Archive for February, 2010

Dirty people are dumber and more dangerous

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

Two related articles that swirl around the recent nonsense:

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

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

[…]

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

[…]

CNN

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

Now steel yourself for this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed West at The Telegraph

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

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

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share/Save

Nick Hogan: A true British hero

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

A former pub landlord yesterday became the first person to be jailed in connection with the smoking ban.

Nick Hogan, 43, was sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to pay a fine imposed for flouting the legislation.

Two years ago Hogan, who ran two pubs in Bolton, became the first landlord convicted of breaking the law for allowing his customers to routinely light up in his bars.

A judge fined Hogan, of Chorley, Lancashire, 3,000 and ordered him to pay 7,236 in costs after finding him guilty of four charges under the Health Act 2006.
But the married father-of-two refused to pay the fine and yesterday, after repeatedly being hauled back before the courts, a judge sitting at Bolton Crown Court finally lost patience and jailed him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254126/Pub-landlord-Nick-Hogan-given-smoking-ban-jail-sentence.html

This man is a TRUE HERO.

That pub is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

If the owner of that PRIVATE PROPERTY allows his patrons to smoke, that is a PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT between him and his customers.

Anyone who does not want to drink beer in a pub where smoking is permitted by its OWNER can GO TO ANOTHER PUB, or THE DEVIL.

This is unambiguous and very simple.

Either there are property rights in Britain or there are not.

If you can smoke in your own house and invite people to your house to smoke, and hire servants to serve them beer, then there is no reason why you should not be able to utilise your own property if it is called a ‘pub’, where people come to your PRIVATE PROPERTY to do what you allow them to do. The fact that people pay you for your beer and services is entirely irrelevant.

If the state can tell you that you cannot invite people to your PRIVATE PROPERTY to smoke, drink and eat, then you do not have the right of property in Britain. PERIOD.

Nick Hogan was simply asserting his property right in the pub that he was the landlord of. No one was forced to drink at his pub. The state has no business WHATSOEVER telling landlords that they MUST forbid smoking in what is their PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Nick Hogan is a HERO for standing up for his rights. The judge was completely arbitrary in gaoling him, simply because he had ‘lost patience’; if the judge had been a more patient man, would Mr. Hogan now be ‘at liberty’?

Absolutely appalling!

One thing is for sure, the incandescent rage that the British people are manifesting is starting to make the edifice glow red hot. Soon it will be white hot, and the structure of this insane, madman run regime will start to crumble like the impenetrable door in this film.

UPDATE:

Donate to Mr Hogan in cash to this address:

Nick’s address is:

HMP & YOI Forest Bank
Agecroft Road
Pendlebury
Manchester
M27 8FB

[…]

And see this post by Old Holborn:

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2010/02/nick-hogan-jailed-over-no-smoking-ban.html

Sickening blue dots

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Look at this map very carefully:


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

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

The priceless Alison says:

Putting professional child abusers on the map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Home Ed Forums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

Mr Gove said that he thought parents who educated their children at home did a wonderful job. He said: Government should support them and we wont allow the current Governments plans to stigmatise home educators to get through.

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

A Madeline Bunting attack, and this time, she brought her army

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

Unbelievable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh dear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is absolutely astonishing.

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

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

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

It beggars belief.

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

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

Dont get me wrong: Ive always believed that the democratic state must be given power to act on behalf of us

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • F=ma
  • Pe=mgh
  • Ke=1/2mv2
  • E=mc2

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

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

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

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

, and no government has disagreed since.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whose ethics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no ME in your WE.

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

I agree with the second sentence.

Who dares talk on this subject with confidence?

The Libertarians especially Lew Rockwell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

Here is a nasty taste:

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

Bunting. What a joke!

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

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

WE NEED A PUBLIC LIFE WITH PURPOSE

Michael Sandel

NO ‘WE’ DO NOT!

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

Slavery, theft and violence. Pure evil.

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

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

HOW TO LIVE AS IF WE WERE HUMAN

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

Apostate Christian calls for enslavement:

We have looked into the abyss where individualism is concerned and we know it wont do

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

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

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

Mark Vernon

Heavens above, they are all INSANE.

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

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

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

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

This is completely false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what the writers of this pamphlet DESPISE.

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

Tariq Ramadan

Uh oh…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Hutton

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

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

And finally, before I vomit all over my keyboard:

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

‘The great man’

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

Iceland: more statist fail in the guise of protecting freedom

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Iceland is at a unique crossroads.

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

Because of an economic meltdown in the banking sector,

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

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

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

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

FAIL.

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

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

FAIL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is interesting language isn’t it?

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

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

Here it comes…

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

THERE!

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

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

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

http://immi.is/

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

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

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

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

Socialised medicine strengthens illness

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Ambrose Evans Pritchard wrote in The Telegraph:

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

[…]

Telegraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fears America is moving ‘toward a military dictatorship’

Monday, February 15th, 2010

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that he feared America is moving “toward a military dictatorship”, with the famously hardline Neoconservatives attempting to “supplant” the government.

Ahmadinejad, Iran’s most senior politician, told students in Qatar that Iran will favour international pressure through the UN Security Council rather than military action to curb its New World Order ambitions.

Such pressure “will be particularly aimed at the those enterprises controlled by the New World Order (Haliburton, Carlyle Group, Club of Rome, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, Goldman Sachs, Federal Reserve), which we believe is in affect supplanting the government of America,” he said.

“We see the government of The United States, Judiciary, the Senate, the Congress are being supplanted and America is moving toward a military dictatorship,” Ahmadinejad told students at the Qatari branch of Carnegie-Mellon University.

He also told the US-Islamic World Forum in Doha: “I fear the rise of the influence and power of the New World Order … poses a very direct threat to everyone.”

Wall Street and the Federal Reserve Bankers have long been a pillar of America’s regime as a force separate from the democratic republic and now has a hand in every critical area including missile development, oil resources, dam building, road construction, telecommunications and nuclear technology.

It also has absorbed the paramilitary Blackwater as a full-fledged part of its command structure giving the shadow government greater a stronger presence in America’s internal politics and is widely blamed for supporting martial law.

The United States last week imposed a fresh round of sanctions against Iran and hopes it will also be the subject of UN sanctions.

“I would like to figure out a way to handle it,” he told a conference in Qatar, which lies across the Gulf from Iran.

“Certainly we don’t want to be engaging while they’re building up their base in Iraq.”

He told students that his talks with leaders in the region had revealed great concern about America and its intentions.

“They worry about America’s intentions. They worry about whether America will be a good citizen and live peacefully”, he said.

“I think people have reason to worry. The question is what can America do to allay the fears of other countries. And yet I don’t see much progress there.”

Telegraph

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council to hire potential paedophile

Friday, February 12th, 2010

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

Elective Home Education Consultant

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

DONCASTER LOCAL AUTHORITY (LA)

Required for April 2010.

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

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

The candidate appointed will be expected to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many thanks for your interest in this vacancy.

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

Lets do this!

Elective Home Education Consultant

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

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

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

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

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

The candidate appointed will be expected to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Provide detailed notes of visit

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

You cant make this sort of thing up.

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

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

Let’t think about this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unions demand talks over Birmingham Council job cuts

The council needs to save millions from its budget

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the hell?

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

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

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

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

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

And there you have it.

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

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

FURTHERMORE

People in the know on teh internetz ask:

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

the answer, it appears, is YES:

Doncaster Social services facing inquiry after seven suspicious deaths:

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

!!!

EVEN FURTHERMORE
10,000 != 100,000

DUUUUUUHHHHH!!!

Thanks Billysu!!

EVEN FURTHERMORE STILL

The listing has been REMOVED by the employer:

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

But someone clever made a screengrab of it:

!!!

and here is another:

This is what the eloi are really like

Friday, February 12th, 2010

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

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

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

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

Check out this comment:

Comment 366:

This is fantastic on so many levels:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment 245

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

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

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

And yet, this is exactly what happens.

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

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

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

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

BBC liars at the Biometric trough again

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

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

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

This is a LIE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some people say?

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

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

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

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

WHOTSITMATAAAAAHH INNIT?

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

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

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

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

I can’t wait to see it!

The Fourfold Fire Spirit

Monday, February 8th, 2010

fire

Disappearing acts

Friday, February 5th, 2010

Possibly the only Good Thing in teh Grauniad;

Disappearing acts. Real people making real things. You can pay for them.

Disappearing acts

Special Branch

Monday, February 1st, 2010

What we saw

Monday, February 1st, 2010

January 2010; visual answers to small questions.

Mini Ferarri.

You’ll be different in the Spring, you’re a seasonal beast.

The bigger they come.

Percussive organists.

A small corner of Wales.

Easy as 1 2 3.

What would Jesus do?.

Glorious.

Going underground.

Light as a feather, from 1.24.

Punch drukn.

“They hit themselves with spoons!”.

Bird song.

PM starts fight.

The Original and The Best: