Add your Email here to follow EUbrainwashing

Tuesday, 6 November 2012

EU Brainwashing; Explained.

The fact is that everybody has been conditioned since the dawn of interaction with other members of the species - including within prehistoric family groups; the dominant wolf in the pack subjugates the others primarily by physiological means and so it is with man.

From simple human tribal leadership, religious indoctrination, the mythology of monarchy to our modern consumer and state lead society; the techniques of indoctrination are now not only all consuming but understood, completely and absolutely deliberate in almost every avenue of life. Even the Greeks wrote of this.

The techniques of brainwashing were understood well by William Sargent who published 'Battle for the Mind' before being hushed-up. His papers are still sealed under wraps at the Welcome Foundation. He contributed to the CIA programs and the Tavistock Institute in the UK. (I recommend the book as vital to understanding this aspect of the human condition). 

Individually our minds can be utterly broken and reprogrammed - brainwashed in the clearest sense - to believe and act in any way required. The strongest minds are actually the most vulnerable as when they break, which all eventually will do so, they are utterly and entirely shattered - destroyed. Less resistant folk are easier to break but the resulting indoctrination is then weaker.

The 'Brainwashing' I allude to in EUbrainwashing is the subliminal one formed from a lifetime of exposure to every-day indoctrination and propaganda. From each-other, from school, from all media and so on. Less dramatic and violent but powerful and all encompassing nonetheless. It is also the one contributed to through mass shocks in the form of outrages such as the 'Dunblane massacre', 7/7, 911, war and the like. Human life is devalued with abortion policy, state advocacy of voluntary euthanasia, avocation for state imposed death sentencing, illicit acts of war remain unchallenged (such as Blair/Iraq) and on and on. All this teaches us lessons - forming how to think. 

The core outcome of this programming of mass indoctrination (brainwashing) is the broad acceptance of such aspects of 'normal' life as: the necessity for a government/state, state controlled schooling, state controlled health services, monarchy, democratic elections, payment of tax, religion, nationalism, war, state authorised use of violent force and so on. Acceptance of the paradigm that we need the state and that human society could not usefully function without it is endemic.

The endless absorption of our independence into EU-mire underlines the feeling of hopelessness and detachment; so that despite all opposition the march, nightmare like, only continues disregarding everything. We must learn from this, subconsciously, we are in truth a powerless herd of human tax slaves and the state a tax farm to which we belong will do with us precisely as it wishes - just with toys, flat-screens and MP3s, to make us feel rewarded. 

The power that was incarnate in the English aristocracy, the East India company, the British Empire and latterly manifests, now more clearly, as a global corporate/banking elite/complex is not dependent on being British any more. And it wants to snuff-out the old authority that was built-up and incumbent within these shores - the power is now a global force and the authority that was a part of that has moved with the money. But the British people remain a threat of being a respected measured properly righteous authority - that is being undone.

That power is in considerable control of the means to steer our society, via all almost all forms of mainstream media, all corporate and all political life along with the means to steer a great deal of global politics, society and economy too.

The EU issue is only but one manifestation of the predicament.

Monday, 15 October 2012

The allure of being a citizen of the world - when you are twelve

I agree that 'nations' are no more than the old paradigm that the population was cajoled into supporting before - rally behind the flag bla bla bla.  And people, when getting all nationalistic, are doing nothing but continuing to feed from that trough of swill because the message was so enduring and in tune with the basic human instinct for family, tribe and race.

So what would you have it replaced by?  Unions of old nations working together in pan-continental cooperatives, the common causes shared, war at an end, the strong and the weak hand in hand, all skipping into the sunset perhaps?

And each continental union a part of a greater wholeness, a global union of unions.  A scientifically measured central planning governance, economy and ecology developed sustainably.  I get it.  I came to the same conclusion when I was about twelve years old.

I came to the same conclusion and remained there enduringly before eventually I broke free from the core illusion, the most dangerous and muddled concept burdening humanity, that the 'state' is utterly essential for the continuation and betterment of humanity.

I now know it is not. It has taken me years to come to that understating, it was a slow realisation, and years more to realise the truth of the conclusion - to overcome my multi-layered learnt denial.  I can see clearly now: the state is only to enslave humanity and nations are nothing more than giant tax-farms where the livestock is the human tax-slave herd.

Unions of old nations will be just bigger tax-farms and a global union will be just one big farm.

So who are the farmers.  Work it out for yourself because that I cannot explain.  The didactic route is the only path to enduring clarity I know of.  When I tell people they get it and then they forget it; in one ear and out' the other.  Fascinating to behold.

And if you think a one world union will be the end of war you are no brighter than I was - at the age of twelve.  Because, this I will explain, the war will be the state against all humanity.  And that war has been under-way for a long time already.  Dummy.

I would replace the state with nothing but the right to property and your only property is your life and that which you work upon.

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

An English Baccalaureate - have you any questions?

What is an 'English Baccalaureate'  - is it a Baccalaureate studied for using the English language or is it one just related to the regions presently known as England.

I see the English Baccalaureate is referred to as an 'EBacc' which is useful since that helps distinguish it from a 'European Baccalaureate' which is known as a 'Bac'. 
Call me cynical (because I am) - I wonder how long it will be before there is a blending of the EBacc and the Bac which presently is used only in the private establishments operated to school European Official's own offspring.

It is fortunate that since next year the government has to keep so many more children occupied for an extra year of state enforced indoctrination that this examination conundrum has 'appeared' on the horizon.

The International Baccalaureate (IB) is different again!  Formerly the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO), the IB is independent perhaps of  'nations' but I argue it is not independent of government.  It was conceived at the International School of Geneva, a school that had been created to serve the children of employees of the League of Nations.  The League of Nations was succeeded by the United Nations.  The United Nations has a clear objective for being the instrument for Global Governance.


6) IB is a non-governmental organization (NGO) of United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) the United Nations (UN).

IBO and UNESCO work out of the same building in Switzerland (toward the bottom of the page):

If you do not agree the UN's ideology it is probably best to avoid IB.

Here is an article where Mr. Olabiyi Babalola Joseph Yai, Chair of UNESCO’s executive board, said: "UNESCO'S role is to think global governance.  That is why the Organization was founded."

Here is a link to more articles and a video on the IB/global governance connection,

IB organisation does not go out of their way to say IB is an NGO of UNESCO; in fact, some IB proponents will attempt to deny this fact. 

So the IB is about as 'political' as it could be: conditioning and training the future leaders and personnel to function within the UN's Fabian objective of establishing themselves as the world government.

Tuesday, 18 September 2012

This state enforced 'curriculum, inspecting and examination' system of schooling.

There are children who are suited to, and respond to, this state enforced 'curriculum, inspecting and examination' system of schooling.  These children achieve what is required and give the necessary results for the appearance of success.  (This clearly suits the girls better than the boys and there may be no accident in that being an 'outcome'; acting to level the gender playing-field).  There are children who are not suited to the system, who fail to engage with the system and who are switched-off by the system.  Those children enter a damaging spiral which results in their rejection of the system and the system's rejection of them.  These children do not achieve what is required and therefore give the necessary results for the appearance of failure.

The natural instinct for inquisitiveness, study, thought, learning and expression - that which is clearly evident in most pre-school children - is all-but drummed out of many children by all facets of the schooling system.  This can be no mistake.  So many great minds working on developing a system of schooling, now for so many years, surely cannot have culminated in a system that causes so many bright, questioning, articulate young people to be measured as failures and only fact-learning, compliant, hard-working, reliable and focused people to be cast as successful.

We are, I fear, being subjected to a school system that is intended to maximise the production of a 'state-friendly' pliant and compliant population whilst simultaneously dissuading and disadvantaging those who are resistant to this schooling's indoctrination.  Would powers behind any kind of state deliberately devise a system that produced anything less than a desirable outcome for the continuation and supremacy of that state.

'As parents, we want our children's education to offer more than just a good schooling and academic success. We look towards the school to help foster our children's enthusiasm and passion for the subjects they study, to learn to be self-motivated in their endeavours, to enjoy self-confidence, to learn to solve problems and make decisions. We want our children to understand, value and empathise with others, to work together and realise the practical outcomes of all they undertake.

This is to place the child at the very heart of the educational process, to nurture their self-worth, build their confidence, value and broaden their range of interests.'

In reality, whilst I think most schools recognise the above form of objectives, they can do little to aspire to them beyond 'lip-service and platitudes'.

My wishes expressed and the steps necessary to work towards such goals, especially for children with today's social and media influences, are far removed from the reality in a schooling system that is all-but driven by a state enforced regime of curriculum and inspection with examination results apparently given as the prime objective.


What is an 'English Baccalaureate'  - is it a Baccalaureate studied for using the English language or is it one just related to the regions presently known as England.

I see the English Baccalaureate is referred to as an 'EBacc' which is useful since that helps distinguish it from a 'European Baccalaureate' which is known as a 'Bac'.

Call me cynical (because I am) - I wonder how long it will be before there is a blending of the EBacc and the Bac which presently is used in the private establishments operated to school European Official's own offspring.

It is fortunate that since next year the government has to keep so many more children occupied for an extra year of state enforced indoctrination that this conundrum has appeared on the horizon.

Thursday, 19 July 2012

Holding us as prisoners to taxation

Rt Hon Peter Bone MP

Dear Mr Bone,

Re: Sudden and imminent closure of Wellingborough Prison

As a local to the area I have seen, over the last twenty years, what appears to have been an enormous amount of expansion and development work at Wellingborough Prison with the buildings appear to double in size.

Sir David Ramsbotham HM Chief Inspector of Prisons report dated September 2000 states the facilities included a recently built kitchen (catering for over 500 prisoners plus staff) and in June 1999, two substantial new living units had been built.

The facility, from afar, appears modern and in impressive repair. There must be a very considerable investment of tax-payer's money represented by this facility.

I do not specifically object to private prisons.  I object to the government monopolising the judicial and prison market, demanding I pay taxation by the threat of violent force, squandering the money on such services as the development of prisons only to abandon them even when they appear to be functioning reasonably and then subcontracting the provision of that service, still funded with money obtained via forced taxation, to profit making organisations.

If the government is in agreement with my belief that market-forces should be a better mechanism to provide all services with efficiency, could we not simply cut-out the middle-man and do away with the involvement of the state in all matters that require involuntary taxation.  That will then allow market-forces to function without the distorting effect and ultimate failure the involvement of the state always causes.

Yours sincerely


Wednesday, 18 July 2012

Screaming from the rooftop as if a clarion of truth

It would be a dream if we could cure the sickness of the state with an infusion of untainted fresh thinkers - oh we do need them so.  They could unwind all that is wrong.  Simplify and correct.  The sun will shine again, larks will rise, the sound of children's voices, as they play, could fill the air.

Who would support their candidacy however against the power of established interested parties.  Who would defend them against the onslaught that would inevitably come as they realised and attempted to undo all that has been done to assure the continuance of the status-quo from which these oligarchies and elites feed?

Is this the only chance, the last chance.  Surely everything else, every other idea, form and concept of the state, has be done and done to death. 

Now, just maybe, we can have our leaders decided by a process as random as jury selection to assure their best chance of offering purity.  What better means could there be?  More democratic than democracy!  Nothing better to assure perversion and self-seeking is not the immediate agenda of candidates.

But a moment.  What is the problem here?  Is it not that everything the state and its government does is, at best, seen to only be just good enough.  And too frequently is racked with corruption, illegitimacy, wastefulness, inefficiency plus, above all, that most insipid of all, the state alone holds the monopoly on the use of violent force.

Without the threat of force the state cannot function.  No subjects are truly voluntary.  Yes we are given the pat of democracy as if that worked.  We are given 'the rule of law' as if any normal man can find the means to resort to such an exclusive system.  The state is out of control, out of the control of the majority of people who make-up its population and who's property and work go to fund it all.

But we are locked into it through no more than its general acceptance, the people's unquestioning acquiescence to the fundamental of its necessity.  We are startled before the state and cannot imagine how it could be any different, how on earth could the earth function without this, most ancient of institutions, in place. 

Like the air, the sun, night and day, food, nature and death; the state is seen as irreplaceable.  Like men and women before took religious god to be the focus of humanity.  Took serfdom to be inevitable.  Took monarchies to be irreplaceable.  Took tribal leaders, took family elders, took father and mother.

From these common precepts of human life the fundamentalism of the state has been born.  As each transition of ruler has come about so the true legitimacy has fallen away and in its place a more illusionary paradigm of deception grown.

Like at the abolition of slavery people would holler: how will we work the land, who will take care of the slaves, its natural, its essential, its always been, its acceptable.  But at that time who could foresee how the world would become without slavery.  The arguments, no matter how persuasive, are illegitimate once it is accepted that the condition is unendurable.

Who can really foresee how the world will function in the absence of the state since we cannot understand the changes that will come about.  All we can guess is that the rate of change is to be ever exponential.

All that will be necessary to bring about the change will be a shift in human comprehension, in perception.  Two elements are evident and can be seen, with increasing clarity, as the denial recedes: 1. the state does not work indeed most problems emanate from the state and 2. the state, through its dependence on the use of violent force and lack of voluntarism, is illegitimate.

As the individual's process commences the counter questions one asks are initially sufficient to overwhelm and return one scurrying back into the comforting confines of statist thinking.  No shame in that. 

As one progresses the answers are realised. It is a slow process since our world comprises of so much to make the state appear essential.  We are immersed from the outset in such conformity.

The simple illustration, from the Chauncey Gardener school,  I find a help is to imagine human society to be as if a woodland (sounds a bit 'new-age' but stick with me please).  We can have a team of woodsmen and gardeners to try to keep every little detail just-so but we can all realise the world cannot run - be micromanaged - like that; a forest is never going to be a garden.  Things are going to keep growing, rotting and such - it cannot be helped.

The alternative, in our woodland illustration, is to live with nature, to allow natural growth and cycles to occur.  Instead of attempting to manage the woods top down, and fighting it all the way, let nature do what it does better than man ever can.  Let nature manage each and every cell, organism, insect and on to ultimately every great tree and it will always be balanced and sustaining.  The right decisions for the woodland's continuation will be assured.

Nature has long since worked through every lesson we need learn.  Everything mankind does is a part of the natural process, even if that is poisoning our planet with radioactivity or building self-replication cyborgs that destroy us all!

I am not saying we should go back to nature, not at all.  My point is simply that we should allow the world to run ground-up not top down.

There should be law and that law can be formed from the common judgement of the cases as they occur with courts acting little more than in arbitration. 

There should be the right to property and that right commences with the right to ones own body, life and the product of ones effort.  One has the right that ones property should not be harmed by the actions of another.

How we arrive at this point is dependant only on the people's complete rejection of the concept of the state.  If we do not find this for ourselves I believe it is inevitable that mankind will be subjected to a progressively authoritarian state the objective of which is simply its own self-perpetuation; to only see the trees and never the wood.

Friday, 13 July 2012

The EU's Human Rights strategy - excludes its own democratic process

Catherine Ashton is the EU's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy & Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP)

How about Catherine Ashton giving some consideration to the 'democratic process' in her hand-wringing human rights work and bring the 'humans' in the EU the 'right' to vote for our political representatives. 

Catherine Ashton has never stood for, let alone won, an election of any sort, ever.  She is a totally unelected implant in a position that assumes considerable power.

I do not want this person representing my interests and I do not want to be forced to pay tax to pay her wages or run the vastly expensive 'service' her office creates.

Fat chance!  This is the new Soviet but for that we can squeak all we like.  Regardless, nothing will change.

This junta should not kid themselves they are anything grander than: Dictators who just don't need to bulldoze bodies into a trench in the woods at night - not yet anyway!

Thursday, 12 July 2012

Dry-rot and the infestation of the the state on the fruit of humanity

The State.  No more or less than grubby little people with their hands in our pockets looking to purloin whatever they can, from you and me, for naught.  And don't content yourself that these thieving bastards are the exceptions - it goes throughout the system like dry-rot.

For the development of dry rot, a special set of conditions must exist.  For thieving bastards to use the apparatus and mechanisms of the state to rob you, me, our inheritance, our children, our wealth, our future, our businesses, farms, villages, towns and our whole darn nation, scoffing every morsel they can, there needs to be a special set of conditions too.  And those conditions are no more, or less, than simply the presence of the apparatus and mechanisms of the state.

To Hell in a Handcart
If the apparatus and mechanisms exist you will be robbed, endlessly.  Not maybe but 100% defiantly because that is exactly what the apparatus and mechanisms of the state are designed for.  It has always been that way and it always will.  The only variable is how powerful the apparatus and mechanisms are, the weaker the less effective they are at thieving the lifeblood of humanity the better you may be able to get-on.  But weaker they are not getting.  No no!

Like dry-rot, the state, once it infests, can only momently stagnate or grow.  You will not get it to go away without destroying every timber it has reached into.  If you let it grow it will consume more and more.  It is ruthless and it is veracious.

The only good thing is that eventually it destroys everything of the material on which it is hosted and then it dies.  So in the end, ultimate victims of the ultimate state, we will all be sucked dry and left to crumble in the wind.  Then we may have a chance to build it up again and we can only hope that next time with more resistance, confidence and pragmatism. What chance of that?  Better find the confidence to mover human-society onto a more developed phase: a functional human society that dispenses with the poison inevitably resulting from 'the state'.

We are all suckers for a good story

Wherever government sticks its meddling nose a rank stink is assured. Rules upon subsidies, one cure attempted is another problem made. This a patchwork of fudges so vast and ghastly yet the mad onwards charge is the clarion call of all and sundry. More and more. Fix this with that, they should stop this, they should encourage that. It is as endless as it is impossible.

Why not just stop?  Stop, look and see; the problem is not the market, it is the endless interference with the market. If, by way of example, the state played absolutely no part in the production of food, the management of land, the welfare of agriculture, farming would quickly adapt and mend till the most productive optimum emerged.

Best of all if we did not have a state at all. Its rubbish, its a false paradigm; but people are so indoctrinated into the belief that a state is necessary, a fundamental of the human condition, utterly essential, that they cannot start to conceive what such political and societal ‘atheism’ could look like or how it would function at all.

Two of the oldest ideas of mankind that we should grow out of and dump: belief in god and belief in the state. They both are no more than the devices of the few to enslave the many.

Tuesday, 10 July 2012

Those unsuitable for being subjected to a Taser's electric shock

The list of groups unsuitable for being subjected to Taser type shocking, in all but the most exceptional circumstance, should include:

*the elderly
*people with low body-mass (small, thin and light people)
* pregnant women,
* the known to be mentally ill,
* those suspected to be under the effects of psychotropic drugs,
* the disabled,
* the deaf (if they may not understand the threat),
* people exhibiting signs of 'excited delirium',
* people suffering from or with a history of epileptic seizure,
* people carrying or soaked with flammable and explosive substances,
* people with heart conditions,
* people who are already restrained,
* people who are moving, especially running, or can fall causing injury,
* people who simply refuse to comply, are defiant, with instructions but are not posing a violent threat, 
* And people who can be restrained by an alternative means that presents less risk in the circumstances.

The misuse of Taser is a management and training issue.  If controlled correctly by the issuing authority it is a device that can contribute to good policing.  If badly deployed it is a dangerous erosion of the covenant between the Police and the people.

The Nine Principles of Policing

Monday, 9 July 2012

No reply to my email to my son's Headmaster!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: An Inconvenient Truth and the The Great Global Warming Swindle
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 13:22:40 +0100

Dear Headmaster

I learn from my son that he recently viewed, in Miss XYZ's Geography class, a video of Al Gore's 'global warming' film 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

This news is of serious concern to me.  The film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. At least nine inaccuracies should be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

Please see:

Far from being a 'scientific consensus' there is a great deal of very well informed decent from this paradigm.  31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, have signed a petition stating:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Please see:

The main-stream media and main-stream politic have until very recently failed to express decent from the pro-global warming/climate change narrative but thankfully this is now rapidly changing following the revelations allowed through the Climategate scandal.


May I suggest that the pupils who have been exposed to this propaganda are now allowed to counter-balance its message of indoctrination and view the Channel 4 documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.

We live in an age where nothing dealt to us by government or the media should be accepted without first undertaking a careful independent thorough examination of the facts to ones own satisfaction.

I wish for my child to be taught, first and foremost, the use of critical thinking.

Yours truly

Friday, 6 July 2012

Nigel Farage and Ron Paul are but symptoms of the failed statist political process

Don't you just love Nigel Farage.  He stands up there and just rips it all to bits.  Its all so true and all so darn well needs to be said.  And our Nigel does it with such aplomb, such wit, so much feisty sardonic rhetoric.

UKIP is so Faragetastic that it is easy to forget this is still a one trick phoney, like all the other political parties but with just one big funny trick instead of a plethora of insipid little ones.

UKIP does not answer the question of how things should be, it just shouts about how one specific element clearly should not be.  That may just help save this one battle but it will not win the war.  It does not breakdown how the hell we have a political system that is so disgustingly out of the people's control that we can have our our nation dissolved and keep bombing the hell out of others with impunity.

UKIP does not question the whole series of events that  commenced on 9/11.  It does not question why banks have the means of production of money that should just profit the people's state apparatus.It does not question the flow towards the global unification of the old nation states, new order and old order, or question the motivations that lay behind this unrelenting force of which the EU is no more than a part.

And when I did take the trouble to thoroughly read a UKIP manifesto (instead of just enjoying videos of Farage's political stand-up rants) I realised that UKIP is mad enough to call for the death penalty to be reinstated and that put the mockers on the job for me right there and then.  Big error; but worse: this shows UKIP's true colours.

I have lost all confidence in the concept of a state controlled political system.  It is a farce.  It is an illusion.  It is a pat to the deluded.

We will either all end-up in a global super-state, perhaps in a generation or two, or the whole sham will collapse before it can be built, as if a film-set, all about us.

If it collapses perhaps people will (hopefully) have long enough memories to realise that belief in the institution of an idea called 'the state' is as muddle-headed as belief in any one of the many omnipotent supernatural beings is now broadly understood to be.

If the global super state is assembled I fear it will remain for a very long time; tyrannical control of the human herd being fundamental to its precept.

Thursday, 28 June 2012

The Beguilement of Blaming Blair and Bush - My Enemy, the Statist

It is just too easy to simply place blame for all this warmongering violence at the feet of Bush and Blair. Far too simplistic. Their motivations generally identified are no more than a subtext of the prevalent rhetoric; given to us in one form and another, drip, drip, drip.

The first level of propaganda was assembled from the so called ‘war on terrorism’, rogue states, axis of evil, the supposed legitimacy of taking a pre-emptive strike against growing threats. Call this the ‘knee-jerk’ rhetoric.

For those who quickly saw past this false justification, the second level included war for oil, or more broadly ‘economic advantages’ including usurping water resources, controlling central banks, enjoying military contracts, building oil pipelines and so on. All true of cause.

The third level includes: building the mechanisms of a police state, strategic advantages and comfort for Israel, weakening the potential of Arab and Islamic nations (especially in unification), consolidating the current power and authority of the US/Dollar hegemony, polarising global politics into UN and NATO led paradigms and drawing the world economy into the control of long established international corporate and banking interests.

To bang on simply about Bush and Blair is to evade the prospect that they are no less than puppets; functionaries of an agenda far broader than these two weak men or any other public figures we can name. What difference would it make if Blair shot himself in the head leaving a note admitting his and Bush’s guilt. We already know what they did. Anyone with a brain knew before war on Iraq – there were over a million in the street who knew. We all knew Bush was an android remote-controlled by his NeoCon PNAC administration (junta).

It is enticing to think of Blair, driven by ego, thinking he was ‘making it’ onto the world stage; feeling the hand of history giving a little squeeze where it is most rewarding. But if that is all it took I do believe he would have been stopped. The fact is more probably the converse; that the agenda was in place long before these two entered the stage.

It is possible that Blair saw America would proceed with these wars regardless of Britain’s inclusion but that with the UK it allowed for at least a call of moderation, a fig-leaf of legitimacy. What would the world look like today if America had undertaken these escapades in isolation. They would have crossed the Rubicon and I think the world would be a more dangerous place still.

What if Blair had stood-up in Parliament and announced that the British Government were not satisfied that the supposed conspirators of the 9/11 event were as we have been told. And that the three buildings of the WTC that fell that day could not have collapsed in the way they did as a result of aircraft impacts and fire. That America was in the hands of a deception of historic magnitude. I do not think he would have lived a week. He would be dead in the woods.

Anyway would Blair really have been selected for the role if he was going to ‘out’ the true means by which the world has been run since before history was recorded.
These men’s crimes were knowing what was expected of them and doing it. To just identify them as culprit of this changes nothing, does nothing to protect us from the same scenario repeating into the future.

I do agree that all of those who abuse or negligently fail in their position must be fully accountable for their actions. There should be no forms of indemnity.

If every leader, political and corporate, was totally accountable for their each-and-every action the world would be a different and better place. For one thing: no sane person would leave themselves open to such liabilities. For another: nobody could legitimately rise to such a position because the potential liabilities would exceed anybody’s ability to atone.

Why is it that the vast majority think we need a world where the few are expected to operate in such capacities; roles which clearly far exceed any person’s ability to atone. It is madness, it is the false paradigm within which the world is currently lost. It surely is one clear reason why people in such positions of power do, so frequently, abuse their office in so many ways; they know they never can be really called upon to atone for their actions.

A fellow who truly accepted full liability for every aspect of their tenure would have to act with great caution; but I fear persons of such qualities do not often rise to any such position.

By an almost inverted process of exclusion, those who manage to make it to be our leaders are most likely to be the least suitable. Indeed if one imagines how leaders would match against the Hare Psychopathy Check-list, for example, the conclusion is striking:

Factor 1: Personality “Aggressive narcissism”
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions 

Factor 2: Case history “Socially deviant lifestyle”
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioural control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Juvenile delinquency
Early behaviour problems
Revocation of conditional release 

Traits not correlated with either factor
Promiscuous sexual behaviour
Many short-term marital relationships
Criminal versatility
Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning

The mechanisms by which those who function within the state can be called upon to atone are the very mechanisms of that selfsame entity. That is why there is minimal opportunity for traction in such an endeavour; its their game which they need only play with their stacked deck and loaded dice.

All the while we accept the state we will be subjected to a system that can only inflict psychopaths onto the people. The system is inherently psychopathic.

To want to employ the state’s systems, to correct the inevitably undesirable actions of the state and its agents, only acts to endorses the very system that is erroneous by it nature, by its every dynamic.
People like Bush and Blair are not the problem, they are a symptom. The disease is the state and such failed leaders are but one clearly evident pustule manifestation of the wretchedness it only creates.

Are we alone in realising these truths and our political masters all blind and foolish. I think not, not at all. If we can work it out the state’s police and security apparatus surely can too; let alone the various official enquiries.

Since I awoke, following 9/11, to the endless lies fed to the people, I have undergone a metamorphic transformation; a slow but complete reformation.
I believe I now can see our enemy, formed as Trompe-l’œil, shifting; one moment visible and the next the illusion.

My conclusion is not that the concept of the state is just broken and needs to be fixed. It is that the illusion of the state, including the notion of democracy, is nothing but a hollow sham to hold mankind stupefied into slavery.  The state works fine at what it truly intended for.

Take for poignant example whosoever it really is that has such vast financial resources sufficient to to lend so copiously to governments to break them, then yet more to bail them out and more still to break them even harder yet again. How will these people fare without their multi-layered control apparatus, woven into and including the state, to do their bidding? How will they do when control of the means of exchange is no longer in the hands of their false edifice called state?

The first battle is within ourselves. It is to cast-off the belief, the belief that the state is a necessary enterprise at all.  Every function of normal decent human existence and progress can be enacted without its central control; more effectively I will argue.  The authority of the state will always be usurped by the few at the expense of the many.

Friday, 18 May 2012

The Illusion Of Hate - Ivan Waters 19 Oct 2011.

When we see great tragedy in the world, we see war, we see hunger, we see destruction of our biosphere, and we say to ourselves, “People are really just terrible, aren't they? We are killing this planet and we are killing each other, we are going to destroy ourselves one day.”

Whether we all feel deeply that this is true or not, (I have certainly heard the suggestion tabled in a wide variety of forums over the years) this notion however, is part of an illusion.

Strangely enough, you could travel the world over and over in your lifetime and never stop meeting compassionate, calm, loving people. They are literally everywhere – people with respect, dignity and intelligence. Not all of us get it right all the time, but instinctively we help, or are helped, by others in our time of need.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that there are no people who wish to hurt others, either by crime or control or violence, who live in our streets, in our cities, maybe in our homes. A very few behave like this because they like it and don’t see it as wrong. The greater majority does so because they are desperate, alone, ill, lost, lonely and left on the exterior of a world they do not understand or wish to join. Are these then the people who shall be our ruin? The multitudes of good? Or the wounded? Are they the cause for this inevitable self-annihilation? Are they the source of this magical evil and wrong doing? I would suggest they are not.

It is clear now, due in part to the increased availability of information, that there is a very real and separate history that occurred apart from the one that we have been taught. And an intricate and deliberate plan to control and suppress humanity as a whole, uncovered. We know now that the wars we and our families fought, the depressions, the millions of dead around the world, the constant state of animosity we are kept in with our fellow man; the bad food or the no food, this is a direct result of a few families, with beds made long ago, squabbling over control of wealth and power and us, who they control absolutely through money. This betrayal strikes deep at the human heart because it means the way of honour we have been shown, that which allows us to feel as if we are the on the good guys’ side is suddenly and transparently devoid of any real honour, and the sacrifices made by our brave and dutiful are a glory only to our enslavement.

Previously shrouded in mystery, these people have been demystified, only recently called the illuminati or such other things, we now know some of them by name and it has become impossible for the instigators of this lie, to conceal it any longer. The unveiling of this deep-rooted and potent façade adds up to nothing short of a global human awakening, in a very real, cosmic sense.

Many, people throughout history have been aware of this illusion, some may have just glimpsed it, but thought it too fantastic a lie to be true; Some may have seen it more clearly than others, or seek the poets and minstrels, philosophers and painters. It’s all there! The fact is that we share the legacy of an ancient device of control that we are growing out of.

We know that money, banks, armies and religions with churches are the tools of this device. The battle for the upper hand on the stick of this mechanism has become increasingly complex and more and more destructive. The resources needed to power it are getting harder to come by and the cost of sustaining it is weighing heavily on this planet. Cracks are starting to form in the façade, and as the impossibility of keeping it intact grows, so to the number of people who see the deception will grow. This is happening now, we can all feel it; in fact it needs no real description, but more and more of us are starting to stare aghast at the trickery and illusion, and at how starkly different life could be, once we can begin to see again.

No longer is it the eccentric or the mad or the mystic talking of secret societies and conspiracy theories. Today, in middle America somewhere, two guys, neighbours, are sweeping the front drive together, scratching their heads saying, “You know Bob, I think the government did that 9/11 job. And they didn’t really even try to hide it that well, and if they’re doing that, then – hang on a minute – what else is going on around here?”

This is the start of a journey to discovering not only what has been done in our name, but to questioning what we will do now. To imagining what we could do on our own, free from this framework’s purpose to subdue and extract.

In North Africa, the Middle East – all over the world, there are people facing a separate lie, but the same one. There are different circumstances and different standards to achieve everywhere, but It has become clear that an overall reform of how we treat each other is necessary. It has also become clear that the first point on that agenda has got to be to end the cycle of violence and destruction and abuse which is created by allowing those who control all the wealth to control the government. This has been said many times before in history and may sound trite, but circumstances are allowing this idea to resonate on a never-before seen scale. At this point there is a calm urgency for it to take place. We will need courage and compassion as our guides for the coming transition. We are not going to kill ourselves or destroy the world, because we are the 99%.

Ivan Waters
19 Oct 2011.

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Cat out of the bag! MI6 Gareth Williams, 'his sister' Cerri Subbe and other players.

Black and white photo-fit photos are the couple who apparently were seen at the apartment in the week or so preceding death.

If you click on the photos they can be viewed as larger images.

Just an observation!

Monday, 30 April 2012

My view on YouView

"YouView will be everything you've ever wanted from TV in one easy-to-use box: Freeview, catch-up TV, High Definition and a personal video recorder (to pause, rewind and record live TV). It means the programmes you love will be ready to watch whenever you want. Simple."


Lord Sugar blow over YouView delay

It was supposed to revolutionise the way we watch television, blazing onto our screens in 2010 and doing for every broadcaster what the iPlayer has done for the BBC.

I am confused. How technically difficult is the YouView objective to achieve? Not so very me thinks.

I think there is a sub-plot behind the endless delays that is more about not being accused of launching a platform that is so easy, agreeable to the public and focal of free content that it all but corners and stifles the market. Pay to view and cable content providers can see the monster on the horizon. A platform that works, that is stuffed with free content and potentially provides an open pathway to each and every independent provider will kill 9/10th of their lucrative captive market.

YouView is the BBC: disguised in the outfits of its slowly dying terrestrial broadcast mates. Sky begrudgingly appeared at the table late on and apparently declined to join-up, but until the News International Murdoch 'phone hacking' debacle reaches its termination and the wooden stake is finally hammered home, they will not risk a launch; for fear it will all end-up in court where the international media power players may well then rule the day.

Between times they will stall even at the apparent cost of market share: if only because by allowing the market to commence and develop they cannot stand accused of monopolising and stifling it from the outset.

Perhaps the show will get smartly onto the road when it is clear the last nail has been hammered home to the door of the Maxwell Black Murdoch family mausoleum.

Mirrors and Smoke: DSK reflections and a gentle roasting

The mirror is the story that DSK raped a chamber maid; a mirror because his sexual habits are clearly his known, predisposed, weakness. (No doubt all those in such positions of power have dark secrets, known before their appointments, which then can be used to control and ruin them should they start to trample upon the labyrinth).

The smoke is, once the likelihood of a set-up looked probable, a diversion must be presented for why. Certainly Sarkozy would be happy to kiss DSK adieu and even help to put him down for reasons of his own political motivation. But it goes deeper than that. After all the French knows well that Sarkozy is more pro-Americal than the Statue of Liberty.

DSK did not ‘forget’ his phone. He left his phone because he was told intelligence services were planning to arrest him and were tracking him via this phone. He subsequently called the hotel from the aircraft to ask for the phone to be sent-on and was so then found and arrested.

DSK’s sins may be many but that for which he is paying the price is more likely to do with the threat to the hegemony of US dollar he posed than spoiling Sarkozy’s election prospects.

DSK was a strong advocate of launching an IMF issued Special Drawing Rights (SDR) based currency to replace the US Dollar as the primary global means of exchange. And DSK was highly critical of US economic policy and deeply questions of the resilience behind the Dollar; especially demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve and questioning if indeed any gold actually remains in Fort Knox.

The globalist’s agenda may well include the formation of a single world currency but that does not mean that those who are enjoying the control of the US Dollar are ready for that yet or were sufficiently in control of a new global SDR based currency to be prepared to yield to that just yet.

Conjecture?  Yes.  But then so is the alleged assault and so is the notion this was politicly motivate by French national political adversaries.  So take the pieces and decide for yourself which way do they look to fit together best?

Wednesday, 7 March 2012

Speech David Cameron, May 2009 - Fixing Broken Politics - As in Fixing: To influence the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means

Rt Hon David Cameron, Tuesday, May 26 2009

* Fixing Broken Politics *


But the tragic truth today is that no matter how much we strengthen
Parliament or hold government to account...

...there will still be forces at work in our country that are completely
unaccountable to the people of Britain.

People and organisations that have huge power and control over our daily
lives and yet which no citizen can actually get at.

Almost half of all the regulations affecting our businesses come from
the EU.

And since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly
making our laws.

The EU and the judges - neither of them accountable to British citizens
- have taken too much power over issues that are contested aspects of
public policy...

...and which should therefore be settled in the realm of democratic

It's no wonder people feel so disillusioned with politics and Parliament
when they see so many big decisions that affect their lives being made
somewhere else.

So a progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from
the EU to Britain and from judges to the people.

We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law
requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the
EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed
scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.

Tuesday, 6 March 2012

Why is there a Northern Ireland

Why did the UK not just let go of the north of Ireland at the establishment of the Republic. Do we really think they did so to spare the loyalists - or did the loyalists exist as protagonists for the very reason separating of Ireland; by preventing Catholicism engulfing the country and then by precluding separatist nationalism.

It is one thing for the English to divide Ireland for ideology or even for whatever tithe it could yield but it is another to prevent the whole nation's economic emergence in competition with Britain. Yet another is about defence.

Northern Ireland contained the heavy industry, specifically shipbuilding: the economic powerhouse. NI contained the deep sea ports that faced Britain and could blockade Liverpool's shipping lanes. Northern Ireland could not be allowed to fall from control. We did not want a Russian port in Belfast.

The endless dispute, and enraging violence that festered, allowed Britain to refuse independence on the grounds of never capitulating to terrorism. It suited the objective well. Conversely, for those who truly desired a united Ireland, the violence prohibited any peaceful process that could have achieved independence in less than ten or twenty years of simple but tireless campaigning.

For those who did not comprehend the true nature of 'the troubles', the snake-oil Blair (spit) had on offer was:
(a) for the republicans: the end of British involvement with Northern Ireland, for ever
(b) for the loyalists: independence from the UK but anonymity and separation from the south.

To understand how this will to occur is to understand how the regionalisation of the UK is to take place as it is progressively absorbed into the EU.

Scotland and Wales are separate regions and will deal directly with the EU (hence the currant independence shenanigans). England will be nine independent regions with a faux national government at the outset.

The UK will exist no more. That is a level of authority the EU has absolutely no need for. National governments will eventually be replaced by individual regional assemblies but for the interim this concept will not be allowed to blip on the public's radar - too difficult to sell.

Ireland (Rep. of) is to be divided into two regions. The south had Cork and Dublin. The north looks like a jigsaw in an Oxfam shop - with a big important chunk missing. That chunk is NI. The logic is very elementary.

The Loyalists cannot cry that they want to be a part of the UK because there will not be any UK - it will be gone - just a dusty twinkle in a museum to housed in the Palace of Westminster remembering the old days of the United Kingdom and British Empire.

Sunday, 4 March 2012

The Noble Cause of a Centralised World Super State

A darn good way to end the prospect of war would be end the age old paradigm of the ‘state’ altogether. People don’t wage wars, governments do – normally governments working at the beck and call of interested parties. The ‘people’ are then suckered into it.

The apparent ‘noble cause’ of working towards avoidance of the future possibility for global war continues for those acting with the authority of state. We can now all see the supposed fragility of the EU concept, economically, but the forces concerned with this construct are not stupid. They knew ever deeper political union would be essential once this path was taken; this was planned for, caused even to provide the impetus for the next step. They could see, regardless of the horrors of WWII, people would resist the end of the old paradigm of national sovereignty and so the ‘discarding of the old and formation of the new’ could not be spelt-out publicly.

The idea that war can be avoided by political union, first regionally then globally, is the greatest of the reasoning provided by the force behind both the EU and the broader drive towards an ultimate global political union the same.

And the supposed advantages are not just to end war. Through the scientific management of every aspect of human endeavour, from education, health, population control, terrorism, energy, pollution to all that of concern to a state, the root of authority will be centralised for apparent greater efficiencies and parities.

I have no doubt there are many who see this goal of world union as desirable for the future of humanity. I also have no doubt that this pup has been broadly sold for at least the last 100 years by not only the hapless well intended but also those entities who have fostered and seek to use this movement to ever consolidate their global interests regardless of any supposed general benefit to mankind.

As long as there have been states, tribal leaders, imperial monarchs and all, there have been the very few winners and the many of the rest. Why on earth would this forthcoming super state, the greatest and most controlling in all history, be any better than any of those that have gone before.

And who is to say that a global state would not wage war. They would say “but who would a one world government wage war against”. The obvious answer is: that war would be against all the people.

First a war to form and control the people by means ranging from education and propaganda to maybe genetic determination of breading stock to ensure a compliant general population type.

Secondly to suppress resistance of any sort to any dictate; from the operation of a police state to the mass extermination of the of non-compliant.

Or we could do away with the idea of a state altogether.

Saturday, 3 March 2012

9/11 programming

Following the destruction of the World Trade Buildings I was unquestioning of the explanation that this was the action of Al Qaeda, a group of Islamic terrorists of who I had no previous knowledge. A few days later whist motoring in an open-top on a cold evening a large aircraft flew low overhead as I drove and as it did so water vapour plumed from it's wings. My immediate assumption was that this was a poison attack and I had been directly subjected to it. Fortunately I have survived.

Subsequently a friend e-mailed, just as a curio, a link to 'Spot the Boeing' the French website questioning the nature of the damage to the Pentagon and, right or wrong in every detail of it's thesis, it was this alternative view that made me start to examine the official explanation of these and other related events. That journey has lead me to the understanding that, upon the balance of probability, these events are all a part of an ongoing series of deceptions to control the minds of the majority.

One detail that I consider to be very telling is the date of the attack. 911 does not mean much to people in the UK, for a start we write our dates the other way around: 11.9.01. But for Americans this number being also the emergency phone number has deep set subliminal inferences. The number has connotations of fear, injury, loss and so on.

But most significantly, to use the 911 phone number (999 in the UK) is for a citizen to willingly capitulate responsibility to authority. I do not see how reference to this effect would contribute to the aims of Al Qaeda. And if one is supposed to think Al Qaeda did not realise the dates subliminal significance, why would they want to reference it and reinforced it's effect with the Madrid bombing being 911 days after '911' ?

I consider Al Qaeda would not want the people to abdicate authority to government, they would want people to reject authority as inept and powerless. Al Qaeda would want people to capitulate to them.

911 is the date of choice for a government that wants it as a memorable and fear invoking 'trigger' to be referred to daily, in one way and another, repeatedly to reminded the public of it's old and new meanings.

Indeed 911 was referenced by '311', the Madrid train bombings, and less commonly realised 311 occurred just a little over 911 days after Sept the 11th 2001 (Between the collapse of the second of the Twin Towers, the North Tower Building, and the first train's departure to Madrid there was - within less than 5 minuets - 911 days, 911 minutes and perhaps 911 seconds).

The Bali ONE took place 999 days before the London 7/7 attack. (999 is the UK emergency number).

Bali TWO took place on 1/10 - ( 110 is the police telephone number in Bali).

Friday, 2 March 2012

We are not children

The keen eyed reader may note under my little icon I include the tag line "We are not children". I do not mean any disrespect to children by this because I believe children are intensely perceptive and intrinsically pure of thought - I would like to still be like that. I mean that the state treat us like children and train us to remain immature. We do lose many of the the miraculous virtues children possess but are failing to successfully gain all those qualities that should arise with maturity: wisdom, gravitas and so on. This is desirable to the state - this is the deliberate intention of the conditioning we are subjected to via state controlled schooling and onwards throughout our lives. Myself included.

United States of Europe - 1959 statement to the US press

Three European Community Presidents

June 11, 1959

Paul Finet, President of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community
Etienne Hirsch, President of the Commission of the European Atomic Energy Community
Walter Hallstein, President of the Commission of the European Economic Community

National Press Club
Washington DC

PRESIDENT HIRSCH - within his opening statement
... the common market cannot work if there is not a common social policy, if there is not a common monetary policy, and nobody can think of a common monetary policy if it is not calmed by a common political policy. So we feel we are now in a process which with all the difficulties which we will find on our road will lead - nobody can say in how long - but will lead inevitably to the calming of this edifice that is the United States of Europe.

Within questions

QUESTION: These questions are directed to Dr Hallstein. Here is a short sweet one. How long will it be before there is a United States of Europe?

PRESIDENT HALLSTEIN: That really is the $64 question, gentlemen.
There will be a United States of Europe, but it's certainly premature to say when and what exactly its structure will be.

QUESTION: Having achieved the United States of Europe they want to know when your going to start taking in Britain and the Scandinavian countries? When will Britain and the Scandinavian countries join the European communities is what the question really is.

PRESIDENT HALLSTEIN: It's not only up to the community to decide this. The point we are always making is, that the fact that we have only six member states, it's not due to the six but it's due to those who have not joined us.

Tuesday, 28 February 2012

Fat little worms sitting in a tin - the time is nigh

In matters of 'hacking'.  However hard it looks like this shower will all eventually come tumbling down, police, press and government, I suspect there remains a can of really big juicy worms that will never be opened. That can is tucked away on a top shelf out of view. The one being kicked down the street, for all to wonder and gloat at, is a decoy.

Just one of these fat worms is hinted at with a story in The Sunday Times: ‘Apps spy on phone messages’ (which you cannot access without a subscription).
But the gist of it below is at this link :
Companies, including Facebook, are using smartphone apps to spy on users’ phone messages and gather information about their lives. A Sunday Times investigation also found that some apps can access users’ internet history which is transmitted to third party advertisers, while other apps can remotely control a phone’s camera.

My reading of the publication of this item is to set the ground for if and when it comes out that Screws Indigestible has been doing a lot more than just hacking mobile answer-phones or even computer e-mail. It is to say ‘look folks; everybody’s doing this stuff, its not really so bad and scary. It's the new normal’.
See here an idea of what else is possible when actually 'hacking' mobiles:

But the effect of such revelation still has the potential to be devastating for NI and the Mudoiks.

The can chock full of juicy worms could well go deeper still. That would be who helped, who allowed powers reserved for the highest levels of police investigation and state security to be usurped for ‘third-party’ surveillance. Surveillance not only of a meaningless celebrity’s toilet habits but such that could compromise national security and those in positions of real power and authority. And yet deeper; is it only the news rooms of NI that benefited from such knowledge and leverage that may have resulted or could this spying network have a darker beneficiary than just pennies on a news-stand.

Trust that such would not occur, just because it should not occur, is misplaced.

Saturday, 25 February 2012

School Use of Force - State Compliance Training

Use of force (violence) is the tool the government uses to make the population comply with their authority. The state wants people to accept its continuation because it is a self perpetuating entity, it is in the interests of the people who work within it and it is the means by which the controlling oligarchy suppress the people and gather their tithe.

Use of force in schools conditions the population, (including teachers, parents and pupils) to accept this paradigm as normal and acceptable.

Schools are set-up in such a way so that the intuitive, inquisitive, independent spark is stamped right out of children and replaced with unquestioning capitulation to authority. Many youngsters happily fall-in with this mantra and offer no resistance. Some fail to engage and must be broken-in or are rejected as scholastic misfit failures.

If state schooling used a 'student centred' means of development, where, rather than ramming a curriculum of broadly useless topic based information down their throats, they help students to develop by following their interests and taught them the basic tools of learning; the problem would be, for the state, that too many students would become empowered as adults with intellectual ability and start to question and want to change everything. They would soon question the need for a state at all and with that include the desirability of the state's control of children's 'education'.

Note: The keen eyed reader may note under my little icon I include the tag line "We are not children". I do not mean any disrespect to children by this because I believe children are intensely perceptive and intrinsically pure of thought - I would like to still be like that. I mean that the state treat us like children and train us to remain immature. We do lose many of the the miraculous virtues children possess but are failing to successfully gain all those qualities that should arise with maturity: wisdom, gravitas and so on. This is desirable to the state - this is the deliberate intention of the conditioning we are subjected to. Myself included.

Brian Haw and our dead children

Brian Haw was an individual who's character drove him to carry-out his protest in the way he chose. If he had a different make-up he would have approached this perhaps differently or most likely not at all. To understand his depth it helps to consider his faith and that he was a living embodiment of his faith (I am an atheist btw).

In Chpt23 of Matthew, Verse 33. Jesus says:
“Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgement of hell?”
that was Jesus expressing anger and there are many other examples. He was reported to have continued
"You are like whitewashed tombs – beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity.”

I think I understand something of Brian Haw's anger - he was exhaustively fighting for the lives and safety of 'his' children - our children, the world's children.

The question is; when will we all get angry, what will it take. Will it only be when you have your child in your hands and you are trying to hold their shattered body together in every way you possibly can, whilst their blood seeps through your fingers and their eyes slowly roll away?

Whatever characteristics combined to make Brian Haw the unique man he undoubtedly was, the result was one of extraordinary worth.

I am ashamed by the negative commentators at the time of his death, the ignorance of which astounds me. They were more concerned with his abrasive style and the detrimental visual effect of his camp. Brian Haw stood against war and harm to the innocent victims of war, especially children. How people could have comment so detrimentally against this outstanding peace campaigner is simply beyond my comprehension. I did not even recognise so many people failed to understand the heroic quality of his long vigil.

It is 'nuts' to support war and to decry those who call for peace - that is real insanity. It is our world that is mad, Brian Haw, eccentric or not, must have been the most sane of us all.

We allow our government to blow people's nation, homes and lives apart on wars waged on behalf of their corporate masters and yet people have the audacity to worry about one unsightly little corner in our city. What is the problem - did the sight of it prickle your consciences?

We can see that the new government are just new actors performing the same old play. But you cannot measure the effect protest has had on limiting the scope of this and other military acts of aggression.

Maybe we would already be at war with Iran if government thought nobody cared when they start bombing. Maybe the violence against Libya would have be even more ruthless than it appears to be. Today the papers are concerned with civilian deaths; is that as a result of your actions?

They gulp-down the narrative and spew it all out again as much as they like but remember, history is always written by the victor. They are lost in the paradigm of propaganda. Between times I'll look between the lines. I use to think calling Americans 'imperialists' was rubbish - I did not understand. I was looking for pith-helmets and verandas surrounded by lawns. Now I see very clearly indeed and a nasty business it is too.

Haw was as successful as he was able to be. He did all he could do within his limitations and circumstance. And we cannot know what influence he actually had. More than you imagine I suspect. Why do companies put their advert on bill boards? Because it works.

Brian Haw was a low-tech anti-war direct marketing campaign directed at the MPs and Ministers, etc. His effort was not directed to the public it was ENTIRELY directed at Westminster. He was a living, shouting, conscience pricking advertising bill board.

It does not matter what you or I think about Jesus or his existence. It only matters in this regard about what Brian Haw thought; to understand his motivation.

He considered that all children were 'our children' not just our family, tribe, race but all the children of the world are a part of the human family. And he felt it encumbered on himself to work to try and do what he could to the best of his abilities to protect them all.

What is more important; your children or all the children of Iran, Iraq and Libya. That would be a very tough decision. That is a high moral perspective and in my regard a fine one.

I fancy his children will hold him in higher regard for making that choice.