Add your Email here to follow EUbrainwashing

Sunday, 11 December 2011

Training for consent

State controlled schooling (including most private schools) is designed to stamp-out critical thinking in the population and instil an instinct for accepting authority along with its edicts.

Far from failing, the schooling system is a runaway success.

Most of the kids who are tarred as 'failures' of this programming are in fact the ones who, knowingly or otherwise, have refused to submit to its indoctrination.

The academic 'successes' of the state controlled school system are the most incapable of breaking free from the paradigm the system creates. 

All are successes of the system as intended: the feckless are prevented from achieving their individualistic potential and the apparently brighter student is rendered incapable of free thought.

Wednesday, 7 December 2011

Yap yap yap. It is so transparent!

When one lot are in opposition they mouth vague truths and when they are in power they just plough-on cementing as much of the long planned 'global banking soviet governance' agenda into place as they possibly can.

Who gives a stuff for this so called 'democracy' anyway?  The democracy we have is a sham.  The two party paradigm, left/right,  is an illusion to sap-up the energy of the people with a meaningless distraction; two sides of the same fractional reserve central banking fiat currency issued coin.

If any of our political 'representatives' really got down to speak the nut-and-bolts of the truth (if they know it at all) they would at least be washed-up in a week or more likely wind-up 'dead in the woods'.

There is only one answer and that is an end to the state.  No state at all - zilch!   Because, whatever and regardless, the power and authority of the state will always be usurped from the true mandate of the people which at best becomes a self-serving enterprise but then, ultimately and inevitably, decays into the covertly operated tool of those who would, as in time immemorial, seek to dominate and profit prodigiously from the bounty of the world and humanity.

Monday, 31 October 2011

Amputate the Psychostate

None of these people, the leaders of political parties, have the interests of the people of the British Isles to the forefront of their minds.

They perhaps have a vision of how the world should manifest, in their opinion, to best endure.  More likely they broadly know the objectives they must help ease into place to so retain their position, power and authority.

That objective goes beyond an European superstate.   The final objective is a single world superstate with each continental region functioning with a degree of autonomy - but not with regional independence.

And in the mind of a utopian visionary dreamer it can indeed look like the only means by which the world can be guided to function efficiently, 'sustainably' and peacefully into an indefinite future.

I can understand that notion for centralised world governance if only because, as a youngster, I considered that too to be the only enduring option.  That was before I really understood the depth of selfish corruption that has continuously existed; existed as long as has the edifice of, in one form or other, the state.  That was before I broke free from the paradigm that the existence of a state is essential to civilised and productive human existence.

My conclusion is: there is no place for the state, for everything that the state touches, or that can inveigle the state to do its bidding, corrupts; and corrupts wielding the power and authority, intended only for the state, usurped instead to fulfil its corrupt ends.

Worse.  It is not the risk that all states, once established, corrupt to ends that do not represent the ends wished for by the people who the state purports to represent.   It is that, from the very outset, the state is conceived, controlled and steered to achieve these corrupt ends.  The only protection from and prevention of the formation of this otherwise unavoidable cankerous growth is to remove the medium upon which it parasitically depends - the state.  The state can be prevented from becoming inevitably foul and corrupt only by having no state in place at all.  That will not prevent corruption but it will limit it sufficiently to preclude its scope of becoming an all-encompassing strangling growth.

Friday, 30 September 2011

The State - Strangers who throw all your money into a bottomless pit

If we are on a sinking wooden boat and all we have is a captain and all that captain has is a great big hammer with a bucket full of nails; expect to hear nothing but the sound of banging, battering, clobbering, pounding, pummelling, thrashing, trouncing, walloping and whacking - in that order!

The captain will tell you this is all his men can do. But you know: the weight of all these nails is going to sink that darn boat anyway, regardless. The boat is sinking, you are on it and it is miles from land. And the funny thing is the ones who are doing all the hammering, having holed the hull in the first place, are the only ones with life-jackets on, indeed with your life-jackets on.

What are you going to do? Push those fellows with the hammer in the sea and tip their bucket of nails in with them too. I reckon with a little luck we could make it to the shore - this is, after all, a wooden boat.

Here is another thing. If you owned a money printing machine, not fake money but real money, would you ever be broke again? Only if you were really very stupid. And would you give that machine away on the agreement that you will instead pay interest for any of the money the machine printed. Only if you were very stupid again.  Or fundamentally corrupt.

Monday, 11 July 2011

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

This is not my government paying dues to the EU and that keeps poring money in to try and keep this Frankenstein currency appearing to be alive. My government does not exist.

This is not my government waging illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. My government has been hijacked.

This is not my government that keeps giving away the sovereignty of the nation I believed I was born to have a rightful a share of and to pass to my kin. My government has been corrupted long ago.

This is not my government that borrows and borrows from god knows who all money, money that I naively once thought was issued by my government itself. My government has been fooled and forced to handover the key to power.

Now the problem is: how can I get this rogue Kleptocracy to keep their hands off the profits of my labour, my property and my freedom. How can I get them out power. How can I assure that what replaces them is sufficiently robust that such a poison can never return.

There is no example in history of rulers and civilisations that looks any better. All power corrupts. They all decay as greed and power usurps the 'throne'.

Why do we keep trying to reinvent the institution of state, so historic it's despicable origins are preserved in the fossil record? Because the system of the state is a self-replicating organism.

The solution is simple. Have nothing to be governed, no leadership, no centralised authority. No state at all - zilch! If there is no state there is nothing to corrupt, nothing to grow in unyielding authority, no cudgel for an oligarchy to seize and coerce to do its bidding, covertly or at the barrel of a gun.

We are trained to dismiss this prospect as unworkable; "why that would be anarchy!" all cry out. Indeed; yes it would be anarchy, but in the real, correct sense of the word. For that very word has been stolen and usurped to describe a world with no rule of law and so where lawlessness abodes.

We do not need the state to uphold legality to protect our property and in that our rights to ourselves, our own life. That can be accomplished without a state.

It takes a leap of imagination; to start thinking how such a world could work and not default to the converse embedded reflex of just trying to defend and justify the paradigm within which we all are currently and truly lost.

I strongly recommend anyone who is considering the search for a better alternative to the state and government, as we know it, to take the opportunity to read this work:

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

Read free on-line or for free MP3/PodCast download.

Friday, 8 July 2011

More to Phone-hacking than Accessing Voice-mail with Passwords

There is far more to this phone hacking caper than simply accessing voice-mail with passwords.

Cell phones can be activated remotely, loaded with software that takes control of the phone, records text messages, records calls, uses the inbuilt microphones as a listening device/bug, takes all GPS location data, address-book data, call logs, web-history, everything - current and historic - and transmits all, as and when required, to the hijacker when it can then also receive new instructions.

The cellular network transmitter/station local to a target phone can be replaced with a decoy transmitter that relays the signal on to the real network.  The phone must give the transmitter a code to prove who it is to the network but the network does not have to give the phone any code to prove it is the real network.  The phone can be told to transmit without encryption and the false cell transmitter can gain control of the phone in such a way, to download hijack software to take permanent covert control of the phone.

A 'virus' can be sent to the phone to similarly take control of it or the phone can be infected if it is in the possession of the hacker for a very short time.  It is possible to hack a phone via it's wireless connection, blue-tooth or even via a text message.

This may be the reason why the 'authorities' do not want phone intercept intelligence used as evidence in court; because they do not want to plainly admit what can be done and what is being done.  Perhaps this is why the police have been reluctant to further investigations into this matter or perhaps there is another layer between the journalists, the cash, the police and who is doing the actual covert spying on mobile phones.


    Tuesday, 14 June 2011

    10:10 Climate Change Death Threat Video

    This is the NASTY 10:10 climate change death threat video.  Produced by film director Richard Curtis who is married to and works with Emma Freud,  great-granddaughter of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Her younger brother is Matthew Freud, the husband of Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth Murdoch.

    Don't tell me these people are stupid or do not understand the power and meaning of this production.  It sends a deep subliminal message; a serious threat.  Very nasty and very dangerous.

    It looks like it backfired - the 10:10 campaign took down the video and 'apologised' for its content, but I would have thought they could have worked-out the stupidity of the theme from the outset.

    I am crediting them with a modicum of brains I know, but my suspicion is:

    a) they knew the video would have to be pulled but between times it would make a splash and draw the subject a greater level of attention than if it was just scientific and balanced.

    b) they wanted to make a subliminal violent threat to people - especially children - to make them fear the social consequences of not accepting and submitting to the great GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.  They made fully considered death threats to children.

    Teaching our children 'man-made climate change' theory in school is political indoctrination - not science.  And the problem is exacerbated by teachers who think it is fact based rather than conceive, even momentarily, that they are teaching a false and faulty theory.

    If they talk about CO2 induced climate change they should also discuss with equal gravity the detail and arguments against the theory.  But they do not even start to understand the real science AND POLITICS behind the subject they pontificate on.

    They lap-up the ready-made resources and spew them out as facts.

    Here is another video, this was paid for by OUR GOVERNMENT.

    This advert was directed specifically at our children. I tell a lie. This is not OUR GOVERNMENT any-more - it is just a part of the governmental enforcement arm of the global corporate, we are set to become tax slaves and CO2 taxation is how they intend to sell this rubbish to the human herd.

    Here is another paid for by the UN who will be taking the carbon taxes and building their planned world government with this funding:

    Here is one from PlaneStupid (a fully infiltrated stooge organisation) again aimed squarely at children:

    This is a joyous contribution from Greenpeace - this lad needs more sleep:

    Monday, 13 June 2011

    Why We Should Keep Our Bank Cheque Books

    Cheques are a powerful tool.  They enable 'people', non-banking enteritis or non-states, to 'create' money - just on the power the note/cheque promises to fulfil.  If someone you trust enough offers you a 'post-dated' cheque you prospectively will accept it; if that is in your interest.  This could be done with a simple letter - effectively a promissory note - but with a cheque the simple mechanism is in place to easily realise the money - pay in into your bank and draw cash - whenever the date and payee name is valid.

    In theory people could use trusted 'open' cheques (with no payee named and maybe undated) to trade and barter without paying the cheque into a bank, just so long as the cheque's issuer is trusted by each party who in turn accept it (effectively a demand promissory note). This indeed once happened with counter-signed Banker's Drafts, they would often change hands until banks started to refuse to accept the counter signing as valid (on grounds of fraud prevention) and now do not issue drafts at all.

    If the next step of government is to remove 'cash' from society and use various auditable and identifiable means of electronic payment devices in its place, that is all fine-and-dandy apart from for the black economy - transactions that are done 'for cash'.

    With the advent of 'digital cash' what will replace paper-money/cash in the black economy?  Gold?  Bags of dope?  Signed cheques from enteritis who have an established creditworthiness (trust) in the public mind?

    Call me suspicious because I do suspect there is an underside to this motion: to end the use of cheques. And I suspect my synopsis above is not so far from that truth; that it is all about making people find tax-avoidance progressively harder to carry-out. (and bank cashless-transaction charges no doubt).

    See: Promissory note - From Wikipedia

    See: Bills of Exchange Act 1882

    An example of a 'trusted open note/cheque' would be shopping vouchers for say Tesco or Waitrose, postage stamps, etc. I would accept a few of those right now.

    But we can only replace cheques if we still are 'allowed' - by the state - to have cash! 
    See: Is a cashless society on the cards?

    On the other hand; the people will do much better to revert to our own form of currency.  Since our money already is not actually issued by government at all; it is all raised through the banking system and is 'taxed' therefore by interest charges and inflation (a 'tax' that goes directly to the issuing bank).

    Gold is one option for underpinning state-free currency.  Any number of trusted gold investment companies can sell paper notes (cash) which can be simply exchanged for real-gold - just like the old days - you can pay me with those!

    But the gold market is still vulnerable to manipulation since the self-same bankers who create the money today also keep their wealth in gold and control the gold market.

    Paper promise notes could replace this that simply represent one hour of work.  A Doctor may charge ten units for one hour of medical advice, a night watchman may charge half a unit per hour for sitting keeping an eye open.

    An employer will pay staff with notes issued by a trusted issuer of notes that most people and companies will accept.

    That is really what we all have for sale and by what everything is represented; human effort.  Be it making something and getting it to the store or digging minerals from your land.  All boils down to human effort.

    Sunday, 12 June 2011

    Coroner's Inquest Must Return a Verdict on the Death of Dr David Kelly

    It was Mr Blair who immediately called for an urgent inquiry following the death of Dr David Kelly. Lord Woolf subsequently demanded a veto over the appointment of judges to conduct public inquiries and now the Commons Public Administration Committee call for public comment on inquiries terms of reference.

    It was the findings of this inquiry which ultimately supplanted the process of the coroners inquest. Dr Kelly is the only British citizen who has been a single victim of an incident resulting their sudden death and yet not had a coroners inquest return a verdict.

    The Hutton inquiry was not the appropriate means by which to conclude the cause of Dr Kelly's death. Lord Hutton's remit was to 'urgently' examine the 'circumstances surrounding' the death of Dr Kelly. An inquiry of this type usually relates to an incident - such as a rail disaster - where individual's cause of death is not so much at question but rather to question the cause of the incident itself. The terms of reference given to Lord Hutton are no wider in their scope.

    The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, should have been allowed to concluded his inquest before the Hutton inquiry commenced. Failing this the coroner should not have subsequently waited for Lord Hutton's findings. His delay in reconvening the coroners inquest anticipated Lord Hutton may drawn a conclusion in his report as to the probable cause of death. Lord Hutton should not have attempted to draw a conclusion as to the cause of death as this was outside of his remit and the "rigours that are normally undertaken at a coroner's inquest simply were not fulfilled" (I quote coroner Dr Michael Powers).

    Nothing obvious was to be gained by so very 'urgently' commencing Lord Hutton's inquiry. Indeed it was inappropriate to have urgently commenced the inquiry without the coroner having first confirmed how Dr Kelly died. From the outset this was a prejudicial conclusion of the Hutton inquiry. An inquest's verdict of suicide and murder has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. If the coroner had returned an open verdict the thrust of the Hutton inquiry would have been wholly different or perhaps not occurred at all.

    There are a great deal of very disconcerting facts surrounding the circumstance and nature of Dr David Kelly's that need further politically independent detailed examination, with evidence taken under oath, by a coroner in an inquest.

    This is because the standard of proof applied at an inquest is usually the civil standard – the coroner and jury must be sure that it was more likely than not (on the balance of probabilities) that the facts have been found proven to support the verdict. There are exceptions: if the verdict of suicide or unlawful killing is reached, it must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (this is the criminal standard).

    Therefore there remains a reasonable doubt: The finding of suicide should have been proven beyond reasonable doubt but as the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry was not given under oath a reasonable doubt consequentially must remain.

    Hence I remain focused on this legal aspect. All other matters are far more speculative and open to cheap-shot criticism; at least until such time they have been fully examined in a court under oath.

    Wednesday, 8 June 2011

    The Nine Principles of Policing

    The following set of principles, which lay out in the clearest and most succinct terms the philosophy of policing by consent, appeared as an appendix to A New Study of Police History by Charles Reith (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1956). Reith was a lifelong historian of the police force in Britain, and this book covers the early years of Metropolitan Police following the passage of Sir Robert Peel's 'Bill for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis' on 19 June 1829. Reith notes that there are particular problems involved in writing police history, owing to the loss or destruction of much early archive material, and, probably for this reason, the principles appear without details of author or date.


    However, it seems most likely that they were composed by Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, as the first and joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. Rowan was a military man and Mayne, fourteen years his junior, a barrister. Rowan retired in 1850 leaving Mayne as sole Commissioner until his death in 1868. The sentiments expressed in the 'Nine Principles' reflect those contained in the 'General Instructions', first published in 1829, which were issued to every member of the Metropolitan Police, especially the emphasis on prevention of crime as the most important duty of the police.

    Reith notes that Rowan and Mayne's conception of a police force was 'unique in history and throughout the world because it derived not from fear but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public' (p. 140).

    The Nine Principles of Policing

    1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

    2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

    3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

    4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

    5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

    6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

    7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

    8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

    9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

    Tuesday, 7 June 2011

    The Green Happy-Clappers

    The green happy clappers do not think 'critically'.  This is very like a religion.  They take the doctrine eat it up and swallow it all.  It makes them feel a little righteous, sanctimonious even, whilst also wicked, guilty and sinful all at the same time (sexual repression I'll bet). 
    They beg for crushing CO2 taxation and spitefully want it brought about to punish all - make all kneel, pay homage and sacrifice at the alter of St.AlGore.

    It is earth worship in the most negative way - they think people are the problem and believe population reduction the solution.  It is fundamentalist anti-humanity-ism.  It is a death cult.

    They are so often the same bunch who once would have said a great big NO to nuclear power but now shrug and say well it is better than 'global warming'.  At least Fukushima Daiichi has stuffed the truth of that notion in their face - if they care to pay attention to the under-the-carpet facts.

    Yet the money and opportunity is stolen away from the oil-bearing nations. They are ruined instead, by favoured despots or war, precluded from being free to capitalise on their period of wealth; for fear they could become today and tomorrow's masters.

    Instead; the opportunity is handed to India and China, amongst others too, to be lifted to economic parity - a parity that includes draining the wealth out of the western nations - us lot. All with help from the sleight of hand of the carbon credits sham.

    This is an interesting aspect of 'green happy clapper' syndrome.  They feel like they are the modern thinkers and the people who deride their 'pre-packaged hip save-the-world life-style-choice - ready-to-wear on the sleeve - pulp' are just dumb old fashioned stick-in-muds.  Antiquated 'flat-earthers'- give me a break!.

    But what the 'green happy clappers' do not get is they have been sold one giant pup.  They love it so much, it is so much a part of what they are, it is their 'big-eyed life-style brand-of-choice' that they fail to open their minds to the fact that they have been duped.  They are the product of mass media indoctrination, subliminal brainwashing, propaganda - call it what you like.

    Instead, like the green evangelists they are, they want to convert all, they want to live their life in the green way, they want to make sacrifices.  They are lost in a false paradigm and any hint they have been fooled makes them just hunker down deeper into denial.

    Why is 'thinking for yourself' antiquated?  Because part of the 'ready-made' conclusion they have absorbed is this CO2 idea is fresh, young, feisty, its edgy to be green.  Suckers!

    By the time people awake, to really see what is happening and why, we risk being too weak and too controlled, by authoritarianism and propaganda, to save our nations and our hides.