Add your Email here to follow EUbrainwashing

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.

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Youngster Tasered in the back, whilst trying to run away handcuffed, falls and suffers vegetative head injury. Cop gets pat on the back.

"Had to Tezer her because she was running out of the door"

Many 'cops' are lazy and will use whatever methods they are allowed to get the result they want. That is life; that is the result of sloppy management. Perhaps that is the result of a nation state where the police are allowed to use unnecessary violent force without criticism. Perhaps the reason this sort of treatment of the public is allowed, passes without prosecution resulting, is to send a subliminal message to all that: the 'state' is the power not the people. It is not to help police do their job - breaking the covenant between the police and the people can never contribute to the successfulness of state authorised policing.

The recommendation from APCO in the UK for the circumstances when our 'police' can use these devices was: where officers are facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they would need to use force to protect the public, themselves and/or the subject(s) of their action. That is a fair directive (if a state monopoly on the use of force can ever be seen as such).

The actions of the cop who caused this girl to fall and suffer brain damage do not appear meet this sensible APCO directive. She was not a violent threat. The threat of harm to herself was far greater by making her fall whilst handcuffed than the officer's assertion he was concerned she could have run into traffic - what traffic? This is a LIE.

That she was running substantially increased the threat of injury from falling at speed whilst paralysed from the effect of the device. That she was handcuffed made an injury from a fall extremely likely. Injuries resulting from falls is a substantial threat resulting from the use of Tasers, even if the subject is not moving and unrestrained. This is one of many reasions why their use must be strictly limited to the parameters delineated within a directive such as that proffered by the UK APCO. Their use on a running subject should be only under extreme circumstances of violent threat - not a common situation if a subject is running away from you.

The TASER web info states:

* it is important to remember that the very nature of self-defence, use of force, and physical confrontation or incapacitation involves a degree of risk that someone will get hurt or may even be killed due to physical exertion, unforeseen circumstances, and/or individual susceptibilities.

* The TASER device is to be used only for lawful self-defence or in the defence of others.

* its use can result in injuries, including ...... secondary injuries related to falling.

* Subject may fall immediately to the ground and be unable to catch him/herself.

* see downloads manuals at:

Friday, 17 February 2012

Do You Give a Fig?

Stop paying tax! We are all trained to think that 'avoidance' is a shameful disgrace but the line must be drawn - the longer we leave this simple action the more intractable it is going to become.

The state is a sham - it is a racket and ALL the people who work for the state have nothing less than a vested interest in its continuance, all the people who take some form of benefit, from having their bins emptied to receiving every penny they spend, buy into its perpetuation - to some extent or other including me.

But the truth is it is a busted flush. It works through the use of force and that alone requires its continuance to be seen as illicit.

Those who want to force me to work to pay for their kids to go to school or have their granny's bunions removed are part of the criminal enterprise.

We are duped into permitting the continuance of the criminal enterprise called The State with minimal returns. The big returns are made by the corporate and financial enteritis who control the whole ugly enterprise, and always will, and who skim as much as they can from the top without reservation.

The state is a money gathering machine, the people are slaves to this system. Tax Slaves. They are the human herd and the nation states are the farms, Tax Farms.

All we need to do to stop this cycle is to see the truth and refuse to travel this path any more.

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Who Pays Charon ?

In August 2009 James Murdoch spoke at the Edinburgh International Television Festival saying:

"In this all-media marketplace, the expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy," and "As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion"

From about this point in time the 'phone hacking' issue has become harder and harder to keep in the long grass.

My reading is James Murdoch does not have the blessing enjoyed by his father. He is having his wings clipped. He is being chastised.

And there are useful messages that can be transmitted from this unfolding series of events, such as: there is a difference between a mogul and a maverick.

On the 29 March 2004 the Guardian ran a 'joky' item revealing Evelyn de Rothschild was at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on the day candidates were being interviewed for the post of BBC chairman.

The BBC is blessed by the real ruling oligarchy, whoever that may be. The BBC is one of the most effective tools in the elaborate mechanisms of control. Trust in the BBC is paramount, both domestic and international, its credibility must never be brought into question; especially by one of such news-media standing. Calling the BBC "state-sponsored journalism" and casting its lack of "independence" to be a threat to "plurality and democracy" is a sin. And worse; using the 'Orwell' word in connection to the BBC, highlighting its 'near-monopoly of information' as being a 'guarantee' of 'manipulation and distortion' could not be allowed to remain unpunished.

Far from the BBC having the monopoly on information, it is the Maxwell organisations that has the international spread and keeping them under check is important to the elite too. Too much power in any pair of hands is not to be allowed. No invitations to the high table are granted.

This is a trial of strength. That does not mean the Maxwells (oops I mean Murdoch) will spend the rest of their days breaking rocks in Dartmoor. They will, though, be broken, whipped, pilloried and left to the scavengers as an example to whoever else thinks they hold a whip hand, who are careless with their granted powers and wealth or who think they can trample upon the labyrinthine and win.

Of cause, I do not doubt such a news empire has cupboards full of skeletons which many, on the rungs of power and authority, know of and fear revelation. It patently looks that this is why two UK governments, and their police, have strived to bury and minimise the affair. They are all implemented, deeply I have no doubt, and if the case expands to its full potential its destructive force will be unprecedented. In comparison Watergate will look like a washout.

The press will lose its confidence and power for any meaningful investigation and will instead just publish simple reiteration of the news agencies output.

From time to time, our glorious masters believe, the pack must be shuffled. Predicting the exact order of play is hard but, if they do not like the hands against which they play, they can keep causing a shuffle, again and again.

The outcome of this shuffle may include the end of the UK as it is absorbed into the EU as a series of regions, its economy shattered, the credibility of its government and law enforcement irrevocably discredited. Indirect collateral damage may be unintentional but it is also inconsequential. More likely it is also included in the plans or even is at the core of the plan.

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Ban Ki-moon - Globalist Puppet

"Waves of change are surging around us," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Assembly. "Now is our moment. Now is the time to create the future we want," he stated.

Who are these people who decide whatever is the future they want is one they have the right to impose on all.

Who are they - did we vote for them.

Do we know how to even make representations to them.

Do we know for sure who's interests they forward under the cloak of their faux liberal mandate.

Do we know anything about them?