Whole Truth CoalitionWhole Truth CoalitionWhole Truth CoalitionWhole Truth CoalitionWhole Truth Coalition
FREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLD
FREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLDFREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLDFREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLDFREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLDFREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLD
Officers are being encouraged to sign up to a course by Tom Silver, who is better known as a ‘celebrity hypnotherapist’ on American chat shows, in an attempt to gain more information from suspects.
Mr Silver, who has appeared on the Montel Williams and Ricki Lake chat shows on US TV, where he gave a guest an “orgasmic handshake”, normally charges £1,000-a-day for courses in his home country.
But after being contacted by PC Mark Hughes, of Cheshire police, Mr Silver - a master hypnotist - agreed a ‘free one day taster course’ for cops before they sign up to his six day course, costing £1,500.
The course will teach students ‘cutting edge techniques’, including an introduction into Electroencephalography (EEG) and will be paid for out of police coffers, according to respected industry magazine Police Review.
EEG is the recording of electrical activity in the brain gathered by placing sensors on the scalp which monitor ‘neuron activity’ - which cops believe can help ‘encourage’ suspects and witnesses to tell the truth.
Around the world police states are becoming the dominant form of government. Even citizens from countries trained to perceive themselves as free are fast becoming aware that they are living under an ever enlarging fascist central government. The evidence of this increasing tide of tyranny can be found internationally, from local and regional governments to federal agencies and world organizations like the World Trade Organization, The World Health Organization, Codex Alimentarius and others. The code of law has been subverted by statutes, acts, bills, and even executive orders enacted to control (enslave) the world population. Many have been reduced to debt slaves already.
The countries of Europe find themselves subject to the European Union’s directives, each year losing more of their individual rights to self determination. How many times will the Irish people need to vote NO on the Lisbon Treaty before the EU accepts NO? The answer is until the European Union gets the result they desire. Despite voting NO previously, the new vote in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty is a YES. This latest vote makes it crystal clear that the European Union is not prepared to accept independence of thought and action in it’s member states. Whether the yes vote was achieved by throwing millions of euros into a program of mass brainwashing through the media or whether it was a fixed vote with a predetermined outcome the result remains the same, centralized control and loss of autonomy. Now that the vote reflects the policy the European Union is trying to push we can be certain they will not request another vote on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. In essence what this means is that the votes of the citizens mean nothing to the power crazed politicians unless it conforms to their predetermined outcome.
This does not mean that we should stop saying NO. What it means is that more and more people around the world need to start saying NO! It is time for millions even billions, to start saying NO! NO we will not cooperate with our own enslavement! We need to say NO not just once or twice but as often as necessary until the draconian power structure which is perpetrating this abuse is dismantled.
How many more wars of foreign aggression will the American citizens allow before they en masse say NO? This is a wake up call to not just the civilians but most especially to the military and police. How long will you continue to follow orders which are contributing to the subjugation of the very populous you are pledged to protect? How many more incidents of violence similar to those which occurred at the G-20 and G-8 demonstrations will it take before it dawns on the masses that they are living in a police state? How many more check points, searches, wiretaps, electronic surveillance programs, video surveillance cameras and other abuses of our civil liberties will it take, before we say NO MORE!?!
When we say NO en masse to injustice we have great power to create positive change. History has shown this to be true in causes great and small. The methods of non-violent non-compliance espoused and enacted by men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are effective. Martin Luther King Jr. once said “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” While this statement is absolutely true, it has been shown that if enough people say no and break a law non-violently in unison the system is overwhelmed and can not respond by putting everyone in prison. This sort of mass non-compliance was the reason for the demise of the poll tax in England, too many people simply refused to pay.
The time for active nonviolent non-compliance on a global scale has come. One of the first things we need to address is the threat of mandatory vaccinations. The effects of mercury in the thimerosal, aluminum, live attenuated virus and squalene on your immune system has the potential to be devastating. Just say “NO.” NO I will not allow big pharma to endanger my health for a profit. NO I will NOT take the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine or any other mandatory vaccines.
We must not stop with saying no to the the vaccine alone however. We must say no to injustice in all forms. Refuse to participate in wars of aggression or unconstitutional and unjust police actions if you are in the armed forces or the police. Each and every one of us needs to break any and all unjust laws. Vote with your wallet and refuse to pay as the citizens of England did when they did not pay the poll tax. In places such as America where seed banking and organic gardening are under attack from legislation, like bill HR8750, plant an organic garden and harvest your own seeds, (in fact plant one wherever you are in the world.)
Get the word out on the streets that all of us have our freedom at stake if we do not act now. If you write make flyers, write books, post blogs. If you make music sing about it. If you make artwork show people that way. Filmmakers make films about the issues that confront us. Hand out hard copies, post it on the web. Talk to friends and family hand out flyers, suggest websites or films that you or others have made. Get the information out anyway you can so that as many people around the world realize they have the choice to just say “NO.”
I conclude not with my own words but with the immortal words of Martin Luther King Jr: “Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.”
Endnotes:
Instead of the usual endnotes I am listing all the researchers, filmmakers and authors who pointed me in the direction of the information above and not only those whose work would normally be referenced in direct conjunction with the information in this article. These endnotes are not only an acknowledgment of the scholarship of the people listed below but are also a sincere thanks for their contributions towards the education of all humanity.
Thank you:
Aaron Russo, Max Igan, Ben Stewart, David Icke, John DeCamp, Anthony J. Hilder, David Dees, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi
On the heels of a similar proposal being pushed in Copenhagen in the name of fighting global warming, the European Union has asked the IMF to introduce a global tax on financial transactions in order to fund more bailouts – in other words, the globalists are devising yet more ways to plunder the taxpayer into servitude to the private banks that they own.
“The European Union increased pressure on the International Monetary Fund on Friday to consider a global tax on financial transactions to limit the risk of another economic crisis,” reports the London Telegraph.
The EU wants a “global financial transaction levy” in order to “fund future financial bailouts,” as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for during the G20.
This is nothing more than yet another veil for the global tobin tax that will be used to bankroll the system of world government that Brown, the EU and the IMF have incessantly called for and rapidly advanced on the back of the economic crisis.
Taxpayers in the European Union are already picking up the tab for the massive bailouts that have taken place over the past year in the form of higher taxes – now they are set to be financially raped further in the form of transaction taxes. Once the globalists get a foot in the door by taxing international transactions related to the financial industry, they will seek to expand the levy to cover all purchases. European citizens already pay such taxes domestically in the form of VAT (value added tax) on most purchases, which is set to revert back to 17.5 percent in the UK from January 1st.
So the globalists already take a huge chunk in tax from most purchases we make, they take another huge chunk in the form of higher taxes to pay for the bailouts that have already happened, and now they want to take another slice in the form of an international transaction tax – and this is before the raft of other taxes that are currently being readied in Copenhagen under the justification of the global warming fraud.
The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a UK-based “think tank” and registered charity, has launched a new initiative urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations. The scheme is being promoted as a more cost-effective way to reduce CO2 emissions than investing in alternative energy sources and offers a way for elitist racists to feel ethical in their quest to exterminate the third world masses.
A BBC News article on the proposal dutifully reports the OPT’s proposal and their justifications for proposing it. They note that the program is designed to fund “contraception” programs in poor nations, a term that helpfully obscures the fact that such programs—including those run by FPA, one of the agencies listed as a supporting organization of this new program—have used bribes to get poor men and women to volunteer for sterilization. The article does, however, allow space for a detractor of the proposal to point out that even if one does accept that limiting carbon emissions is necessary (which it is not), the focus on limiting emissions of people in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) is in itself nonsensical: “Carbon emissions from people in much of sub-Saharan Africa are so low that they can barely be counted.”
What this error exposes, however, is not that the OPT has set its sights on the wrong target. In fact, they are simply introducing the idea as a politically expedient precedent which will eventually be expanded to include the developed world as well. Indeed, this is merely the latest such proposal from the group, which has previously said that the world’s population must be cut by as much as half and the UK’s population reduced to as little as 17 million in order to reach “sustainable levels.” The group’s patrons include world renowned environmental campaigners, academics and media figures like Jane Goodall, James Lovelock and Sir David Attenborough.
One patron of the Optimum Population Trust who stands out is Jonathon Porritt, a well-known baronet and a green campaigner who advises the likes of Prince Charles on environmental matters. He has long argued the link between “environmental sustainability” and enforced abortions. He once claimed to be “unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate.” He is also on the board of BBC Wildlife magazine, perhaps explaining why BBC News tends to treat every pronouncement from the OPT as if it were a major policy announcement (see this and this and this for starters).
Criminals from Liverpool and Manchester have been warned by police in Lancashire: “Stay out of our county.”
From today police are stopping and quizzing motorists on routes from Merseyside and Greater Manchester into Lancashire.
They are “locking down” roads as part of an operation to thwart travellers who commit robberies and burglaries in the county.
Offenders will be stopped at Lancashire’s borders using all available resources, including firearms officers, motorway officers, dog patrols and the Air Support Unit.
Officers will also be using specialist Automatic Number Plate Recognition equipment to identify stolen vehicles and will also be on the look out for known criminals. The first operation is taking place today from 8am until midnight.
Parents have been banned from setting foot in their children’s classrooms without first having a Criminal Records Bureau check.
Stern new signs at a college in Cambridge warn that mothers and fathers cannot enter the premises if they have not been fully vetted.
As a result they face paying £86 each - £36 for an enhanced CRB check plus a fee of up to £50 to process the application.
It is the latest CRB controversy following bans on unchecked parents walking children to a carol concert and supervising at a play park.
Councillors yesterday called the signs at Manor Community College ‘extreme’, warning they could alienate parents.
The notices read: ‘We do not allow anybody who is not fully CRB checked to enter the college premises or to work unsupervised.
This includes volunteers, visitors and contractors.
‘Parents who want to accompany their children to Christmas carol services and other festive activities are being officially vetted for criminal records in case they are paedophiles. In the latest expansion of the government’s child protection agenda, parents are checked against a database of people banned from working with children for sex offences and for other reasons.
Among those affected are parents at a village primary school who have been told they must be vetted before they can accompany pupils on a 10-minute walk to a morning carol service at the local church. Other primaries have instituted vetting for parents attending Christmas discos on school premises. Some schools require checks on parents who volunteer to walk with children from the school to post letters to Father Christmas.’
Britain has long been famous for its surveillance state. There are security cameras everywhere you go. The country has the largest DNA database in the world. And a national identity card program is well underway. But new revelations that British police have been spying on domestic protesters have infuriated citizens all along the political spectrum.
The spying came to light in a series of stories in The Guardian over the past month. In late October, the newspaper revealed that photographs of and personal details about thousands of activists who attend demonstrations, rallies and political meetings were being stored in secret national databases.
‘Computer chip maker Intel wants to implant a brain-sensing chip directly into the brains of its customers to allow them to operate computers and other devices without moving a muscle.
Intel believes its customers would be willing to have a chip implanted in their brains so they could operate computers without the need for a keyboard or mouse using thoughts alone. The implant could also be used to operate devices such as cell phones, TVs and DVDs.
The chip is being developed at Intel’s laboratory in Pittsburgh, USA. It would sense brain activity using technology based on FMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging). The brain sensing chips are not yet available, but Intel research scientist Dean Pomerleau thinks they are close.’
According to Sir Anthony Blunt, Lord Victor Rothschild recommended the notorious Cambridge Apostles, for intelligence and government jobs, and these introduction papers still exist in the archives. What has never come out though is that they all first worked for Rothschild.
During the Napoleonic Wars when the world’s two wealthiest nations, Britain and France were both bankrolled by the same Rothschild bank, Rothschild got news back to London on the outcome of the battle of Waterloo through his own intelligence network; enabling him to clean up on the stock exchange and take over Britain’s entire economy.
The Rothschilds and their intelligence network were also behind the push to get Britain into WW II; primarily to support the Rothschild controlled Soviet Union against Hitler’s Germany.
Remember, Rothschild confiscated the Czar’s huge wealth during the 1917 Russian Revolution when the Romanovs were cruelly murdered. The only man in Europe to stand up against Soviet expansion was Hitler, so many of our Royal family secretly supported him.
The Danish government has appointed a Trilateral Commission member to chair the United Nations Copenhagen climate change summit. Lykke Friis, the former pro-dean at Copenhagen University, will replace Connie Hedegaard (a Bilderberg member) who has been nominated for the post of the European Union’s first climate commissioner. Hedegaard’s nomination will be assessed by European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, who last month announced the creation of the new role to oversee the EU’s plans to cut emissions 20 per cent by 2020 and thus undercut modern civilization in Europe.
Friis attended a Trilateral meeting in 2005. “Lykke Friis is member of several committees and councils, for instance the Board of Sport Event Denmark, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council of the Danish Atlantic Treaty Association. She is also responsible for organizing the Research Congress on Climate Change in 2009,” a Zoom Info entry states.
The Danish Atlantic Treaty Association works with NATO and the Atlantic Treaty Association, an atlanticist organization (connected to the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations) consisting of the Atlantic Councils of NATO. The current president of the Atlantic Treaty Association is Robert Hunter, a senior adviser at the RAND Corporation, chairman of the Council for a Community of Democracies (supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund), and a consultant for the death merchant Lockheed Martin.
The world is becoming unsafer by the day. Before the end of November, half a billion new terrorists will be added to the list kept by the US government.
On November 30, one day before the Lisbon Treaty is scheduled to take effect, the ministers of justice of the EU’s 27 member states will sign yet another security agreement with the US. It is supposed to be an essential weapon in the global “War on Terror” the US claims to be fighting.
Under the new agreement, the US government will get access to all the banking data of all Europeans. This means that from December 2009, every single financial transaction done by every single European banking customer will come under the scrutiny of the US authorities. Henceforth, whenever the US government suspects a European “citizen” of supporting terrorism, it can request all his or her banking data, including all bank statements as well as any and all personal data connected with the account.
No doubt, many people will fail to see much harm in this, because “they have nothing to hide.” But such an attitude is based on the assumption the US is governed by benign, rational individuals, controlled by an elaborate system of checks and balances.
In fact, this is obviously not the case. If any conclusion can be drawn from recent history, it is that the US government does not act benignly, neither towards it own citizens nor to those of other nations. Especially not toward those of other nations, one should say. US policies are vindictive, vicious, ruthless, deceitful, destructive and murderous. Since the end of World War II, the number of people killed worldwide by the US government, directly or indirectly, runs in the millions. It is safe to say the US government finds itself in the same league as the Nazis and the Stalinists. And don’t let anybody retort that the millions of victims of US violence have died to make the word safe for democracy, or that their deaths were somehow necessary or inevitable or some such nonsense.
Today, under the very eyes of an indifferent world, hundreds of innocent Afghans, Pakistanis and Iraqis are being slaughtered every day by US bullets, bombs and missiles, just like during the 1960s and 70s every day hundreds were being killed directly or indirectly by US violence in Indochina and Latin America.
Within a few weeks, US authorities will gain full access to some of the most private data of all inhabitants of the European Union and this should be cause for alarm. After all, from a moral point of view the EU leadership (and of the 27 member states) is just as evil and corrupt as the US government.
With the list of organizations that the US whimsically qualifies as terrorist constantly growing, the likelihood of a European “citizen” making a donation to such a group likewise increases. By the same token, the list of individuals the US has been putting on terrorist lists already runs in the millions. In fact, by employing the usual mix of lies, cajoling, blackmail and bullying in order to impose its paranoid rules on air traffic worldwide, the US government has already turned every airline passenger into a terrorist suspect.
Anybody who believes this is normal or acceptable should do some serious soul searching.
Heaven knows how the US has managed to persuade the Europeans to go along and sign the newest agreement. It is a mystery why the Europeans should have lent a willing ear at all to the US fairy tales about terrorism, because it means they will be sacrificing their sovereignty, or rather, what remains of it.
The only explanations one could possibly offer is that European politicians have no idea who they are dealing with, and are weak kneed. Or they are being blackmailed. There is no other logical explanation why European nations, some of them proud states with a long history of fiercely defending their sovereignty, would sign away their sovereign rights and hand them to a rogue state like the US.
Given that under previous agreements, European governments have already approved extraditing their own citizens to the US and given that all European governments collaborate with the secret CIA rendition flights taking kidnapped individuals to US-controlled or operated torture centers all over the world, all Europeans will soon be fair game.
The true purpose of the entire “War on Terror” can only be to terrorize peaceful, law-abiding citizens and to browbeat them in order to impose harmful legislation. For thousands of years governments have had to face underground opposition, some of it well-organized and with a propensity to violence. The best way to counter such a threat is to go about it in utter secrecy. Mind you, secret services are supposed to do their work in secret, so that no one will notice. Indeed that is what they have been doing throughout history in most of the world, especially in democratic countries. However, the US and its acolytes have been bombarding the world on a daily basis with alarmist fairy tales for almost a decade now. According to all official US reports, the increase of terrorism outpaces any efforts to combat it. However, despite having the biggest military and security budgets in history, with unlimited technological resources at its disposal and a staggering panoply of legal controls on every single activity by every single citizen, the US still claims to be losing the struggle.
This is clearly a lie. Because, whenever nations are losing a war, they will publicly deny this in the most emphatic manner. Conversely, when nations are claiming for years on end that they are losing, it has got to be be a lie. Therefore it can be safely said the “War on Terror” is a hoax.
The danger of the new agreement between the US and the EU is that nobody will know if what he or she is doing may land him in a US jail or in some distant torture center. Suppose you sympathize with a European group giving aid to the civilian victims of NATO bombing campaigns in Afghanistan. You buy a T-shirt for 20 Euros and you forget about it. Then the US government puts the group (whose T-shirt you are wearing) on the list of terror organizations and requests its banking details. As soon as the US government gets these, it has the names of everyone who has ever made donations to the group. Then your name appears and together with all the other names coming up, it is put on the terror suspect list. In the eyes of the US government, you have become a supporter of terrorism and an enemy of the (US) state. Now, nothing stands in the way of your being extradited to the US by your own (European) government. If you are lucky, that is. If not, you may end up in the worldwide US Gulag. You may get kidnapped and put on a rendition flight to a dungeon in Uzbekistan or some other hell hole, where you will be tortured in the most horrible way. Neither your government nor the European Commission will lift a finger to prevent this.
You can be sure this sort of thing is going to happen. Not systematically, but it will inevitably. Soon, rumors will start circulating, and fear will come to dominate the everyday lives of all EU citizens.
However there may be a lighter side to it all. Since your government no longer protects your life and liberty, but on the contrary has betrayed you and given the US (with its abysmal human rights record) the right to prosecute you on trumped up and false charges, you are no longer bound by any obligations to your government. It could mean, for instance, you now have sound legal grounds to stop paying taxes.
You have in fact been turned into a terrorist and an outlaw and you may thank the EU Commission and your national government for that. However, it may be a consolation to realize you are not alone. All the other 500 million inhabitants of the EU have become terrorists just like you.
The Copenhagen conference on climate change at the beginning of next month seeks to, according to its creators, “reach a new global accord to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions of greenhouse gases”. UN-front man Ban Ki-Moon remarked at a preparation speech on the road to Copenhagen that “sooner or later there will be a higher price on carbon – imposed either by policy or by market forces.” All this just rolls off the tongs of these transnationalist as if they are whistling a tune while tending their garden. If there was no such thing as historic fact, it would sound noble, urgent, and necessary. Unfortunately, we know precisely what motivates the initiators of this global effort: profit, absolute control and- I almost forgot- depopulation of the world’s inhabitants. This garden the elite is cultivating is by no means a place of joy. It stinks of rotten weeds and dead foliage.
In this first of several articles, I set out to identify the blueprint of modern day eugenics and its intimate ties to the environmental movement. In fact, the more one researches this union, forged in the blood of millions in the last century, the more one realises that the anthropogenic global warming swindle is not just tied to eugenics. It is eugenics.
In 1968 a think-tank emerged out of the back alleys of the face-lifted eugenics movement called the Club of Rome. Nurtured from its very conception as a beacon of light to which all environmentalist ships should navigate, its creators knew that the green movement they had set out to create, was designed to blame man for the supposed predicament the earth was in. As a consequence the number of people should be reduced lest the earth crumble under his crushing weight. The only thing to be done, so argued the Club, was for a global body of power to enforce depopulation goals as decided upon by the global elite.
Of what people does this global elite consist? Well just google ‘Club of Rome members’ and compare the names on the membership lists with those on the list of attendants of the annual Bilderberg conferences and you will discover the very same cast of characters, setting up the rules in the New World Order. You’ll find Al Gore, David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and all the other enemies of all free humanity and their cronies.
H1N1 or so called Swine Flu is not that serious, having significantly less impact than ordinary seasonal flu.
The vaccine however is an entirely different matter.
Those responsible for its’ manufacture have connections to governments across the industrial world who have granted them immunity from prosecution for all adverse reactions, including death.
The criteria defining a Level 6 Pandemic was revised in 2003 significantly lowering the benchmark.
Under the new definiton EVERY year since 1918 would have been a Level 6 Pandemic.
If you are someone coming to this for the first time DO NOT get your swine flu jab until you have done extensive research OUTSIDE the main stream media.
If you are or know someone who is a member of the police or security services, find out the facts fast
and DO YOUR DUTY.
Position within government or society does not place anyone above the law.
And if you are one of those criminals responsible for this assault, be warned.
We are many and you are few.
The tide has turned.
“All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Edmund Burke
www.theflucase.com
It seems likely this is an engineered pandemic deisigned to reap huge profits for the drug companies
whilst also advancing a globalist agenda. If along the way, hundreds of thousands of people lose their lives, it appears that there are those for whom this is not too high a price to pay to achieve a global
government.
The film shows that there are a great many awake and aware people who are not going to take this lying down.
Even if you are someone who beleives in vaccines generally, this one is very different. It has been
rushed through without proper testing. It contains, among other ingredients, Thiomersal (Mercury) linked to autism spectrum disorders, and Squalene, strongly linked to Guillane Barre or Gulf War syndrome. The very package inserts state that it should not be given to pregnant women and yet they and the very young have been among the first targeted for the early wave of jabs.
What is going on?
Reported numbers are that over half of all doctors and more than a third of nurses in the UK have said they will not be having it. Given that these figures are reported in the same main stream media which has thus far failed to report the criminal charges brought against vaccine maker, Baxter Inernational for distributing LIVE bird flu within Swine Flu “vaccine”, or the unfolding Pneumonic Plague’ disaster in Ukraine, its safe to assume these numbers are artificially low.
The level 6 pandemic declared by the World Health Organisation in June 2009 triggered clauses within UN treaties signed by ALL nations, to cede control to the WHO/UN in such an event.
Brussels bureaucrats are plotting a massive expansion in the use of surveillance and controversial extradition powers, a report warned last night.
At the same time they will also increase their meddling in Britain’s justice system, it was claimed.
The EU wants to create its own version of the Home Office to oversee the policy changes, and even has plans to train a third of the police service to create a Blocwide ‘common culture of policing’.
There would be an increased sharing of British DNA, health and tax records with foreign governments and investigators, as well as the introduction of new Big Brother surveillance techniques.
Cash from the EU’s £1billion justice and home affairs budget is being used to look at whether CCTV cameras can be installed to predict whether somebody is about to commit a crime - not just to catch them if they do so.
The report, by the Open Europe think tank, details how the EU has already adopted swathes of surveillance powers. But it says once the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified this will increase dramatically.
Analyst Stephen Booth said: ‘How can citizens expect their fundamental rights to liberty and independence from the state to be protected by unaccountable institutions which have a vested interest in creating more laws?
‘We are fast approaching a situation where the EU will have the full coercive machinery of a state but without the proper democratic controls or robust checks on power that citizens should expect.’
RFID keeps getting smaller. On February 13, Hitachi unveiled a tiny, new “powder” type RFID chip measuring 0.05 x 0.05 mm — the smallest yet — which they aim to begin marketing in 2 to 3 years.
By relying on semiconductor miniaturization technology and using electron beams to write data on the chip substrates, Hitachi was able to create RFID chips 64 times smaller than their currently available 0.4 x 0.4 mm mu-chips. Like mu-chips, which have been used as an anti-counterfeit measure in admission tickets, the new chips have a 128-bit ROM for storing a unique 38-digit ID number.
The new chips are also 9 times smaller than the prototype chips Hitachi unveiled last year, which measure 0.15 x 0.15 mm.
At 5 microns thick, the RFID chips can more easily be embedded in sheets of paper, meaning they can be used in paper currency, gift certificates and identification. But since existing tags are already small enough to embed in paper, it leads one to wonder what new applications the developers have in mind.
‘Say you are a frequent flier and you check in faster than most people. A network of advanced cameras at the airport can measure your speed and alert the control room. The system knows terrorists tend to be nervous and almost never stop for coffee. This makes a speedy traveller a suspicious traveller.
You may also want to think twice about using the airport bathroom more than once. There is a good chance you will be picked out for an extensive security check.
These are some of the things being studied by an EU-funded project for detecting suspicious behaviour, Adabts (Automatic Detection of Abnormal Behaviour and Threats in Crowded Spaces.)’
The document, marked “in strictest confidence” and dated way back to 24 September, shows there is no deal possible, RM plans to go for nothing less than 100% of its demands, imposing cuts “with or without union engagement” and making a “demonstration of resolve through dispute – strikes don’t work.”
Postal bosses shed crocodile tears for the cameras about how the strikes would hurt the public and lose Royal Mail business. The leaked doc showed they’re perfectly happy to let the dispute rip: “demonstration of commercial impact of dispute – strikes make things worse – the more we can demonstrate this to our people the better.”
And when it comes to valuing its workers, the doc states that if the CWU doesn’t agree “a deal on our terms” then a “programme of reducing relationship with union” (ie derecognising it) is on the cards. One tactic is to withdraw agreed facility time for union area reps and fulltime officials, to try to cripple the running of the strike.
Then the real bombshell: if the CWU refuses to agree “we have positioned things in such a way as there is shareholder, customer and internal support for implementation of change without agreement.” Of course the only shareholder is the Labour government! Predictably Royal Mail bosses and Labour have said they know nothing about it.
The trouble with establishing a dictatorship through stealth is that people both within and without the system begin to protest. Not everyone is afraid. Some speak their minds. Some fight. And when people fight, inevitably the truth starts to leak. Initially such leaks can be put down to “conspiracy theory,” or “eccentricity,” but eventually, as the dictatorship gets closer to fruition, the numbers of people seeing the truth are too great. It is at that point, that the establishment acts to silence the dissenters.
Maurice Kirk is one man who has caused that establishment no end of trouble
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9
Tel.: 01-8305792
Thursday 24 September 2009
Dear Mr Justice Clarke
May I enclose for your information a copy of the new edition of the Lisbon Treaty: The Readable Version, the first edition of which I sent you and your Referendum Commission colleagues some time ago. I also enclose a document which describes the main changes the Lisbon Treaty would make.
May I take the opportunity of saying that the current Lisbon referendum, as I presume you have noted, has been characterized by monstrous illegality on the part of several key parties, as follows:-
1. The intervention of the European Commission, which is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;
2. The part-funding of the posters and press advertisements of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and when, under EU law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid direct partisan advocacy. I read that the Green Party has refused such funding from its sister party in the European Parliament on the ground that it is advised that this is illegal under European law (Later comment on this latter point inserted by A.Coughlan: Presumably this scrupulousness is because Green Party Local Government Minister John Gormley, as Minister responsible for running the referendum, cannot afford to have the political party he belongs to flout the law!)
3. The Government’s unlawful use of public funds
in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called ‘assurances’ from the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty - both steps being in breach of the Supreme Court’s 1995 judgement in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public money to seek to procure a particular result in a referendum;
4. The failure of your own Referendum Commission to carry out its statutory function under the 1998 and 2001 Referendum Acts of preparing for citizens a statement or statements ‘containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the proposal (viz. the proposal to amend the Constitution) and of the text thereof in the relevant Bill’, namely the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2009.
May I make some points to you and your Referendum Commission colleagues regarding this.
The Lisbon Treaty-Your Guide which you have circulated to voters makes no attempt to inform them about the proposed Constitutional Amendment, despite that being your prime statutory duty and that of your Referendum Commission colleagues under the Referendum Acts.
The leaflet and other material which you have made available do not tell citizen-voters that the new first sentence of the proposed Amendment we shall be voting on provides that the State ‘confirms its commitment to the European Union’ which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty - a sentence, incidentally, that was not in the Constitutional Amendment in last year’s referendum - and you give voters no idea that this is the case or what such a commitment might entail.
You do not inform voters that the second and third sentences of the proposed Amendment make clear that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would abolish the European Community which Ireland joined in 1973 and would establish in its place a new European Union on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty which would be constitutionally very different from the European Union that we are currently members of, or what that difference might be.Nowhere in the Referendum Commission’s information material that you have sent to voters do you advert to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty would confer on Irish citizens an ‘additional citizenship of the post-Lisbon European Union, with associated citizens’ rights and duties vis- a -vis that Union, and what the implications of such a change might be.
One would think that there could be few things more constitutionally important for citizens than being endowed with an additional citizenship. Yet you and your Commission say absolutely nothing about it in the ‘information’ material you have circulated - in violation of the provisions of the Act which gives you your authority.
You say nothing about how the rights and duties that we would have as real citizens of the constitutionally new European Union which the Lisbon Treaty would establish would relate to our rights and duties as Irish citizens in the event of any conflicts arising between the two; or how the ‘additional’ citizenship that Lisbon would endow us with differs from our essentially notional and symbolical EU ‘citizenship’ of today.
It is clear that such a dereliction of duty on your part and that of your fellow Commissioners amounts to constitutional delinquency of a high order, as well as being a gross misuse of the e4 million of public money that you have been entrusted with. It will be interesting to see how future historians assess your actions.
As for yourself personally, instead of doing the job which the Referendum Acts impose on you, you have arrogated to yourself the task of answering questions on the Lisbon Treaty on the radio and in the press, in which you give your personal opinions and judgements, whereas all statements by the Commission should be collectively agreed by its members, as the Referendum Acts clearly envisage.
In no way do the Referendum Acts authorise you to do the ’solo runs’ on radio and in the press that you have undertaken. Your predecessor, retired Chief Justice TA Finlay, who was an exemplary chairman of the Referendum Commission between 1998 and 2002, would never have permitted this. Some of the oral statements you have made, moreover, have been either false or misleading. From several examples I could give, I quote two.
A fortnight ago you accepted in response to a question on Morning Ireland that the right of Member State governments to ‘propose’ and decide their National Commissioner would be changed by the Lisbon Treaty into a right to make ’suggestions’ only, effectively for the incoming Commission President to decide - that key person’s appointment being in the gift of the Big States.You added the rider however that you did not think this change was of much consequence. You must be aware from previous private correspondence that I had with the Referendum Commission on behalf of my colleagues in our EU Research and Information Centre that many people on the No-side consider this be a Lisbon Treaty amendment of considerable consequence. One way or another, its consequences are clearly a matter of political judgement which it is not your job as Referendum Commission chairman to make.
Last Friday I heard you state on Morning Ireland that the difference between the ‘additional’ citizenship that we would have of the post-Lisbon European Union and the notional or symbolical ‘complementary’ EU citizenship we are said to have today was ‘of no great consequence’ either, or words to that effect. Yet the most cursory acquaintance with the constitutional changes which the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitutional Amendment to ratify it would bring about, shows that this is just not true. Lisbon is the old Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe after all which the French and Dutch rejected in 2005, even if it implements that Constitution for Europe indirectly rather than directly.
You and your Referendum Commission colleagues still have some time left in which to fulfil your statutory function under the Referendum Acts that set you up. You still have a few days in which to do your duty to the Irish people whom you are profoundly failing at present, as they face their historic decision of next Friday with virtually nothing from you and your Referendum Commission colleagues which might give them
‘the general explanation of the subject matter’ of the Constitutional Amendment ‘and of its text’, on which they will be voting, as the Referendum Act requires.
On behalf of citizens all over the country who are deeply disquieted by the Referendum Commission’s failure to provide information on how the Lisbon Treaty would affect the Consitution, may I appeal to you to do that duty still and to carry out your statutory function under the Referendum Acts. Yours sincerely
Anthony Coughlan
Director
President, Foundation for EU Democracy, Brussels
PS. I intend to release this letter to the media this weekend and to circulate it widely to Irish opinion-leaders
The top climate science advisor to the German government has proposed that everyone on the planet should have a personal CO2 budget and be forced to pay a tax if they exceed it, adding that westerners have already exceeded their allocations and should pay climate reparations to poorer countries.
This is not just another tax being rammed through using the phony pretext of global warming, it’s the entrée for complete government tracking and control over your personal life. This is the “inventory” that Nancy Pelosi called for during her visit to China in May.
On May 28, the Associated Press reported that Pelosi told a Chinese student that in order to cut back on CO2 emissions, “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory.”
German climate scientist Joachim Schellnhuber is pushing for the same thing – the nanny state on steroids.
How will a personal CO2 budget be enforced? Every plane ticket you buy, every time you fill up at the station, every mile of every journey you make will be fed into a centralized government database, creating a leviathan matrix system to catalogue every aspect of your personal behavior. Exceed your personal carbon budget and you’ll be hit with a hefty fine, with the majority of the proceeds no doubt going straight to the huge international banking interests that own the carbon trading market, mainly N M Rothschild & Sons, as well as people like Maurice Strong and Al Gore.
We in the UK are proud that we are leading the world on the application of science and technology to tackle crime and criminality.
The use of profiles stored on the National DNA Database is a prime example of how police harness the power of technology in order to tackle crime, protect the public and bring offenders to justice.
In an extraordinary attack, the Magistrates’ Association said it is a “certainty” that officers will misuse powers because they cannot be “relied on” to handle them appropriately.
The comments have been made as part of the Magistrates’ Association response to the Government’s plans to allow police to issue £60 fixed penalties for careless driving.
Police have been accused of increasingly dealing with offences using on-the-spot fines as an easy way to hit the government’s crime targets.
Magistrates are worried that the number of offences now dealt with in this way is keeping some serious offenders out of the courts.
However, police leaders insisted that the use of the fines, which has risen sharply under Labour, helped to reduce paperwork and free up officers’ time.
It leaves two of the key bodies responsible for tackling crime and administering justice at loggerheads.
MPs expressed surprise that magistrates would have accused police of being untrustworthy.
The agenda to eliminate cash is real and it’s coming to a store near you. The perils of a cashless society make the valueless currency system we have now appear a panacea. Already many must pay extra fees in order to pay their bills in cash. The day is not so far off when even going to the store for a soda will be an entirely electronic transaction. There will be no buying and selling permitted that is not electronic.
As things stand today if there is a problem with a person’s credit card/PIN card they can always pay the bill in cash, or can they?
It was my recent experience while travelling in one of my favourite cities that having cash was not enough to buy food at the market of my choice. I came across what looked like quite a nice supermarket on a street I had never ridden my bike down before and decided to buy some food for breakfast the next day. When I entered what I saw was perhaps the nicest selection and quality of food I had ever seen in the city of Amsterdam, excepting one organic open market (only open Saturdays.) I proceeded to do my shopping with great joy, looking forward to sampling the beautiful organic products on sale. Awaiting me at the counter however was a shock, cash is not accepted at this store. I would have to pay for my food electronically if I wanted it. Normally on principle I would not have bought the food but, as I happened to have a credit card with me, (which is rare,) I decided to see for myself if it was really better quality than what I could buy with cash. The sad truth is yes, it was better than much of what is available for cash and is amongst the best food for sale in Holland.
Considering the fact that I have travelled to almost 100 cities in more than 25 countries, on 5 continents the cashier’s contention that the company she worked for was cashless to prevent armed hold-ups is laughable. There were only some 200 incidents of cash theft including snatch and grab as well as hold-ups in the Dutch supermarkets last year. In a country with thousands of supermarkets which cater to a population of over 16 million, that is a very low percentage of armed robbery. I have seen violent places and central Amsterdam is not one of them. This is not the sort of business located in the red light district or even open late. The fact is this business is located in a very affluent area of Amsterdam which I would consider safe at any hour of the day or night.
Under the guise of protecting people, what this cashless rule does very well is keep quality food out of the hands of the poor and the illegal immigrants. It also allows the company, the bank and the government to know just what it is you buy every day.
Supermarkets in the Netherlands planning on eliminating cash transactions by 2014. What happens on the day markets around the world sell only electronically? What happens on that day when your card is declined? How many more rights will people concede for the perception of security? A cashless society does not equal security, it is slavery. Those who control the electronic money will then effectively control every aspect of a person’s physical survival including where a person may live, who eats and who does not. A cashless society will allow those who control the electronic monetary system to decide weather you live or die. At least with the current system when the when the money is devalued to less than the cost of the paper it is printed on you can still use it as tinder.
Electronic money is an even bigger scam than the paper money backed by nothing which we currently have. Say no to having every aspect of your daily life electronically recorded. Say no to a society run on electronic money by refusing to support stores which do not accept cash. Say no by using cash or better yet bartering when and where possible. If we just go along with the new electronic monetary system the consequences will likely be disastrous. The time to choose what sort of economic system you want to live under is today, before the choice is made for you. Act now and make your voice heard.
footnotes:
Instead of the usual footnotes I am listing all the researchers, filmmakers and authors who pointed me in the direction of the information above and not only those whose work would normally be referenced in direct conjunction with the information in this article. These footnotes are not only an acknowledgment of the scholarship of the people listed below but are also a sincere thanks for their contributions towards the education of all humanity.
thank you:
Max Igan, David Icke, Aaron Russo, Ben Stewart, Anthony J Hilder
Special thanks to my friend Jonathan at KnowTheLies.com, who helped me edit this essay.
Entries (RSS)