Archive for September, 2009

It’s a stick up! Your money and your life!

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

In light of the death of a teenage girl in the UK following HPV vaccination* and the outrageously rapid PR campaign to take blame away from the vaccine [“The postmortem examination was carried out with unprecedented speed. That and the unusual step taken by Grainger in making a public announcement of the early results, not much more than a day after Natalie’s death, are a clear indication of the anxiety among public health officials over the potential threat to the national teenage vaccination programme.“], and the ongoing push towards H1N1 mass vaccinations, the following article is now essential reading. Before posting selected excerpts, please note that with regard to HPV vaccines –

  1. There is no evidence that HPV vaccination protects against cervical cancer.
  2. There is no evidence that the protection against HPV infection from vaccination lasts more than 6 years
  3. There is concern that mass vaccination costing billions per annum will have no effect on cervical cancer rates or mortality
  4. There is concern that women will reduce their Papanicolaou (smear) testing frequency once vaccinated, possibly increasing cancer rates
  5. Vaccinating against HPV16 and HPV18 may leave a pathological niche which will be rapidly filled by other HPV strains to unknown effect.

These are not my opinions, they are those of the highest qualified physicians writing in the editorials of the best jourmals about HPV vaccine.

In this context, read the full article “Marketing HPV Vaccine: Implications for adolescent health and Medical Professionalism” at JAMA, one of the very highest rated medical journals in the world. Here are some highlights:

This HPV vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006,2 and worldwide sales in 2008 were $1.4 billion.3 In the United States, 25% of girls aged 13 to17 years have received at least 1 of 3 recommended doses.4 […] This HPV vaccine […] was identified by a trade name, Gardasil, and promoted primarily to “guard” not against HPV viruses or sexually transmitted diseases but against cervical cancer.5 The marketing campaign that followed, according to Merck’s chief executive officer, proceeded “flawlessly.”6 In 2006, Gardasil was named the pharmaceutical “brand of the year” for building “a market out of thin air.”6

Merck developed and tested an HPV-16 vaccine […]. Because of “ethical and scientific” concerns,5 investigators did not make cervical cancer their end point, substituting, as a “reasonable surrogate,”5 persistent HPV infection. Still, they concluded that “[i]mmunizing HPV-16-negative women may reduce their risk of cervical cancer.”5

Accompanying editorials were more circumspect. The vaccine appeared most effective against the least dangerous cellular changes and not protective or therapeutic for women with prior infections. Although HPV-16 and HPV-18 were most frequently associated with cellular changes, “the contribution of non-vaccine HPV types...was sizeable.”16 Another editorial suggested that “[t]he new treatment raises many scientific, medical, economic, and sociological questions.”17

“We still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer.”21 No data were available to establish the duration of efficacy, possible adverse effects on natural immunity, whether vaccinated women will forgo Papanicolaou tests, and whether after suppressing HPV-16 and HPV-18, “other strains may emerge as significant oncogenic serotypes.”21 Accordingly, the editorial concluded, “With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious about introducing large-scale vaccination programs.”21

The manufacturer’s marketing strategy […]: avoid limiting the vaccine to high-risk populations, promote it for all women, and secure government reimbursement and mandates. To these ends, Merck funded established PMAs including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and smaller groups, including the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP), the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO), and the American College Health Association (ACHA).

The [Merck-provided] Speaker Lecture Kit encourages speakers and their audiences to help in “convincing states and federal agencies to pay for the vaccine, convincing insurance to pay for it [and] encouraging state mandates for use” (slide 131).10 “All of us who are involved with cervical disease are going to need [to] work at the state and local levels to assure that the HPV vaccines are funded” (notes, slide 128).10

Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. […] Determined to increase industry funding, the SGO in 2006 established what was in effect an HPV vaccine speakers’ bureau.39 Funded by Merck, along with GlaxoSmithKline, Cytyc, and Myriad, […]. Panel members, some with financial ties to Merck, composed the curriculum and, initially, delivered the talks (34 speakers in 16 states).4142

The SGO teaching materials omitted cautionary qualifications. The frequently asked questions section, for example, opened with “Why is this vaccine important?” The answer repeated the manufacturer’s explanation: “This is the first vaccine directed against a cancer.”43 […] It did not include data on disparities in cervical cancer incidence and outcomes. This section also failed to include questions such as “Do I still need Papanicolaou tests?” “How long will efficacy last?” “How long has the vaccine been used?” and “Might risks outweigh benefits?”

American College Health Association. […] With funding from this vaccine manufacturer, the ACHA created an HPV Vaccine Toolkit for clinicians, including talking points, sample e-mail messages to students and parents, sample press releases, and public service announcements.46 If a female student responded “no” when asked if she was sexually active, clinicians were supposed to explain that the HPV vaccine is most effective for her.46 If she was sexually active, clinicians were instructed to say that she probably had not been infected with all 4 viruses.46

A sample letter/e-mail to students announced a new vaccine “that protects against HPVand it could help save your life.”46 It listed college students’ everyday worriesdates, examinations, roommatesand declared, “Well now there’s something you don’t have to worry about anymore. And this worry is a big one. Why worry about cervical cancer?”46 Sample public service announcements reiterated the message: “Hey ladies. You worry about tests....You worry about your next date. Well now there’s something you don’t have to worry about any moreand it could help save your life.”46 Sample letters to parents included the following: “Will she get good grades? Will she call home often? The last thing you want her to worry about is cervical cancer....Encourage your daughter to Be Smarter and Get Vaccinated at the Student Health Serviceit could help save her life.”46 In none of these cases was Merck funding mentioned.

As marketing of this HPV vaccine demonstrates, pharmaceutical company campaigns can undercut the most cost-effective and appropriate use of new agents to the detriment of adolescent health. By making this vaccine’s target disease cervical cancer, the sexual transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to all adolescents maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk practically ignored.

My emphasis at end. This is a beautiful piece of well-considered, fully-referenced writing that has undergone the peer-review process and whose authors fully declare their competing interests (none) and funding sources (charity). Next time you read about HPV, chickenpox, MMR, HBV, swine flu or any other new and ‘essential’ vaccine, this article provides the context in which it should be evaluated.

*Addendum: It is worth noting that dying from a ‘serious underlying medical condition’ post-vaccination is now considered an excuse for having no concern about HPV vaccine. In the case of swine flu, the vast majority of the (relatively few) deaths were in indiviuals with ‘serious underlying medical conditions’, yet each death was treated as yet another warning as to how deadly and vicious this virus was/is to the general population. Horses for vaccination courses, n’est pas?


The Liberal Democrat’s mansion tax: the unintended consequences

Monday, September 28th, 2009

The Liberal Democrats have proposed what is now being called ‘The Mansion Tax’, where each household that is valued at one million pounds or over will be taxed at .5% annually.

As is true with all taxes, there will be unintended consequences to this idea. Lets go through some of them.

This tax, should it ever be passed, will create a virtual city of limbo houses that no one wants to buy, no one wants to repair and which will fall into dilapidation.

Anyone who is going to buy a house and has a budget of one million will opt for a house that is less than that amount. Any owner of a house with a value of one million will find that property harder to sell. Even though one million pounds is ‘alot of money’, most people do not lay out cash, but instead, get a mortgage. The .5% tax will be enough of a disincentive to getting one of these houses; why go for a house that costs 1M when you can get one for .950k and avoid an annual bill of 5,000?

Anyone owning a house that is worth almost 1M will have no incentive to do any sort of repair or improvement on it. Anything they do that might increase the value of the property will immediately put it in the new category, which will mean that not only will they instantly be liable for this new tax, but the prospects of selling the house in the future will be significantly decreased.

Anyone owning a house that is currently worth 1M will have an incentive to devalue the property. They will demolish a garage, remove a glass extension, pull out insulation – do anything they can that will reduce the value of the house whilst not making it uninhabitable.

The building trade will be affected by this tax. All work to improve houses that have the potential to approach 1M in value should repairs or improvements be done on them will be cancelled permanently. This lost work will probably offset the money that the LibDems want to raise with this tax.

No architect will design a house believing that its price will fall on or near 1M. Houses that are much bigger than 1M will continue to built, houses that cannot by improvement ever reach 1M will continue to be built, but that ‘sour spot’ (as opposed to sweet spot) will not be built in. This tax will exert an aesthetic pressure that will distort the building and architecture trades. There will be more sub 1M houses, more ‘big’ houses, and a gap where all the 1M houses used to be.

These are just a few of the unintended consequences of this idea. It is a bad idea. It has been put forward by people who have clearly never read or heard about the parable of the broken window. The money that they raise from this will simply be diverted and not ‘raised’, while causing widespread destruction as people deliberately destroy their property in order to get in under the wire.

There are many properties in London that bear the scars of this sort of ‘thinking’. In the 1680s a ‘window tax’ was imposed on all properties. To get away from it, property owners bricked up windows on their homes to lessen the tax burden. They had to have light and air, and so they could not brick them all up; look at all of these properties, and imagine the amount of light that would have entered at each place a window is lost.

The Liberal Democrats have a limitless capacity to drink from the well of stupidity. They consistently propose policies that are out of line with reality, economic laws and the public mood (no matter what the polls say), and in the case of this millionaire tax, they demonstrate once again that they do not know anything about economics.

2007 Guidelines for Local Authorities on Elective Home Education

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

Memory Holed by the without explanation. The probability that they were deliberately removed divided by the probability that they were deleted accidentally is one.

Do the math.

The 2007 Guidelines for Local Authorities on Elective Home Education

And for those who do not know:

Memory hole

The memory hole generally refers to the alteration or outright disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts, or other records, such as from a web site or other archive. The term is the name of one website, The Memory Hole, whose goal is to preserve those documents which are in danger of being lost, and there are a number of other websites with similar goals.[1]

Origins of term

The memory hole, as in the phrase “Going down the memory hole,” is a phrase in Newspeak which refers to a small chute leading to a large incinerator used for censorship in George Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four:[2]

In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages, to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and in the side wall, within easy reach of Winston’s arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.(pp. 34-35)

In the novel, the memory hole is a slot into which government officials deposit politically inconvenient documents and records to be destroyed. Nineteen Eighty-Four’s protagonist Winston Smith, who works in the Ministry of Truth, is routinely assigned the task of revising old newspaper articles in order to serve the propaganda interests of the government. For example, if the government had pledged that the chocolate ration would not fall below the current 30 grams per week, but in fact the ration is reduced to 20 grams per week, the historical record (e.g., an article from a back issue of the Times newspaper) is revised to contain an announcement that a reduction to 20 grams might soon prove necessary, or that the ration, then 15 grams, would soon be increased to that number. The original copies of the historical record are deposited into the memory hole. A document placed in the memory hole is supposedly transported to an incinerator from which “not even the ash remains” However not all things tossed in make it to the incinerator. A picture Winston threw into one is produced during the torture session, if only to be thrown back in an instant later.


Iran in secret bases shock

Friday, September 25th, 2009

We now hear that Iran has some ‘secret bases’ where they are developing technology… in secret.

Last time I checked, developing weapons in secrete (yes ‘secrete’) is not illegal, and of course, other countries have secret underground labs where they are doing things so incredible that no one would believe them if they were told flat out.

Of course, people who do not believe these things are DUMB.

Here is an old post from the old BLOGDIAL about Iran and the constant threat against them:

the difference is barely there.

The difference is in the history. Murder Inc. and its wholly pwned subsidiary has a long history of invading, pillaging and disturbing these people. They have no history of disturbing the west…. Until now.

aQ telling MI that when it gets out of the affairs of the middle east everything will stop is not propaganda. Propaganda is:

…a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is ‘to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view’. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.

Purpose of propaganda

The aim of propaganda is to influence people’s opinions actively, rather than to merely communicate the facts about something. For example, propaganda might be used to garner either support or disapproval of a certain position, rather than to simply present the position. […]

What aQ do when they make their statements is initiating negotiation. They are laying out the terms for a cease fire; “get out of our affairs and we will cease all activities” is the opening bid. What MI do when they speak about what is happening is pure propaganda. They use language to distort the true situation; calling this a ‘war on terror’, a ‘clash of cultures’, the beliefs of the ‘enemy’ an ‘evil ideology’, claiming that the attacks have nothing to do with the illegal invasion of Iraq, re-writing history…and so on and so on. This is the essential difference between what comes out of the mouths of OBL and Bliar/USUK/Murder Inc.

I know under which rule I would rather live. I have said this before. What is true however, is that the side of right is on one side only in this case, and the people who are responsible will not back down and put an end to this absolute nonsense.

The “Plan for Iran” is coming into focus. To its eternal shame, even Canada is getting in on this plot to attack Tehran. I mention this due to the lines below talking about how MI could ease our dependence on oil if only the monies were diverted from nonsense to science.

The same has to be said about Iran. That place is soaked in sunshine. These people have no imagination whatsoever, and they are completely infuriating in this respect. Imagine if Tehran had spent the BILLIONS that they have wasted on nuclear technology on making their universities the greatest on earth; the place where every physics student is desperate to study. And yes, they really have spent that much money and probably more:

By 1975, The US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled “U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation,” which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels (950,000 m) of oil a day, compared with an average of about 4 million barrels (640,000 m) daily today.

President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete “nuclear fuel cycle”.

The shah, who referred to oil as “noble fuel,” said it was too valuable to waste on daily energy needs. The Ford strategy paper said the “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.”[1] […]

not only would they have an R&D programme that was the envy of the world, but they would be well on the road to having a clean energy economy, the technology for which they would be able to export to everyone that is too stupid to spend money on R&D and universities. Rather than wasting the ignoble fule on daily energy needs by servicing that demand with nuclear power, they would have saved the same amount of oil with clean energy technology. No waste problems. No threat to any other country. They would also be proving that an Islamic republic was able to compete with every other country on an equal footing, instead of being places that are backwards, crippled and broken and perpetually the pitiful underdogs of the world. They have had the billions to do the job. They had the enthusiastic populations to pull it off. They even have some brilliant scientists to put it all together. Instead, they spent (and continue to spend) money on nuclear power plants, the albatross technology that everyone in the west wants to be rid of – its almost as if they live in the same paralell universe that Bliar does, where no matter what is happening in another country, they will simply continue as they have been doing, no matter what the cost.

These people need(ed) to recognise Israel, put all their oil money into education, universities and R&D and put all their energy into becoming….like Japan, who without the ‘blessing’ of oil or any cash cow, have managed to do very well since they have been forced to turn away from wasting money on pointless technology.

In the late 1970s Iran had the Japanese example to take inspiration from; “turn away from the war machine, and dominate“, but you need to have an imagination to be able to see yourself in the future with a high tech economy ruling the roost with your brains and ingenuity alone. Now they will pay the price for their lack of vision. And so will we, as they retaliate and everything spirals into this, “If someone had told me this in the 80’s I would have laughed out loud” future, which is beyond a nightmare.


BLOGDIAL August 2005

Clearly the Iranians do not play chess. Or they need to play chess more. They also need to understand money. If they played chess and understood money, they would be more safe from attack.

If they understood what money really is they would abandon their own bankrupt fiat currency system and go to an all gold system, financed by their oil revenues. That does not mean that they only accept gold for their oil instead of dollars; that would be ‘aggressive’. Instead they should take dollars, and immediately convert them into gold, which would then be used to replace their fiat currency incrementally. Sound money is the foundation of freedom and prosperity; with a sound currency, their population would thrive economically, and Iran could become one of the great financial centres of the world.

Adopting an all gold currency would force them to stop spending on insane boondoggles like Nuclear anything. They currently print their money to finance these operations, stealing the value of the people’s money through inflation. Gold money would install fiscal discipline on the government there, so that they wold not be able to engage in nonsense like Nuclear power which is a waste of money.

Nuclear weapons are not only a waste of money, but are a threat to the existence of Iran, wether they have a moral right to them or not. In chess you play to win, and building those weapons means they are going to LOSE. They are running to queen some pawns but they will not get there, because the whole board is going to be thrown onto the floor by the great satan.

If they had given up this nonsense, recognised Israel and put away the toys, no one would be able to say anything about them. These are all purely strategic moves to ensure that they survive and prosper; and it is not hard to beat the great satan and their slobbering followers, who are so violent, corrupt and insane that they are going to fall on their own swords very shortly.

Here is how it is done:

[Event "Human versus GNU Chess"]
[Date "2009.08.31"]
[Round "?"]
[White "White"]
[Black "GNU Chess"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackAI "GNU Chess"]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 Nf6
4. d5 Nb4
5. Bc4 Bc5
6. a3 Na6
7. b4 Bb6
8. Nxe5 Nxe4
9. O-O Qf6 
10. Ng4 Qxa1 
11. Nd2 Qd4 
12. Qe1 h5 
13. Ne3 O-O 
14. Nf5 Nxd2
15. Qxd2 Qxc4 
16. Ne7+ Kh8 
17. Bb2 d6 
18. Qh6# 1-0

The great satan is about to run out of money. He is going to bring down all of his allies with him. The population living under him has had enough and they are sharpening their pitchforks to tilt against his. Had Iran showed some common sense and imagination, they would be sitting on the sidelines, watching it all collapse with gold money in their pockets, a completely sound economy and everyone running to them as the new centre of the reshaped world.

But no.

They are going to be wiped out and their culture along with them, their country transformed into a basket case like Iraq… and for what? For precisely NOTHING.


State your preference

Friday, September 25th, 2009

Yet another politician fails to understand the problem of the BBC:

BBC ought to ‘actively look for some Conservatives to be part of their news-gathering team’, says shadow minister

The shadow culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, [] speaking at a Broadcasting Press Guild lunch today, said the BBC had acknowledged that those who wanted to work there had centre-left views and quoted its former political editor, Andrew Marr, who in 2007 described the corporation as having an “innate liberal bias”.


Any political bias from a publicly funded broadcaster is a bad thing, but inevitable. The real issue is not that the BBC should engage in discrimination to ensure ‘balanced reporting’ but that a broadcaster is funded by a coercive licensing system and there is still a State broadcaster (i.e. one mandated by a Royal charter).

In fact as part of a broadly market based nation any sense of balance or ‘reality’ is compromised by reliance on what is essentially tax revenue – and it shows in the broadcasting.

As the State broadcaster it is no wonder that people with a bias towards State provision of services work there. Its governing structure is like a mini House of Lords; Government suggested officials being appointed with no public accountability.

The funding of the BBC through coercion has a noticeable effect on its broadcasting which is, especially the news, broadly antagonistic to private enterprise and supportive of governmental intervention in peoples affairs (viz. any article in the last year on economics).

If the BBC financed itself through a market mechanism (subscription, pay per view, commercials, syndication, investment options, etc.) then there would be no need for it to be ‘balanced’ or to address MPs concerns that their party is not fairly represented – it would be freed from the need to make checks and balances to its reporting and it would be free to interrogate politicians to a greater extent.

Naturally the BBC points to the poor programming by ITV and obvious bias of SKY when you make these points and it says it would degenerate to their level. There is no reason to expect this to be true unless their journalists and programme makers are so woeful they cannot survive competitively.

A report commissioned by the corporation in June 2007 found that while there was no evidence of conscious bias, “individuals exercise on occasion a largely unconscious self-censorship out of a misguided attempt to be ‘correct’ in their thinking”.

The problem with self-censorship and attempts at ‘impartiality’ is that these attempts are based on the perception of the broadcaster/journalist (and their working environment) and so the process is flawed. It is far better for journalists to report fully as they see the situation and any bias to be apparent and ripe for criticism (as in print media). A self-censoring mind is not one that can take on board new information unless it fits with the prepared template it cannot evaluate new information correctly – it cannot learn and therefore it cannot enable learning. Hence a self-censoring reporter censors not just themselves but against their whole audience.

“I think the important thing with the BBC is that it belongs to all of us. We have these debates because it is very important that the BBC is representative. []

The BBC does not ‘belong’ to all of us, the public cannot sell their ‘share’ or demand changes of its content, it is not ‘property’.
The BBC cannot be representative (of the public) because individuals cannot truly represent others, it should stop trying and it should raise money in a way that its bias can be accepted, i.e. privately and without coercion.

Final proof: Home Education is to be BANNED

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

We have been saying for quite some time now that the government wants to outlaw Home Education in the UK. They keep saying that they want to ‘strengthen Home Education’ and that they ‘respect the rights of parents to Home Educate’. When they say this they ARE LYING.

News has just reached us that the DCSF is planning yet another consultation to define what ‘full-time education’ is.

It is clear that the long term plan is to get everyone registered, and then once that happens, erode the rights of parents who Home Educate until there is nothing left.

These people are the lowest form of human garbage imaginable.

They care nothing for

  • Your rights.
  • Your children.
  • Your children’s education
  • Your children’s well-being.

And really they should not care because it is not their place to care for your children.

Those subhuman, habitually lying, paedophile enabling monsters are your sworn enemy and the enemy of your children. They cannot be trusted in any way shape or form, and they will keep wearing away at your resolve until you either give in, or your children are too old for them to capture and damage, whereupon they will be after your grandchildren.

The biggest miscalculation they have mad is this; they mistake Home Educators with people who give a damn about what they think.

In the final analysis, Home Educators can either leave the country, or point blank refuse to obey them or acknowledge that these monsters exist. In the latter case, I assure you that there are not enough of them to control every Home Educator in the country. They rely on the precedent of your previous obedience as a guide to what they can get away with; what they do not understand is that a fundamental line has been crossed, and the new behavior that is about to be exhibited bears no relation whatsoever to what has been seen before.

Already the backlash against the Badman review is a without precedent event, causing them to frantically circle the wagons; the non compliance that we can expect to see should new legislation regarding Home Education be tabled and passed will also be without precedent.

In the end, Home Education is going to become the norm in the UK just as it is in the USA. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have to wait fifteen years for the government to catch up with what is happening in the world (this is how long it took them to get to grips with the internets) and the UK is always around twenty years behind the good things happening in the USA.

There should be no more consultations or legislation on the matter of Home Education. Period. It is entirely wrong that a group of people should face what is clearly vindictive persecution. This persecution is driven by pure discrimination, racism, pig ignorance and control freakery, and the people behind it are a bunch of inhuman animals, hell bent on bringing their destructive ideas right into your home.

They have already all but destroyed schools in the UK and created an army of illiterate and innumerate people; quite how they think they are going to ‘strengthen’ Home Education is beyond me… but of course, they are LYING when they say that they want to strengthen Home Education; whatever they say you can substitute the polar opposite meaning to divine the truth of what they really mean. They want to DESTROY Home Education, Home Educators, Children and Families. They are ANTI FAMILY, ANTI EDUCATION and ANTI CHILD WELFARE.

These are the same people whose handiwork is catalogued in a series of disturbing articles in the Daily mail:

Look at some cherry picked lines from the above:

  • More than one in five of the 230,000 full-time students entering university drop out. These are mainly working-class students.
  • And almost 250,000 schoolchildren – a staggering 40 per cent – start GCSE studies without the ability in reading, writing and maths to cope with their courses.
  • Last year, classroom disruption was running at record levels, with schools sending home 2,200 children every day.
  • Despite the Government’s Literacy Hour and a massive increase in spending on schools, a third of all 14-year-olds have a reading age of 11 or below. One in five has a reading age of nine.
  • Many teachers, they noted, had stopped correcting children’s grammar, spelling and speech at all, for fear of discouraging them.

If the numbers that are being bandied about are true, there are around 100,000 Home Educating families in the UK. These families are producing literate, numerate, socialized children that are the polar opposite of the million plus failing students in the state school system.

What is incomprehensible to any sensible person is how the DCSF can justify wasting its time and the money of the taxpaer on trying to control Home Educators, when they have a crisis on their hands in the shape of the schools they are already in absolute control of.

It is clear that they have an emergency situation with the mass illiterate and innumerate students their schools are producing; but instead of pouring all their resources into trying to rectify that situation, they are going after the people who are running from their systemic failure to protect their children from the educational and physical harm that the state schools are promoting as healthy and normal.

There is absolutely no excuse for it. These idiots should not have a single word to say about Home Education as long as people are leaving their schools illiterate and innumerate. They should be ashamed of the schools they are running, not trying to force everyone into them, and this is quite apart from the moral aspect of the state trying to act as parent in the first place.

The Tories are going to win a landslide victory. What the DCSF will look like under them is anyone’s guess, but one thing is for sure; if the Tories win and ContactPoint, the NIR and the ID Card are scrapped, the job of tracking down and policing Home Educators will be much harder, should that even be government policy. Once again, the government does not have the money to do any of this nonsense; in fact, it is going to cut two billion from the budget for the schools that it already cannot run, and which are creating so much societal havoc.

Those schools, which are already running on empty, are going to find it even more difficult to do their jobs, which they are already failing to do. More parents are going to become disenchanted and turn to Home Education. The coming financial crisis might be the cause of a doubling of the number of Home Educators in the UK, and that would be a most excellent thing, because the more Home Educators there are, the less able the state will be to control them… should a Tory government be STUPID ENOUGH to desire such an undesirable thing.

In the final analysis, you must realize that whatever anyone at the DCSF says, no matter what laws the commons passes, there is no one that can force you to obey anything. Anyone that wants to enslave you or destroy your family is illegitimate, and any law that eliminates your right to Home Educate as you see fit is illegitimate on its face (just as the Apartheid, miscegenation and slavery laws were all illegitimate). You are under no obligation to obey any such law or regulation, including any law that says you must register; this is exactly what the Apartheid regime did in South Africa; forced people of a certain type to register simply because they were ‘different’. This is the true nature of what the DCSF is up to; they are no different to the government that was ‘the skunk of the world‘.

We can only hope that the Tories are less evil or more busy with the coming economic disaster. If not, there is going to be a very tiresome, expensive, long and drawn out battle that no one wants to fight, which will achieve nothing but evil and pain, and which will in no way stop the march of Home Education, just as the people of South Africa could not be stopped. Eventually the South African people got a less evil government, the Apartheid regime was wiped off the face of the earth and not a shot was fired. The same will happen with Home Education; the ridiculous, stupid, pea brained, imaginaionless apparatchiks behind this WILL BE DISCREDITED AND DEFEATED and they WILL be made into a laughing stock and a footnote in history. People will look back on them and think, “How was it that those people who worked at the DCSF were so very ignorant and stupid? Where did they FIND them all?”. That is what people say about the racist government that is no more… how did it last so long? etc etc.

Lastly, everyone in every country needs to consider this question; when is there going to be enough legislation?

Are the legislators going to sit there until the end of time, racking up more and more controls until there is literally nothing that anyone can do that is not controlled by them? What sort of world would it be where EVERYTHING that you can do is licensed in some way?

If you do not think that such a world can come into being, then you are delusional. Already, in countries like China, the state dictates how many children you can have, and there are people in the UK who think that this is not only, OK but that similar laws should be enacted here. And we all know about how the state wants to control your light bulbs, your garbage and everything else that you do in ‘your’ own home.

Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that a legislature can sit ad infinitum creating new law year after year, for no other reason than the fact that they sit there to perform that function. There MUST be a limit on the number of laws that can be on the statute books at any one time, and even judges are now saying that there are too many laws.

The americans are, once again, way ahead with all of this. They are incandescent with rage over the engorgement of ‘their’ government, and are sharpening their pitchforks to get rid of the monsters once and for all. It looks like that is going to be the first western country that is going to be forced to retreat at full steam, by hook or by crook. The americans have had it up to here with the proliferation of laws and regulations, and they are going to do something about it. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the people behind the second american revolution are small in number; they just pulled off the biggest ever march on Washinton.

One way or another, all of this is going to end. The question is not ‘if’ but ‘how’ and ‘when’.

Gavin Webb left the sinking ship just in time

Monday, September 21st, 2009

The hopeless perpetual losers the Lib Dems have another brilliant scheme up their sleeves. It is called ‘Subsidise To Emancipate All Littleguys or “STEAL”. Gavin Webb (who is not a rat, but who is instead a moral man with a backbone and real, red blood) left that sinking ship just in time it seems:

Lib Dem plan for 1m-property tax
The Lib Dems have outlined plans for a tax on owners of 1m-plus homes, using the proceeds to help low-paid workers.

Treasury spokesman Vince Cable says plans for a 0.5% annual levy on the most expensive homes will raise 1bn.

He told the BBC, ahead of his party conference speech, it would help fund plans to get four million people who earn less than 10,000 out of taxation.

Mr Cable warned party members of “unpopular” choices on tax and spending and branded the Tories as “dishonest”.

The new charge of 0.5% would apply to the value of a property above 1m. So if a home was worth 1.5m the 0.5% tax would apply to 500,000 of it, meaning the owner will have to pay 2,500 a year. The extra tax on a 4m property would be 15,000 a year.

The Lib Dems say about 250,000 property-owners would pay about 4,000 a year each on average mostly in the South-East of England.


In case you have no clue about why this idea is immoral, bad and totally wrong headed, go to class (scroll to 8min 37sec):

You should now read this and then read this.

The Daily Mail has a good article about why ideas like this are not sensible, and I quote (with the priceless headline for the lulz):

What a Daily Mail orgasm looks like on Twitpic

So why hasn’t the Government reformed the benefit system? It’s as if they’re offering car drivers a bonus for every crash – then acting surprised when accidents shoot up.


Daily Mail

That almost sounds like a Shiffism!

Pete Darby Nails it

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Pete Darby nails the farce of the Badman report, which was incomplete and which used statistics based on poor methodology. We now know this because the author of that scandalous piece of bird cage liner has gone back for the information that he should have included in the first place, BEFORE submitting his report to the bird cage:

The bad penny, the pee into the wind, he just keeps coming back.

After he turned in his woefully prepared report into home education, for which, as far as we can understand, the conclusions were written first, we tried to challenge either him or the DCSF on it.

And we were told “Mr Badman does not work for the DCSF, he is independent, and has turned in the report, so it is nothing to do with him any more, and since it was independent, it can’t be wrong, so the DCSF can’t be challenged for putting forward a legislative program based on it.”

So we got a hearing arranged for the select committee on education. AHEd, working through freedom of information requests, got very robust figures where not only did Badman give none, but Baroness Morgan claimed that they “weren’t the basis of the report”.

And today..?

I’m sorry, WHAT?

This “independent researcher”, who no longer has anything to do with the report, can get the DCSF to forward his request for “better figures” (and with a later deadline than other evidence) to every LA in the country?

Now, as far as I make it, that makes at least three different versions of the state of play that Badman and the DCSF have spun.

1) Badman is independent, the report is soundly based in empirical evidence.
2) Badman is independent, the report is based on soft evidence that we can’t find right now.
3) Badman is working for the DCSF, we’d like some evidence that we forgot to collect. Since the dog ate the last lot.

What really annoys me isn’t so much that it betrays a set agenda from the outset.

We knew that.

Nor that their evidential cupboards (along with their coffers) are bare and that the stats in the report are a triumph of auto-proctological accounting.

We knew that.

It’s that they thought no-one would notice. It’s possibly the most half-arsed, cloth-eared, pig-ignorant attempt at a cover-up that I’ve seen since my chocolate encrusted three-year-old son claimed the biscuit tin fell on him.

It makes the machinations of The Thick of It look like machine like competence.

More than anything, it shows the level of dismissive contempt that Badman, Balls and all their little wizards have for home educators, parliament and the population as a whole.

They’re trying to move the goalposts and think no-one will notice. I spurn them as I would spurn a rabid dog with dysentery.


And there you have it.

The fact of this matter is that hard working and careful people like Pete Darby and AHED have dug up the truth about this and shown the report to be completely lacking in rigor.

The next and naturally following question to ask is this; if this crucial aspect of the report was not done to a proper standard, what else in the report is lacking in rigor?. We already know that the summations to the report are being withheld on the most flimsy of excuses, and we can guess why; they are the smoking gun that will blow apart this report and its author PERMANENTLY.

It is completely unacceptable (quite apart from the principle of who should control the education of children) that this Soviet Style system of lawmaking and policy forming should continue. This report was clearly submitted with faulty information. If this were not the case, there would be no need for Badman to call for further statistics to bolster his case; the report should be able to stand on its own as a complete work of truth, which clearly it is not. There would also be no need to arbitrarily make secret the submissions he used to write it.

That this faulty report should be accepted unquestioned, and then used to make law is an outrage. That the submissions made to form its conclusions can be held secret is doubly outrageous; what this amounts to is the making of law using secret evidence. It is the polar opposite of transparency, and the sort of thing you find in totalitarian police states, not free countries.

The lives of over 100,000 people are going to be affected by what happens next. The futures of these families and of future families is on the line. That they believe they can push through legislation in this way makes any decent person sick to their stomach. If they REALLY believe that that they are working for the benefit of children (which clearly they are not), and are not simply circling the wagons so that they do not lose face, then they should have nothing to hide; they should release everything that was used as input into this scandalous report, to PROVE that it is not a work of bias, with a predetermined conclusion written in from the outset.

Renegade Parent points out that this is known as ‘Policy based evidence making’:

The term Policy based evidence making is a pejorative term which refers to the commissioning of research in order to support a policy which has already been decided upon. The name has been suggested as a corollary to evidence based policy making.
As the name suggests, policy based evidence making means working back from a predefined policy to produce underpinning evidence. Working from a conclusion to provide only supporting evidence is an approach which contradicts most interpretations of the scientific method; however, it should be distinguished from research into the effects of a policy where such research may provide either supporting or opposing evidence.
The term “policy based evidence making” was referred to in a report of the United Kingdom House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology into Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making issued in October 2006. The committee stated:

[Ministers] should certainly not seek selectively to pick pieces of evidence which support an already agreed policy, or even commission research in order to produce a justification for policy: so-called “policy-based evidence making” (see paragraphs 956). Where there is an absence of evidence, or even when the Government is knowingly contradicting the evidencemaybe for very good reasonthis should be openly acknowledged.
Paragraph 89, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making

The term has also been applied outside the strictly scientific arena, for example in a position paper for the Arts and Humanities Research Council


This sneaky and shabby request for further information, I am sure, is just the tip of the iceberg. I have no doubt that there is an effort to dig up any dirt, no matter what it is to try and tarnish the practice of Home Education. Brain dead journalists are no doubt being briefed right now as part of a campaign of poisoning to put the nail in the coffin. Even on a good day we cannot expect journalists to behave like they have any common sense… such is life.

Whatever they come up with, no matter what evidence they show to this select committee, no matter what the newspapers say remember this:

  • No single group or organization can represent HE as a practice.
  • A single bad parent cannot discredit all parents.
  • A single bad parent cannot discredit Home Education.

There are millions of Home Educators all over the world. If we take the line of the morons who try and assert that Home Education needs to be ‘abolished’ because some parents are bad, then this logic should be extended to ALL parents no matter how their children are educated. This would mean the abolition of parenting itself.

All schoolchildren spend their summer holidays, three months of them, with their parents ‘unsupervised’ (by the state). Is it REALLY the plan of this government that all of these children be subject to home inspection and ‘summer holiday plans’ to make sure they are ‘safeguarded’? It is utter nonsense of course, and Home Educated children are no different to children who go to school and are off on summer holiday in the care of their parents. They are safe by default.

Where are the calls for home inspections of all parents after we hear the horror stories of feral children assaulting other children? We do not hear them because these purely evil imbeciles are not interested in dealing with children who are not a threat to the status quo; violent, sexualized, children running wild and causing mayhem are encouraged because they give the state even more of a reason to increase the powers of the totalitarian apparatus.

Take special note that the author of this illiberal and nauseating report calls for children to be seen by strangers without the parents being present by the force of law, and that he is a member of the same organization calling for children as young as five to be taught about masturbation in schools. Given the fact that all the recent cases of child abuse by teachers and nursery workers were instances of ‘trusted people’ (CRB checked as ‘safe’) being let lose with children, and the above UN recommendations, this call for children to be seen alone is deeply suspicious and sinister in nature.

Finally, his report has nothing to do with education, and they knew that they could not attack Home Education using ‘lack of education’ as a pretext as it is well known that Home Educated children outperform state schooled children by every measure, even socialization.

This is an attack on people who are non conformist. It is a preemptive attack on a growing trend to reject state education. As I said before 100,000 home educated children constitutes an army that could and WOULD change the character of a country, and with more people opting for Home Education every month, there would in the end be two distinct groups of people in the UK, the highly educated and free thinking Home Educated class (combined with the tiny minority from the top private schools) and everyone else.

The number of people who run the UK today is far less than the number of Home Educated children in the country. They could easily swamp parliament and fill the civill service with their numbers. It would mean GAME OVER for the police state; and they simply CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

Even if Home Education became the norm and Home Educated people entering public service resulted in the enshrining of Home Education as we have known it, this alone is too much of an insult and threat for the apparatus to bear; they want EVERYONE in the system WITHOUT EXCEPTION, so that there is no one left who does not believe with all their heart, the state’s perverted, sickening, utterly brainwashed and dystopian view of the world (Matthew Parris graciously provides us with a perfect example… my emphasis):

Let me, a lifelong Tory, spell it out.

I believe in the State.

I believe in a strong State.

I believe in the States core purpose: to regulate and arbitrate.

I believe in the States power to do good; to bring justice, security and order; to defend and protect its citizens; and to make their lives better.

I believe in the States duty to care for the needy; to ensure that the rich help the poor, and that the weak are helped by the strong.

And I believe finally in the States nobility as an idea; the inspiring power of the national ideal; the tremendous possibilities unleashed by collective action; and the love and duty owed by citizens to the State.


We will not have it you BASTARDS.

Tories IN NIR/ID Cards ContactPoint OUT!

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

Finally, the Tories have been pinned down and have made the correct announcement:

Tory plans to cut ‘surveillance’

The Conservatives have set out plans to reverse what they describe as “the rise of the surveillance state”.

They have pledged to scrap two new databases – the ID card register and ContactPoint – and strengthen powers of the Information Commissioner.

The Conservatives say they want to restore public trust in the use of personal data by the state.

Their proposals come after a series of security breaches and concern about the amount of information that is held.

The National Identity register – which underpins the ID card scheme – would be scrapped, as would the ContactPoint database, which holds details of 11m children and young people.

Other proposals include ensuring that government departments are routinely audited by the Information Commissioner, who would be required to report to Parliament.

The Tories are also planning to restrict the storage of DNA records of innocent people, after a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights.

The government has consulted on its own DNA reforms, and is due to publish the results shortly.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: “The cases of criminals like Kensley Larrier and Abdul Azad demonstrate that we need to retain information on the DNA database.”

Kensley Larrier is a rapist from the North of England who was convicted in 2005 on the strength of a DNA sample taken from him three years earlier when he was arrested for possession of an offensive weapon.

Abdul Azad was convicted of a rape committed in Stafford on the strength of DNA evidence taken from him a year earlier in Birmingham when he was arrested for violent disorder.


Before we get to the meat in the sandwich, Alan Johnson, the brainless ex postman is a totally clueless moron. Keeping the DNA of rapists is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to keeping the DNA of people who HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME.

What a completely idiotic pea brained DORK.

Now that we have that nastiness out of the way…

ContactPoint – SCRAPPED

This is good news. The Badman recommendations will not be implementable (or at least will be far more difficult to implement) without ContactPoint… that is if the Tories do not scrap them or reverse them should they become law.

The Tories had been making noises about scrapping ID Cards for some time, but never mentioned the NIR; now they have made the connection and have pledged to junk it.

It is pretty clear that they will need to also get rid of the ‘Anti Terror Laws’ that have been routinely used for everything BUT ‘terrorism’ (like spying on parents who want to get their children into good schools).

They will ABSOLUTELY need to scrap the ISA, which everyone has now woken up to and with which everyone is quite rightly sickened.

The Tories have an unprecedented opportunity to not only seize power but to unleash the British people so that the country that was the love of millions can be restored. It will mean making a heroic effort to undo all the evil of Bliar and his criminal cabal of murderous monsters. They have made a good start. All they need is a comprehensive shopping list of things that need to be undone – like the smoking legislation – which stick in the craw of every decent person.

In the meantime, it is vitally important that everyone EVERYWHERE refuse to register with the NIR, refuse to register with the ISA and essentially, refuse to enroll with or cooperate with ANY of the fascist apparatus that Neu Liebour have put in place. This will not only make it easier to dismantle in the short term, but it will also send a very strong signal that the era of Soviet Britain is at an end. This needs to be done just in case the Tories ‘lose their bottle’ and decide that all these juicy tools of totalitarianism are just too nifty to get rid of.

Hmmmm where to start?!

All ‘no smoking’ signs – DOWN

etc etc…

After a long dark night menaced by cannibal zombies, FINALLY a sliver of light on the horizon.

Why we admire Lew Rockwell

Monday, September 14th, 2009

For many years, pro-lifers have expended vast time, energy, and money “marching on Washington” every January, to exactly zero effect. Worse, they hark back to pro-redistribution events. And always, as with the latest 9/12 extravaganza headed by red-state fascists, the marchers assemble on the “National Mall,” the government grass that extends from Lincoln’s Roman temple — where he sits enthroned like Jupiter, fasces and all — to George Washington’s obelisk, an Eqyptian monument to the god Amon Re. In the distance is the capitol, whose dome copies the Roman pantheon, temple to all the gods. In the top of the dome is a painting of Washington being assumed, like the divinized Julius Caesar, into Heaven upon his death. Even Jefferson is portrayed as a god in a Roman temple. Not far away is the the Greek temple where the nine supremes hand down the “law.” Then there is the vast executive apparatus, headed by a living god, and dedicated to killing, spying, taxing, redistributing, inflating, and controlling. Really, DC is one nasty place. So why would anyone concerned about the state and its power “march on Washington”? Such events only dissipate energy, and fool people into thinking that their time and money have accomplished something, as the regime laughs up its sleeve. Indeed, that is the purpose. So stay home. Read, write, work, organize, and avoid DC like the plague it is.


And of course, we have been saying this for years; demonstrations DO NOT WORK the people who call for them are either useful idiots or agents of the enemy or deeply misguided. It would have been far more effective if each of those demonstrators in their unprecedented numbers all stayed home and convinced ten other people that they would no longer cooperate with any dictate of the state, no matter what it was. That would be thirty million motivated people all detached from the system. And if each of those thirty million pledged to connect with and convince five more to disconnect, then that would be ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE.

It would mean the end of the state in a single week.

Take a look at this:

Gas $264, Hotel $409, Taking back my country? Priceless. #912DC on Twitpic

Now that the demonstration is over and millions of dollars have been spent venting, what will change? EXACTLY NOTHING. It would have been far better for each of these demonstrators to pool their money into an information campaign designed to get 150,000,000 people to decline to obey any Federal Law. Do the math yourself:

264+409 = $673 for each demonstrator on average.

Three million is the starting number (two million turned up with one million who could not make it but who were there in spirit)

that means

3,000,000*673 = $2,019,000,000

The math doesn't lie. That is two billion, nineteen million dollars.

That much money, could change america overnight. Instead, it was all wasted on a feel good fest that will achieve nothing.

The problem with these people is that they cannot comprehend the scale of the power they wield. The Federal Government, the US army, the police; none of those things are powerful enough to stop them from being free. All they have to do is understand this, and then ACT on this understanding, and by ACT I mean DO NOT ACT. Their illusory 'power' will blow away like cobwebs.

One thing is for sure, spending over a billion dollars on a demonstration is TOTAL INSANITY.

But you know this!

The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Monday, September 14th, 2009

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.


Lie lie lie and lie again

Monday, September 14th, 2009

The BBQ is at it again, uncritically repeating the state’s lies:

Paedophile checks scheme defended

This is not a system of ‘Paedophile checks’ this is a system that will cause MILLIONS of INNOCENT people to be put in a database for no good reason. To call this a ‘Paedophile Checks Scheme’ is simply not factual.

The head of a government scheme to vet adults who work with children has hit out at criticism of the initiative.

Sir Roger Singleton, chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), said people need to “calm down” and consider the issue “rationally”.

It is Roger Singleton who should have considered this rationally in the first place. Any rational, logical person can see instantly that this ISA is a foolish and illogical proposal. The recent clutch of paedophiles caught in nurseries, all of them CRB checked, demonstrates amply that any system of vetting is a flawed concept. All of the people who have recently been caught were CRB checked; what Roger Singleton is suggesting, which is completely irrational, is that a further system of checks on top of the CRB will be able to do what the CRB cannot. It is illogical on its face. Anyone who says otherwise is irrational, and I put it to you that Roger Singleton is irrational and illogical for being a willing part in it.

The ISA has come under fire after it emerged parents who regularly give children lifts to sports or social clubs will have to undergo checks.

People who ignore the new regulations face fines of up to 5,000.

This has nothing to do with protecting children; it is a scheme whereby millions of people, should they succeed, will be forced to enter the NIR and ID Card scheme. That is its true purpose, since it is clear that the ISA cannot protect a single child.

The Home Office’s Vetting and Barring Scheme, which is designed to protect children from paedophiles, covers adults who are in regular contact with young people.

If this system was designed to protect children from paedophiles, then the design is a complete failure. Also, Roger Singleton needs to say PRECISELY HOW this system will protect children. Of course, he cannot say how because it CANNOT, just as CRB checks cannot protect anyone. CRB checks and ISA checks cannot predict the future behavior of anyone; that is why they will always fail to do what they say it should do. This is well known to both the Home Office and anyone with a single working brain cell. The true purpose of this, once again, is to act as midwife to the NIR and ID Card.

‘Public outcry’

Anyone taking part in activities involving “frequent” or “intensive” contact with children or vulnerable adults three times in a month, every month, or once overnight, must register with the ISA.

Even if the ISA could predict the behavior of people, these arbitrary rules mean that anyone having contact with children less than the requirements above will not have to be vetted. It is nonsense on stilts.

The first people who are going to run to be included in this database are people who have no criminal record of any kind and who are paedophiles. By registering with this sinister scheme, they will have the stamp of safety and certification by the state. They will then be given license to attack children at will, and since everyone has lost all common sense, they will be immediately trusted simply because the government says they are trustworthy. This is the same modus operandi that we can assume the paedophile nursery workers operate under; get CRB certified and then you can work with children unfettered. In the case of these nursery children, their victims could not even speak to say that something wrong was happening. This ISA and CRB / ‘the state knows all’ insanity is putting children at risk by creating a system whereby dangerous animals can be put with children and given trust that they have not earned.

All school governors, doctors, nurses, teachers, dentists and prison officers must also sign up.

OR they can all refuse en masse. Dentists have no need to sign up for this at all – they can simply refuse to treat children! All of the other people on that list, especially in education, already have to have CRB checks, so what is the purpose of this extra layer of false security for? It is to put them all in the NIR.

People must go through a series of checks and have their names put on a list of approved individuals. Those seeking employment would have to pay 64 for the checks – but the charge would be waived for volunteers.

Its not about the money STUPID.

Informal arrangements between parents will not be covered.

And of course, most abuse happens between people who know each other, not stranger abuse.

It is about ensuring that those people who have already been dismissed by their employers for inappropriate behaviour with children do not simply up sticks and move elsewhere
Sir Roger Singleton Independent Safeguarding Authority

This is a total lie. If someone has been dismissed for inappropriate behavior with children there should have been a prosecution, otherwise there would be no grounds for dismissal. If the person is convicted, then they are put in the criminal database and that is the end of their career when it comes to children.

If no prosecution happens, then the person is INNOCENT FULL STOP.

What this ISA does is rely on hearsay to destroy people’s reputations. It is a repugnant and highly immoral system, and the people behind it and who are promoting it share its worst aspects; they are REPUGNANT and HIGHLY IMMORAL.

Sir Roger, whose agency will run the vetting scheme, said: “We need to calm down and consider carefully and rationally what this scheme is and is not about.

It is with a completely calm and rational mind (and logical mind) that the criticisms to this have been forged. It is Roger Singleton who has reacted hysterically and irrationally to the statistically insignificant cases of abuse. To put EVERYONE in a database because of the actions of a few criminals is an irrational knee-jerk reaction, born out of hysteria and unwarranted fear.

“It is not about interfering with the sensible arrangements which parents make with each other to take their children to schools and clubs.

It is not that now, but it will be in the future, when the database is open to search by anyone over the internet for a small fee.

“It is not about subjecting a quarter of the population to intensive scrutiny of their personal lives and it is not about creating mistrust between adults and children or discouraging volunteering.”

This is a lie. The ISA will use hearsay and rumor to determine wether or not someone should be listed in their database. Even harsh words are enough to get you on their list of bad people:

The Safeguarding Authority are looking for events with ‘relevant conduct’ – awful jargon – which means they’re looking for reports of ‘abusive’ behaviour (and one can argue quite convincingly ‘politically incorrect’ behaviour), irrespective of whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. Been on the Jeremy Kyle show? Had an unfavourable story printed about you in the Metro? Someone written about you on the internet? Ever pissed off a social worker? Importantly, has anyone made any complaints about you to the police or the council, whether or not you went to trial?

In stage one, they’re not interested in whether or not the event happened. They simply check whether or not the reported behaviour meets the criteria they’re looking for.

So let’s see what this includes (even the list listed is listed as ‘non exhaustive’ by the way)

Any remark or comment by others that causes distress

Whoa. Any remark? Explain further, please:

Demeaning, disrespectful, humiliating, racist, sexist….

I think I see where they’re going with this…

… or sarcastic comments.

Whoa. Sarcasm? Really?

Excessive or unwanted familiarity, shouting, swearing, name-calling.

Okay, so I’ve gone through their list of ‘relevant conduct’ and picked out the bit we’re all guilty of at one time or another. We all have our bad days, our weak moments… but sarcasm? Being disrespectful? Shouting? If you haven’t, then congratulations. For the rest of us, we need to hope the Safeguarding Authority haven’t heard about our ‘abusive’ behavior.

Charlotte Gore

None of that has anything to do with ‘Paedophile Checks’ does it?

The people behind this are LYING when they say that it is not there to get into the details of your life; if they are taking records to the level of detail that is described above, it means that someone is putting on your ISA record the fact that you said any of the things above. It means that there is a file on you containing the words that you have uttered, wether in public or in private.

That counts, to any rational and sensible person, as intensive scrutiny of the personal lives of millions of people.

He added: “It is about ensuring that those people who have already been dismissed by their employers for inappropriate behaviour with children do not simply up sticks and move elsewhere in the country to continue their abuse.

Utter rubbish, as their own documents demonstrate. If someone has been dismissed because they are a paedophile, they should be prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated, not put on a database and left at large to continue to rape. Is that what this idiot is suggesting? Because that is the result of what he is saying.

“And it is about bringing an end to the need for repeated CRB checks which so many people have found irritating. ISA registration is a one-off process for a single fee.”

And this is the truly irrational part. Is Roger Singleton really saying that people who go into this ISA system will only have to be checked once? Is he REALLY THAT INSANE? Think about this scenario; your son joins a soccer club, and then joins a cricket club. The head of the soccer club will have to check you against the ISA database, and then the cricket club organizer will have to ALSO check you against the ISA database. How is the ISA in ANY WAY DIFFERENT in this respect? Will the ISA telepathically transmit the details of your good character to every organization in the country? Of course not; Roger Singleton is demonstrating the great facility to not tell the truth that New Labour are expert at. And once again, the BBC fails to pull him up on this whopper – how EXACTLY is the ISA going to end the need for repeated CRB checks? How is a SINGLE CHECK going to transfer information to different people who need to know if a person is not barred?



The scheme will run in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from next month, and a separate but aligned scheme is being set up in Scotland, to be introduced next year.

Separate but equal… ‘Scotland the brave’… HAHAHAHA!!!

But critics claim it is threatening civil liberties and may deter volunteers.

When you get this degree of public outcry, there is generally a good reason for it
Wes Cuell , NSPCC

Translation, “People are stupid but they are not THAT stupid”

The NSPCC’s children’s services director Wes Cuell told the Sunday Telegraph the move could stop people doing things that were “perfectly safe and normal”.

There is nothing normal about this, and the people who created it and who promote it. They are subhuman monsters, criminally minded paedophile enablers, fear-mongers, cretins and communists. They are The Cancer that is Killing Britain. Their every instinct is perverted, their solutions are bankrupt both morally and financially. They are against the family, against nature and against God. Finally the British people are waking up and saying NO; this far and NO FARTHER.

“The warning signs are now out there that this scheme will stop people doing things that are perfectly safe and normal: things that they shouldn’t be prevented from doing.

“I think we are getting a bit too close to crossing the line about what is acceptable in the court of public opinion.

That line was crossed long ago, with the idea of the NIR and the ID Card. This scheme is a direct offshoot of that corrupted and immoral thinking, and it is only now that they are trying to put it together that everyone is beginning to see what it really means.

“We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

Who is this ‘WE’ that these morons keep talking about?!

Mr Cuell stressed that while it was important to strengthen rules to protect children from potential sex offenders, overzealous interpretation of the regulations could threaten civil liberties.

The only thing that needs to be strengthened is the length of prison term given to those who commit and are convicted of these crimes. They should all be put away for life. Or even executed. Once the small number of them are all incarcerated, the problem will disappear.

Children’s authors, including Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo, have complained the requirement is “insulting” and say they will stop visiting schools.

Earlier this week children’s minister Delyth Morgan said safeguarding children was the government’s priority and it was about ensuring people in a position of trust who work with children are safe to do so.

She says alot of things, and once again, if it is about safeguarding children, she needs to say, in detail, how the ISA is going to do that. Of course she cannot do this, because the ISA cannot protect anyone, and neither can a CRB. These checks can only tell you what a person has been previously convicted of, and that does nothing to protect you if the criminal has never been caught.

The scheme was recommended by the Bichard report into the Soham murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman by college caretaker Ian Huntley.


And of course, the BBC fails to mention that Huntley was a known criminal who passed CRB checks. Because he passed the checks he was trusted immediately by the people who employed him. This is the fundamental error of the idea that a computer can bestow trustworthiness onto a human being.

Since roughly a third of sexual crimes are committed by people without a previous conviction, it is inevitable that some people with apparently excellent credentials but sinister intentions are going to get jobs working with children or vulnerable adults. And we will only know when it is too late.


And this, my friends is the truth.

Putting eleven million people into a database CANNOT protect children. Roger Singleton knows this, and so does Delyth ‘Mutterschwein’ Morgan. This is about getting the maximum number of people onto the NIR. This is about humiliating and conditioning the British public to accept machine mediated trust. This is about dehumanizing people, destroying the natural instincts of the British, substituting distrust and fear for every natural impulse that people normally have. This is about putting the state in the middle of every single thing that you do, no matter what it is or where it happens. This is about building a dossier on every person, where if you hold opinions that the state does not like, you are BARRED.

Kill it all with fire say I.


Mimi Majick points out the following, “What if a parent is accused of some politically incorrect infraction of the kind the ISA say they are taking into consideration. Does this then mean that they are not fit to be in charge of their own children?“. The number of people who are politically incorrect runs to the millions. Jonathan Ross for example, has said things that fall into the ‘Demeaning, disrespectful, humiliating’ category; are his children going to be put on the at risk database because of his sense of humor? What about all the people who hold political views that are not liked by the prejudiced apparatchiks at the ISA, for example, BNP members, who whilst no one likes them, have the absolute right to believe whatever they like.

Finally, because this ISA is being mislabeled as a ‘paedophile checklist’ anyone who finds themselves on it will be mislabeled as a paedophile when in fact someone just doesn’t like the things that they say or write.


Jacob G. Hornberger on Public-School Indoctrination

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Yesterday, I blogged about the indoctrination that is an inherent part of any government school system, whether in Cuba, the U.S., England, North Korea, or any other country. Government officials have a vested interest in ensuring a citizenry that accepts the official version of things and a citizenry that is compliant, obedient, and supportive of the government. Over a period of many years, peoples mindsets are molded to encourage them as adults to let off steam by carping about the foibles and inefficiencies of politicians and bureaucrats but never to challenge, in a fundamental sense, the role that government plays in peoples lives.

Lets compare the public school systems in Cuba and the United States. They are similar in the fact that governments in both countries own and operate the systems. Children who attend the schools are there because the law has mandated their attendance. The schoolteachers and administrators are government personnel. Whether at a national, state, or local level, the textbooks must be approved by the government and the curriculum is set by the government. In both countries, attendance is free.

Of course, that doesnt mean that the indoctrination is the same in both countries. In Cuba, for example, it is ingrained in schoolchildren that the CIA, with its program of assassination, torture, and regime change, is a force for evil in the world. In the United States, Americans schoolchildren are taught that the CIA is a force for good in the world and that it is essential to the national security of the country.

It would be difficult to find a better example of a purely socialist program than public (i.e., government) schooling, especially given its central-planning features. Thus, its not a coincidence that Cubas public-school system is the pride and joy of Fidel Castro, one of the worlds most ardent devotees of socialism.

Interestingly, while public schooling is also the pride and joy of Americans, most of them have no idea that Americas public school systems are socialist in nature, which itself is a testament to the success of the indoctrination that takes place in the institution. From the first grade to the twelfth, Americans are taught that public schooling is one of the core features of Americas free enterprise system.

An even better testament to the power of indoctrination in public schooling, however, is the conviction that it instills in students that socialist programs are essential to society. A good example of this phenomenon occurs in the health-care debate. Whenever libertarians suggest that the solution to the health-care crisis is simply to repeal Medicare and Medicaid, health-care regulations, and medical-licensure laws, most Americans go ballistic.


All of this is correct of course, and this ignorance stretches to the money supply also. Very few people, even bankers, do not know what money really is, or where it comes from. That is why the react with, “but who would stop the booms and busts of the economy?” if you suggest that the Federal Reserve should be abolished (and that is if they know a little about the subject). Others who know absolutely nothing about money, think that the dollar comes from the government, and that the Federal Reserve is a part of the Federal Government, and that the dollars in their pockets are ‘theirs’. None of those things are true of course.

The worst offenders are the TV financial anchors who do not understand the definitions of the terms they are using; the most misused term being ‘inflation’. Inflation is the increase in the supply of money; i.e. when the printing presses are running and paper money is released into circulation without any backing.

Take a look at the man with the glasses who does not understand what inflation is:

These people have been told over and over again, by Schiff and other real economists that an incraese in the money supply IS inflation. That means that there is one of two things going on.

1 These people are THICK AS TWO SHORT PLANKS and simply cannot understand what money is.
2 They are DELIBERATELY misstating what the facts surrounding inflation are as a disinformation tactic.

Personally I cant see it being number two; they are just not that smart. That means that they are as thick as two short planks, which explains both how they keep getting it wrong and why number two cannot be true.

Who knows?

What we DO know is that the number of dollars in circulation has been increased by a factor of 15; that means that when these dollars hit the economy, your dollar will be worth one fifteenth of what it is now.

Anyone with any sense is now in Gold. Not only is gold a sensible way to store your earned value, but it makes sense as a way to get your stored value away from the predators who control the value of your earned value while it is sitting still.

When someone can print more of the money you have without you knowing, the value of your money goes down without you realizing; those three hours you spent working at $100/ph will suddenly be worth less in the future… and there is nothing you can do about it while you keep your stored value in a currency whose supply is controlled by someone else.

Some people use the preparative term ‘Gold Bug’ for people who understand what money is; they are mistaken. People who understand that gold is money are simply using common sense.

Now THAT is a scarce commodity!

Gavin Webb sees the light

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

A while back we wrote a piece about Gavin Webb, who wrote about Home Education. Gavin Webb was a Liberal Democrat councillor at Stoke on Trent. He called himself a ‘Libertarian Liberal Democrat‘, which of course, makes no sense at all:

[…] Are you a Libertarian, or are you a Liberal Democrat? How can you possibly remain a member of a party that explicitly wants to eradicate the rights of people to run their families as they choose? […]

We wrote. Now, Mr Webb has dumped the Liberal Democrats and joined the Libertarian Party. This is significant because:

“Whilst we have a number of Parish and Town Councillors, Gavin is the first City Councillor that has crossed the floor to a truly Radical Party, one that wants to change the relationship between State and the Individual to the point where the State is subordinate to the will of the people, not the people subordinate to the will of the State.

And here is the full announcement:


Gavin Webb, who was selected as the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for Burton in 2008 and elected as a Lib Dem councillor on Stoke-on-Trent City Council in 2007, has today announced that he has resigned from the Liberal Democrats.

He says: “I have made a good many friends in my fourteen years of activism in the Liberal Democrats and I hope that those friendships will continue, but regretfully I have decided to resign from the Liberal Democrats.

“The party, like the Conservative and Labour parties, has become a party of the establishment. It has unfortunately firmly wedded itself to the belief that there are primarily government solutions to the problems facing our country, and in the process, they are adopting policies that undermine our rights and freedoms as individuals.

“As far as I can see, most political parties in the UK appear to trust individuals when it comes to voting for councillors, MPs and MEPs, but once comfortably in power they are reluctant to trust individuals when it comes to them making choices about their own lives.

“There is however one political party – the Libertarian Party – that believes in giving responsibility back to individuals over their own lives and their own finances; and it is this party that I have now decided to join.

“We are on the road of authoritarianism, where government is our ruler rather than us being the ruler of our government. It is time for each and every single one of us to make a stand against government and those who feed off it, and demand the reduction of its size and scope.

“From what I’ve seen from many Lib Dem parliamentarians and councillors I don’t believe the Liberal Democrat Party has the inclination to argue for smaller government in defence of our individual rights.

“Though there are some good classical liberal and libertarian types in the party, with whom I hope to continue to have a good relationship, their voices are crowded out by people who believe it perfectly okay to dictate to people how they should live their lives. I don’t wish any longer to be a part of that.


All good.

And for the record:


There is another vital tactical reason for cleaving to pure principle. It is true that day-to-day social and political events are the resultants of many pressures, the often unsatisfactory outcome of the push-and-pull of conflicting ideologies and interests. But if only for that reason, it is all the more important for the libertarian to keep upping the ante. The call for a two percent tax reduction may achieve only the slight moderation of a projected tax increase; a call for a drastic tax cut may indeed achieve a substantial reduction. And, over the years, it is precisely the strategic role of the “extremist” to keep pushing the matrix of day-to-day action further and further in his direction. The socialists have been particularly adept at this strategy. If we look at the socialist program advanced sixty, or even thirty years ago, it will be evident that measures considered dangerously socialistic a generation or two ago are now considered an indispensable part of the “mainstream” of the American heritage. In this way, the day-to-day compromises of supposedly “practical” politics get pulled inexorably in the collectivist direction. There is no reason why the libertarian cannot accomplish the same result. In fact, one of the reasons that the conservative opposition to collectivism has been so weak is that conservatism, by its very nature, offers not a consistent political philosophy but only a “practical” defense of the existing status quo, enshrined as embodiments of the American “tradition.” Yet, as statism grows and accretes, it becomes, by definition, increasingly entrenched and therefore “traditional”; conservatism can then find no intellectual weapons to accomplish its overthrow.

Cleaving to principle means something more than holding high and not contradicting the ultimate libertarian ideal. It also means striving to achieve that ultimate goal as rapidly as is physically possible. In short, the libertarian must never advocate or prefer a gradual, as opposed to an immediate and rapid, approach to his goal. For by doing so, he undercuts the overriding importance of his own goals and principles. And if he himself values his own goals so lightly, how highly will others value them?

In short, to really pursue the goal of liberty, the libertarian must desire it attained by the most effective and speediest means available. It was in this spirit that the classical liberal Leonard E. Read, advocating immediate and total abolition of price and wage controls after World War II, declared in a speech, “If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage and price controls instantaneously, I would put my finger on it and push!”2

The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push the button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty. Of course, he knows, too, that such a magic button does not exist, but his fundamental preference colors and shapes his entire strategic perspective.

2 Leonard E. Read, I’d Push the Button (New York: Joseph D. McGuire, 1946), p. 3.


Murray Rothbard For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

Oh dear me. Before I had ever heard of any of these people, I declared that I would push the button.

So many times, in front of so many people, and for so many different things!

There are people out there who ‘do not like Libertarians’. For certain, Mr Webb will encounter these people. What needs to be done is that the proper name needs to be given to them when they are discussed or confronted; they are VIOLENT PEOPLE.

Collectivists are VIOLENT PEOPLE who advocate using VIOLENCE on others so that their philosophy is followed. No doubt these not so insightful people will strongly deny they are violent, but the fact remains the same; behind every one of their policies lies the threat of violence that will be done to those who do not obey.

That is the reality behind the well meaning ideas and eloquent words of these people; brutal, immoral and unjustifiable VIOLENCE.

Injunction issued to stop compulsory vaccination in the US

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

The good doctor posts by proxy:


Good news for health freedom lovers and doubters about the Swine Flu pseudopandemic

30 years after compulsory vaccination became US Law:
US Court issues an injunction to stop it and to hold the the government and drug companies responsible for reactions.

A Preliminary Injunction to stop mandatory vaccinations has been issued in the United States District Court of New Jersey. This comes after a federal lawsuit opposing forced vaccines was filed in that court by Tim Vawter, pro se attorney, on July 31st with the federal government as defendant. When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction, it will stop the federal government from forcing anyone in any state to take flu vaccine against their will. It will also prevent a state or local government from forcibly vaccinating anyone, and forbid any person who is not vaccinated from being denied any services or constitutional rights. Vawter’s filings included a Complaint, and several pages of evidentiary Exhibits.

Vawter’s legal papers have been written not only for filing in federal court, but additionally so they can be looked at by activists around the world for ideas on filing lawsuits in their own countries to help stop forced vaccinations. Vawter believes that as the truth of the dangers of flu vaccines continues to become known, banning the forced use of them will eventually succeed on a worldwide basis. He cautions people to avoid fear and keep themselves focused on the task of blocking forced vaccination.

Preliminary Injunction will immediately halt mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.

The Court, having heard the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and read the papers in its support, states in the Preliminary Injunction that it appears the federal government has engaged in some amount of negligence with regards to failure to properly investigate the safety of the flu vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009-2010, and the evidence submitted does warrant a more thorough investigation into the safety of the flu vaccines.

The Court ordered that the government shall be forbidden from forcing any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person’s free will and free choice. The government will not allow any state or local government, or any party, to force any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person’s free will and free choice.

U.S. government sued for gross negligence and violation of the Constitution

In his Cause of Action, Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by funding and promoting flu vaccines that are proven to be dangerous and manufactured with little oversight. The vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009 and 2010 contain heavy metals including thimerosal mercury, which have been proven to cause autism in children with lowered immune systems, and other dangerous and toxic ingredients. The federal government has stated it will force these flu vaccines onto the American public against their will, under a document signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

He further charged that the vaccine makers stand to earn billions of dollars selling vaccines, and are already spending tens of millions advertising a “Phase 6 Pandemic” that the evidence shows does not really exist. The federal government has not required the World Health Organization (WHO) to show evidence of such a pandemic. There has been no collection of facts, sworn testimony, witnesses being questioned, hearings being held, or lie detector tests being given when preposterous statements have been made. The WHO declared a massive “Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic”, even though only a few hundred people worldwide had so far died of this swine flu virus, and when far more people die each year of regular flu.

Vawter noted there is a preponderance of evidence to show that the federal government so poorly trained its employees that they eagerly agreed with the unsubstantiated claims of the WHO in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Forced vaccination would violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the government to enter homes and force people to be vaccinated, or to forcibly remove people to another location for vaccination. It would also violate Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights by depriving people of liberty without due process of law.

Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by failing to properly investigate factual evidence submitted by esteemed medical professions over many years which proves flu vaccines have caused serious damage to people. The CDC has stated that thimerosal mercury is being used in the new flu vaccines being prepared.

The government has failed to investigate profiteering. Billions of dollars in vaccine sales can cause organizations to falsify threats so as to cause unwarranted public hysteria leading to forced vaccinations.

The government is guilty of gross negligence because its employees failed to properly investigate the release of a case of live swine flu virus. One of the main companies the government deals with, Baxter Vaccines, was apparently involved in the transporting of live bird flu virus that was released on a public train earlier this year. A lab technician with the Swiss National Center for Influenza in Geneva had traveled to Zurich to collect eight ampoules, five of which were filled with the H1N1 swine flu virus. However, failure of the dry ice in their container allowed pressure to build up, and the ampoules exploded as the train was pulling into a station.

The highly reputable UK newspaper “the Telegraph” reported on July 2nd that flu vaccines tested on homeless people caused twenty-one of them to die.

Vawter charged there is a preponderance of evidence to show that government will not provide people being vaccinated with a list of the vaccine ingredients and possible negative side effects before they are vaccinated. Most of the public will not know this flu vaccine contains thimerosal mercury.

Vawter submitted an Order to force the government to publish vaccine ingredients and side effects, and to give this information to everyone who takes a flu vaccine, and do so at least 3 days prior to their vaccination. A denial of this order would violate Plaintiff’s rights to demand the government obey the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring it to engage in freedom of speech. The First Amendment not only allows a citizen to have freedom of speech himself, but it allows a citizen to demand his government engage in freedom of speech when it is promoting the use of such as these vaccinations to the public.

The government proclamation stating a person cannot sue for any damages he receives from the flu vaccine, completely bypasses the congress and the court system in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution which grants the right to sue to recover for damages. Vawter submitted an Order to deem unconstitutional any proclamation, rule or similar law that forbids people from suing for damages resulting from the vaccines of 2009 and 2010.

About Australian Vaccination Network, Inc.
The AVN is a non-profit, volunteer-run charitable association. Since 1994, the AVN has provided information and support to the general community who are trying to make informed choices about vaccination and health. Their lobbying in Federal Parliament has ensured that compulsory vaccination for children has not come to pass and they are the major reporters of vaccine adverse reactions to ADRAC (The Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee).

For more information visit


Some people are awake, some are actively refusing to comply, and some are fighting back. Fabulous!

Furthermore, under federal legislation passed by Congress since 2001, an Emergency Use Authorization allows drug companies, health officials and anyone administering experimental vaccines to Americans during a declared public health emergency to be protected from liability if people get injured. US Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has granted vaccine makers total legal immunity from any lawsuits that may result from any new swine flu vaccine. And some states may make the vaccination mandatory by law.

This article (Google Cache) no longer appears on Forbes website.

Mary also points us to this:


Even ‘normal’ sources are looking at the other view:

Including… the Grauniad!

And the guilt-trip begins…

But, looking positively we could rejig an old phrase and suggest that “Resistance is fertile!” (Ahem. I’ll get my coat).

At the end of the day, when the shill journalists and morons understand that this deadly vaccine is going to be pumped into THEM and THEIR CHILDREN by FORCE, all of a sudden, their masks come off and they turn instantly.


Home Education in Norway, a criticism

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

Whilst googling around, I came across this paper, and couldn’t resist tearing it to shreds:

UNIVERSITY OF OSLO, INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. Article from the research project: Home education in Norway.

Dr. Christian W. Beck
A. Professor of Education

Institute of Educational Research
University of Oslo, Norway

If school attendance is important to social integration, then out of school practice like home education (HE) could represent a threat to social integration. The findings of a Norwegian research project that surveyed socialization among Norwegian HE- students from different regions are presented and discussed in terms of socialization theory and a theory of cultural order. Among the conclusions: Pragmatic motivated HE-students are often well social integrated. Religious motivated HE- students with value distance to society, is not necessarily social isolated HE-students. With more openness and more communication HE-students could better meet criteria to social integration.

School attendance is not important to social integration, this is simply not the case. For generations and right to this very day societies are tightly integrated without mandatory school attendance. Out of school education is a threat to brainwashing of the type that produces people who create articles like this. In this very first part of the article, the author says that HE students are often well social integrated (sic) but then says that with more openness and more communication HE students could better meet ‘criteria to social integration’. If HE students are already ‘well social integrated’ then what more is there to say? The socialization argument is MOOT. Of course, anyone that has done a real study of HE and is willing to report about it without a biased agenda, knows that lack of socialization is a myth propagated by people who are hostile to Home Education.

1. Introduction
Socialization is the process whereby the helpless infant gradually becomes a self aware, knowledgeable person (Giddens 2006). Education can be seen as methodical socialization of the young generation (Durkheim 1956). Education must assure, among the citizens a sufficient community of ideas and sentiments, without which any society is impossible (Ibid). Sufficient community is for Durkheim solidarity and the meaning of social integration. Social integration includes systems of integration, but also reciprocity of practices and communication between either actors or collectives (Giddens 1988).

I do not agree with any of this.

The process of a helpless infant becoming self aware happens well before school age, and is done by the nurturing provided by the parents. It has nothing to do with formal education. Children are not born as the property of a state, and therefore, the education they recieve does not have to convey a ‘community of ideas and sentiments’ if the parents do not wish to teach their children whatever that is. Solidarity with a society, obedience to it and integration with it is something only an adult can decide to choose to do; in fact, children must be protected from the predations of the state and its aparatchicks. People are not born as property of a collective. This is absolutely fundamental to human life and freedom.

Home education is increasing in Norway and other modern countries (Beck 2006).

Why is it increasing? It is increasing precisely as a result of the destruction of every decent value that people hold, at the behest of monsters who are trying to engineer a new world. Any decent person runs away from these predatory social engineers if they have the chance, and Home Education is a very effective way to do it, without any cost other than financial, and a plethora of benefits.

If school attendance is considered important to social integration, non-attendance due to home education can be viewed as a threat to integration.

Home Education is a threat; it is a threat to the robotic, socialized, collectivist, immoral nightmare world that a small group of social engineers are trying to create. It is a threat because it creates people who, while law abiding, will not go along with the non legislated agenda that the state relies upon to maintain order.

Home education challenge how strong parental rights and other fundamental human rights should apply in democratic societies before they counteract the idea of public education and social integration. Too restrictive practice of such human rights could on the other hand counteract reciprocity between home educators and society and the increase the possibility of segregation of home educators.

Home education is not a challenge to anything, except the absolute power of the state, and the social engineers who want to eliminate the family as the centre of human life. The fundamental human rights that all men have when they are born exist and will continue to exist no matter what these inhuman beasts try to foist upon everyone. The ultimate question is wether or not these people will assert themselves en masse or not. Certainly in the USA it is too late to outlaw Home Education. THere are literally millions of people doing it, and they are an army. In europe however, where the people are more cowed, inured to ‘democracy’ and being slaves, it is proving to be easier to steamroller the already partially flattened population.

The social integration of home-educated students has become controversial, following a recent ruling of the European Human Rights Court (2006) in a case concerning home education in Germany.

That ruling was completely wrong, in the same way that courts which ruled in favor of miscegenation were wrong. The people who uphold those Nazi era laws should all be ashamed of themselves.

The ruling expresses concern about the development of parallel communities comprising distinct ethnic groups and immigrants in European countries.

This is a completely bogus pretext. First of all, ethnic Germans are the ones who are Home Educating. Second, distinct parallel communities can be kept distinct and segregated by the members of the group forming their own religious schools and then attending them. This ruling is aimed not at the Turks, but at the Christian Germans.

To avoid such social fragmentation, the Human Rights Court put the childs right to an education above parental rights. The state must guarantee the rights of children to an education which according to the ruling must also guarantee the childs right to social integration through participation in the school community.

This is total nonsense. First of all children do not have rights in the same way that adults do; they are a special form of property that is the responsibility of parents (the people who made the children). Since children are human beings, they are born with all the rights of a human being, but some of these rights only become active when the parents decide that the child has reached her ‘majority’ where she is able to then make decisions for herself without having to refer to her parents.

Education is a good not a right. Children have the right to life, but it is up to the parent what form and pace of education their children should have. It is not the proper role of government to compel people to be educated, or to create rights out of thin air which they use as a pretext to engineer social control. That is exactly what the UN and this illegitimate court decision are doing; engineering social control.

The ruling also asserts that parents religious influence over their children must occur in such a manner that the children understand the consequences of their religious training.

It is not the place of the state or of any court to specify how religious practice should occur. This is one of the most fundamental features of a free society; that people can practice their religion free from interference.

The ruling represents a shift from previous rulings in similar cases, in that the status of parental rights has been diminished. The conflict has become more pronounced in democratic societies between the need to integrate immigrants into the main society and the need to preserve the rights of individuals in the context of human rights.

This ruling, once again, is bogus. No court can diminish your rights, any more than they can change the nature of a hydrogen atom. Immigration problems and the need to integrate them into society is not a problem of the ethnic Germans; if immigrants will not integrate, then some other form of plan must be hatched to make them conform. As I said above, if these immigrants (Muslims) are allowed to form their own schools and then attend them, then any idea that school has something to do with social integration should be thrown out of the window and HE families left in peace.

The aim of this article is to give further knowledge about home education pupils and their socialization and integration in to society. The article is structured as follows:

1. A brief introduction to the international status of home education.

2. Analysis of motives for home education as a possible cause for poor social integration of home educated pupils.

3. Socialization theory and international research on socialization of home educated pupils.

4. Presentation of a survey of home educated pupils in Norway and a regional analysis of results concerning such pupils` socialization and social integration.

5. A further discussion based on Mary Douglas theory about cultural codes and cultural purity.

6. Concluding remarks.

Watch me….

2. The international status of home education
Legal, social and educational frameworks that encourage home education vary among countries and within them. In Sweden and Estonia, for example, home education is treated as an exemption from compulsory schooling. In most US states, in the UK, Australia, and other English-speaking countries, and in the Nordic countries other than Sweden, home education is a way of providing compulsory basic education on a par with school attendance. Other countries take some position mid-way between the two (Beck 2006, Glenn 2006, Leis 2005). Although home education is prohibited in Germany, some 500 families in Germany practice home education (Spiegler 2004b).

The prohibition of home education in Germany stems from a Nazi era statute, the specific aim at the time the law was passed, was that Hitler wanted a cohesive society. It is very important to state the true origin of the Home Education ban in Germany, so that those who support it must also explain why they are in favor of a law written by Nazis.

Students educated at home in effective learning environments appear to achieve the same scores as school attendees on tests of their knowledge (Baumann 2002, Welner and Welner 1999), although there are large groups of home-educated students over whom public authorities have limited oversight and control (Opplinger and Willard 2004).

This is not the case. Home Educated children routinely outperform school educated children. This is one of the reasons why parents choose to Home Educate; not only do their children outperform their peers, but they also have a better family life and all of the other benefits of Home Education.

Registered home-educated students, however, appear to be well socialized into society (Medin 2000), although there is concern in several countries regarding isolated home-educating families and their children. An estimated 40 percent of home-educators in Quebec, Canada, are not registered (Brabant, Bourdon, and Jutras 2004).

This is absurd. Home Educated students are not separate from society and school is not the only place that people learn how to get along with each other, form friendships and do all of those other important things. The basic premiss of this report is flawed; that school is the key place where people are ‘socialized’ it is simply not the case, and anyone doing real research into this subject would find that out within ten minutes of hitting the Google.

Wether Home Educators are registered or not also has nothing whatsoever to do with being ‘well socialized’, whatever that means.

3. Motives for home education
There are various categories of home educators; the categories are based on the familys primary reasons for choosing home-based education. Differences in assessed social integration that may result from the varying motivations have been the subject of research. Two early attempts at categorizing home educators are found in Mayberry (1988) and Van Galen (1988). Mayberry describes four motivational categories: religious, academic, social (students are better off, in terms of social factors, at home than at school), and New Age (alternative lifestyle). Van Galen distinguishes between ideological and pedagogic home educators. Ideological home educators emphasize family values and conservative values, and are motivated by disagreement with schools as to values; they are often loosely referred to as religious fundamentalists. Pedagogic home educators consider breaking with institutional schooling key, along with pursuing more desirable pedagogic approaches.


The intensity of the home educators motivation can be a reflection of his or her sense of conflict with society-at-large.

This is almost meaningless. When a parent decides to Home Educate, there is no ‘intensity’ after the choice is made; you simply start to do it. It is neither intense or sedated; it is what it is, depending on the people who are doing it. That a parent choses to Home Educate in the first place shows only that they are motivated parents demonstrating a proper and admiral level of care for their children. Home Educators should be held up as model parents in this age of feral children who murder children and all the other gradations of crime beneath that. In britain the state is considering fining parents who are not looking after their children properly. Instead of putting resources into those people, they instead, with the sophisticated and loquacious justifications of academics and lying ‘experts’, are trying to eliminate good parenting in the form of Home Educators. How STUPID.

For some, home education is an act of conscience in a secularized society and secularized schools. The US sociologist Mitchell Stevens (2001) distinguishes between heaven-based and earth-based drives for homeschooling. The heaven-based category expresses motivations that are mainly matters of principle, religion, and life view, and adherence to ideological pedagogic approaches. According to Stevens, earth-based home educators are acting on situation-specific, pragmatic, and other specifically pedagogic issues. Thomas Spiegler (2004a) has concluded that the growth in home education in Germany is most pronounced among families acting on so-called heaven-based motivation. Because of their religion or life view, they tend to find themselves in conflict with schools more frequently than so-called earth-based home educators. Thus, they stand to gain more than earth-based home educators by withdrawing their children from school and home-educating them. Nevertheless, earth-based reasons for homeschooling are also cited by the heaven-based category.

There is an ass for every seat. Quelle surprise.

Social costs are associated with home education. Home educators may find themselves in conflict with their local communities, schools, and school authorities. Heaven-based home educators are better able to minimize such social costs than earth-based home educators, due to their faith and their fellowship with others who share their faith. Home education based on religion and life view may tend to make home educators more prone to stronger bonds within their particular subcultures.

The rich Home Educators also never have any conflict with anyone. Schools and school authorities do not go up against anyone with money and therefore full access to the law.

In the United States, some 40 percent of home educators cite religious or moral convictions as their key motivating factors, although more than 90 percent of them also cite pedagogic reasons for homeschooling (Bauman 2002:9-10). In Canada, motivations are largely pedagogic or related to other home- and family-centric values; a mere 14 percent of Canadian home educators cite religious reasons as key (Brabant, et al. 2003:117-119). In another Canadian survey, 72 percent of respondents stated that they home educate for pedagogic reasons (Priesnitz 2002: 5). In the UK, the majority of home educators cite pedagogic reasons as primary. Educational freedom and flexibility, as well as providing individualized education, are cited by about two-thirds of UK home educators. Only 4 to 5 percent of UK home educators report that they are homeschooling for religious reasons (Rothermel 2003: 79).

And it is the pedagogic rationale that is the most threatening to the established order. Home Educated people numbering in the millions will change society if they are not stamped out now. As this report says, Home Education is growing in Norway. If the Norwegian state wants to keep its insane speeding regulations (for example) then they need to stop Home Educators right now, otherwise, the very nature of their society will change forever.

4. Home education, socialization and social integration
Some educators question whether home education does more than remove children from school, and actually isolates them from society-at-large.

Yes indeed. These are the education professionals whose livelihoods and position in society are directly challenged by Home Education. Every time a statistic comes out showing that Home Educated children outperform state schooled children, it is a stinging humiliation for them; here are a group of children who are learning without teachers and who are performing better than their institutionalized children. Home Education is a threat to them, not only because it makes people question wether or not teachers are needed, but it also puts pressure on them to greatly improve their performance. To sum up, teachers do not like Home Education. Period. When they chime in on this subject, their words must be taken with a pinch of salt, since they have a vested interest in destroying all forms of education that do not involve them.

Similarly, many have expressed doubts as to whether home educated children are sufficiently socialized. Apple (2000) believes home educators in the United States isolate themselves into separate clans, which undermines both school and society.

First of all, Home Educated children are socialized to a greater degree than school educated children. Secondly people do not exist to serve schools or society, so to say that Home Educators undermine schools is absurd; children are not the property of the state. They are not on this earth to bolster a school or unwillingly serve any man.

Michael Apple views homeschoolers as playing an important role in populist, neo-liberal, and neoconservative movements that have gained a great deal of influence in the present-day United States. Apple perceives homeschooling families as viewing themselves as stateless due to the secular humanism that now characterize public schools. Also, they find themselves in a deep value conflict with public schools ideology (Apple 2000). The great socio-cultural distance between secularized and post-modern values in schools and conservative Religious values anchored in the family, can engender more conflict than might seem necessary. A dispute in Norway concerning dancing in schools ended up in the supreme court the countrys highest court as a home education case (Straume 2004).


Necessary TO WHOM? And none of this has anything to do with the core of this subject: who owns children? The groups mentioned above all have one thing in common; they all believe that the state does not own the citizen. In Germany, Sweden and other retrograde countries, the people believe to some extent that they really are the property of the state. That is their affair; what they cannot do is simultaneously claim that they are free people.

Social integration include both a cultural, life-view-oriented aspect and an instrumental social interest aspect (Hom 1978). Hom distinguishes between specific and general parts of the socialization process, which may be home and school, respectively. Successful integration relies on a sufficient commonality of values and interest between specific and general social elements.

Culture is an emergent property that is constituted from the collected interactions of families that all live in a geographic area. Examples of this are Morris Dancing and Swiss Coin Music. When the practitioners of these acts of culture cease to exist, the culture dies with them. Morris dancing is not superior to or a substitute for Swiss Coin Music. There should be no state ordained culture that everyone should be forced to participate in – the sort of people who believe that there should be are Nazis. It has to be pointed out that Home Educators are more likely to be eager participants in Morris Dancing than children who go to school.

Obviously, home educators and schools have, to a greater or lesser extent, a conflict of interest.

Actually, they do not. Schools are interested in educating children, and Home Educators are also interested in the same thing. The conflict that exists between these two groups is over who owns the children and who has the right to ultimately direct the development of children. The schools are trying to usurp the role of parent. They are against nature, against the family and are most certainly in the wrong. That parents all over the west are waking up and fleeing them seems not to faze them in the slightest. No matter what they produce (hoards of foul, feral illiterate children) it seems that some schools are hell bent on getting every child into their maws. Knowing that they are not capable of outperforming Home Education but persisting in having EVERY child no matter what is a testament to their corrupted nature. And we must remember that the schools we take for granted today are a very recent phenomenon in human history. Schooling is by no means ‘normal’ for human beings, and it is quite easy to imagine a time when schools as we know them today cease to exist entirely.

However, that does not necessarily mean that their interests or values conflict with those of society-at-large. Self-sufficiency, a focus on home life and equality are key Norwegian values (Gullestad 1985). These very values constitute the values of home educators (Beck 2006). Different groups of home educators have varying degrees of value and interest commonality/conflict with school, their local/regional community, the national community, and global society, regarding overarching social elements. Here, it is probably best to focus on conflicts with society-at-large, and to a lesser extent conflicts with schools.

There is no such thing as society:

But apart from these difficulties in the Georgist position, the natural-rights justification for the ownership of ground land is the same as the justification for the original ownership of all other property. For, as we have seen, no producer really “creates” matter; he takes nature-given matter and transforms it by his labor energy in accordance with his ideas and vision. But this is precisely what the pioneer the “homesteader” does when he brings previously unused land into his own private ownership. Just as the man who makes steel out of iron ore transforms that ore out of his know-how and with his energy, and just as the man who takes the iron out of the ground does the same, so does the homesteader who clears, fences, cultivates, or builds upon the land. The homesteader, too, has transformed the character of the nature-given soil by his labor and his personality. The homesteader is just as legitimately the owner of the property as the sculptor or the manufacturer; he is just as much a “producer” as the others.

Furthermore, if the original land is nature- or God-given then so are the people’s talents, health, and beauty. And just as all these attributes are given to specific individuals and not to “society,” so then are land and natural resources. All of these resources are given to individuals [p. 35] and not to “society,” which is an abstraction that does not actually exist. There is no existing entity called “society”; there are only interacting individuals. To say that “society” should own land or any other property in common, then, must mean that a group of oligarchs in practice, government bureaucrats should own the property, and at the expense of expropriating the creator or the homesteader who had originally brought this product into existence.


For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto – Murray N. Rothbard

Human beings are not the property of the state, or of any ‘society’. This is the central problem with the propositions in this article and all articles that are against Home Education. Men and women get married (or not) have sex, and produce children. While the fetus is in the mother’s womb, it is the property of the mother alone. When the child is born, it is the property of both the parents, but the child is a special form of property that is different to all other forms of property in that it is a human being born with rights. None of what I have just written has anything to do with the state or ‘society”.

Home Educators like the ones in these two videos come to this realization not through political indoctrination, but through the irrational knee jerk reactions of school educated (brainwashed) people, who ask them every manner of absurd question, and not only that, but different people keep asking the same absurd questions, verbatim. When you are confronted with this phenomenon of different people all thinking exactly alike and irrationally, you cannot help but come to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with school education, you immediately sense that since you are successful, happy and centered, that it is possible to be like that without being brainwashed. It becomes clear to you that the sky will not fall if people do not go to school, and more than that; people would be better off if they did not. There would be more people who could think for themselves and the country would be a much better place for it.

A meta survey on how home educated students develop socially and emotionally has been conducted (Blok 2004). Blok asks whether they learn interaction with other children and adults, if they develop character traits such as endurance and self confidence. He reviews eight studies, most of them qualitative, with a participation of between 20 and 224 students. The conclusion drawn is that home-educated students appear to be as well adapted as school students or better. Blok concludes his review by pointing out that it is incorrect to claim that home-educated students grow up in isolation from other children and youngsters.

All true. And this means that any fears about Home Education isolating people should be permanently put aside. It is clear that they are performing academically, are socially integrated, and are not causing harm to anyone. What the state is doing however, is causing a massive amount of harm to people in its insane and relentless quest to make everyone uniform. It is not only immoral, but there is no scientific reason to do it, if that were to be the basis of such an immoral plan.

Medin (2000) characterizes research on socialization of home-educated students as a young research discipline without a developed theory and with poorly developed research design and measurement methods, poorly defined research questions and is often studies featuring self-selection of a small number of interview subjects. Nevertheless, Medin draws the following conclusions from the available research:

1. Home-educated students participate in the daily life of the families and networks they are part of.
2. They are not isolated; rather they associate with and feel close to all sorts of people.
3. Parents encourage home-educated students to maintain social contacts beyond the family.
4. They have solid self-esteem.
5. They appear to function well as members of the adult community.

So despite hostility to the methods, research design, research questions and measurement methods, Medin still finds that Home Educated children are performing and functioning properly. So, what is the problem? The problem is that Sweden and Germany do not want citizens with solid self-esteem and all the other things that Home Education brings. They want a population of brainwashed drones who will repeat by rote and obey everything that is poured into their ears in a classroom.

A preliminary conclusion must be that organized and registered home education does not pose particular problems as to students socialization.

Registration has no effect on any aspect of the effectiveness of Home Education. The author simply cannot stand the idea that there are people who are prospering outside the aegis of the state. Get over it. No one needs the government to tell them how to educate their children; it is not the proper role of government to register families in this way, and anyone who calls for it is a promoter of totalitarianism.

5. The Norwegian home education survey a regional analysis
A Norwegian survey based on a questionnaire answered by parents for 128 home educated pupils (90 % of all asked), from all regions of Norway, about 36 % of the Norwegian home educated pupils population estimated to 365 (2002). The difference 237 (365 128: 64 %) could be a tentative but clearly overestimated guess of numbers of unregistered home educated pupils in Norway. The analysis identified four main groups of home educators (Beck 2006):

1. Structured home educators. These are frequently religious well educated middle-class parents who are role- and position-oriented and well educated (Bernstein 1977), and who provide traditional, curriculum focused education in the home.
2. Unschooling. Well educated, often with radical political and cultural viewpoints, middle class, anti-establishment, person- and identity-oriented (ibid), who provide child-centered home education with a low degree of structure and planned curricula.
3. Pragmatic home educators. Typically rural, working-class families with limited formal education, who emphasize home education anchored in practical work.
4. Unregistered home educators. Romanis; unregistered immigrants; socially troubled families, frequently with substance abuse problems; and some fundamentalist religious families, some of these appear to use home education as part of a self-imposed isolation from society.

Unschoolers: Well educated, with ‘radical political and cultural viewpoints’. There is no such thing as a ‘radical political viewpoint’. People who may have advocated the freeing of slaves during the Roman Empire would have been called ‘radical’ were they right or wrong? The same goes for the insane marriage laws that stopped people from ‘mixing’ were the people who said these laws were wrong right or wrong? That is the only thing that matters; what is radical today is common sense tomorrow. Academics should not use the word ‘radical’ to describe someone’s beliefs; they should spell out what they are without passing judgment on them, lest they find themselves on the wrong side of history.

The more you read about Unschoolers, the more they become attractive. If you are a radical thinker that is.

The four categories of home educators may have varying degrees of value and interest commonality and/or conflict with schools and national society

The conflicts that home educators are involved in are, primarily, conflicts of interest with the schools in which their children would otherwise be enrolled. Schools want to educate their children; parents want to educate them themselves, at home

No. This is, once again, about who owns the children. Schools do not own children, and so it is entirely wrong and inappropriate to say that, “schools want to educate THEIR children”. Schools do not produce children, they are there to provide a SERVICE to PARENTS which parents may avail themselves of or not. Schools and parents are NOT equal in status. Any conflict that occurs here comes from a misunderstanding of the role of schools and the government on the part of the people who work at schools, who are mistakenly appropriating the role of the parent.

While such conflicts may be founded in a value conflict between home and school, this is generally not the case. If schools view the non-educational aspect of school participation as valuable and necessary, then a limited disparity of interests and values between home and school regarding the provider of education can develop into a more severe, principled rift over value differences regarding home-based and school-based education.

This is all irrelevant. Schools need to understand what they are and what their proper role is. They are SERVANTS not MASTERS or OWNERS.

Seen as a whole, unregistered home educators generally comprise groups that in various ways may be said to be poorly integrated into the national community.

This is complete and utter nonsense. The performance of Home Education has no relationship to registration or non registration.

A key, articulated concern is that their children may become isolated in socially deviant, religious fundamentalist home environments.

“A key, articulated concer”” is academic speak for ‘Some people say‘. Once again, we have an academic paper trotting out illogic in the push to eliminate Home Education. On the one hand, the author gives plenty of evidence that Home Education is perfecly fine, but litters the piece with references to registration, and now, this unfounded nonsense about social isolation (when previously the paper said that HE people are NOT isolated) and the very strange phrase ‘socially deviant’…. which means WHAT exactly? And as for ‘religious fundamentalist home environments’ I am quite sure that this author is not talking about Muslims, who are never to be questioned at all an in any way. In fact, if you want to Home Educate and be guaranteed that no aparatchick will disturb you, convert to Islam, and then it will be ‘hands off’.

In the worst cases, there is suspicion that such isolation covers up inadequate parenting or even child abuse in some instances. Only limited research and documentation are available to shed light on such suspicions.

And here we have the lie that is clearly spreading like a disease in the sick minds of ‘experts’. We all know that there is no evidence of any of this, and that in fact, Home Educators are statistically safer than school educated children (thanks to AHED) so why include this line when there is no evidence to support any of it?

Why indeed.

I snipped out the next section, because I do not live in Norway, and I do not care about he petty details. Norwegian parents have the same rights as every other human being. Period. Wether they are able to get it together to take their rights is a problem they have to face.

5. Conflicts in home education a cultural anthropological explanation
Activities and functions that promote the spirit of a community are prominent features of schools. In Norway, as in other countries, public schools are perceived as key to national community (Telhaug 1994: 130-131).

This perception is false. National community existed before compulsory state schooling, so this is just nonsense.

Slagstad (2001: 388-394) emphasizes the role of public schooling in nation building. He establishes that public schools task was to raise a nation and to provide public education. Schools most important tasks were to level out societal differences and to implement social integration. Public schools importance to national cultural community, social justice, and national independence is emphasized. Breaking with school becomes a threat not just to school itself but to national identity.

And there you have it, put explicitly. Schools are there to build nations, to raise a nation, and the schools most important tasks is to level out societal differences and to implement social integration. In other words, school exists to destroy the individual, to break her and make her subservient to the state; to create supplicants, serfs and slaves. The idea that breaking with school is a threat to national identity is completely wrong; who is it that defines what national identity is? If it is people like New Labour, or Hitler, or the Swedish government or the author of this paper, you can see what sort of nightmare nation you would end up with.

Mary Douglas provides analysis of the connection between cultural codes and what she calls cultural purity. In her classic work, Purity and Danger, she hypothesizes that what is anomalous or impure in a community is an outgrowth of that communitys order and rules of cultural and societal rules. The purpose of a society is to protect what is pure. In this way, all societies feature some aspects that would be considered dirty, something impure that needs to be dealt with (Douglas 2004). This can apply to the most profound and religious sensibilities. Generally, the concept here involves morality. A society has norms for right and wrong. If one violates these, one becomes a criminal to be punished, or one is regarded and treated as one who has deviated. Such an understanding of purity also applies to daily life, in the form of common rules for proper behavior (Wuthnow 1987: 84-92). Douglas points out how quickly changes in and of themselves may increase the threat to the established social and cultural order, as well as social unity.

This is the sort of thinking that is undermining the very foundation of the west. This is the talk of social engineering. This is the sort of thing they are reading and which informs their misguided, irrational policies.

Mary Douglas presents a hypothesis on the interconnection between the drive toward cultural purity, and cultural classification and boundary setting. Applying Douglas analysis is useful to understanding the high level of conflict associated with home education.

The hypothesis is about the position of what is pure or impure/dirty. Douglas sets forth the claim that which is impure or dirty in society is not so in and of itself, but because of its position (Douglas 2004: 43-50.

Home educators may, to varying degrees, deviate from the educational content provided by public schools. Most home educators accept the importance of a shared foundation of knowledge in society and they largely support the fundamental values of society and institutions of society beyond school. It is neither home educations content nor methods that are perceived as threatening by public authorities, but the fact that home educators break with the public school system and conduct students education in the home, outside of established schools.

If we are to take any of this seriously, it is the mere fact that people are different that is causing the problems, not the content or intent of what they are doing. Well I have one thing only to say about this.

Get over it.

False perceptions, wrong headed ideas and the need to make everyone the same are all perfectly fine, but as soon as you contract to use violence against people who you do not agree with, you are immoral. Whatever people want to believe is their own business. Mind your own business and there will be no problems between anyone. This is the libertarian idea; voluntary interactions between all, and never ever violence or force against anyone.

Returning to the notion of things that are out of place being threatening, home education becomes a threat to public school and to national community. Home education in and of itself is not dangerous, but its placement outside of school is. Applying M. Douglass terminology, home education is declared dirty to protect social unity and to prevent the shutting down of public schooling. When the place at which education is conducted, is moved from the schoolroom to the home, it becomes important to both public authorities and home educators to maintain and defend their values and interests based on the choices made and to proceed according to the new situation that has arisen.

And the author buys right into this delusion by calling for registration with the state to turn Home Education from ‘dirty’ to ‘clean’ since the state is the detergent that washes away all sins as defined by society.


Public authorities accomplish this by a negative attitude towards home education and ill will toward flexible solutions. Nowadays, compared with just a few years ago, public authorities seem to be more restrictive when it comes to allowing split solutions that provide some school attendance and some home education. Public authorities may thus be emphasizing the border that distinguishes school participation and home education. A national community under pressure may in and of itself be an independent factor that reinforces the conflict level between home education and public schooling, and may promote the fear that home education leads to social segregation.

Once again, who owns the person? This is the core, not what is written here.

Embarking on home educating is a difficult choice for a family to make; for most people, the threshold to cross is very high. Once the choice is made, many experience stigmatization by schools and, perhaps, by others in the community. Like-mindedness is an issue. Douglass purity hypothesis may hold particular internal significance to home educators who begin to home educate due to religious beliefs. These often break with public schooling because, in their view, it has become inadequately religious and over secularized. The holy and pure in their lives is threatened. Thus, they seek greater community in their own religious environments and with other religious home educators. Mary Douglass purity hypothesis is turned upside down. Religious home educators may perceive school authorities as dirty and threatening to the purity of their own beliefs and in their own home education.

This is not the case. Religious Home Educators do not want their children indoctrinated with the actual dirt that is being taught in schools. There is also the matter of taking religious instruction and acting on it. “Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate” is an example of a clear instruction to separate yourself from the unbelievers. That any state thinks it should stop people from obeying their religion, once again, is an outrage of the first order. Douglas’s purity hypothesis does not stand when we are discussing Home Educators and their need to do what they do. Home Educators are are a real thing, society is not.

Having been placed outside of the school environment, home educators tend to seek out contact with other home educators. They seek advice from experienced home educators, with whom they exchange advice and opinions regarding home education, public authorities, and other topics.

“no man is an island entire of itself”

In interactions between home educators and school authorities, new social and cultural boundaries between us and them are readily codified. Both home educators and authorities characterize the other party as dirty and apart from their own environment, and they prefer to stick with the pure. The outsiders easily become scapegoats for anything and everything that goes wrong. This pattern maintains and reinforces conflicts associated with home education; it may also be an independent reason for inadequate social integration of families that home educate.

These boundaries were always there. They are the result of the state adopting a posture other than servant. They are caused by the irrational and hysterical behavior of Local Authorities, who set themselves up as the masters of the people they are meant to be serving. They kidnap children and cause people to live in fear. All of this has nothing to do with the purity hypothesis, but rather, the practical realities of having your children brainwashed, kidnapped, abused and your life destroyed, as the German Home Educators are finding.

6. Concluding remarks
Sustained, long-term home education can occur due to parents religious beliefs and practices, pedagogic preferences, and pragmatic needs for fulfilling childrens compulsory, basic education outside of public or established private schools. Home education, particularly among the religiously motivated, can challenge social unity. Nevertheless, among homeschoolers who are registered and monitored, home-based education also appears to produce well-socialized students. The greatest difficulties regarding social integration are in the category of unregistered home educators.

There you go with the registration again. Completely ridiculous and without rigor. There is no difficulty regarding social integration in the imaginary category of ‘unregistered home educators’. This is just total and unrefined garbage.

Post-modern national society is overloaded with subjective identity-management tasks that are best handled at a local level (Bauman 1997). When a centralized public school emphasizes universal national, secularized, and objective values, home educating environments may constitute post-modern, particular, local communities of shared values, which could be a threat to social integration, but could also be constructive and essential for maintaining social diversity and necessary to overall social integration. Home education on individual, local and national levels depend on Giddens` reciprocity of practices, upon an atmosphere of open-mindedness and open communication. With such conditions home education could be an integrated part in a more pluralistic public education.


The original paper in PDF

Open communication with WHOM? Home Educators communicate frequently, intelligently and vigorously. What this author is talking about in a very roundabout way is communication with the STATE of a COMPULSORY kind.

Home Education is here to stay. It is going to continue to grow, and as they have found in New Zealand, wasting money monitoring and regulating them is just that, a waste of money.

Hopefully the practice of analyzing and recommending changes to Home Education, which is in vogue at the moment, will soon fade away, and these busybody statists will find some other subject to suck their salaries off of.

A new blogger appears: Tom Paine’s Daughter

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

Mimi Magick points us to a new blog, which if this first post is anything to go by, will be something to watch carefully:


“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities are heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer…”

From Common Sense by Thomas Paine, who died 200 years ago this year, and who argued that people are born with a set of natural rights and that any society that violates those rights is flawed and should be changed..

Now, it is quite clear that today's Germans have absolutely nothing to do with their country's Nazi past and as one German commentator recently remarked; the Germans were probably the most pacific country in Europe. Yet their government has gone to some considerable length to get a square peg into a round hole and ensure their ban on EHE remains law. This is very problematic for the rest of us and should be challenged because the logic they have used would be persuasive if you are ignorant of, and thus fearful, and so hostile to EHE and its place in society. It would be even more problematic if Germany believed its own logic and was pushing for a Europe wide ban. Or if one's government thought that schools can deliver equality.

One of our problems is that the British government are wrongly associating equality with a some sort of good that can be distributed. Neither equality nor education are goods that can be divvied up. They are instead dynamic, the function of processes and relationships. Related to their confusion about equality and distribution is their conflation of equality with standardisation. If equality or education were things you could distribute then giving out the same thing repeatedly might make some sense, but since neither are static in this way, the standardisation agenda is not only misconceived, it is counterproductive. Giving everyone the same experience is not giving them an equal experience because people are different in such complex and irreducible ways. A real concern for equality would recognise that very different approaches, experiences and outcomes can have equal worth within a society.


From out of the woodwork comes a legion of people who were willing to go along with almost anything, as long as there is a minimum amount of liberty. Now that that minimum is being taken away, everyone, on both sides of the atlantic, are up in arms and are simply not going to take it.

It starts with polite discourse and ends with the restoration of balance.

Its about time.