Sunday, 27 October 2013

Anonymous Global Communication 1

Monday, 14 October 2013

Is the UK government committing genocide?

I watched the video below and my eyes nearly popped out of my head.  NxtGenUK has a giant talent for poetry and facts as well as an astute political awareness.  This is very important.

So I was impressed - and it got me to thinking how I consider these policies of the UK government to be close to genocide, so I looked up 'genocides in history' on Wikipedia.  It sent shivers down my spine.  Clearly I have to do some more research but for now this is part of the opening paragraph on Wikipedia:

It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) of 1948 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the groups conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

UK Children Services confiscated over 10,000 children in 2010 from their parents (and it seems the number per annum is increasing).  More than 10,600 people died within six weeks of being found 'fit for work' in the first 11 months of the Atos test introduced by the DWP (that is about 12,000 per annum and probably rising). We know people are committing suicide because of the insane and ruthless welfare cuts.  Legal aid has been slashed.  People are forced to work for their benefits putting other people out of work and on benefits.  It is expected that the deaths due to fuel poverty will rise yet again this year.  Approaching half a million people use foodbanks and the Red Cross has launched an emergency food parcel program for the UK.

It is clear that significant aspects of genocide are occurring.  There is no doubt that a 'national' group, the poor, is being targeted (the poor include disabled, sick, elderly, and unemployed).  It is clear that they are being destroyed in part.  It is clear the welfare reforms are causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group.  It is clear that the policies are inflicting conditions of life which are bringing about physical destruction in part.  And there is frightening evidence of forcibly transferring children to another group.

Discussions about charging IDS and other members of this government with genocide have stalled on a number of accounts including 'intent'.  A valid question would be: if it is not 'intentional' is there some serious suggestion that it is 'accidental'?  IDS has lied about the death toll figures.  Those figures were mysteriously removed from the government web site but reappeared when a storm blew up.  His department has repeatedly, and illegally, refused to respond to FOI requests about the death toll.  The DWP have stated that they are no longer counting the death toll after Atos examinations.  Possibly a majority of the UK population 'know' this is an assault on the poor.  I say that because there are those who clearly see it that way and then there is the 'negative' press 'justifying' austerity by denigrating the target (the poor, the sick, the mentally ill, the elderly, the disabled etc).  By denigrating the target it is an implicit acknowledgement of the assault because the suggestion is 'they deserve it'.  There is quite a large consensus that what is happening is a crime;  The problem is prosecuting the government.

Is this UK government indulging in the international crime of genocide?

There are attempts to deal with the genocidal aspects of 'austerity' as discussed on Vox Political: Greek case for austerity “genocide” creates hope in UK.

Please give me any leads you can and I will attempt to investigate further.

Saturday, 12 October 2013

Why is all this irrational junk accepted?

This is just a meander.  Why?  Because there are too many issues taking up my time which are important but there is no time to do them justice.  But then this seems to be how it is meant to work.  And the associated image has no relevance to the text except that politicians are wallies.

I was listening to the radio this morning and although I usually like to check my references, get my facts right and generally make sure the writing is correct and that the references are supplied and can be validated I am not going to do this on this occasion because the message is more important than the medium.  The medium, in this case, being the examples which illustrate the point.  The point being that utter bullshit is being swallowed whole by the British public on a daily basis.

So I am listening to the radio hoping to get back to sleep.  It is the Money Program, or something similar, and the gentleman presenting the program has a droning sort of voice ideal for somnambulising me.  But he is talking about John Lewis and some situation where they have been underpaying their workers.  Oh the details!  The wonderful details.  The long and the short of the story is that JL have 'discovered' that they have been underpaying workers due to complex European regulations relating to holiday pay and how it is worked out.  Having acknowledged that they have been underpaying folk they have agreed to put the situation right and to back pay all the underpayments.

But there is a catch!  They are only going to do that for the people who could cause them a problem if they don't.  People who have left the company and are rightly owed some money WILL NOT get what they contractually deserve.  It is a contract and it is legal.  John Lewis OWE them the money.  But, and this is the bit that causes the problem for me - NOTE - I didn't say it WAS the problem for me and there is a reason for this;  It is the issue that causes the problem. 'It', the 'bit' or the 'issue' is that due to recent changes in the law it will no longer be economically viable for people to make a claim against John Lewis.  The law has recently changed such that if you want to claim justice, if you want a tribunal to ascertain if, or that, JL owe you the money you have to pay a non refundable £400 for the privilege.  Of course you will need a lawyer, or a degree in law (costing thousands of pounds borrowed from ... from who exactly?  Currently it is the government that 'lends' money for education but that is just step-politics until you get either used to it or dependent at which point they will 'privatise' the loan system with the banal suggestion that it is to make it more competitive and ultimately cheaper to the customer.  But there is no competition when the government are 'providing' loans at no profit to 'the government' because 'the government' is the system by which we 'govern' 'us'.  Those jerks in suits acting like spoilt toffs are the people representing us in the 'house of discussion' - You know The House of Parliament.  There is no 'government' which is them and not us.  They cannot take money from us because they are us.  They can't make a profit from us.  If they could they would no longer be representing us.  But all that is too much for the ignorant population to understand so they carry on with their irrational junk justifications for whatever it is they want to do next to get their rocks off at our expense.)

This is how it turns into a rant.  Getting back to the point: The politicians have used the mask of austerity to claim that legal aid is a drain on the hard working people of this country.  (Note the divisive and prejudicial verbiage "hard working".)  But what they have really done is only made 'expensive', or large sums, affordable for justice.  To people with money this seems to appear to be like it not being worth stopping your Lamborghini in the street to get out and bend over to pick up a 20p piece.  I think all of us could understand the rational of that.  But what the politicians seem to deliberately ignore and the ignorant public don't notice is that very few people have Lamborghinis .  It is true that it is not worth stopping your Lamborghini for 20p.  It probably costs that in petrol just to stop and start the car.  But for poor people who only have a pound, when they drop 20p they have to stop and pick it up.  After all it is 20% of what they have.  20% of the Lamborghini alone (not counting the mansion you have to have first and the garage with electric doors and the insurance and the unearned income) would be £40,000.  Why do the poor people who are so dumb as to fall for the fake sycophantic bullshit ... I can't put it into a simple sentence.

I am going to get legitimately offensive here.  The FUCKING STUPID MORONS who are working seem to willingly swallow the spunk produced by their abusers because ... because ... because WHY?  Because they are being favoured by the abusers because they comply with the abuse.  They don't want to be the 'poor' people being killed off.  This is profound cultural Stockholm Syndrome.  They shave their heads, call themselves skinheads or BNP or EDL or UKIP and ponce around arrogantly as if they are 'hard working' people denigrating the poor and licking up to (literally in many cases) the bullies.  It is simply not reasonable to withdraw legal aid for 'small' cases'  If large corporations are derelict in their responsibilities and a poor person wants justice they simply MUST be held responsible.  If one supposes that there would be so many illegitimate small claims that the poor lucrative business would go bankrupt defending itself against these claims than one is not living in the real world.  But there's the rub - they are not living in the REAL world.  Interestingly they are living in the PARANOID world.  They don't think they are because they project that attribute onto people they are abusing and they believe that the people beneath them would steal form them given half the chance.  They believe that the people they are 'holding down' would abuse them.  Why would a person who had been brought up in a secure and supportive family situation where they could assume they were valuable and loved act in such a prejudicial and frightened way?  It is simple - they have been abused as children.  Research can, and does, illustrate this no end of times.  There are acres of literature about this.  But it doesn't need the research, it only requires rational logical thought about the evidence in front of you.  But people are frightened out of doing that at school.  I guess it does get complicated to explain it.  John Lennon is a good starting point.  Check out his life story - his life of abuse and how it turned him into an abuser.  Check out how he could see something was wrong and paid attention to it.  Instead of being abusive he tried to figure out how and why.  Then go check out Arthur Janov, the Californian psychotherapist, counsellor bloke who is famous for the misnamed "Primal Scream Therapy" of the 1960s and read his books like "Prisoners of Pain" and "The biology of Love".  The research has been done.  This is not just a fancy idea.  But I guess to many it is like trying to explain Einstein's theory of General Relativity and trying to explain spacetime.  You don't even have to understand it to believe that GPS wouldn't work without the understanding.  You can ascertain that yourself and the people who do know do know.  So why are we so vulnerable to this abusive culture that the general population continue to support the abusers for fear of something worse.  The only 'worse' threat is coming from them.

So back to the Money Program:  Why do people let the fact that people who are no longer employed by John Lewis cannot get justice simply slip by?  In my opinion the whole bloody country should stop until John Lewis pays them.  John Lewis - well the executives enacting this crime - should be jailed if they don't sort it out within 24 hours.  Then, of course, the politicians who allowed the reduction in legal aid should have all their assets confiscated and lose their jobs since they cannot be trusted.  Then the people who instigated the injustice, the illegitimate legislation, should simply have everything confiscated and be thrown into jail.  They will be given the option of a fair trial if they can 'earn' (by being 'hard working' folk) the lawyers' fees and the judges' fees and the rental costs of the court houses from within their prison cells.  What?  That is impossible and so not fair - GOSH!  Pardon me for not noticing!

And there were numerous other things I wanted to mention but that will just have to wait.

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

7 million Sun readers are full of shit

I am no journalist.  There are many reasons for this but the one I am referring to (or to be correct 'the one to which I am referring') is that I can't be bothered to do the research.  It's not because I am lazy but rather that the I have researched a number of subjects and it has turned out to be a rather pointless exercise.  Specifically I am talking about researching a subject to refute a banal or erroneous claim by someone else.  The temptation is to explain what is wrong but the point turns out to be that they knew they were wrong and don't give a shit.  So why did I ever work at proving it?

The Sun has printed a headline "1,200 killed by mental patients" and the subtext "Shock 10-year toll exposes care crisis"  It will create a great scandal.  People will, quite reasonably, get very angry and upset by this headline.  I am fully aware of the social implications of this kind of banal, cruel, scare-mongering, divisive sensationalism.  It is disgusting and it is dangerous.  It is harmful to a lot of innocent people.  It is pandering to the ignorant and to the politically right wing.  It is intellectually pathetic.

Incidentally my headline "7 million Sun readers are full of shit" is more correct than the Sun's scandalous headline because it is not even dependent upon collected figures or spurious definitions.  It is also slightly less misleading.  The fact remains that every Sun reader is full of shit because we all are.

But I thought about this and currently, according to the World Health Organisation, we have something more than 20% of our population with mental health problems.  If it is known you have a mental health problem then presumably you can be described as a 'mental health patient'.  That means that approximately 12,000,000 (12 million if you are a Sun reader because they don't do lots of zeros) people are mental patients.  Given that in 2011/2012 there were 640 murders in the UK, that equates to a rough average of 6,400 in ten years.  Take the 1,200 mental patient murders off that and it leaves 5,200 murders by normal people (Do you get jokes?).  So if 80% of the population killed approximately 80% of the murder victims I am left wondering what the intention of the headline could possibly be except to denigrate mental health patients.

BUT... whilst thinking about this I was moved to compare Ian Duncan Smith's death toll with this almost meaningless claim by the Sun.  The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), headed up by the now infamous criminal IDS, has figures indicating that, in the first 11 months of the new welfare reform tests, more than 10,600 people died within six weeks of being declared 'fit for work' by their henchmen at Atos.  Some people regard this as murder.  I do too.  In fact I regard it as genocide but that's another story.  Taking the view that the inhumane oppressive policies enacted by the DWP are causing these deaths (which is not unreasonable but I am not going to spend three weeks doing the research, collecting the figures and proving this point - which is why I am not a journalist) this amounts to approximately 120,000 killed over a 10 year period.  So although these figures are not included in the one to one murder statistics they amount to 100 times more killing than the Sun wishes to claim is caused by mental patients.

Does this suggest that Iain Duncan Smith is 100 times more mentally ill than the average mental patient in the UK?

Saturday, 5 October 2013

Atos Nazis "Work the sick to death."

"Atos Nazis are working the sick to death" says the world’s longest surviving kidney dialysis patients.  What he actually said was "I’d liken this to what the Nazis did, working the disabled and the sick until they dropped dead and were no longer a burden."

Paul Mickleburgh is 53 years old and has been on dialysis since he was 19.  He managed to work for about 15 years as a technician in spite of having four kidney transplants.  He has survived 14 heart attacks and he is destined to stay on dialysis because his body is unlikely to survive another attempt at a transplant.

There is a full article on the Daily Record entitled "Fury as Tory welfare police order kidney dialysis patient Paul Mickleburgh back to work".

David Cameron said, at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester this week, "I want to thank the most determined champion for social justice this party has ever had:  Iain Duncan Smith.  Iain understands that this isn't about fixing systems, it's about saving lives."

First of all this country has a long standing and respected tradition of good education and a good medical profession.  Highly paid doctors are legally obliged to correctly assess patients ability to work.  They are the experts.  So they say someone is not fit to work and this Tory government pays a foreign conglomerate Information Technology company called Atos (with a registered trading name Atos Healthcare) to employ unskilled people to tick boxes with targets to deem a certain proportion of sick people 'fit for work'.  Excuse me Mr Cameron why waste all that money on the doctors?  They could be usefully employed clearing up litter - after all it is a health issue.

There seems to be this wilful denial of any problem by making nice sounding statements about good intentions.  Even if their intentions were good (which they are patently not) then looking at the facts would soon disabuse them of their delusion.  Some people interpret this behaviour as deliberately malicious and evil.  I think it is a bit more Freudian than that.  I believe these people have been seriously abused in their childhoods.  They have been brought up by dysfunctional toxic parents who have not only abused their children at home but in many cases have sent them to abusive institutions like Eton.  By the time these little souls leave the education system they are perfectly sausage shaped (like Jimmy Savile's cigars) and they prance around like upper class twits reminiscent of Lord Percy Percy or Prince George (The Prince Regent) from Blackadder.  They clearly possess the same level of intellectual ability - NONE.

But the devastating thing about abuse is it perverts perception.  Although I wouldn't credit any of these power seeking individuals in the Tory Party with seriously humanitarian or even slightly benign motives they probably think of themselves as good.  Not necessarily very good but good.  This seems to be the most sinister aspect of all.  If they see themselves as good, how could they ever comprehend the severity of the crimes they are committing?  Freud realised that people do believe their own interpretation of the world and that to understand behaviour that appears contradictory or perverse one has to 'believe' the patient.  It is not a question of taking on their projected beliefs but it is necessary to believe that they are accurately describing the world they inhabit.  Of course it is far more complex because people deceive too, but they deceive for a reason and that has to be understood.

One particular trait I see very often is that these abusers make statements which have double meanings.  I don't credit them with the wit to be doing this consciously - when they do it consciously it is pathetically transparent - but their subconscious is trying to represent reality behind the perversion of the abused consciousness.  So statements like Cameron's above contain a truth but perhaps not the one you would be expecting a rational sentient being to make.  So to a relatively human person it is galling but to another victim of abuse it can sound like the benign statement it is masquerading as.

What Cameron was quite really saying was that IDS is championing 'social justice' (meaning being strong enough to meting out 'justice' [a perverted interpretation of justice as punishment - because that's what they experienced as children] to the lazy wasters that are the sick and the poor).  He then goes on to blatantly tell the truth "this isn't about fixing systems" (the stark meaning of that is frightening) and goes on to say "it's about saving lives".  Of course his brain is referring to his own life and those of the people like him whilst his conscious mind is allowed to maintain the delusion that they care about anybody else.  Idiots like Tories will all clap and think he is wanting to save people's lives in spite of the fact that their emotional condition is hating the poor.  It is allowing them to massage their egos.  It especially allows IDS to believe God loves him because he 'cares' about people in spite of the fact that he doesn't.

If this is all sounding a little complex, contradictory, and bizarre then I would suggest it is a good description of what is going on.

I profoundly hate these hypocritical, sanctimonious, self satisfied do-gooders who interfere with other people's lives in the pretence of caring but the evidence is clear that it is they who benefit at other people's expense.  Jesus rather despised these people too and it is ironic that they can even pervert that.  But be assured Mr Duncan Smith (self proclaimed Roman Catholic), if there were a God you would be up shit creek you piece of sugar coated faecal matter.  You are, tragically, simply a dead man walking or more poetically a twitching cadaver.

I ask myself "Why can't my blog posts be impartial and objective?" and the answer comes back "But they are!"

Tuesday, 1 October 2013

Censorship is philosophically wrong!

Censorship is immoral.  Censorship is wrong.  Censorship is an evil.

Of course there are some cases where certain information is usefully hidden from some particular audience for some particular purpose.  But philosophically censorship is wrong.

Most people who support (as opposed to promote) censorship are thinking of cases such as protecting young innocents from obscene pornographic material.  That cannot really be described as censorship.  It is quite reasonable to protect people you care about from damaging circumstances including the shocking and potentially harmful effects of certain visual or literary material.  There are perfectly serviceable solutions to this problem.  There are legal frameworks that make rape, underage sex or child abuse illegal.  It follows that if someone puts images of acts of paedophilia on the internet it is already illegal and the powers that be are well within their rights to prevent this happening.  But this is enacting the law - not censorship.  The law can deal with preventing illegal material being promulgated.

For entities like schools, parents or clubs who want, for whatever reason, to limit access to material they are perfectly at liberty to select the material they wish to make available to their charges or members.  There is even money to be made selling various filters and there are plenty of those already available.

It is not censorship for a school to not purchase obscene pornography for its library.  The nine o'clock watershed is not fairly described as 'censorship'.  There is plenty of scope for selecting what is appropriate in any particular circumstance.

People who promote censorship are trying to control what other people think.  There are two issues of importance here.  One is that nature is as it is and humanity will evolve the way it evolves.  Reality is what it is and truth is the awareness of reality.  Censorship is an attempt by one individual or group to falsely represent reality to another individual or group.  This is clearly contradictory to reality.  The other issue is that of freedom.  If we support the autonomous freedom of individuals then censorship is contradictory to that belief.

Censorship is generally used as a tool of control by an authority over a subjugated population.  Censorship is a generalised term to allow arbitrary control of information.  To enact laws of censorship is to give impunity to a controlling influence to enact its power over others.

If certain things are deemed by the collective group to be unacceptable then they can be described and made specifically illegal by mutual consent.  But censorship is an umbrella term which hands unlimited control to the ruling authority.  This is entirely against freedom and is immoral and ultimately evil.  It may be that reality is painful but 'protecting' people from the pain of reality has never worked in the long run.  All it achieves is to make some people more comfortable in the short term at the expense of other people in the long term.

Here are some petitions that need signing:
UK Prime Minister David Cameron: Stop the unnecessary censorship of "esoteric" websites and web forums!

Stop The Censorship of 'Esoteric' Websites and Alternative Spirituality

UK HM Government e-petition (must be UK citizen to sign)
Do Not Force ISP Filtering of Pornography and Other Content

60,000 Invisible to the Media

On Saturday 28 September 2013 there was a gathering outside the Houses of Parliament.  It was, in fact, a ceremony of remembrance led by the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral.  It was organised by 10,000 Cuts & Counting ( #10Kcuts ).  It was a profoundly important event and it happened in Parliament Square in the centre of London.  BUT...  if you watch the BBC news, listen to the BBC radio or read any of the main stream UK press you wouldn't know it had happened.  The country was not supposed to know!  How could this event go unreported?  It was a remembrance service for the 10,600 people who died within 6 weeks of being put through the Atos Work Capability Assessment in just the first 10 months of it being imposed on the sick and disabled in the UK. (GOV.UK: Incapacity Benefits: Deaths of recipients)  These figures are for a period between January and November 2011 and there have been two more years of unrecorded death and destruction since then.  The situation is not only devastating but very disturbing.  The Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for these circumstances and have, on all accounts, stopped recording the related deaths.  They are also, unbelievably, refusing to act legally according to statutory obligations to provide information they do have through FOI (Freedom of Information) requests, falsely claiming these requests are vexatious and therefore they do not have to respond. (see: Vox Political: Will the DWP do ANYTHING to avoid revealing the true extent of the Atos deaths?)

This gathering included many disabled activists, Occupy, Mohammed Ansar, Michael Meacher MP, John McDonnell MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP an others.  The grass area was strewn with 10,000 white flowers representing 10,000 of the severely abused victims of this policy.  The fact that this event was so significant, in such a significant place, attended by significant people but was NOT REPORTED by main stream media is indicative of the power of the sinister forces at work in the UK at the moment.  It is almost beyond belief that the government, or rather the controlling influence behind the government, has such malevolent power to enact such a news blackout in this day and age.  If you have any doubts about the devastating effects of this policy I personally know three people whose lives have been profoundly damaged by the offensive, threatening and degrading abuse of Atos and the DWP system.

And if you have any doubts about the severity of the propaganda machine in action today I suggest you think again because the Conservative Party Conference has had hours of news time devoted to it but many people are unaware of the 50,000 protestors who demonstrated against the government outside the conference hall on Sunday 29 September 2013.  This was stunningly under-reported by the BBC and the main stream media.  A protest of 50,000 people in Manchester NOT REPORTEDUnbelievable - until you understand how sinister this government has become.  Many people in the UK remained unaware of one of the biggest protests ever witnessed in Manchester!

Here are some references to the two events that the UK media was presumably banned from reporting.

10,000 Cuts & Counting references:

This is a truly compassionate and disturbing video.  Watch it, think about it.  Then pass it on and spread the news before it is too late.  And remember what Martin Niemöller said:
...they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . and by that time there was no one left to speak up.

Human Cost - #10kCuts #Atos from You and I Films on Vimeo.

Please sign this petition:
HM Government e-petition:
We call for a Cumulative Impact Assessment of Welfare Reform, and a New Deal for sick & disabled people based on their needs, abilities and ambitions.

Lest We Forget (a poem written and read by Paula Peters in honour of loved ones lost through stress, disability and illness while trying to cope with the process of the Atos Work Capability)

The few (2) mentions of the ceremony I could find on the web:

DEMOTIX: London Remembers over 10,000 dead after Atos Work Capability Tests

Kuriositas: Human Cost: 10,000 Cuts and Counting (... and it doesn't even make the front page of the papers!)

Here are some prior announcements:

It appears the Mirror could announce the event was scheduled but didn't report on the event - I wonder who got to them?
Mirror: 10,000 Cuts and Counting: Protest campaign in memory of victims of welfare reforms

teifidancer: Petition and Protest, 10,000 Cuts and Counting: A Ceremony of Rememberance and Solidarity

the void: 10,000 Cuts and Counting : A Ceremony of Remembrance and Solidarity

OCCUPY LONDON: 10,000 Cuts & Counting

Human Rights & Political Journal: 10000 Cuts & Counting: Our Supporters

References to the 50,000 demonstration against the government in Manchester:

This is an impressive speech by Owen Jones outside the Tory Party Conference on Sunday 29 September 2013.

Here are some pictures of the protestors in Manchester:

Here are some of the remarkably sparse references on the internet:

International Business Times: Manchester: Police Praise 50,000 Protesters at Conservative Party Conference

BBC News Manchester: 50,000 march in NHS cuts protest in Manchester

mancunian matters: Police praise 'peaceful' behaviour of 50,000 protesters in Conservative Party conference rally

ITV: Police: 50,000 protesters and only two arrests

The Guardian: 50,000 attend Manchester protest against austerity

The Independent: Tory Party Conference: 50,000 march in Manchester rally against austerity

Manchester Evening News: Pictures and video: 50,000 join Manchester anti-cuts march as Tory conference begins

The Huffington Post: Union Rally Draws 50,000 To Tory Conference