Self-Censorship; the legacy of RIPA – Vote Accordingly

Brighton – PFL Command Post May 22 2017: We were talking – as many now are – about how in the world it was possible for 60 million Americans not just to vote for Trump, but, after 120 days of demonstrated disaster and incompetence STILL to support him. He only scored 41% the day he was elected – an all time low – but 4 months in, he’s still fielding 35%, meaning that just 1 in 7 of those who were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt in January, had seen the light by May. The other 6 in 7 are clearly impervious. They illustrate Trump’s own claim that he could have shot someone in the street during the campaign, and his base still wouldn’t desert him.

Which made us wonder what would (make the base desert him). Which took us onto the obvious and sinister parallel with Hitler. Although he was elected with minority support, over the next few years Goebbels’ propaganda machine steadily manipulated popular opinion to the point where, on invading Austria, Hitler was greeted as a conquering hero. Trump’s own propaganda specialists (Bannon, Spicer, Conway etc) have singularly failed to achieve any similar response and I said I would google “popular support for hitler” to see if there were any other clues as to what Trump must be doing right in order to retain support of the 60 million.

And then a thought came into my head, unbidden, which made me ashamed to be British.

Did I really want to type “popular support for hitler” into a google search, knowing that British ISPs are now obliged to keep all records of my browsing history for at least 12 months? And that our own politically motivated elected idiots will mandate the searching of such records in the hope they can find “extremists” before they bugger off to Libya and learn how to create viable IED’s in order to blow up a crowd of children and teenagers leaving pop-concerts…

Or should I err on the side of caution and either fire up my VPN and the Iron incognito browser (or Tor; one or two other reasonably secure browsers are available, but the VPN is essential) before mounting such a provocative search? Or just forget it altogether?

That constitutes the sinister effect of Parliament’s RIPA act, passed, in November 2016 with, as the Guardian put it: Barely A Whimper and, as Edward Snowden put it, in the same article:

The UK has just legalised the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy. It goes further than many autocracies.”

NB: I refer to Parliament’s Act, not the Government’s as the pitifully clueless Labour party – terrified of appearing “weak on Terrorism” – gave full support to this major attack on our civil liberties.

And it is not helped, when Chairman May announces, as her kneejerk response to the Manchester murders, her intention to set up a “commission for countering extremism” no doubt inspired by the spectacular success of the “Prevent” program, also widely criticised for it’s effect on free speech and complete absence of any verifiable benefits. Even friends of the Tories have long acknowledged its failure.

It amazes me that the establishment of the Stasi State isn’t even a minor issue in the forthcoming election. I can think of nothing with similar significance, nothing capable of inflicting greater long-term damage on the British way of life and its core “Values”. In a single bound we’ve overtaken the Police State of America, where direct surveillance of citizens on this scale still takes place, but remains illegal, which means, when the buggers are caught in the act, they can be prosecuted (though rarely are) We – alone among western nations – have legalised the most intrusive Snoopers’ Charter in history.

And I have to say that a great deal of the blame for this sorry state of affairs lies in the hands of the British voter. We can’t on this occasion, blame the media. They’ve been pretty open and accurate about the scale of the attack on our privacy and liberty. In any other country, this would have prompted riots in the streets. Here it went down with barely a shrug. That itself has to be a legacy of the failure of popular protests in the recent past to have the slightest effect on the State. Consider, for example the 2 million who marched against the Iraq War before the Blair government ignored popular opinion and collaborated with the Americans to assist the illegal invasion of Iraq.

One of the many reasons that we opposed the Iraq invasion was that we strongly suspected that it would lead, inexorably, to precisely the kind of global chaos we are now witnessing and, occasionally, suffering. It is utterly mind-blowing that twats like Fallon still refuse to acknowledge the link between our growing catalogue of disastrous overseas interventions and the wave of European Terrorism mounted by disaffected jihadis.

That refusal to face the facts renders May and her party demonstrably unable to confront global terrorism. After all, if you won’t even admit its primary causes, you can have no hope of implementing effective preventative measures against those causes. It’s a bit like the hopeless attempts of the Victorians to tackle the smallpox epidemics prior to Edward Janner’s insight into the concept of vaccination and its painfully slow acceptance.

In that respect, Labour, or, at least, Corbyn, scores well because he does acknowledge the link between our foreign adventures and home-grown terrorism. (As indeed did Boris Johnson, though the Tories would obviously rather he hadn’t) But at least that gives him a significant advantage when looking for solutions. He won’t exclude, on the basis of inconvenient geo-political truths, our own part in our own pain.

But given his, and his party’s, abject failure to oppose RIPA, I can’t endorse him or his party. I can only advise that, if you understand the gravity of what Parliament has done, you put just one question to the candidates running in your constituency for their part in the National Elective Dictatorship we naively refer to as “British Democracy”:

(to sitting MPs) “Did you vote for RIPA?”

Or to other candidates: “Would you have voted for RIPA?”

If the answer is yes, whatever other merits they may have, they clearly cannot be trusted to protect your most important interests. Vote accordingly.

Advertisements

Manufacturing Consent: Anti-Zionism NOT= Anti-Semitism

Rarely have I seen such a blatantly artificial storm in a teacup and I am stunned by how pathetically the Labour party and leadership has caved in and run away from the controversy. What a bunch of spineless cowards. This faux furore is (one of many) clearly designed to equate Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism. Hence the appropriate reference to “Manufacturing Consent” in the title.

Let’s get some relevant credentials on the table here. I’m genetically Jewish, and my family lost some 46 members in the holocaust. So even though I’m atheist, I’m not remotely inclined to sympathise with anti-Semitism. But I’ve looked long and hard at what evidence is still in the public domain and I have failed to find any plausible trace of anti-Semitism in what Naz Shah posted on her Facebook page. Unfortunately, we can’t be absolutely certain about that because the coordinated bleating of the sheeple has intimidated her into removing the post.

So all we have to go on is the tory activist Guido Fawkes “exclusive” from which I gathered this image:

So check it out for yourself. Yes, it’s obviously an attack on Israel and its right to exist where it currently does. That makes it anti-Zionist. So what? Millions of us are, including me.

I don’t believe the proposal is rational or practical and, if it involved coercion, I’d be as opposed to it as I am to all other examples of political or social coercion. But there is nothing in it that, as a Jew, I or any other Jew could justify being “offended” by, however much we might disagree with the policy.

But the way in which Fawkes has managed to twist this not just in his own mind, but somehow in the public perceptions of the UK political classes is by emphasising the use of completely appropriate words (in the context of the policy) as though they are deliberately designed to invoke a recommendation to repeat the holocaust. Take a look at the comment beneath the image on his website:

The post argued the “solution” to the Israel-Palestine conflict is to “relocate Israel into the United States”, claiming the “transportation costs” of deporting Israelis would be “less than 3 years of defense spending”. Shah agreed, arguing it would “save them some pocket money“. You don’t have to be a history expert to see how incendiary these comments are…

So, presumably, “solution” can no longer apparently be used as a term in any discussion of the plethora of problems caused by Zionism, in case it implies “final solution”, while  “transportation” can’t be used in case it reminds us of the Cattle trucks.

What a pile of pusillanimous bollocks. Even Fawkes displays the ACTUAL usage within his own argument!

“solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict”

just google that phrase on its own. I just did and got a little under 80,000 results. Are you going after that lot as well Fawkes?

And I guarantee – though I can’t be arsed to prove it – that if you refine that search to add in the names of arbitrary British politicians, you’ll find – at least – dozens. So that phrase is clearly uncontroversial, among grown-ups at least.

What about “the transportation cost will less than 3 years of defence spending”?

It is not completely clear as to which countries defence spending they’re talking about. There are, presumably 3 options, UK, Israel and USA. The smallest of those budgets is Israel’s, with a modest $18.5 billion. 3 years worth of which gives us $54.5 billion. Which works out at a little over $9k per person to get each of the 6 million Jews in Israel over to the USA. So even the budget option certainly ain’t talking about Cattle Trucks! And, of course, if the defence budget in question was the USA’s ($597 billion) then each Israeli could be ferried across in their own private jet. The worst case scenario (which, after my bit of fun, is probably what they really meant) is that they’re referring to 3 years worth of annual US subsidy of Israel which does knock it down to a mere $9 billion, and thus only $1500 each, which, given bulk purchasing power, should at least get ’em all Business class one way tickets…

In any case, are we supposed to imagine for a single microsecond, that words like “solution” and “transportation” are not routinely used in Israel itself? Of course they are.

So how has anyone with an IQ in excess of their shoe size allowed themselves to be bullied into submission by the spurious accusation that this post was somehow anti-semitic? This really is “political correctness gone mad”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Germaine has a bad hair day. But she has a point.

(if that video doesn’t work for you, here is an audio only version.)
Germaine Greer is surprisingly negative about certain transgender personalities. To the point that the twitterati can almost be forgiven for assuming that she is “Transphobic”. For example, she speculates, entirely, I suspect, without credible evidence, that Caitlyn (nee Bruce) Jenner has put hirself through the elaborate and somewhat risky procedures of gender reassignment primarily for the vanity advantages of stealing the limelight from hir other famous Kardashian family members.

That assessment of Jenner’s motives is cynical bordering on bitchy. Germaine must be having a bad hair day. Nevertheless, I think we can show that Germaine has a better case than she has chosen to make in public.

The argument she opposes can be summarised thus: “anyone who decides to have themselves surgically rebuilt as a woman, IS a woman”. The case for that position is that gender doesn’t entirely map to biological sex and is, at least in part, a sociocultural concept. As such gender can be seen as a matter of choice rather than biological determinism.

The main problem with that argument is an unintended consequence. It undermines opposition to the related homophobic argument that homosexuality is also a matter of choice; thus providing succour to the religious and authoritarian bigots who have a visceral opposition to homosexuality.

But I don’t think that is the basis for Greer’s objections. I think her objection is political. What she doesn’t want to see is biological males, restructuring themselves as females and then usurping the roles, recognition and benefits she has been struggling, for decades, to obtain for females. Her description of the rumoured decision by “Glamour” magazine to nominate Jenner as “woman of the year” is that “misogyny played a big part in that”. Frankly that is a bizarre assessment. My own – equally cynical – assessment is that, if that decision holds, it’ll be more driven by marketing analysis (how many more magazines will it sell) than anything else. But it illustrates her concern that reassigned men might be stepping onto the territory of Women.

And that’s not a wholly irrational objection. For example, if we’re setting up a workplace committee to review the problem of sexual harassment , and we want representatives of both men and women, to reflect the experiences of both genders, then it would be reasonable to demand that the representative of the women shared the full experience of women in that context. And unless the trans woman was reassigned before she even began to work for a living, she cannot make that claim. What she may be able to bring to the party, however, is the experience of sexual harassment for transgender individuals, so it might be a good idea to have her on the committee anyway, but not as a representative of her elective gender.

That’s not a black and white example as, over and above any gender considerations are the democratic ones. The people on that committee should, first and foremost, be those whom the rest of the community believe most capable of representing their interests and if the females in the workplace are fully aware of the previous male history of a now elective female but still freely choose her as their representative, their informed democratic consent overrides any other constraint.

But the more general case is that a strong argument can be made for social restitution to repair the damage done by thousands of years of gender based discrimination and oppression. Women could make a strong case for a “class action” against Men. Greer’s fundamental objection would be to any elective woman joining or benefitting from such a class action.

That’s a reasonable political objection and not, as her enemies seem to think, an ethical prejudice.

US Man Raped By Police – Then Billed For It


You know what shocks me more than the “rape” itself? The fact that only 84 people had watched that video before me.

If stuff like that doesn’t go viral, it’s no wonder the Police State of America is becoming normalised. Mind you, that video has an awful lot of competition. Try googling “Police Brutality” youtube and you’ll get around 5 million hits (I just got 4,960,000) so I suppose the discerning observer of the Police State has their work cut out trying to keep up with it all.

Are all those videos about violent American Police? No, only about 90% are exclusively American and I do concede that the results are slanted by the fact that the technology (including access to youtube) is much more likely to be available to the American witnesses and victims than to, say, their Chinese equivalents. But you can also find (a handful of) examples from other “western” nations including the UK, France, Australia and even Sweden, where, of course, the technology is just as prevalent.

That handful of examples from other parts of the “free world” only serves to emphasise just how serious the problem has become in the “Land of The Free”. I’m sure there’s a PhD waiting for the first to make a statistical comparison of the rates of Police Brutality and levels of Incarceration in and around the so-called “democratic” world.

Watching a random sample of the youtube videos is deeply depressing as well as promoting righteous anger (and occasionally incandescent rage), so I don’t recommend it if you have medical or psychological issues. But it is also profoundly educational.

After a while, you begin to recognise patterns. The first to strike me was how many of the state employed thugs have shaven heads and look like regular users of steroids. I’d gamble a moderate sum on the outcome of a random drug test should anyone dare to set one up. If my intuition is right, the steroids might have an important role in the level and prevalence of the aggressive attitudes and physical abuse. Steroids are well-known to promote such attitudes in regular users.

Here’s a couple that illustrate the Steroid look…

first this footage caught on CCTV within what I take to be police premises… (which means they knew they were being filmed but even that didn’t deter them)

jump forward to about 1 min 10 seconds to see the unprovoked attack by the steroidal cop on this teenage girl walking away from an incident in this one:

this one features another steroidal cop punching a mentally handicapped woman on a bus – again despite full awareness that he was being filmed:

Perhaps the least steroidal ones (indicated by retention of hair?) retain some human-like intelligence. This one, for example shows signs of understanding that performing his crime in front of a live camera is sub-optimal, and has even worked out how to switch it off before launching an attack, and then switch it back on! Like this:

it’s good to know, though, that the citizens aren’t as passive as the lack of public outrage implies. Checkout out these citizens’ resistance to the bullies at the illegal immigration checkpoints last year:

But the prize for the cleverest “resistance” (only just short of “These are not the Droids you’re looking for”) is this “threaten em with the bible” tactic:

All the above are excellent examples of why I’ve been banging on about Trusted Surveillance for the best part of a decade. The Police have definitely got the message. Which is why it’s hardly surprising that the Police State Bullies in some of the more primitive States have been doing their best to criminalise videos like the above. For example:

But elsewhere, Police are beginning to get the more positive message – that recording everything (deliberately rather than accidentally) both constrains police brutality and increases citizen compliance. In Rialto California, where they’ve been trying this out for a year or so, complaints have already dropped 88% and the use of Force (by the cops) by 60%. Now that’s a real improvement in Homeland Security…

Heather Brooke’s Successful battle to expose political corruption

I concur…

Heather Brooke’s Homepage

The first major breach in the Police State?

The American Judicial System might be about to demonstrate that it isn’t completely broken. A Federal Judge has just had the balls to speak Truth to Power. A major plank of the USA PATRIOT Act has just been struck down and ruled unconstitutional. Which bit? The totalitarian rule they made to protect themselves from public scrutiny; the bit which gives the FBI and other security related organs of the State, the right to issue “National Security Letters” (NSLs). Yeah, that bit.

(In passing, why did I spot this first on The Register? This is historic news the mainstream media should be bleating from the rooftops. Just did a google for [“national security letters” unconstitutional] and the only “mainstream” entity on the first result page was this Fox News coverage! Who said the Americans don’t do irony?)

You tend to get one or more of these letters if you run any decent sized organisation in the United States. They are unethical, illicit and intrusive demands for information about a citizen; ostensibly on the grounds that there is good reason to believe that the citizen may be pursuing some kind of activity of which We disapprove. Oh, and if you ever get one of these letters, you’re not allowed to tell the “target” citizen, or anyone else, ever.

“We”, they would like us to believe, being “We The People”.

And if the relevant activities being enquired about were exclusively those which aided or abetted military attacks (from any source) on civilians (in any location) there is no doubt that We The People would approve of such well targeted surveillance and would expect to see evidence for this focussed diligence on our behalf in the form of steadily diminishing military attack on civilians. At the risk of stating the bleedin’ obvious, we do not see any such evidence.

What we see are increasingly widespread brutal paranoia among governments. You can create your own league table but China and the USA are both Premier League teams, converging on the same level of pseudo-liberty. We are all gradually being pulled back towards Roman Law.

Wot that?

Roman Law is the historical precedent and basis of so-called “Civil Law” under which it is held that Laws don’t exist unless explicitly created by the Civil Authority. In contrast, UKUSA law is based on the “Common Law” tradition where we make it up as we go along. Neither is perfect, obviously. But the notion that Law doesn’t exist until a properly constituted authority creates it might look eminently sensible. But its real meaning, or at least interpretation by the relevant Civil Authorities, has always been sinisterly nuanced.

Rule One was that, as a citizen, you are obliged to act, at all times, within the law. The absence of a law did not, as you might naively expect, confer liberty. By definition, if you were acting in some way not already described by the law, you could not possibly be acting within it and were, therefore, in breach of Rule One.

This elegant totalitarian concept – that ALL action is forbidden unless I Caesar permit it – is beautifully efficient as a control mechanism. It means you can arrest and prosecute citizens on a whim. Virtually every second of the day you are bound to be doing something I Caesar have not explicitly permitted. For example, I didn’t give you permission to think what you just thought.

Roman Law hasn’t died out. It’s been kind of absorbed and blended with the less authoritarian, but often equally arbitrary, Common Law tradition that we “enjoy” in UKUSA. That’s supposed to mean that unless behaviour is explicitly forbidden by the Civil Authority, then it’s permitted.

Problem with that – if you’re a Civil Authoritarian with Totalitarian tendencies – is that too many damn citizens want to do too many things that I Caesar (elect) disapprove. They want to enjoy themselves, for example, in all sorts of ways that we can’t possibly permit. Buggers want sex all the time. Not to mention Drugs and Rock And Roll. Some of them even want to undermine our right to rule! Which is why we’ve been obliged to create this massive list of prohibited behaviours.

How they get away with it is the interesting bit. Chances are you wouldn’t be reading this if you weren’t already familiar with much of the explanation for that so I’m not going to teach you to suck eggs. But on the off-chance that these thoughts are new to you, you could do worse that starting with the Manufacturing of Consent.
No, I’m afraid it’s not an exciting video, just informative.

We The People will, of course, endorse a certain number of Prohibitions. Who doesn’t agree with the prohibition of Murder? Rape? Violence against the Person? Theft? Fraud? and a few other obviously antisocial activities we all wish to abolish. Deliberate or negligent harm to a third-party, without their informed and freely given consent, is universally recognised as criminal.

All other prohibitions are steps towards Roman Law. The more they can get away with forbidding, the greater their chances of arresting you on a whim. The greater the chance that you will have been doing something explicitly illegal sometime in the immediate past or present.

This will become especially relevant when they start including Thought Crime – which they are increasingly nudging towards both here in the UK and, of course, over there in the USA. It is, of course, long-established tradition in China and a few other places.

After all, what human has never contemplated an illegal act? Most admit to having at least wanted to murder at least one other person at least once in their lives. Reckon I’m up to a couple of hundred myself. Including a large number of senior American and one or two senior British Politicians.

I guarantee there are people employed to look out for sentences like the two previous; and to make some kind of judgement as to whether such sentiments constitute a “Terrorist Threat”. And I guarantee some of them will conclude that it does. They’re the sort of people who send out NSL letters. (or spend four weeks looking for the author of a Facebook quip about wanting to “Egg Cameron” [added 25/3/2013])

They, at least, will see this legal judgement as marking a very sad day for their cause.

For the rest of us, it’s high fives all round…

Israel Lobbyist in US: We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran (youtube)

.

We’ve seen extraditions to the US for less than this. So how is this legal? Thanks to ScrabbleEddie for sending me to this blogger who provides a bit of background…