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.

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.