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

EUbrainwashing

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.

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!

Dry-rot and the infestation of 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 move human-society on to a next more developed phase: a functional human society that dispenses with the harm 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.

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
*children
*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.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/mp-fears-tasers-used-on-kids-old-people/story-fn3dxiwe-1226422374526

The Nine Principles of Policing
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php

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
From:
Reply-To:
To:

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: http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

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: http://www.petitionproject.org/

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. http://bit.ly/bBxaqh

See: http://bit.ly/9hywC2

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'.

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

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.

http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/newspeak.php

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


Yours truly

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.