Property Title in a Stateless Society - and Royal Prerogative

A stateless society is not by any means, de-facto, a society without a legal system (an arbitration system). Independent arbitration services will be able to offer judgements over matters, and establish a tested common law, which will then allow individuals to act with legal confidence.

Just sticking a flag in to the ground will likely be judged not sufficient, by an arbitration court, to support a claim of ownership of land. Taking good title through inheritance or purchase is probably going to still be the most common means of acquiring property. Usage, or homesteading, will be an other legal means for having a valid claim to land. If land is claimed to be owned by a first party and that ownership is to be challenged by another party, staking a claim, the first claimant is likely going to have to show a court both: 1. good title and 2. exploitation/usage. That usage can be argued to be as a wilderness nature reserve, or some such, but it will likely need to be an evidenced assertion.

Generally property that is not exploited in some demonstrable way could be up for adoption if you can get a court to agree with your claim and defend any further appeals attempted against that judgement. It is not so different in the UK today. If I maintain land or live in a building for ten years, without challenge, I can claim title and, if successful, that title awarded is as good as if I purchased the property.

If some clown wants to pay an Inuit tribal elder for a tract of ice covered land in central Greenland and for thirty years never does anything to care for or utilise that land: does he own it? If between times the Inuit tribe demonstrate they continued to exploit the land in every feasible way: to hunt across the land, live close by, manage wildlife, lead expeditions and assist scientific research; when it then comes about that natural gas reserves are found there the Inuit tribe are going to have a good case that they have the best claim to rights over that land.

If the clown can show he sold the Inuit annual hunting licences, rented the areas to them where they built their settlements, had studies carried out to direct wildlife management programs and paid for the proscribed work to be undertaken, commissioned local services for assistance with leading his client's expeditions into the landholding and requested that any other such activities were duly referred to his offices for permissions, then he will have maintained a good title.

The Royal Family in GB can likely prove better title to the land, rivers and sea bed of the Crown Estates than any other party, (with the exception, perhaps, of holders of freehold titled land within their curtilage). So if it was that 'the state' in the UK ended, the Crown could well argue that: everything still belonged to the Royal Family, as proven by descent. The Royal Family may need to consent to allowing property that was sold with a 'freehold title' was not reasonable to retain; but even so: if there were no heirs to an estate on the death of the freeholder, the Crown could then well argue they had better title to the land then any other party.

It could be argued that Royal Family land was obtained by illegal force but it would have to be proven precisely who the true heirs to the title of the stolen lands then would be, that their original title was true and correct, for those parties to demonstrate better title to a court of arbitration. (An argument just that the Norman Invasion caused 'the people of North Wales' to lose their land on Mount Snowdon would not be sufficient).

It is true that the Royal Family could argue that they did correctly own full title to the land of GB and that they were therefore entitled to dictate the terms of usage for people who chose to operate within the curtilage of their estates (state). Instead of openly 'spelling-out' to the population the true nature of the arraignment they are 'subjects' of, and then risk being violently overthrown by revolution, the British Royal Family have greatly distanced themselves from the process of Government and generally from the working processes of 'the state'.

And what is interesting in respect of America is that title to the land of America is dependent upon that assented in the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which means that the tile upon which 'the state' in American depends is only based in that which was granted by the British Royalty - much like the 'freehold title' of privately 'owned' property within GB itself. That means the property of America could prospectively, in the right circumstance, legally revert to the British Crown. So watch it OK!

Understand 9/11 and You Understand We Must End 'The State'.

The core deceit is the impossibility of the narrative, ascribed by governments and mainstream-media across the world, in respect of all of the events surrounding the episode of 9/11. If one rejects the 'appeal to authority' fallacy contained within the authorised narrative and instead work to draw a conclusion based on independently gathered knowledge of the facts surrounding the events and then utilise unbiased logic to assess those facts the resultant conclusion is unequivocal: the 9/11 episode is seen to be a fraud of such a massive scale any further call to authority in regards of government or the mainstream media is impossible to maintain. It does not matter who caused 9/11 or how it was actually conducted, that is not what is important or what can be concluded with certainty, what is important is that one must conclude that government and mainstream media are completely untrustworthy. One must conclude that their intention is endless, endemic, mass deception.

 
We do not need to investigate, mitigate or mend. We need to reject the busted concept of government, we need to realise that the cult belief in 'the state' can only contain this inevitable propensity, for psychopathic corruption, in every aspect of its function. We need to end our acceptance of the inevitability of 'the state', our core belief that to have a functional human society some form of state, no matter how limited, is essential. We need to study to understand, to shatter the deep multi-generational indoctrination, that without any style of government, of any kind, human society will not only function but will function at its complete optimum for all but those who otherwise will always usurp the power of government for their own device and betterment.

Marijuana Dreaming

Instead of building towards an enduring and powerful anti-war peace and liberal rights movement, the hedonistic days of the 60's hippy flower power culture was driven by a covertly managed culture of drug fuelled befuddlement and from which the 'new-age' movement continues to sap the resolve of an otherwise supposedly 'enlightened' majority.

I know I own the right to consume any substance I so desire.  Nothing has changed if I cross the imaginary line around a place some people call Washington State except to the imagined legitimacy of uniformed gangs with guns to steal from me or to kidnap me.

But as it happens I choose not to.  Not because of any rules or even conveniences but because I am concerned that the stuff enjoyed on sunny days with pals in the meadows of my youth is not the same material today as it was back then.  Today people are using marijuana of a type selectively created of a different, stronger, nature and I am concerned its lasting effects are not well understood.  And today's illegally cultivated plant is grown in conditions, fed with chemicals, far removed from the natural organic product it used to be.

So I am concerned by anything the state has to offer; even when it is legitimising that which should never had been made illegitimate from the outset.  I am concerned that if marijuana is used more prevalently it will be targeted at the, already too scant, 'open minded' minority who are the selfsame ones who we need to all have all their wits about them in these times of 'universal deceit'.

“The CIA and the “Magic” of Laurel Canyon – Covert Ops & the Dark Heart of the Hippie Dream”
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/interview-dave-mcgowan-cia-magic-laurel-canyon-186/

The Dark Heart of the Union

I frankly, genuinely, do not doubt the sincerity of some, many, the majority even, of those involved within the European project.

There is bound to be corruption and ineptness when a new order is devised and implemented so quickly. This is typical of all governments, all public offices, all forms of authority. There will be abuse. Cookies will get stolen. It happens.

What people do not understand, including this gaggle of well intention and committed friends, is there is a covert darkness behind the whole enterprise and all are caused to be just playing right into it hands.

Too often the meaning of 'darkness' and of especially 'the occult' are completely misunderstood. This is not unintentional. 'To occult' means simply to hide and this is the clue to understanding what the occult is really about. Clearly it is the same inference with darkness.

Truth, clarity, openness. These are the sort of words one does not readily associate with darkness and the occult.

I think the truth of the EU has been hidden in darkness, occulted, from the minds of all but those who work to seek-out the hidden truth and actual meaning.

This is how states, of all forms, have conducted themselves to control and manipulate the people from time immemorial. And this, the oldest established legacy of prehistoric-mankind to still remain, the state and its utter dependency upon deception to function, needs to be seen for what it is and cast-out, got rid-off, ended for ever.

How to Detect a Political Conspiracy - Open Eyes!

To think there are no conspiracies in politics!

From my perspective politics is nothing but a writhing web of conspiracy, encompassing all human endeavour, from the beginnings of mankind to every humanly conceivable aspect of the future.

Politics does not exist without a shared agenda and a shared political agenda is a conspiracy - maybe an open conspiracy but a conspiracy nonetheless.

And trotting-out the jaded 'conspiracy theories' meme is really just a bit of group-think 1984 Newspeak which has been indoctrinated into the minds of the mainstream media consuming masses via a campaign of propaganda to keep them from thinking it is OK to think for themselves and joining together to point and laugh at the people still capable of doing so.

The Origin of the EU - by means of natural selection or, The Preservation of Races in the Struggle for Life

Robert Schuman drew up the Schuman Plan - an initiative to control the production steel and so prevent future arms production.  Published on the 9th of May 1950  this date is now regarded as the birth of the European Union.  Schuman, it is now clear, was funded, supported and encouraged by an OSS (early CIA) operation: The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), founded in 1948.

At this stage the UK was considered too anti-federalist as it appears to partially remain.  But in terms of being a useful device for the 'The Anglo-American Establishment' to continue to influence and monitor the EU, no better device than the UK has been found.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Committee_on_United_Europe

Telegraph: Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe
1948-60
Richard J. Aldrich
 University of Nottingham,
See: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/aldrich/publications/oss_cia_united_europe_eec_eu.pdf

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.

http://aei.pitt.edu/14915/1/S80.pdf

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.

Be careful what you wish for Scotland!

Let's look at a little history.  What was Hadrian's Wall really all about?  My take is it was much more about collecting tax and preventing duty-free trade; the wall gave the Romans that control without trying to subdue a thinly dispersed population in a large, rugged and generally poor agricultural and poor mineral-resource area.

Preventing tax-free imports is not just about the lost revenue, it is also harmful to the taxed economy; the wealthy but taxed economy is undercut by those poaching the rich pickings.

So what can we learn from this about today?   An independent Scotland is likely to become a parasite on the English economy, through the undercutting of corporation tax and such strategies.   Fair game perhaps but that competition will distort the economy in the remnants of the UK - not that I particularly care but the UK government will and some business interests, who don't just take advantage, will.

This effect will be magnified if Scotland is required to take the Euro and is excluded by the UK from the pound.  Cross boarder trade will again distort markets.  Take cars for a simplistic example: would you not buy your car in Scotland if it cost less - as the Pound and Euro exchange rates fluctuate against each other, with both markets having the steering wheel on the same side, one market or other will always be the cheaper place to order a new car .  This is all about currency fluctuations.  It suits the consumer perhaps but not the manufacturers or the governments. The outcome will be to help draw the UK into the Euro.  I shall be registering a UK trading company in Scotland before independence whilst I am still allowed.

Look at defence.  Can England risk a truly independent Scotland?  Who knows what the future holds; none of us mortals nor our 'so called' political representatives that is for sure.  Yet can Scotland be considered 'independent' in any meaningful/truthful way if it does not have control of its own foreign policy, defence or currency?  I think not.

These are the sorts of reasons why Scotland continues to be held as a 'vassal' state to England. Long after the Empire was supposed to have gone Scotland remains prisoner of it's geography.

So why do so many in Scotland want to wrestle free from our grim embrace?  Because they are sick of being dictated to from London.  There is no voice for Scotland; this is no partnership of equals.  United it is not, that is hyperbole, Subjugated Kingdom is more the like.

I am English so I am not lost in some nationalistic dream for an independent Scotland; though I do think plenty of folk are.  (I don't even quite understand what 50% of Glaswegians I talk to are saying).  But I do sympathise with the animosity.  That is a logical outcome of the situation if you think it through.  That is the unjust bummer of 'democracy': the winners take all.  A minority is always subjugated.

A real United Kingdom should have been run independently of any English Parliament.  It is too farcical to pretend Westminster ran the UK with an even-hand. The UK Parliament would be on Anglesey if it was for real.

So now the endgame is about to commence for the UK.  The EU has no place for such a second tier authority within its ranks.  The EU wants to have its regions, nine in England, plus Scotland and Wales being two more, dealing directly with them.

The EU has no real desire to continue dealing with 'nation states' let alone unions of nation states, it much prefers for them to all slowly, unperceived, wither-on-the-vine; and so they will.

What possible value to the EU does a secondary union of nations offer.  None.  The EU wants to finish the UK off right away.  Scotland will be granted its faux freedom; in truth it will be no more than being an über-county-council in a 'United Soviet State of Europe' (maybe the Europe bit will be dropped in time).

Northern Ireland will be joined to the northern region of Ireland's two EU designated regions; giving that region its city and economic powerhouse.

Wales will remain part and parcel with England until the relevance of its union with England becomes forgotten and meaningless.

The last task of this phase of this Fabian campaign will be the rise of EU 'mega-regions' to occur simultaneous with the eventual silent snuffing-out of the old nation state's governments.  These mega-regions will join geographically close regions, regardless of old national boundaries, together in quasi mutual benefit.

The same pattern is to occur eventually across the world with the North American Union being the most progressed second to the EU (the proven template of the method).  The EU economic crisis is nothing less than an intentional device of this strategy offering a choice between total economic meltdown or unequivocal acceptance of deeper integration. (Such as Cyprus who will be driven to the edge of the financial cliff until they accept that Turkey, who had invaded and stolen half their country, is now to become a member of the EU without reparations or return of the land stolen).

These Unions, of old-world-order nations, will all operate under the single global governance of the UN.  That is the plan, like it or not.  The political elites and their lackeys the world over, including the media, are sold the plan as the only solution for enduring world peace and for the scientific management of the world.  If they resist they are sidelined.  If they want to get on they play the game. 

The hubbub of global-climate-warming-change being a man-made phenomenon is to help put in place the medium-term UN carbon-tax revenue system.  The global currency and banking 'crisis' to ease in a global SDR based currency unification and Tobin taxes.

I do not care much for our old nations as it happens, nor royalty or much else of the sort either. None of that is any-more than the past generation's false paradigms; which they were sold, swallowed, died for and believed in as tomorrow's majority will support the new order with similar simple allegiance and vigour.

The only lesson of history perhaps is: be careful what you wish for, be careful your wish is really your own.

notes.
Mineral Exploration and Fort Placement in Roman Britain
http://www.dibonsmith.com/roman.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Twisted Labyrinth of the State

The oldest of ideas, which we persevere unquestioningly, is the concept of government; of having and needing a state.

Just how deep will we need to sink before it is evident to all that the state is good for nothing but being a self perpetuating false paradigm?

I think it will take a total collapse of social order when, after the state - at last - withers and dies, then people will see, without its encumbrance, that humans can organise and thrive in a truly liberal society.

All the answers to human existence lay in the natural world.  All we have to do is look there, ask the right questions and be open to the simple answers that have existed for time immortal.

We have woven such a twisted labyrinth; of rules, of laws and of decrees.  Whilst we are engulfed and throttled by the state's convoluted ineptness, the only solution we can yet still envision is to continue to make even more twists and turns in the futile hope it will somehow, after aeons of trying so, unwind.

The problem for those in a position to encourage the continuation of the state is that if 'the people' were allowed to enjoy the abundance the world does indeed posses, the people would then have time to 'stand and stare'.  And as soon as they do that they will see the blood-suckers for what they are and do away with them as soon as they can.

These 'blood-suckers' are not those who reap hand-outs, they are just there to feed from and make the sham of a democratic process look legitimate.  They are not the 'so called' civil servants, they are just rewarded enough to make them have the will to wish for the edifice's continuance.

The blood suckers are the hidden ruling oligarchy to whom the existence of the state is the entire mechanism by which they exercise control and by which they extort every drop they possible can till they own and control absolutely everything including us - the human herd - the livestock of this farm we gullibly think of as our world in perpetuity.

The edifice of state is a worn-out and failed construct.  Mankind will not thrive until it is free of the choking gags and chains the state allows to be imposed.

The Prussian Educational System

From: Separating School & State: How To Liberate American Families

by Sheldon Richman

After the defeat of the Prussians (Germans) by Napoleon at the battle of Jena in 1806, it was decided that the reason why the battle was lost was that the Prussian soldiers were thinking for themselves on the battlefield instead of following orders.

The Prussian philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), described by many as a philosopher and a transcendental idealist, wrote “Addresses to the German Nation” between 1807 and 1808, which promoted the state as a necessary instrument of social and moral progress. He taught at the University of Berlin from 1810 to his death in 1814. His concept of the state and of the ultimate moral nature of society directly influenced both Von Schelling and Hegel, who took an similarly idealistic view.

Using the basic philosophy prescribing the “duties of the state”, combined with John Locke’s view (1690) that “children are a blank slate” and lessons from Rousseau on how to “write on the slate”, Prussia established a three-tiered educational system that was considered “scientific” in nature. Work began in 1807 and the system was in place by 1819. An important part of the Prussian system was that it defined for the child what was to be learned, what was to be thought about, how long to think about it and when a child was to think of something else. Basically, it was a system of thought control, and it established a penchant in the psyche of the German elite that would later manifest itself into what we now refer to as mind control.

The educational system was divided into three groups. The elite of Prussian society were seen as comprising .5% of the society. Approximately 5.5% of the remaining children were sent to what was called realschulen, where they were partially taught to think. The remaining 94% went to volkschulen, where they were to learn “harmony, obedience, freedom from stressful thinking and how to follow orders.” An important part of this new system was to break the link between reading and the young child, because a child who reads too well becomes knowledgeable and independent from the system of instruction and is capable of finding out anything. In order to have an efficient policy-making class and a sub-class beneath it, you’ve got to remove the power of most people to make anything out of available information.

This was the plan. To keep most of the children in the general population from reading for the first six or seven years of their lives.

Now, the Prussian system of reading was originally a system whereby whole sentences (and thus whole integrated concepts) were memorized, rather than whole words. In this three-tier system, they figured out a way to achieve the desired results. In the lowest category of the system, the volkschuelen, the method was to divide whole ideas (which simultaneously integrate whole disciplines – math, science, language, art, etc.) into subjects which hardly existed prior to that time. The subjects were further divided into units requiring periods of time during the day. With appropriate variation, no one would really know what was happening in the world. It was inherently one of the most brilliant methods of knowledge suppression that had ever existed. They also replaced the alphabet system of teaching with the teaching of sounds. Hooked on phonics? Children could read without understanding what they were reading, or all the implications.

In 1814, the first American, Edward Everett, goes to Prussian to get a PhD. He eventually becomes governor of Massachusetts. During the next 30 years or so, a whole line of American dignitaries came to Germany to earn degrees (a German invention). Horace Mann, instrumental in the development of educational systems in America, was among them. Those who earned degrees in Germany came back to the United States and staffed all of the major universities. In 1850, Massachusetts and New York utilize the system, as well as promote the concept that “the state is the father of children.” Horace Mann’s sister, Elizabeth Peabody (Peabody Foundation) saw to it that after the Civil War, the Prussian system (taught in the Northern states) was integrated into the conquered South between 1865 and 1918. Most of the “compulsory schooling” laws designed to implement the system were passed by 1900. By 1900, all the PhD’s in the United States were trained in Prussia. This project also meant that one-room schoolhouses had to go, for it fostered independence. They were eventually wiped out.

One of the reasons that the self-appointed elite brought back the Prussian system to the United States was to ensure a non-thinking work force to staff the growing industrial revolution. In 1776, for example, about 85% of the citizens were reasonably educated and had independent livelihoods – they didn’t need to work for anyone. By 1840, the ratio was still about 70%. The attitude of “learn and then strike out on your own” had to be broken. The Prussian system was an ideal way to do it.

One of the prime importers of the German “educational” system into the United States was William T. Harris, from Saint Louis. He brought the German system in and set the purpose of the schools to alienate children from parental influence and that of religion. He preached this openly, and began creating “school staffing” programs that were immediately picked up by the new “teacher colleges”, many of which were underwritten by the Rockefeller family, the Carnegies, the Whitney’s and the Peabody family. The University of Chicago was underwritten by the Rockefellers.

The bottom line is that we had a literate country in the United States before the importation of the German educational system, designed to “dumb down” the mass population. It was more literate that it is today. The textbooks of the time make so much allusion to history, philosophy, mathematics, science and politics that they are hard to follow today because of the way people are “taught to think.”

Now, part of this whole paradigm seems to originate from an idea presented in The New Atlantis, by Francis Bacon (1627). The work described a “world research university” that scans the planet for babies and talent. The state then becomes invincible because it owned the university. It becomes impossible to revolt against the State because the State knows everything. A reflection of this principle can be seen today with the suppression of radical and practical technologies in order to preserve State control of life and prevent evolution and independence. The New Atlantis was widely read by German mystics in the 19th century. By 1840 in Prussia, there were a lot of “world research universities”, in concept, all over the country. All of them drawing in talent and developing it for the purposes of State power and stability.

The Birth of Experimental Psychology in Germany

By the middle of the 19th century, Germany had developed a new concept in the sciences which they termed “psycho-physics”, which argued that people were in fact complex machines. It was the ultimate materialist extension of science that would parallel the mechanistic view of the universe already under way. This new view of people became more or less institutionalized in Germany, and by the 1870′s the “field” of experimental psychology was born. The ultimate purpose of experimental psychology was to discover the nature of the human machine and how to program it.

The main proponent of this new experimental psychology in Germany was Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), who is today widely regarded as the “father” of that field. He is described by orthodoxy as having “freed the study of the mind from metaphysics and rational philosophy.” Presumably in favor of irrational philosophy. Wundt obtained his PhD in medicine from the University of Heidelburg in 1856, and embarked on the study of sensory perception. His most famous work was “Contributions to the Theory of Sense Perception” , done between 1858 and 1862. It is described by orthodoxy as the first work of experimental psychology. In 1875, Wundt was appointed to a chair in philosophy at Leipzig, where he instituted a laboratory for the “systematic, experimental study of experience.” Back then, the phase “get a life” was not in vogue, and evidently he didn’t have much interpretable experience of his own.

In 1873, he began a year-long writing project which resulted in “Principles of Physiological Psychology”, which became a “classic” that was subsequently reprinted through six editions over the next 40 years, establishing psychology’s claim to be an “independent science”. Wundt also wrote on philosophical subjects such as logic and ethics, but as he did not subscribe to “rational philosophy”, his writings presumably yielded irrational interpretations of both areas. It is conceivable that his warped view of humanity and the universe contributed in some small way to the eventual Nazi penchant for experimenting on those they didn’t like, producing for them an irrational experience they would never forget. American students of Wundt who returned to the United States between 1880 and 1910 became the heads of Psychological Departments at major universities, such as Harvard, Cornell, and the University of Pennsylvania, to name a few. Wundt trained James Cattell, who on his return to the United States trained over 300 PhD’s in the Wundt world view. The system of “educational psychology” evolved from this. Funded by the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations, the Wundtian system gains control over educational testing in the United States for soldiers of World War I.

 

The “Educational System” Expands

The wave of immigration which began in 1848, combined with the visibility of revolutions taking place all over Europe, helped foster uncertainty in the public mind. Laws requiring compulsory schooling were then legislated. It was all very Hegelian. We wouldn’t want those little tykes to become reactionaries, would we? In 1890, Carnegie wrote a series of essays called The Gospel of Wrath, in which he claimed that the capitalistic free enterprise system was dead in the United States. It really was, since Carnegie, Rockefeller and Morgan, by then, owned the United States. It was about 1917 that a great “Red Scare” was instituted in the United States in order to set up a reactionary movement intended to get the public to accept the idea of compulsory schooling – Prussian compulsory schooling, of course.

The implimentation of the German educational nightmare in the United States met some initial resistence. In Carnegie’s home town of Gary, Indiana, the system was implemented between 1910 and 1916, mostly through the efforts of William Wirt, the school superintendent. It involved no academic endeavor whatsoever. It worked so well in supplying willing workers for the steel mills that it was decided by Carnegie to bring the system to New York City. In 1917, they initiated a program in New York in 12 schools, with the objective of enlarging the program to encompass 100 schools and eventually all the schools in New York. William Wirt came to supervise the transition.

Unfortunately for Carnegie, the population of the 12 schools was predominantly composed of Jewish immigrants, who innately recognized what was being done and the nature of the new “educational system”. Three weeks of riots followed, and editorials in the New York Times were very critical of the plan. Over 200 Jewish school children were thrown in jail. The whole political structure of New York that had tried this scheme were then thrown out of office during the next election. A book describing this scenario, The Great School Wars, was written by Diane Ravitch on the subject. Curiously, William Wirt was committed to an insane asylum around 1930, after going around making public speeches about his part in a large conspiracy to bring about a controlled state in the hands of certain people. He died two years later.

In order to make sure that the independence of the one-room schoolhouse and the penchant for communities to hire their own independent teachers would cease, the Carnegie group instituted the concept of “teacher certification” – a process controlled by the teaching colleges under Carnegie and Rockefeller control. No one knew that the Communist revolutions were funded from the United States. The buildup of the Soviet Union, as well as that of Nazi Germany, would also be funded later from the United States in order to get a reactionary public to bend to the will of controlling political factions. It was a plan that worked well in the 1920′s, and worked well again in the 1950′s in the psychological creation of the “cold war”, providing funding for the buildup of the military, industrial and pharmaceutical complex. The “non-thinking” American public never suspected a thing. Such a thing would have been “unbelievable.”

Because the United States was owned by wealthy businessmen, a synthetic free enterprise system was created and anti-trust laws were passed to prevent anyone else from gaining power. Everything that had already been consolidated was “grandfathered” out of the law. It was a brilliant scheme, and it worked very well.

Earlier in the century there were “school boards” in every town. Between 1932 and 1960, the number of school boards dropped from 140,000 to 30,000. Today there are about 15,000 – all controlled by extensions of the Carnegie-Rockefeller educational complex. In 1959, with the advent of the “Sputnik” and the public realization that “another country was ahead of us”, the embarrassed educational system was forced to temporarily create a synthetic focus on science which produced a generation of scientists and technicians in order to resolve the apparent deficit in the public mind.

www.amazon.com 

www.amazon.co.uk

In retrospect, in 1889 the U.S. Commissioner of Education assured a prominent railroad man, Collis Huntington, when he protested that the schools seemed to be over-educating (producing too many engineers and people who could think), that schools had been scientifically designed not to over-educate. It was a reference to the German system of education inculcated into the United States between 1806 and 1819.

Separating School & State: How To Liberate American Families
by Sheldon Richman

See also:The Seven-Lesson School Teacher

Send to Kindle

Herd Management Program

Without comprehension of the nature or the facts, the people of the various nation states comprising the EU have long-since been loaded into cattle-trucks (of various guises) and continue on their slow clanking journey to an unwitting destination. The route may be convoluted, obscure, delayed or apparently benign but their fate is their predetermined destiny and a part of this journey has to be that they will never be plainly told where all the tracks eventually head.

Too stupid a herd are people that the manifold benefits perceived for the full integration of old-style nations into continental supra-national unions and further into one omnipotent world governance would simple pass them by. Humans instinct for tribal loyalty and racial grouping would surmount and stifle any reasoned call with the supposed logic for the ultimate formation of a newly ordered single world authority.

And so instead this must be achieved by subterfuge and conniving manipulation. Our so called representatives share various conceptions for the merits of this goal and understand its purported benevolent and altruistic ambition along with the absolute necessity to resist its definition.

By its formation's very nature, that of its being assembled of illiberal covert means, it stands equal opportunity of, when ultimately realised, becoming a manifestation of the ugliness of which it is being born. All resistance will be at best futile and worst deemed necessary to completely oppress.

WANTED - Somebody to act in the interests of a nation

 

This government is defiantly becoming one dirty great big disappointment as for having an anti-EU breath in its body.   I was, in reality, expecting no more than we are getting - vigorously shafted.  But, in truth, I did have just a teeny-weeny bit of optomisium.  Do I never learn.  Do we never learn.

Nothing this joker and his fall-guy has done has shown one shard of getting the best out of the EU for the UK.  It is all a sham. 

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.