve; that is why Britain is in such a mess, and why monstrous animals like you are pushing ID cards; you are DESTROYERS by nature.

– a good name and a good credit rating.

SHOCKING. For someone who thinks that a good name is something worth protecting, it is simply ASTONISHING that Alan Johnson is putting his name, his reputation and his sacred honor behind this ABSOLUTE EVIL. Well, I have news for you Mr. Johnson, your name is now MUD!

Being able to protect your identity from fraudsters who would use and abuse it is something we all want and I think identity cards can achieve this.


You, are, of course, completely and disastrously wrong. And we know it.

And now, a smattering of the comments from The Grauniad:

02 Jul 09, 4:13pm (about 21 hours ago)

Is this a joke?

I only ask cos CiF totally got me on April fools…

If it actually isn’t it should be, I’m wetting myself.

Who the hell does the nulab PR??? Are they mad? Or secretly tory?

Not only is this article a poor re-hash of tired and debunked arguements, it is very poorly constructed as arguments go – I’ve seen far better from madmen BTL!

Its not going to happen – how are we going to be protected from fraud by a government who cannot keep the records they do have safe?

And how are we supposed to trust a government that has curbed our civil liberties so far?

02 Jul 09, 4:10pm (about 21 hours ago)

Total bullshit from the charlatans of Stasi NuLabour.

Your pathetic excuse for a Govt hasn’t exactly got a great reack record on retaining sensitive data has it?

£1.2 billion a year you say? A drop in the fiscal ocean compared to the damage done by fasle illegal wars and unregulated troughers in the banking sector under ZaNuLabout stewardship.

Looking at the comments here should tell you all you need to know about what this country’s citizens think of this.

A shambolic corrupt decadent “Govt”.

Stick it.

02 Jul 09, 4:16pm (about 21 hours ago)

You were recently presented as a possible labour leader, from this article its clear you would be as mendacious as the present incumbent. You are supporting identity cards when the initial rationale of fighting terrorism has been conveniently airbrushed from history. Instead we now need them to maintain our good name and credit rating. Unbelievable rubbish, why not tell the truth about databases and your support for corporations who will manage this disaster and be paid handsomely for it. You should have commented on the retreat from privatisation of royal mail. Anyway, these cards are not voluntary and your lies bode ill for your own good name. The nonentity Smith has gone and you as her replacement are exhibiting a loyalty to surveillance dogma that has no place in a democratic society.

02 Jul 09, 4:19pm (about 21 hours ago)

I’m with noisebastard. How did anybody ever think this pathetic man was fit to be prime minister? This article drips with contempt for the reader. Does he really think anyone is stupid enough to believe this stuff?

02 Jul 09, 4:03pm (about 21 hours ago)

Countries that already have identity cards are not immune from criminals or fraud. The fact is that you or any other politician cannot grasp how technology works in the real world. Perhaps if you lived like the rest of us you would understand that freedom should not be given up for false promioses of protection and security. You are not qualified to protect me.

02 Jul 09, 4:05pm (about 21 hours ago)

Being able to protect your identity from fraudsters who would use and abuse it is something we all want and I think identity cards can achieve this.

your government has an appalling record on personal identity security, why on earth should we believe anything you say?


02 Jul 09, 4:08pm (about 21 hours ago)

The sooner you incompetant authoritarian wannabe Stalinists are out on your collective ears the better.

I will never carry an ID card, I shall never pay for an ID card and will be happy to go to jail in order to ensure I never own one.

02 Jul 09, 4:09pm (about 21 hours ago)

Our identity, the information that makes us unique, is something that we get called upon to prove each day, when we are opening a bank account, renting a flat, proving our right to work. It is this unique information that fraudsters and criminals want and this is why we guard it so carefully.

No, what makes us all unique is billions of years of evolution. Not a piece of card from a politician in a suit banging on about fraud and how much money it costs. And no, whilst you’re at it you can’t have my DNA either. So do us all a favour and go away!

And there you have it. It is hard to imagine that this man is actually worse than all his predecessors, but he actually is. And that they let him publish this badly written drivel shows that Neu Liebour is really in total disarray.


An Early Day Motion on the Badman Home Education review put before Parliament

Friday, July 3rd, 2009

EDM 1794 HOME EDUCATION 01.07.2009

James, Utterson

That this House recognises that an estimated 45,000 to 150,000 children are educated at home; believes that the mammalian mating structure is centered around the family, and that what a family is should not be defined by or interfered with by this House, and that parents should have the right to home educate without any interference from this House; notes with concern and disdain the proposals put forward in the recent Badman Review; expresses particular disgust at the lack of consultation involved in conducting the review; considers it unacceptable that local authorities are to be given unprecedented powers to enter the homes of citizens; rejects the need for a system of support to ensure that home educated children receive a good quality of education and rejects the creation of an excessive and damaging extension of bureaucracy; and calls on the Government to enshrine the rights of parents to give their children the widest possible educational opportunities and thereby ensure that all children receive a well-rounded education.