[thought for the day] matt sinclair

Accusing people of racism is a bankrupt and small-minded style of argument. It is a witch-hunting discourse that will favour those who don't express themselves, who shut up and then manoevre into positions of power after a career of quiet blandness. It is, in the deepest sense, anti-intellectual. It closes our minds.

[total insanity] the way these boys were treated

Steve Green, of Daily Referendum, brought our attention to a grave matter this afternoon. I've nicked his quote and will start with it:

'The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war,no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation'' --George Washington--

My father would turn in his grave. Just what do we bother for? I am beyond apoplectic and if I try to write something on it, I'll say something I regret, particularly about young women:

Soldiers who suffered appalling injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan were verbally abused as they swam in a public swimming pool.

During a weekly rehabilitation class at a council leisure centre, 15 servicemen – including several who have lost limbs or suffered severe burns – were heckled and jeered by members of the public.

One woman was so incensed that the troops were using the pool at Leatherhead Leisure Centre in Surrey that she told them they did not deserve to be there. The swimmer, thought to be in her 30s, is understood to have said: "I pay to come here and swim – you lot don't."

I am numb at this because it is not just this moron but the whole attitude of society and the "everything is me" syndrome.

I wish to take that woman and ask her point blank; "What have you personally ever done for your society and its long term safety?"

Do you know the way the ordinary person over here in Russia treats its veterans, particularly the last vestige of the Stalingraders? Even low-lifes would not stoop this low. But the new breed of girl in the city is now different - not all of them but many.

February 23rd, my birthday, is the day of the Defenders of the Fatherland here and anyone 30 or over knows what goes down. I asked all the girls I know: "What do you have planned for the boys, for the men?"

"When?"

"February 23rd."

"Oh that."

Yes that. The boys who put their lives on the line so you can live in the style to which you aspire. And you know, they go quiet and disappear the day before, many of them, mysteriously to reappear on February 24th.

Now don't get me wrong, women of a certain maturity were also under extreme duress at that time and every mother I know does all she can on that day. Especially as her day, March 8th, is just round the corner.

It's the vilified men over here, with their vodka and attitude who come up trumps this time. They don't expect anything from their women - it was their duty to defend Russia. End of story.

Speaking generally once again - the respect for veterans, male and female must be so far beyond any sort of question that they should have free halves of the pool, not just lanes, free transport and there should be collection points in every town in prominent places where a fiver or tenner can be left for the vets.

Every one of them should have the same sort of adulation and respect Ike had when he acceded to the presidency. Monty in Africa. Churchill. But far more - this should be an integral part of every single schools course - I'd best stop, otherwise this will go on all night.

I would dearly love to see some sort of post, some sort of comment from the womenfolk to assure me that we haven't gone stark, raving mad.

[handguns] the right to bear arms

I'm caught right in the middle of this debate for reasons apparent below and for some not so apparent.

Bob G opens with:

From WWII:
 "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
--Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

To which Dave Cole replies, in the context of "if they were ordered to":

The US armed forces could, with conventional weapons alone, reduce much of America to so much rubble.

Bob gives a thoroughly American answer:

Soldiers in the armed forces swear loyalty to the Constitution, not the people running the government. It is a question of whether people will let it get to the point of no return. Once a nation is disarmed and programmed to always obey, there is no hope left.


Matt Wardman noted:

We have seen that soldiers will obey orders bordering on illegal orders when pushed to do so. And that commanders will then attempt to sweep things under the carpet, and blame it on the little guys.

All are right. Firsly, there is this charming and amazingly simplistic faith in America, for America and you see it in every bowling alley, every supermarket and on every beach. The type of patriotism which is Americanism, the American Dream, powerful and focused on one flag, one people.

Sadly, the problem we have is with leaders like Brown, who are openly traitors to the UK. He's not a traitor [in his own mind] towards England itself for the simple reason he doesn't recognize England as a separate entity but he does end up technically a traitor for selling out a constituent part of the UK to the EU.

So there is national chagrin over who we are, abetted by the EU regionalism [divide and rule]. If we fly the flag, which is it? The Union Flag [and we can't even celebrate 300 years properly]? The flag of St. George? St. Andrew? The crescent on a green background? It would never be the circle of 12 stars and have you ever wondered about that design? They're laughing in their sleeves in Bavaria. Council of Europe is most amusing for those with a sense of arcane history.

Not so in the U.S.A. One flag, one dysfunctional nation indivisible, huge pride and a belief that the CFR's proposal to carve up the U.S.A. [divide and rule], by stealthy means, is not only crazy Ron Paul stuff but it's also unpatriotic or would be so if we were Americans saying it and we're not Americans.

It's a beautiful faith, focused on one unchanging flag, the Stars and Stripes and you mess with that at your peril. Whereas the EU has hopes of foisting another flag on us over here, no one in his right mind will try that on an American.

But there are ways.

For a start, Matt is right, Manchurian Candidate is right, behavioural studies are right - people will kill their own, for some time, in a crowd context, for fear of reprisal. Also in terms of stealth and Emperor Palpatine treachery. Bush did agree, on March 23rd, 2005, that the functions of state become three nations at the start of 2009. At least the process begins and takes some years. Sorry America but he did betray you. It's on record. clinton will continue the agenda - she's CFR. So is Thompson.

But Bob wasn't referring to the people in charge. He was talking about innate Americanism which can take up arms and defend itself against the aggressor. Trouble is, the enemy is inside - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton - hell, Cheney even referred to himself as the White House Darth Vader - it's on record. He is dropping hints as all that crowd do, all over the place. Hillary's in on the joke on America. Funny stuff, huh?

The average American has this notion of some great macro-invader [Russia? Iran?] whom they can all be patriotic against. It doesn't work that way. You'll never get a chance to turn on the enemy because the enemy is not visible. They are snakes in the grass, unmanly, slithery, metamorphosing into different forms to meet the changing circumstances.

Bush never signed anything in March 2005 - the CFR are correct. He simply agreed and it is now coming out in the actions of government behind the scenes, allowing Mexican truckers in here, signing this right away there. All done in offices at desks and tables. There'll never be a visible enemy.

American patriotism is simply factored in. And how can I know that? Because I've studied it. It's available if you do your homework but the American won't do that because something inside him which recoils against the idea that his national icons are traitors e.g. four time Roosevelt.

We, over here, have a living example before us every day - Brown and the EU. Lord Nazh says he'll be glad to prove me wrong. He'll never do that, not because I'm right but because they'll never be sufficiently visible for m'lord to do so. But that's un-American, he mutters. Come out and fight, you lily-livered wimps.

Think it through, Lord Nazh.

Are traitors ever likely to come out and fight, guns drawn at High Noon? Of course not. The way anyone fights the U.S. is by stealth [except for England, who've had their moments, and Russia]. Korea, Vietnam, China.

Please don't shoot the messenger. It must be apparent that this blog's American readers are very valuable but the blog doesn't deal in half truths and illusion. It prefers to tell it as it is.

So should Americans carry weapons? Yes - because it makes the enemy think twice before they factor that in and Americans end up with the "right" to bear arms but with all the "arms to bear" either impounded or inaccessible - used for the "war effort".

Against that, there is that small Andrew Jackson factor in there, where the American can be pushed so far and no more and if he does get any inkling what's going on - which I'm telling him is happening but he's so far ignoring - it's the end of the ball game for the snakes.

They know that - they've factored that in.

[wesley snipes] fraught on google

If you're not doing anything much just now, Google "wesley snipes fraught' and hit the number two entry [after the Guillermo del Toro one].

Thank you.

[giuli and the lizard] what voters need to know

What's Giuliani's campaign strategy?

Is he trying to die of heart failure before the poll, given the number of diners he's been seen wolfing burgers at? Can you trust a drag artist who wolfs burgers with the lot? Did he learn the habit from Donald?

Other things I'd like to know - why did he locate his emergency command bunker in the building Federal authorities most expected to be attacked by terrorists?

Did he fail to provide the 911 first responders with adequate radios?

Did he reduce firefighter numbers in November, 2001, preventing them from finding lost colleagues?

Is it tacky to agree to participants at a fundraising event being urged to donate $9.11 each?

When Rudy Giuliani goes to to Iowa and New Hampshire, is Bernie Kerik's shadow right behind him?

Did Rudy ever tell Russell Harding he was a naughty boy? Where's the internet material now?

Will the Fulton Fish Market be enough to get him over the line?

Speaking of high profile lovers and on the subject of Huma, well who wouldn't? Can't really blame the Lizard Queen but I'd like to know how she finds the time.

I'd also like to know what Huma sees in Hillary's calves and where Hillary was the day after Thanksgiving.

Down to less important matters - has Hillary ever heard of Webster Hubbell? What about Henry Cisneros?

Does she plant questions at campaign events?

Who decided to sell taxpayer-financed trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the Clinton-Gore 1996 re-election campaign? Do the names Nolanda Hill and Ron Brown mean anything to her?

Does she agree with former Independent Counsel Robert Ray that she gave “factually false” testimony under oath?

Who hired former bar bouncer Craig Livingstone to obtain FBI files?

Do any campaign contributions come from Yucaipa?

How did the missing Vince Foster records reappear in the White House with her fingerprints on them?

Did she have a headache the day she forgot to report over $2 million in contributions to her Senate 2000 campaign? Were Anthony and Hugh involved in any cash deals? Was anyone pardoned as a result?

What instructions were given to James Carville and George Stephanopoulos? Are Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Dolly Kyle Browning, and Juanita Broaddrick back on her guest list yet?

Has she ever heard of Chicago Mercantile Exchange and could she explain the financial wizardry that could turn a $1,000 investment into more than $100,000 in ten months?

Has she ever been seen in drag with Donald Trump? [That was a planted question.]

[micro-control 7] uninvited, beyond authority and opaque

The greatest problems facing this post are where to start and how much to include of the sprawling mass of emerging material on Newthink and the NGOs.

The thrust of this post is to highlight aspects of both, especially concerning web control. which permeates policy determination. It's not highbrow – you can follow it quite easily.

I'll start with an interesting meeting held by the Scottish Arts Council.

The Scottish Arts Council (SAC) organised a quiet event for an audience of 'arts managers' in Glasgow on 14/4/99. Called "Facing the Future," this took the form of a lecture by Ian Christie, then director of think tank 'Demos'.

After an obviously unwanted debate (chaired by Mrs. Jack McConnell, Labour Party) in which the audience clearly did not accept what they were told, the final words from Seona Reid (then Director of the SAC) conveyed the impression that some form of transaction had taken place, that "SAC was working to ensure the arts were incorporated into the range of Government policies - but arts organisations and artists needed to play their part in making this a reality".

Christie made reference to “reality fabrication” which had also been the purpose of another Christie talk, "A New Agenda for the Arts" which was that there was no need to form an arts policy distinct from that dictated in London. If "autonomous Scotland" were to follow the government line Scotland would be the "envy and fascination" of the rest of the country.

Interconnection

This is a key aspect of the new policy thrust – the interconnection of groups and individuals within those groups. An example is Demos, a non-governmental think-tank, according to themselves.

Demos trustees brought together Sir Douglas Hague (former adviser to Margaret Thatcher), Jan Hall (Chief Executive of the advertising agency Gold Greenlees Trott), Martin Jacques (Co-founder of Demos, former editor of Marxism Today), Julia Middleton (Chief Executive of Common Purpose), The Royal Institute of International Affairs, The RAND Corporation, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Hudson Institute (founded by Herman Khan - model for Kubrick's Dr Strangelove), The Heritage Foundation, The Centre for Policy Studies, The Institute of Economic Affairs, The Aspen Institute, The Adam Smith Institute and so on...

The founder and Director of Demos was Geoff Mulgan.

A Cabinet Office news release of 1/9/00 announced the appointment of Mulgan as Director of the 'Performance and Innovation Unit' (PIU):

"The PIU's aim is to improve the capacity of Government to address strategic, cross-cutting issues and to promote innovation in the development and delivery of policy and in the delivery of the Government's objectives. The Unit reports direct to the Prime Minister through Sir Richard Wilson."

So Demos is non-governmental? Technically, yes.

"Mulgan has worked since 1997 as a Special Adviser to the Prime Minister on social policy issues...responsible for social exclusion, welfare to work, family, urban, voluntary sector and other issues...

Geoff Mulgan now chairs the Advisory Council alongside Martin Taylor, a steering group member of the Bilderberg group. Mulgan's views on policy possibilities:

We now live in a world in which fantasy and reality are hard if not impossible to distinguish. Information is the raw material of both fact and fantasy, and has been so industrialised that its origins are rarely visible. Now it can be manufactured, twisted, multiplied and disseminated almost without limit.

Assisted by the power of computing, it can be created as if from nothing: tailor made to cognitive needs, put together as pastiche or copy. It needs only minimal reference points. The links between it and an objective reality - the claim of positivism and enlightenment - are ever more tenuous. As a result for the receiver there are few grounds for judgement, apart from received authority or limited experience.

Simon, on 07 November 2007, noted this about another Demos member, Julia Middleton:

In her book Beyond Authority, Middleton argues for a leadership style that enables [Common Purpose graduates] to lead beyond the traditional boundaries and constraints of their organizations. This of course means beyond the constraints of democratic accountability, whether at local or national level.

As Peter Mandelson, former Communist and European Commissioner put it in March 1998: "It may be that the era of pure representative democracy is slowly coming to an end."

Demos and the officially unconnected other bodies emanating from the policy thrust have become very interested in Semantic Web:

For instance, text-analyzing techniques can now be easily bypassed by using other words, metaphors for instance, or by using images in place of words. An advanced implementation of the semantic web would make it much easier for governments to control the viewing and creation of online information, as this information would be much easier for an automated content-blocking machine to understand.

In addition, the issue has also been raised that, with the use of FOAF files and Geolocation meta-data, there would be very little anonymity associated with the authorship of articles on things such as a personal blog.

The web gurus have become involved in this as well:

But at present there is no easy way to take into account the policies that govern the use of information, some of which could be sensitive health data, said Nigel Shadbolt, professor of artificial intelligence at the University of Southampton and the incoming president of the British Computer Society.

One initiative to provide better data transfer has been John Poindexter's TIA [note the logo in the top left corner of this post and see if you notice anything interesting in the design and choice of colouring]:

Total Information Awareness - a prototype system -- is our answer. We must be able to detect, classify, identify, and track terrorists so that we may understand their plans and act to prevent them from being executed. To protect our rights, we must ensure that our systems track the terrorists, and those that mean us harm. h/t Ian P

John Poindexter was Vice President of Syntek Technologies, a government contractor. Syntek and Poindexter worked for years with DARPA to develop Genoa, a surveillance device that's a combination cutting-edge search engine, sophisticated information harvesting program", and a "peer-to-peer" file sharing system. Kind of a military-grade Google/Napster for use in instant analysis of electronic data.

The result: Facebook.

One of the rationales for Total Information Awareness is that unregulated data on the web is subject to "capture" and exploitation by unscrupulous groups:

Therefore better networking and better information transfer systems are required. For what purpose is “better information transfer' required? Back to the UK, here is one example of an application for the new technology. Home Office Minister Meg Hillier said:

"In order to... fully realise the benefits of combining registration of life events in England and Wales and the issuing of passports, it is sensible that the IPS and GRO should be part of the same organisation."

These "registration of life events" - Ian P explains that this relates in some measure to the Office of National Statistics' idea of "through life records", which were intended to take the basic and relatively uncontentious matter of birth, marriage and death registration and flesh it out into a continually updated life record.

And let's add to this:

Plans to add fingerprints to UK overseas passports are under way, despite the cost and complexity involved in gathering biometrics from UK citizens across the globe, a parliamentary answer revealed last week. Passports issued by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office are already "biometric", but only in the somewhat minimalist sense required by ICAO - the addition of fingerprints, however, would pull overseas UK residents into the National Identity Register net, closing off a prized but little-known escape route.

And:

Alongside these Byrne offered faster Criminal Records Bureau checks via ID cards, use of ID cards and/or the Identity & Passport Service's identity verification service for checking the employment status of foreign nationals, the prospect of ID cards being used for proof of age when shopping for alcohol, knives and solvents, the biometric visa programme, and ID-related projects with the Department of Work & Pensions and the Government Gateway to be unveiled next month.

Which are being promulgated at a time of continual data loss. A more recent example is the loss of Child Endowment records in the last two days.

Back to Total Information Awareness and the need to regulate the web – this is also evident in the setting up of the Media Standards Trust [you might be bemused by their own stated connection with George Orwell:

The MacArthur Foundation – famed for its ‘genius grants’ – has just awarded a grant of $350,000 to the Media Standards Trust and the Web Science Research Initiative to develop their plans for “authenticating news” on the web. In other words – unregulated political assertions by bloggers need to be authorized.

The plans are based on an idea originally conceived by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, and since developed by the Media Standards Trust.

Now, about the major funder MacArthur:

John D. MacArthur (1897-1978) developed and owned Bankers Life and Casualty Company and other businesses, as well as considerable property in Florida and New York.

And:

The Fellowship has no application. People are nominated anonymously, by a body of nominators who submit recommendations to a small selection committee of about a dozen people, also anonymous. The committee then reviews every nominee and passes along their recommendations to the President and the board of directors. The entire process is anonymous and confidential. Most new MacArthur Fellows first learn that they have even been considered when they receive the congratulatory phone call.

More on the Web Science Research Initiative (WSRI) here. More on the MST:

"The Media Standards Trust, chaired by Sir David Bell (Chairman of the Financial Times), is a new, independent not-for-profit organisation working to foster high standards in news."

Sir David Bell is Common Purpose. As is Julia Middleton. CP comes out of the ODPM and is a Prescott initiative, that is from a “Minister' with no portfolio.

The attempt to control the web in Europe finds criticism from an, at first, seemingly unlikely source:

US ambassador David Gross remained equally unimpressed. "It seems to me to be a potentially historic shift in policy by the European Union to be a much more top-down, 'governments should control technical aspects of the Internet' approach," he told us. "Something that as you know is not the policy of the United States."

The EU has also been urging both data sharing within the union, i.e. inwards towards the commission:

For example, there are European Union directives that require that government information be made available in a general way for reuse.

Also concurrent is the EU directive that data cannot be concealed by member states from the Commission - in the interests of transparency, they maintain:

The house of Lords European Union Committee's 40th Report of Session 2005/6 had grave concerns over EU these data sharing activities and data protection:

Electronic inclusion is a new buzzword. The idea is that many people in the lower and less accessible groups in society should be encouraged to communicate electronically, thereby registering with the electronic database:


In line with governmental recommendations on service transformation, that unnecessary contact between public and government should be reduced, the less accessible are advised that they should use an ICT device instead:


To assist these unregistered plebs [who must, by definition be stupid], to understand what an ICT device is, it's explained in some detail that one such device is the telephone:


Another initiative is OCAM, which proposes keeping lists of journalists and other political commentators. This is called an "open commission" for accuracy in the media, which is pure doublespeak by this genre of people:

And so it goes on and on. Dizzy, whilst also tracking down the Media Monitoring group, sums up the overall situation in his comment on the government's breaching of their own data protection guidelines:

What's important to point out here is this is not about saying you think Gordon Brown and the Labour Government are secretly trying to enslave us all in an Orwellian nightmare with the ultimate aim of destroying democracy. No, this is about asking whether the proposal passes the Stalin Test. Would someone like Stalin have found a system like this useful?

Notes

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7