The State: An Inherently Psychopathic System.

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
Cunning/manipulative
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
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
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 Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, 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.

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
Cunning/manipulative
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
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
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.

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.
See: http://bit.ly/js4d3o

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

Blair Baloney

In a recent speech, to the Royal Society in Oxford, Tony Blair proclaimed "We need our scientists today to be as celebrated and famous as our sportsmen and women, our actors, our business entrepreneurs. Scientists are 'stars' too."

The culture of suggesting people aspire to 'stardom' as an aim and mark of success is ill-founded. Roll-models are important to inspire people to recognise the merit of achievement in all constructive walks of life, but setting 'stardom' as a goal will, by it's very nature, preclude the majority from reaching the supposed pinnacle.

If we want the majority to be successful we must set attainable goals they want to reach. The role and function of scientists and engineers is more important than can be portrayed by the public notoriety of the very few. People know the opportunity for achieving fame is a remote prospect and it is not a motivating factor - logic will predict it's unlikely occurrence.

It would be more inspiring to take the example of normal people excelling at their profession, showing what they do, where their professions have taken them in their lives and explaining the motivation and rewards they enjoy from their endeavours. This will be a scenario a young scientific mind will be able to logically relate to and can portray the prospective outcome of their endeavours should they take the time, effort and expense to enter such a career.

Does the government believe that it's love of celebrity figureheads is the answer to popularising careers in the sciences or do they respect the danger of framing career success within such irrelevant terms ?

The true controversy over the Hutton Inquiry

Lord Hutton is wrongly suggesting that controversy over his report is because he had white-washed the truth of how Tony Blair took our nation to war in Iraq. This question was not specifically relevant to his terms of reference.

The true controversy is over how the Hutton Inquiry supplanted the process of the Coroner's Inquest, commencing instead on the basis of an assumed premise for Dr David Kelly cause of death and then, without sound investigation or due legal process, inappropriately coming to a finding that his death was suicide, whilst deflecting national attention with the shenanigans between Downing Street and the BBC.

Lord Hutton has whitewash on his hands.

Kelly Inquest Quitter Coroner Helps Avoid Enquiry into Dead Solders

Because the bodies of service personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan are flown to RAF Brize Norton, Oxon, it is the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Garner who should have been conducting the backlog of 111 inquests now due.

Nicholas Garner was the coroner who aborted his inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. Under the 1999 section 17A amendment to the 1988 Coroners Act, provision was made that if the Lord Chancellor tells a coroner there is to be a public enquiry (into the events surrounding the death) before the coroner's inquest is likely to be completed, the coroner shall adjourn their inquest. This is only if the Lord Chancellor considers it is 'likely' the cause of death will also be investigated by the inquiry and that there is an absence of any exceptional reason to the contrary.

The Lord Chancellor was wrong to allow the presumption that Dr David Kelly's cause of death would be adequately investigated within the terms of the inquiry he had called for 'to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death' and with witness evidence not to be taken under oath. The coroner Nicholas Gardiner should have recognised the 'exceptional reason to the contrary' within the inquiry's terms and procedures allotted and hence should not have adjourned his inquest before establishing cause of death.

The same Coroners Act section 17A amendment could now be legitimately deployed to save the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Garner conducting these multiple individual inquests, supplanting that process with an all encompassing inquiry into 'the circumstances leading to and surrounding the deaths of these 111 servicemen'. There is not so much doubts as to how each of these men were killed but a honest answer to how they were caused to go to war would be revealing.