I'd like to echo
Cassilis when he writes:
Listen to any government Minister thrust forward to defend ... plans and they essentially use the same frame every time – ‘The threat is increasingly complex – only these measures will protect the public’.
Accept that frame and it becomes all but impossible oppose the plans without leaving yourself vulnerable to the charge that you’re ‘soft on terror’ or negligent with public safety. The debate is marooned on hypotheticals – anecdotal examples of suspects or investigations that might fall flat if the police don’t have enough time to question people.
It’s all but impossible to win any ground here because the focus is so nebulous. Whether the government have consciously constructed this frame to help advance their case hardly matters – the point is it works.
And let’s be honest – it works because on one level the government do have a point. If we give the police longer to investigate terrorist suspects then logic tells you that in some cases or at some point this will let them prosecute someone who would otherwise go free to commit atrocities.
The key then is to destroy that frame and explain that the root of most people's objections to these plans isn’t their efficacy but the fact that they disrupt the balance between liberty and security to an unacceptable degree. A national curfew at 21:00 for all adults would undoubtedly see a dramatic reduction in street crime but that’s not the point – most people are want a sense of balance in these things and will happily live with the nominally increased risk in exchange for the commensurate freedoms.
The whole thing is about balance and there’s absolutely no evidence that that balance needs to be altered in the favour of the police.
My focus is a little different. Yes, in a perfect world, the "whole thing is about balance" but this is a world where there is an agenda or rather a series of agendas and none of these allow for either the existence of an intelligentsia, personal freedom or the power of free action.
By this latter I mean the power to act independently of the euphemistically termed Nanny State. Even if you don't need nannying, the sheer weight of 3000 plus new convictable offences since Blair came to power, the restrictions on everything from travel to commuting and so on and so on lock you in. And where can you go to live?
The EU?
Living here in the former SU, we are still blighted by the soviet legacy and I can report it really was dire. Good things were the availability of basic foodstuffs and pride in the Red Army, together with a more innocent society, morally but the horrors outweighed that. It seems the poor Russian people are out of the frying pan and into the fire of aggressive western consumer debt economics and are rushing, lemming like, to their doom in a year or two.
Naturally, the money does not wish to have the likes of relative "nobodies " utilizing the net to remind people that no wars could be if they were not
funded, that the whole terrorist thing, while an actuality, like the
Deobandi in Britain still covers a plethora of
real legislation for the removal of freedoms and the press-ganging of the populace into a new dystopia.
America is
not free from this process by any means:
A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks. The document says information is "critical to military success"
Bloggers beware.
As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer. From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.
The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act. Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.
The next conflagration would, on current trends and
Miliband's pronouncements, be between blocs, rather than nations but how to prove what they are doing behind the scenes? To quote Svali, who wrote of the type of thing we're up against:
A top western financier would secretly meet with an Eastern or Russian "adversary" during those years, and have a good laugh at how the "sheep" were being deluded. I am sharing here what I was taught, and also observed.
You can show them photos of underground tunnels near Los Alamos, and they will say, "Isn't that interesting. Must be some government project." They can be shown the scars on a survivor's body, from cigarette burns in childhood, and old lash marks that have healed on their back, and the question would be "are you sure it wasn't self inflicted?"
There will be massive bankruptcies nationwide. Europe will stabilize first and then Germany, France and England will have the strongest economies, and will institute, through the UN, an international currency. Japan will also pull out, although their economy will be weakened.
She said these things in an interview with HJ Springer, Chief Editor CentrExNews.com. in 2000. And here's a good one from
their own site in Europe:
Council of Europe launches game for children in thirteen languages.
Well, isn't that lovely, everything turned on its head and the wolf becomes the sheep:
It is a fundamental step in the Council of Europe’s efforts to curb the grooming of children by abusers through the internet.
Lucky kiddies to be in the hands of the CofEU or
ENYMO. First the Merkel administration
paedophilia recommendations, now a fun game for the tots. And what, not 12 or 14 languages? Wonder why not? And parents clearly can't mentor their own children, can they? After all:
One of their hottest policy issues is the threat of a war between generations, triggered off by the looming financial melt down of the state pension scheme.
They know all about that, yes? And where does the money come from for the initial Eastern European thrust [where the
sex slavery of young girls is endemic]?
The success of mentoring in these countries is due to two specific ingredients: a) money available from the Open Society Fund of Mr. Soros, the Hungarian emigrant and Wallstreet maverick who has financed a host of other programs with the aim to open up the East European Societies. b) a single person who managed to sell the idea to important people in these countries and to make them implement it with the help of the money from Mr. Soros.
That person is Ms. Dagmar McGill, long time director for foreign relations in the head office of Big Brothers/Big Sisters in Philadelphia and now director of Big Brother/Big Sister International.
Well, scallops rock me tadger - isn't that altruistic of
George and Dagmar? Don't you just want to get up and rush over to Europe, offering your child for state "grooming"? As a parent, you're clearly incompetent to do it.
I'd be inclined to dismiss there was anything nefarious in any of this if:
1. I was already in a dog-eat-dog, hedonistic, acquisitive, step-over-your-rival existence and couldn't see the forest for the trees;
2. Had an immediate nuclear family who needed protection and therefore I'd "choose' not to believe, thinking that acceding to the new society would buy me some peace out of the limelight as long as They left me alone;
3. The things which have clearly been going on since the 60s, from the dumbing down of education through PC feminism driving a wedge into the family unit, to rampant pornography, drugs and the zombyization of today's youth.
Returning to the Cassilis dilemma - if these things really are happening under the guise of the terrorism threat, then logically They're going to make damned sure no evidence sees the light of day and that people capable of exposing it are either brought to bay or neutralized through a variety of means, not least being vilification and mockery.
That's one reason why this blog will and must go down sometime, not because it has much influence but because it's an annoying loose end. The reason it's survived so far, IMHO, is that it has a small readership and not many take this sort of post seriously without specific names, dates and when they did what they did.
or display nude or semi-nude figures in an overtly sexual context".
50%
25%
0%
17%
8%
