Archive for July, 2011

Anonymous, the Matrix and Justice

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

It appears that Anonymous is not releasing its mothelode containing 4GB of News of the World emails, because it may ‘prejudice the case’.

This is an error.

Seeking justice from a court that is run by the State is not rational in this case, and here is why.

Lets say that News International is found guilty of a crime and then is fined 500,000 pounds, or 5,000,000 or 50,000,000… so what?

What if both the Murdocks are sacked; once again so what?

News International continues to promote and lie on behalf of the bogus war on terror, the bogus war on drugs, democracy, lies in general, the erosion of liberty and it continues its unequivocal unquestioning support for the regime(s). A small fine is the most you can expect from any judgement a court might hand down, and of course, this is reasonable. Just because they have done some bad things, that doesn’t give a court the right to completely annihilate their business.

Justice in this case would be a total and completely effective boycott of News International by properly informed public. It would destroy them comprehensively and utterly, based on nothing more than their own words, as contained in the email motherlode.

No court in any country that wants to preserve its patina of ‘fairness’ can ever deliver this deathblow result, which would be real justice. Consider what happened to the jewellers Ratner’s who were almost put out of business overnight thanks to the honest words of its head in a single speech. That was all it took.

Anonymous has in its hands, a weapon that could be millions of times more powerful than the single utterance of the boss of Ratner’s. The News of the World has been listening in to the voicemails of thousands of people, now their communications are going to be probed. This is true, like for like justice. See Retributive Justice.

Libertarians understand that the State should not be the sole dispenser of justice, and that justice is a service, just like any other. The same people that murder men in other countries protect themselves with the courts that they effectively own. This is why Tony Bliar will never be brought before a British court to answer for mass murder, even though he is guilty of that crime as an accomplice and instigator.

Seeking justice from inside the matrix on its terms and inside its controls cannot, by definition, be real justice; it can only be a simulation of justice.

Anonymous can do whatever they like with the docs they have obtained. They took the risk to get them, and its up to them how they want to dispose of them, wether that is doling them out piecemeal, deleting them or releasing them in their entirety.

What they must understand is that they have the power to dispense justice themselves, by releasing the docs. The question that immediately comes to mind is are they being influenced by the media outlets they are working with:


We’re currently working with certain media outlets who have been granted exclusive access to some of the News of the World emails we have.less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply

who knows?

One thing is for sure; working with newspapers is retarding their movement, which is the job of the Mainstream Media gatekeepers like the Guardian.

For the record, justice does not mean violence. The State and its fear soaked control addicts conflate justice dispensed outside of its courts with violence to frighten people away from the idea that justice is a service. Justice does not mean hanging or imprisonment or other violence, it means (in general) an equitable settlement of partie’s claims, based on the facts of a grievance, that is mutually satisfactory.

If the Anons wants justice, they should let everyone make up their own minds wether or not News International is a fit company to receive their money. The only way to do that is to release the documents in full.

Consider this. There must be information in that 4GB motherlode that might be useful to a victim of the State, that has no meaning to you as you gate-keep the gigabytes of information.

Imagine that some poor person without the connections or resources to fight the oligarchy / State has been suffering under their heel; lets say someone powerful wants his land or his house, and has framed him up to steal it from him. The evidence of this might be in a motherlode of files that you are poring over, that you might miss because it doesn’t seem important; but it is important to that man who is being victimised.

An even more germane example would be evidence that the News of the World has run a smear campaign against a person or company; the evidence is in there waiting to be released to vindicate the vilified person. Even more interesting would be an expose of all the PR companies that have been feeding stories to the News of the World. We all know that Facebook has been caught running a PR campaign against Google, can you even begin to imagine the number of emails from PR companies that must be in that motherlode, and how they will completely expose the way newspapers simply churn out stories that are fed to them? That would be a real public service, and no one would ever read a newspaper with the same eyes ever again. The spell of churnalism would be broken forever, and everyone reading a newspaper story would immediately, instinctively put up a barrier between them and the print that keeps the story from entering their consciousness uncritically. From then on, the first thing everyone reading a story would ask before and after reading it would be, “Now, I wonder who is paying for this story”. It would constitute an unprecedented healthy scepticism that would spread throughout the world.

All this from the release of a single tarball.

That is justice.
That is moving forward and never going back.
That is progress.
That is solving problems.

Everyone needs to have access to everything for the dam holding back justice to be broken.

Finally, some who agree with the stance that Anonymous takes on things still believe that democracy is a good thing. They claim that the Norwegian president saying that the answer to violence is more democracy is correct. This is patently false. Democracy itself is violence:

The answer to violence is to say “NO” to violence.

That means “NO” to all violence and coercion, no matter where it comes from.

Democracy is violence and coercion. You cannot be against violence and for the violence of the State at the same time. If you are for the State, and for democracy, then you are for all the bad things that come out it, its violence and all the bad stuff that you quite rightly want to see and end of. You cannot, or at least, should not, hold two opposing ideas in your mind at the same time. Unless you are a quantum physicist.

This is a difficult concept to understand at first, but once you grasp it, it becomes clear that the answer to violence can never be more violence, especially the unprecedented mechanised industrial scale violence of democracy and the State, which is more violent than any mafia gang or any organised entity in the history of the worl.

It will be interesting to see what happens to that 4GB file, especially when Topiary, who has apparently just been arrested, is made the next victim of the standard and insidious mainstream media character assassination that is done to everyone like that. You need only look at what happened to Julian Assange for a good example of how mainstream media deliberately sets out to poison the perception of people, and of course, evidence of a coordinated PR effort to smear Assange could very well be in that motherlode.

Think about it!

Share/Save

19,785,621 seconds

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

THe title of this blog post is the number of seconds it took for the hive mind of Anonymous to reach the next iteration that we wrote about in December 2010. Here is the tweet posted around the time of the light bulb moment:

If @LulzSec called for a #Paypal boycott it would make way more damage than any LOIC attack could ever do. Is that a felony? #AntiSecless than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply

What is so exiting about this is that 229 days (or 329,760 minutes or 5496 hours) is not very long for an iteration, and if the time between iterations is getting shorter and shorter, it will not be long (since Anons are highly intelligent) before they come to the Final Boss of of this game: The idea of the State itself.

When they come to the conclusion that the State is not needed, is the source of all the evils they are railing against, that it is a new cancer and not at all inevitable, Murray Rothbard will spell everything out for them in a tome that is not TL;DR, and which will simply blow their minds.

PayPal’s ridiculous regulations are a product of the State. If if were not for the State, they would not be doing what they are doing, i.e. blocking access to accounts, closing accounts at the behest of the state, restricting the flow of your money etc etc.

If you look behind the curtain at everything that is going wrong, from the insane wars, to the restrictions on free speech, DRM, the ban on vitamins, the RIAA/MPAA, Domain seizures, your money becoming worthless, widespread poverty, the ‘War on Drugs’, the patent trolling, the endemic corruption, the bank bailouts… EVERYTHING – the State is the direct cause of it.

People who are clear thinking are not wedded to any particular idea out of habit. They hold their ideas because they are arrived at by reason, and if by reason they must abandon wrong ideas, they do so immediately.

The idea of the State is a habit, a bad one, like heroin, and anyone who refuses to accept the State as the Final Boss is a brainwashed, drug addled addict.

It looks like the tipping point has been reached. Anonymous and its legion are moving inexorably towards the locus of Libertarianism. They are quickly shedding all operations that are ineffective or that involve disrupting other people’s property (like LOIC). Closing your PayPal account and switching to another service is an incredibly powerful act. By moving to another service, you can ensure that the flow of information (money) is not interrupted. The question then becomes, which service to switch to?

If you switch to any service that is regulated by our enemy, the State, you will be moving from one frying pan into another. What is needed is a way to move information (money) that does not involve a third party. A middlemanless system that is controlled by the masses for the masses.

That means Bitcoin.

The next obvious iteration is to get millions of people to move to Bitcoin as the main way they transact with money on the internet. That means dumping credit cards, PayPal and any other payment system that is regulated by the State.

Even if the number of places where you can buy things with Bitcoin is small now, if millions of new challengers appear holding it and eager to spend it, I guarantee you that Bitcoin will be integrated into every e-commerce package out there in less than a month. This will dramatically bootstrap the Bitcoin economy, decimate PayPal and the credit cards and bring forward the date of the inevitable demise of the State.

Remember; the taint of the State is the root problem. Apply this simple test to anything that you can think of that chafes at your sense of decency and liberty.

“Is there a law or regulation that makes this bad thing happen?”

If the answer is yes, then the State is behind it.

Try it. You will be amazed at how everything bad you can think of can be traced back to and is a direct result of the existence of the State.

The inevitable next question is “what are we to do without a State to tell us what to do?”. Murray Rothbard and the Libertarians have the answer, and this answer is not based on theory alone; it is based only on provable facts.

A critical mass of non violent change is coming where the State will simply cease to exist, just like it did in East Germany. This time it will be different however. There will be no West Germany to fill the void. There will be nothing; nothing but the good will and power of collective non violent voluntarism and the unprecedented prosperity that will follow as day follows night.

One last thing.

Some people say, “this is how you do it, keep it legal and legit”. This is wrong, ‘in the matrix’ thinking.

If you restrict yourself only to what is legal, then you will most certainly fail.

If they outlaw Bitcoin, or any of the other 17 alternatives to PayPal, and remove your ability to change services and stay ‘legal and legit’ how will your boycott end? It will end in total failure.

Your strategy should not be based on doing what is or is not legal, because the State, the enemy, decides unilaterally what is or is not legal. Constraining yourself in this way is thinking inside the box created for you by the State. It will not work.

Your strategy must be based only on what is moral and what is effective. That means refraining from doing anything that is immoral and only doing things that are effective.

If they make payment systems other than PayPal illegal, that is an attack on your liberty that you can respond to without committing an immoral act; in the same way that smoking marijuana, despite it being illegal, is responding to an outrageous infringement of your liberty without committing an immoral act. You simply refuse to obey, en masse.

What has changed is that everyone is connected to everyone else, and withering, debilitating, concentrated, tsunami death blow boycotts can strike with incredible ferocity if the conditions are correct.

Just wait for the critical mass condition to arrive, when the penny drops and the State dies… I imagine that it will be like the change of weather on a day where it has been raining and all of a sudden, the rain stops and beautiful sunshine burst into the day.

The green rain of the State will be stopped!

The correct response to murder

Saturday, July 23rd, 2011

Its a terrible thing when people are murdered. It does not matter who is doing it or why, it is a crime, a savage and terrible crime. It is however important to put this shooting in Utya into the correct context straight away and then to think about it clearly and carefully.

Some people are saying that the ’emotionlessness’ with which this gunman murdered his victims is “midnboggling”.

Why?

Why is it that when an individual commits murder everyone becomes breathless, shocked and ‘cant sleep at night’, but when its done with drones or soldiers there is a greatly reduced amount of outrage?

What is the difference between this man committing murder and people sitting in an office somewhere commanding a drone to kill men women and children in a wedding party, just as dispassionately, calculatingly and emotionlessly? We have all seen the leaked footage of operations in Iraq where the controllers of the drones calmly murder people and speak in measured, relaxed, dispassionate voices as they do so. The fact that people can do this should not be surprising to anybody, especially when they believe they have a just cause.

The just cause the desk bound drone murderers are using is that they are ‘taking out’ the leaders of a group that could in the future, pose a threat to ‘their nation’. As you will see below, this is exactly what people are speculating this Utya murder was about; the prevention of dangerous future political action.

The stock rationale given for lack of equivalent response to the murder of different people inevitably circles around the idea that brown people are not thought of as full human beings, whilst Norwegians, being ‘white’ are, or that war is ‘justifiable killing’ whilst individuals killing is not. None of this off the shelf thinking really matters; the only thing that matters is your reaction to murder, and your ability or inability to empathise with other human beings, especially if you want to see an end to politically generated murder.

When people are cut down, as in the case of “Collateral Murder” your feelings for those that are murdered should be identical to the feelings you have when you see people in Oslo blown to bits, or students attending a political camp on an island slaughtered.

There is absolutely no difference between these events; they are all unjustifiable, immoral and repugnant murder and if you have stronger feelings because you personally have been to the places where the attacks happened or have some other ‘real connection’ to the event, then there is an urgent adjustment that needs to be made to your ability to empathise with the plight of other human beings. The only exception to this, where stronger feelings are a correct, natural and explicable response, is when you witness a murder in person, or a member of your own family is killed. No one can be expected to be rational when something like that takes place, but for all other murders, wherever they happen, when you are watching film of it or reading a report of it, your reaction should be exactly the same. Your ‘real connection’ to other people is no less real because you have not met them or been to their houses or cities. That is how real human beings feel about other human beings.

Once again, there is nothing surprising or staggering about the methodical and emotionless killing of human beings. It is done every day, sometimes on an industrial scale, by people just like you and me. When man gets it into his head that the only way to have order is the use of violence, there is nothing that he will not do, no lie he will refrain from telling himself and no level he will not sink to.

People are speculating that this killer wanted to wipe out the next generation of socialist leaders. Violent people have no problem in doing this; the end justifies the means, and the State does exactly the same thing. This is the motivating thought behind the drone attacks and it is also (for example) the true origin of inheritance tax.

Inheritance taxes are explicitly designed to prevent wealth from accumulating in the hands of families. In order to achieve this end, the State uses violence to make sure that this wealth accumulation does not happen. The State does not kill to achieve this end, but they use violence as a means to it. If you are for inheritance taxes, then you are of the same mindset as the people who think that it is a fit and proper solution to a political problem to murder individuals or a whole generation of nascent leaders who will inevitably turn out to be socialists. You are for violence.

This is the hard truth that people do not want to swallow; immoral violence at different levels is behind the edifice of the State, and all Statist thinking, its fallacious justifications and immoral actions. If you are for any of it, no matter what the justification, you are violent.

People are asking, “What kind of psychopath has that kind of forward-thinking planning?” The answer is, the same sort of psychopath that orders regime change, and like Madeline Albright, is prepared to order the deaths of children to achieve U.S. policy objectives because, “we think the price is worth it”. The same sort of psychopath that kills millions of people for dollar and oil supremacy. The same sort of people who devise plans to kill ‘their own citizens’ so that they may have a pretext to go to war. In other words, the people who run the State.

Once again, why do people rail against individual psychopathy but not the small army of psychopaths that man the controls of the State, who have a proven track record of mass murder, extrajudicial killing, rendition, torture and rape and every other unspeakable crime that can be committed? Why the sleepless nights, the speechlessness, the loss for words, the histrionics over people in one country, but not for people in another country, being killed on a much greater scale and at a greater frequency?

All of these people are human beings with the same rights, they eat the same way, think the same thoughts, have families… they are indistinguishable from each other on a human level, so why does everyone who goes berserk over a small number of students, not literally go insane over the daily murders carried out by the State?

Madeline Albright said straight out that she is willing to kill children, just as was done in this case, to achieve an end, and yet, when this is said right to your face, as murderers from the State have openly said again and again, the reaction is nowhere near as shrill and tear filled as when something terrible that is personal (that isn’t really personal at all, just more local, ‘close to home’) happens. This is wrong, especially when in the belief system of the people who are having this disproportionate response, it is held that the State is a creature acting under the direction the voting public; where murder is done on their behalf, in the name of ‘the people’.

It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

What also doesn’t make any sense is the prominence these stories get. The number of people who die from these events is statistically insignificant when compared to all the other forms of unnatural death. Why is everyone putting these deaths up on a pedestal? Surely the murders of the State should be put on the same level, and that level should be off of the front page? More people die from bee stings, peanut allergy, alcoholism, road accidents and many other unnatural causes, so why not put these deaths on the same level? Why report them at all? The threat to you is not grater than the threat of other unnatural causes, so to place these deaths higher than other deaths is simply base emotionalism, sensationalism and irrationality.

These murders are terrible, revolting and unjustifiable. They are just as terrible, revolting and unjustifiable as the murders of the State. These murders however, should not be used a a pretext for anything other than a thorough investigation into the murderer and his motivations. There should be no new legislation, no increased surveillance, no Police State strictures. NOTHING in response to this other than a criminal investigation.

Your chances of being killed in this way are infinitesimally small. The magnification of this event into something bigger than what it actually is, is trillions of times more harmful to you, your descendants and your life than the event itself.

Do not magnify this event; it is not any more or less important than any other murder. It is not more significant, statistically or morally. It is just as repugnant as other murders and just as statistically probable.

Any emphasis upon it that is greater than the emphasis that is given to the murders of the State is itself immoral and repugnant.

Finally, people are beginning to realise that all is not quite right with these events. The photos of the perpetrator are “picture perfect”, his background and messages “intended to be found”. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. But then again, so does the State, and its mass murder. You must take three steps back and also cast the same skeptical, critical, logical eye on the existence of the State itself, its murders, excuses, pretexts, fictitious enemies and bogus justifications for what is plainly immoral.

If you do not do this, then you are not thinking logically, but are being emotionally manipulated into believing that somehow, a man murdering 80 plus people is different to the State murdering 80 plus people, and that because of this, you must accept changes imposed upon your life.

It just isn’t true.

Private View From Shanghai

Thursday, July 21st, 2011

 

 

The Outlook Magazine

From p.36

The text has, somewhat ironically, been redacted compared to the print version.

Still, a fabulous collection of images old and new.

Newest: UFO!

‘Unhappy Flying Objects’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

French to roll out Biometric ID Card with central database

Tuesday, July 12th, 2011

Oh dear me.

It looks like the French are facing the New Labour disease of super Orwellian ID Cards to supplant their existing ID Card system.

Did you know that you cannot buy a SIM card in France without presenting State ID? Appalling!

It seems to me that they need to have a little Stonor Saunders injected into their ‘debate’, and Google Translate is more than happy to oblige:

+++++++

Cela a t envoy moi.

Ceci a t crit l’origine par STONOR SAUNDERS Frances.

Frances Saunders est l’ancien rdacteur en chef des arts du New Statesman, auteur de La Guerre froide culturelle, Diabolical Anglais et Le Diable Courtier et a t attribu William la Royal Historical Society de Gladstone Prix?commmoratif. Elle vit Londres. Il vaut bien lire et si vous souhaitez, s’il vous plat le transmettre autant de personnes que vous le pouvez.

Vous avez entendu ce que la lgislation crant cartes d’identit obligatoires franchi une tape cruciale dans la Chambre des communes. Vous pouvez penser que ID cartes ne sont pas de quoi s’inquiter, puisque nous avons dj de photos d’identit pour nos passeports et permis de conduire et une carte d’identit ne sera pas diffrente de que. Qu’est-ce que vous n’avez pas t dit est la pleine porte de cette identit propose Carte, et ce qu’il signifie pour vous personnellement.

La carte d’identit propose sera diffrente de n’importe quelle carte que vous tenez. Il sera tre connect une base de donnes appele le RIN, (National Identity Register), o toutes vos donnes personnelles seront stockes. Il s’agira notamment de numro unique qui sera mis pour vous, vos empreintes digitales, un scan de la arrire de votre il, et votre photo. Votre nom, adresse et date de la naissance sera videmment aussi y tre stockes.

Il y aura des espaces sur cette base de donnes pour votre religion, le statut de rsidence, et de nombreux autres faits privs et personnels votre sujet. Il est illimit espace pour tous les autres dtails de votre vie sur la base de donnes NIR, qui peut tre tendu par le gouvernement avec ou sans d’autres actes de Parlement.

En soi, vous pourriez penser que ce registre est inoffensif, mais vous seriez tort de venir cette conclusion. Cette nouvelle carte sera utilise pour vrifier votre identit contre votre entre dans le registre en temps rel, chaque fois que vous le prsenter prouver qui vous tes.

Tout lieu que vend de l’alcool ou des cigarettes, chaque bureau de poste, tous les pharmacie, et chaque banque aura un terminal de carte NIR, (tout comme les lecteurs Chip and Pin qui sont partout maintenant) dans lequel votre carte peut tre “glisse” pour vrifier votre identit. Chaque fois que cela arrive, un record est faite la PIR de l’heure et le lieu que la carte a t prsente. Cela signifie par exemple, qu’il y aura un dossier du gouvernement de chaque fois que vous retirez plus de 99 votre succursale de NatWest, qui maintenant ID demande pour ces transactions. Chaque fois que vous avez prouver que vous sont plus de 18 ans, votre carte sera glisse, et un enregistrement fait la PIR. Restaurants et licences hors exigeront que votre carte est glisse de telle sorte que chaque reu indique qu’ils vendaient de l’alcool quelqu’un de plus de 18, et que cela a t prouv par l’accs au NIR, les indemnisant partir
poursuites.

Les entreprises prives vont avoir accs la base de donnes NIR. Si vous voulez postuler pour un emploi, vous devrez prsenter votre carte d’un coup. Si vous voulez demander une carte Oyster Londres Underground, ou un la fidlit des supermarchs carte ou un permis de conduire, vous devrez prsenter votre Carte d’identit pour un coup. Va de mme pour obtenir une ligne tlphonique ou une tlphone mobile ou d’un compte Internet.

Oyster, DVLA, BT, et de Nectar (par exemple) fonctionnent tous de bases de donnes trs dtaille de leurs propres. Ils seront autoriss accder au NIR, comme tous les autres entreprise sera. Cela signifie que chacune de ces entits seront en mesure de enregistrer votre numro unique dans leur base de donnes, et placer tous vos dplacements, enregistrements tlphoniques, des activits de conduite et les habitudes d’achat dtaille sous votre numro unique de NIR. Ces bases de donnes, qui peut facilement s’adapter sur un stockage appareil de la taille de votre main, seront vendus aux tiers lgalement ou illgalement. Il sera alors possible pour une entit non-gouvernementales pour crer une dossier dtaill de toutes vos activits. Certes, le gouvernement aura l’accs tous les clandestins d’entre eux, ce qui signifie qu’ils auront une complte record de tous vos mouvements, de combien et quand vous vous retirez de votre compte bancaire pour les mdicaments que vous prenez, jusqu’au niveau de quelle sorte de pain que vous mangez – tous accessibles via un numro unique dans une base de donnes centrale.

C’est tout fait un bond significatif partir d’une carte d’identit simple qui montre votre nom et le visage.

La plupart des gens ne savent pas que c’est le vrai caractre et la porte des propos de carte d’identit. Chaque fois que les dtails de comment il fonctionnera sont expliques pour eux, ils changer rapidement d’tre ambivalente envers elle.

Le gouvernement va vous obliger entrer vos coordonnes dans le NIR et de raliser cette carte. Si vous et vos enfants veulent obtenir ou renouveler votre passeport, vous serez oblig de prendre vos empreintes digitales et vos yeux scanns pour le RIN, et une carte d’identit sera mis pour vous si vous voulez un ou pas. Si vous refusez de prendre ses empreintes digitales et oculaires numrises, vous ne serez pas en mesure d’obtenir un passeport. Votre carte d’identit sera, juste comme votre passeport, ne pas tre votre proprit. Le ministre de l’Intrieur aura le droit de rvoquer ou de suspendre votre identit tout moment, ce qui signifie que vous ne pas tre en mesure de retirer de l’argent sur votre compte bancaire, par exemple, ou faire tout ce qui vous oblige prsenter votre carte d’identit mise par le gouvernement.

Les arguments qui ont t mis transmise en faveur des cartes d’identit peuvent tre facilement rfute. Cartes d’identit NE SERA PAS arrter les terroristes; chaque Espagnol a une carte d’identit obligatoire, de mme que les Bombers de Madrid, et probablement la plupart des les criminels 9 / 11. Les cartes d’identit ne sera pas d’liminer la fraude aux prestations, qui en comparaison, est faible par rapport au cot astronomique de cette proposition, qui seront valus en milliards selon l’Ecole LSE (Londres des Economics). Ce schma existe uniquement pour exercer une surveillance totale et contrle sur le citoyen britannique ordinaire libre, et ce sera remplir les poches des les entreprises qui creront des systmes informatiques au dtriment de la votre libert, d’intimit et de l’argent.

Si vous ne saviez pas toute la porte du systme de carte d’identit propose avant et vous sont instables comme je suis ce que cela signifie vraiment pour vous, cette pays et son mode de vie, je vous exhorte l’email ou une photocopie cela et lui donner vos amis et collgues et tout le monde pense que vous devez savoir et qui se soucie. Le projet de loi a procd ce stade en raison de l’absence de renseignements exacts et complets sur cette proposition soient rendues publiques. Ensemble et main dans la main, nous pouvons informer la nation toute entire, si tous ceux qui reoit ce qu’elle transmet. ”

Ce message n’a rien voir avec la politique – il est faire avec notre libert. Mais ce sont les politiciens qui dans l’ignorance vont voter pour la carte d’identit et donc nous rapprocher de l’Etat de police qui semble tre le but de notre actuelle Gouvernement. S’il vous plat transmettre ce message – et d’utiliser votre prochain vote lection gnrale pour se dbarrasser des gens qui veulent dtruire notre chri dmocratie.

Envoyer le traducteur de cet article, un Bitcoin cette adresse: 14ScQgQRi2U5o6cdAJNhgyzY6w5UtwmX16