Friday, May 22, 2009
What do MP's and Ian Huntley have in common?
They have all confessed and they have all been under suicide watch.
The trouble with firing the present MP's is that the new ones will think that the money is not right.
How did Tony Blair end up a millionaire ? He was true to his nature.
Why did the duck cross the road ? To get to the floating house.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Cargo cult is a curious thing, it takes root in primitive civilizations as a fundamental logical misunderstanding of causation. Richard Feynman, the Physics nobel prize winner made an influential speech about the subject that is a classic for any natural scientist. Like primitives invented the wheel, Archimedes the buoyancy principle, Einstein the theory of relativity and Darwin the evolution of species, so has Feynman discovered the fundamental trappings of modern policy making: Cargo cult.
Let us analyze the premises that any politician fulfills in their path to glory.
First, let us define politics:
Politics is popular action through representatives.
Necessary conditions for a politician:
1) Must be representative of an opinion that is general enough and accurate enough to warrant a sufficient number of supporters.
2) Must find a way to transmit and produce his views to the masses.
3) Must get elected for office.
When adequatelly implemented this results in a vehicle for popular action.
How can these conditions be changed to allow perversion, or if you prefer, subversion of the electoral process ? Simple !
1) Must get elected for office.
Therefore - spin - :
2) Must find a way to transmit and produce his views to the masses.
Therfore - spin - :
3) Must be representative of an opinion that is general enough and accurate enough to warrant a sufficient number of supporters.
The causation between the first set of necessary conditions and the second is not the same and they are, in fact, in direct opposition to one another. The second set is cargo cult and is anti-democratic.
The reader will tend to say that he already knew the theorem. Like the Pythagoras theorem, it is the one that everyone understands but during the GCSE's fails to apply. To the practitioners of politics it is also a deliberate fallacy.
“That this House deplores the arrest and detention of Senator Stuart Syvret by the Jersey Police Force for alleged infractions of data protection laws; notes that the Senator was in receipt of information disclosed in the public interest, with which he is attempting to hold the Jersey government to account for a variety of profoundly serious child protection and clinical governance failures; condemns the manner of the Senator's arrest and the subsequent searching of his home by the police without a search warrant; further condemns the fact that substantial quantities of his constituents' private data were taken and copied by the Jersey police; considers this an intimidatory and anti-democratic action which the Senator is virtually powerless to challenge given the politicisation of the Jersey judiciary and the propensity of the Jersey legislature to oppress minority members; and calls on the Secretary of State for Justice to fulfil his duties by exercising his constitutional powers to intervene and ensure good governance and the proper administration of justice in Jersey through requiring a separation of powers and the imposition of effective checks and balances in order that survivors of child abuse, and other victims of malfeasance gain the proper protection of justice; and considers that through such actions the UK will return to compliance with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, obligations which are breached by tolerating the situation in Jersey.”
John Hemming & Austin Mitchell
Monday, May 18, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The "top" cop they sent in wants a quiet, well paid, retirement and knows how to be praised by the establishment.
See the blog about the latest on the cover up.
The Jersey affair, with the collusion of the UK governance, does constitute a grave violation of civil rights in the island and elsewhere. The right to individual freedom, the right to investigation, fair trial, etc, etc, etc.
I find it difficult to believe that the BBC is a problem in Jersey without being an issue in the UK. The collusions of the BBC with the establishment are ill explained. There has to be a good reason why the BBC never denounced the abuse during 30 years of prior knowledge. The inconvenience of the news possibly stems from infiltrated abusers, or otherwise plain irresponsibility.
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.
The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.", Inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture
You really need to consider that when the UK authorities allow the use of gangs to intimidate dissenters the situation is a bit complicated in legal terms. The UK government, for the sake of the protection of its own insuficiencies and disonesties was complicit with the use of coercive methods to obtain trade secrets, scientific information, and to subdue dissent. Now you will think that I am about to go into the rendition flights or guantanamo, but I actually intend to talk about Cambridge and the treatment I had at the hands of the Chancellors. The aspiring crypto-plutocrats. The masonic leaders felt that there were reasons to worry about the shift of power that the internet can bring, in addition to the Jersey debacle where the Royals were well informed about the situation for many years but were unwilling to stop the abuse. This in the legal term is defined as:
"The following shall be held guilty of the crime of torture:
a. A public servant or employee who acting in that capacity orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, or who directly commits it or who, being able to prevent it, fails to do so.
b. A person who at the instigation of a public servant or employee mentioned in subparagraph (a) orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it or is an accomplice thereto. "
Now, did the British authorities have knowledge of the persecutions that I had been subjected to by the Jersey oligarchy and the criminal gangs ?
I informed the authorities many times - the Royals and, in particular, the Duke of Kent and Edinburgh - of the the intimidatory, illegal actions that were taking place. According to the definition of article 3 they are guilty of torture.
That the UK colludes with torture of terrorist suspects is no novelty. That the UK and its princes have carried out torture for financial and ideological advantage, concealment of crimes against children and convenience with respect to the Jersey oligarchy is now disclosed.
If the reader is somehow surprised that this did take place sometime ago, please consider the malfeasance of the Jersey oligarchy and that of Jack "refurbishments" Straw in relation to the plight of Senator Stuart Syvret, his harrassment and his arrest.
The UK, its establishment, its princes, its prime minister and its police, have for the best part of 30 years allowed people to be tortured for the sake of concealing the abuse of children by the elites. The masonic involvement in the torture is even more ironic, as masonry is supposed to be philantropic.
The use of such coercive methods is typical of the crypto-plutocracy. Yes, as you might have guessed the situation that Stuart Syvret and I describe is a situation of terrorism with torture. It is just not directed, indiscriminately, at the population, but it is what it is.
The Government has the obligation to intervene in the safeguard of human rights. The fact that it did not, means that the obligations to the people and the international comunity were not met. Behind this course of action are the interests of a plutocracy. A class of wealthy self-interested individuals who obstructed the course of justice and have, de facto, tortured people. In Jersey the media demonstrates an obvious bias or if you prefer a publication policy of concealment. The UK, as Eileen Fairweather has shown, also had a publication policy with respect to Haut de La Garenne, or if you prefer, editorial controls.
This picture of things is starting to look frighteningly like some conspiracy theories I have heard of. The congruence of interests leads to controls over the press (BBC included), police, academia, government, etc. There are power networks involved (Masonry) and there are crypto-rulers. In this case the Dukes and the connections to the interests of Jersey island. With respect to the world crisis at the moment, the energy interests and the banking drive to make money and lobby the governments against further regulations.
There is something very wrong when the interests of the crypto-plutocracy manage to suppress the truth for so long.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The educational institutions were aware, the police, the Dukes (Chancellors of Cambridge and Surrey), Whitehall, etc. The reason behind the belated response had to do with the fact that the abuses were being carried out by elites.
The controls over institutions were, and still are, top down. With some spivs inside functioning as informants and enforcers of discipline.
There have been, recently, further indications that the UK politicians were either nonfeasant or malfeasant. The recent scandals reveal that British politics is in bad shape. The trust in politicians is at an all time low, for good reasons.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Politicians need money. Banks had money. Politicians got money from banks and kept their mouths shut with respect to the dangers of synthetic products. The banks busted, the politicians blamed the banks and hid the fact they were being lobbyed by them . Who is to blame ? The banks - at least according to the politicians. The politicians - at least according to the banks. The public - at least according to both.
The credit crunch debacle was extremely revealing when it comes to understanding the mechanisms underlying the formation of the tidal wave of debt. Both politicians and banks colluded to advance a state of things that the tax payer would have to bankroll. The immediate convenience of it all was obvious and the tendency toward short term gratification, a well known psychological phenomenon. Given the simple explanation for it all, where then dissenters really silenced ?
Naturally, the news were meant to entertain, the prestige Madoffs hailed as wizards, the bankers idolized as value added, the politicians advertised growth, the public bought houses and the world was a happy place. Those who tried to detract the madness were ignored and the advantages of the get rich quick system highlighted as a virtuous circle. The world needed large global banks. The finance sector can be the value added of the feeble minded.
So what now ?
The banks are on an artificial lung with borrowed state money. There has been no change in the people who generated the banking crisis in the banks, apart from the CEO's who did not trade by themselves in the first place. The regulation has not changed that much and still yields potential for more trouble. The public pays all. After paying for the banking bonuses.
The rise of the Soviets
“In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy.”, Fran Lebowitz
In conclusion, the banks are now in the hands of the politicians. More DNA databases, more CCTV, more Lords and more controls over the internet, more moral hazard with respect to the idiosyncrasies of finance. And most importantly finance is now, increasingly, a matter for the government. There is a good side to all this; more jobs for the boys. Tony Blair no longer has to bend to Morgan Chase to finance a mortgage and can soon ask the Soviets for a place to crash.
China has picked up the debt and can boast ownership of part of the British motoring industry as well. Soon they could be bankrolling top gear and ordering Clarkson to buy a minimum amount of chinese ciggies.
Two Dukes, reason and equity
Have you ever wondered why so many American presidents have been masons ?
It is because they have a better chance.
The mission statement of self-improvement in the masonry leads to networking and the formation of internal fraternities that facilitate career advancement. In politics, that is essential to build a support power network that then functions as a stepping stone to the aspirational politician.
The fact that the brethren uses a front mission statement of brotherly love and moral advancement is also useful.
“Freemasonry is an institution essentially philanthropic and progressive, which has for its basis the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. It has for its object the exercise of benevolence, the study of universal morality, and the practice of all the virtues.” , Constitution Grand Orient of France
But let us look at some of the people we know:
In Jersey island morality has been work in progress at best; Bill Clinton, a mason, had the morals of a teenager even as a President and George Bush, also a mason, was what everyone knows. The "practice of all virtues" is certainly remote to most brethren I know.
And the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of Kent. The two Dukes of higher education, fomenting universal morality at Cambridge and Surrey. The independent thinker or a detractor of paedophilia will have to consider moving to other Universities, or abroad, if he does not wish to become persona non grata in the process of honest inquiry.
While I was at Cambridge I tried to inquire the reason why the University and its department of criminology had not investigated the allegations of abuse at Jersey. Only to find a wall of silence on the part of the local criminologists. I have always considered that to be the influence of the fact that the Duke of Edinburgh is the Chancellor of the University and therefore the uncovering of brethren is not a priority for research. The above mentioned law of equity for masons. Meant, in this case, that the educational institutions in Britain were well aware of the abuse, but even so failed to make it public due to internal convenience and management of interests. The Dukes were the currency of influence and the peddlers of intimidation, lending a barrier of "social superiority" and "natural" aristocracy to a deliberate dogma: To ignore the abuse, its consequences, its victims, its perpetrators and its accomplices.
Anyone, who like me, preferred to see the issue fully exposed was then "invited" to leave. That is to say would be targeted with undercurrents, abuses, threats and violence enough to consider giving up or be seriously wounded. Something similar to what has been happening to Senator Stuart Syvret.
The Dukes could have exposed the abuse, the BBC or other news agencies would have listened. They did know. So what is the reason for the inequities of the Dukes ?
I firmly believe that there are serious deficiencies and threats to freedoms in the UK and that the mentality of "natural" aristocrats is not helpful. Either Royals, prestige politicians or masons, there always seems to exist some caste of natural superiority. This is what sets Britain back by a few decades when it comes to embracing freedoms in a truly modern mindset.
Whenever there is whistle blowing, there are barriers being raised. Let me tell you a couple of stories that happened to me:
1) Outlaws MC - the Warwickshire chapter
2) The Portuguese Mob
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Net neutrality vs The Baron: Control in the information age
"The Government have insisted in evidence to this inquiry that the responsibility for personal Internet security ultimately rests with the individual. This is no longer realistic, and compounds the perception that the Internet is a lawless ‘wild west’”, the British government.
"You can't just rely on individuals to take responsibility for their own security. They will always be out-foxed by the bad guys.", Lord Alec Broers the former vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, a friend of Jersey and submissive to the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Edinburgh.
"The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation."
Vinton Cerf, the architect.
"The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services."
Vinton Cerf, the architect.
There is great care to be taken in not being "out-foxed" by Broers as well. The Internet (broadband) is, in the words of the Portuguese prime minister - a civil engineer - , "the electricity of the 21st century". It is only natural that people will try to control the power supply. How can they do this when it is meant to be out of their control ? Introduce apparently innocuous or even benign regulatory innovation that can be easily subverted to control the use of the Internet, and in particular to restrict the Internet companies. How ? On one hand you have a sheriff who decides what is going to be addressed and what is not. On the other you make the companies accountable for any problems. End result: you own the companies chances and options through the "Sheriff". Did Broers propose a name for the Bailiff yet ?
It all looks very reasonable indeed. Legislation for accountability of software companies with respect to hacking. Accountability for banks with respect to losses; ISP's; retailers; etc. So why is it that other countries did not think of this one yet ? Because the legislation can be an unbearable burden on very many of the internet companies, transferring the power of deciding on who can operate or not to the "Sheriff". It is not that there is moral hazard on the part of the internet companies in what regards security and, therefore, that should not warrant restrictions on internet neutrality. The problems are a natural and inexorable consequence of the complexity of computer systems and cannot be eliminated with legislation. What this does, in this case, is to overburden very many companies and place their operational latitude in the hands of the policing body. i.e. control over net neutrality.
Let me run this by you again:
The British government is pretending to misunderstand computer security. It is not that companies do not improve it because they don't want to, it is because they are unnable to. The policing body wants to have controls over the majority of enterprises by reclaiming the capacity to arbiter on who is safe enough to operate and who is not, where most can be considered unsafe. The control that the government proposes is arbitrary and in the hands of the "Jersey Bailiff" it means that the burocrats call who stays in business according to arbitrary standards.
I think that Britain is having some trouble coping with the fact that there are things in life that you can not and should not control. I have been reading in awe the news in the UK press about the social web phenomena:
Facebook is turning us all into introverts.
Facebook is bad for the brain.
Facebook is a platform for cyberbulying.
And something on Bebo, but not much about MySpace. What is the difference ?
The difference is that MySpace is owned by NewsCorp and Facebook is indy. The press manifests preference for an initiative that is, in essence, the same thing in a different flavor, with comparable audiences (despite what people say), with comparable levels of popularity, but a double standard with respect to attacks. Does this tell the reader something about the nature of things ? Well, maybe its just me !
The need for greater security leading to increased centralized controls. The new expression of the same old menace.
And now, there are those who wish to keep information on phone calls and emails for the sake of security and confidence ????
People have enough confidence in the Internet to use it without dramatic losses. What they don't trust is the British government.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Given the nature of the problems at Jersey, the collusions and the involvement of the establishment, both in the island and outside, is it not clear that the masonic lodge is corrupt ? Why is it still open ? Why has the Duke of Kent not closed the lodge in Jersey ? Well, officially there is no evidence of a cover up. However, masonry has known of these allegations for many years and the Duke of Kent, as the grand master, should have taken action to ensure that the brethren does not become a threat inside and outside of Jersey. The Duke, who was for a number of years the Chancellor of the University of Surrey, made certain that the University environment remained either hostile or inhibited, subdued or intimidated, avoidant or otherwise unwilling to recognize abuse. The need for academics to remain in line with official policy was suggested by alluding to the involvement of the powerful. The Duke of Kent and Lord Alec Broers defined the academic dogma that would underpin the academic pact of denial and collusion. A large majority of the academics in Britain do not have a permanent position, something that places British academia at the mercy of impositions from above, and in particular of chancellors favorable to the cover up, dogmas, ideological restrictions, etc. The establishment, whenever it controls the educational institutions and exacts upon them, is paying a criminal disservice to society. The subversion, in this case, of the fundamental principles of an independent and critical thinking education, does bring attention to the words of JFK about secret societies ( Speech ), and is a fundamental offense to freedom and free choice.
Lord Alec Broers has been, for the large part of this process, an established figure who needed to gain the approval of the political masters. Compliance, fidelity and malleability to suggestions from the government and the crown are the lifeblood of promotions in the civil service. He is now a life peer, partly as a reward for allowing strings of control and an unwritten gagging order over the University of Cambridge.
The Duke of Kent has known of the allegations of child abuse since times immemorial. The fact that he is the leader of the masons implies that he should have done enough to ensure that this type of abuse was not carried out by members of the masonry. Instead, he tacitly colluded with the Jersey lodge for years and still flaunted the shamelessness of trying to clinch to the computer pioneers and to hamper high level scientific development.
The Crown, that does not intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the dependency, has the resources to investigate and denounce, the power to influence and expose. With respect to this affair it did not. Why ? First, there are the masonic links. The protective wall of secrets and the link to the master mason, the Duke of Kent. The alleged involvement of one aristocrat and finally the inconvenience of it all in the face of the rest of an establishment that did nothing to bring this issue into the light.
And now, we have the Duchess of York exposing bad child care conditions in Turkey ( ABC news). That it is commendable that people have the best interests of children in care in mind is obvious, but I cant help but to be disappointed at the fact that Ferguson did not expose the Jersey oligarchy when I am certain that everyone in the family knew of the facts well before they came to public light.
The lodge will now try to find evasion from the debacle, by inventing innocent explanations for most things and most importantly by claiming that they had no knowledge of the abuse. In fact, I was personally persecuted by the Jersey oligarchy that went to extreme lengths to convince people that there was no wrong doing, but most importantly to leave people feeling threatened. They went after me to the University of Coimbra, Cambridge, several scientific conferences and workshops, scientific institutes and places of employment. All in the line of intimidation, lies, innuendo and subversion of the law. There was, for certain, obstruction to the course of justice and a very large number of people outside Jersey have witnessed, in first hand, their pressures and their lies.