Security devours freedom

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

A flock of sheep is in the enclosure and the mother ewe asks: “Children, do you know why we are surrounded by barbed wire?” “I know, Mom!”, says one of the lambs. “That is there to keep the terrorists out, so that we can enjoy our freedom in peace.”

The terrorists hate us for our freedoms we are being told and in order to fight them and to keep us safe we have to give up our freedoms piece by piece to the powers-that-be.

The powers-that-be press the people to clamor for more and more security and protection by creating more and more threats and claiming that in order for them to be able to protect us they need to have access to all our telephone data, our Internet data, and more and more surveillance of all our lives, of everything that we do. We must, we are told, to give up more and more freedoms for which the terrorists hate us here so much.

Well, the way things are going there will soon be nothing left anymore for them to hate us any longer. We will have given away all those freedoms, more or less voluntarily, to be safe from terrorists (and criminals).

All those CCTV cameras neither deter crime, nor do they help to solve crime, and they definitely do not stop terrorism. Neither will broad telephone intercepts, especially on cell phone networks, and data collection and retention. But it will make “1984” look like a children's story.

Incrementally our freedoms, that we are being told the terrorists hate us so badly for, are being eroded and removed and the people, in general, by clamoring for more and more safety and security, having been first scared by the powers-that-be into believing all those threats and dangers, are playing right into the hands of the elite whose aim is to remove our freedoms from us.

More and more surveillance, data retention, monitoring of everyone's Internet activity and (mobile) telephone calls, and whatever else they are going to come up with next is not there to keep us, the public, safe but to monitor everything that we do just in case that we get ideas above and beyond our station.

It is all about people control and has absolutely nothing to do with making and keeping us safe from terrorist attacks or such like. How can any of those measures prevent a suicide attacker carrying out his “mission”? It cannot and will not. In the same way that police and soldiers on the streets, even in armored carries, won't. If you shoot a suicide bomber the bomb goes off, if you challenge him he will detonate it. Off it goes in any case and there will be victims.

None of those measures are designed to keep us safe. They are designed to keep us controlled and to keep us in a perpetual state of fear.

© 2017

Political parties, a divisive force

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Regardless of promises and position in the spectrum of left or right (or color), political parties, as soon as they get a taste of and for power, they become corrupted by it.

It is, therefore, imperative that we get away from political parties and the party line that comes with every one of them.

Political parties may have had their place – and I even question that notion to some degree – but today they are much more of a problem than a solution.

While I may be a socialist and communist I am not a member of any party and follow no party line as parties also do nothing to unite the people. They cause division and that, so at least it would appear (to me), is also an intended consequence.

We allow ourselves to be labeled and thus divided and put into boxes instead of working together independently, without such hangups as parties and affiliations, for a better world. It is as if, for some reason, we just want to prevent such cooperation from happening; at least the powers-that-be certainly do want to prevent it.

The labels are “left”, “right”, “center”, center-left”, or whatever else and with it come little drawers into which we are neatly packaged never to associate, by decree often, with those who take a different stance and have a different view.

Political party lines become like religions and are as rigidly controlled by the leadership in the same way as the leaders of organized religions control their “flock” and what they can do, who they can meet and who they can be associated with. It is a “divide and rule” policy in the same way as the powers-that-be play out one people and one country against another.

We have to get away from political parties in the same way as we have to get away from anything else that divides us, otherwise we cannot advance towards peace on this Earth and towards an Earth where we still be able to live.

There is not one political party that has not been corrupted in one way or the other, regardless, as said, of their color and their position in the spectrum, and this more often than not through the donations that they receive from powerful benefactors.

While some of the parties of the working class may not, necessarily, be tainted in this way the corruption of power also occurs when they manage to get into positions of influence and “power” and thus parties are divisive as few other things can be. And they feel threatened when people organize themselves, not into parties but to work together, regardless of background, for peace and for a better world.

And this even more so when those people begin to question what the established “order” and what they are being told by politicians and the media, and begin to research things for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

The people are then painted as being “new right wing”, and as being “brown mystics” and as anti-Semitic when they question the Federal Reserve Bank and its power over the world, because they come to conclusions that upset the status quo and, obviously, the established power structure.

Even when no one mentions the religion or ethnicity of those that hold the reins of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York the accusation of Antisemitism is brought to the fore immediately. Maybe, in this instance, we should ask the accusers as to whether they are the racist ones for suggesting that the heads of that bank as being of a certain religious and ethnic group.

But, whatever the case, political parties have no place in a democracy for democracy is not party rule or a coalition of parties but people rule. Democracy in its true sense means “the people rule (themselves)” and for that it requires the people and not political parties. Political parties are but a hindrance and distraction in true democracy as they give power to something that has no right to power. The power belongs to the people and not parties or a government.

Free people do not need to be governed for is they are governed, that is to say ruled, then they are not free but slaves.

© 2014

Remembrance Sunday 2013

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Once again we have been commemorating Remembrance Sunday, and tomorrow, November 11, Armistice Day, as per usual, a two minute silence at 1100 hrs in memory of the thousands who died on all sides in the War to End all Wars.

Problem is that the War to End all Wars did not end all war and that ever since we seem to have more wars and "conflicts" than at any time in history though, aside from World War Two, none have come close to home.

Still many on all sides lost their lives. War is, as Harry Patch, the last Tommy who dies not so long ago, said "organized murder" and most of the time it is fought not for freedom but so that the capitalists can lay their hands on some resource or other.

It is now 95 years ago that the guns fell - well on November 11 at 11 a.m. to be exact - that the guns fell silent in World War One but nothing, bar the way war is conducted, seems to have changed. The poor are still used as cannon fodder so that the rich can get richer.

This is something that must remembered also when we remember... but it is being kept quiet as we keep having one lovely war after the other.

Wars and conflicts will continue until the people refuse to participate in them and no longer buy into the lies that they are fought to preserve our freedoms. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that they are, in 99 our of a 100 cases, fought so that corporations and governments can enrich themselves at the costs of the lives of, predominately, the poor, the working class, who is pressed into the service of the country.

We have attacked Iraq under the guise of “war on terror” and non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the powers-that-be knew very well that there were no WMDs and then we went into Afghanistan again to combat terrorism while bringing some nice terrorism to the people there.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are now worse off than they were before and it had nothing to do with fighting terrorism or WMDs but everything with oil and minerals.

Young men and women have given their lives supposedly defending freedom and democracy and for bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan but it was a lie on all counts.

Our politicians stand at the Cenotaph in Whitehall (and other monuments) shedding crocodile tears for the fallen while, at the same time, veterans returning from the conflict zones are left without care and homes.

Now the USA and the UK are eying a possible intervention – and let no one believe that they don't if they don't get their way – in Syria and why? It is quite simple; once again black gold, aka oil and the pipeline that is being planned from Kirkuk to the Mediterranean and through Syria is simply the shortest and therefore cheapest route.

If they really would be concerned about the human rights of people they would have, long ago, hit Mugabe in Zimbabwe over the head but there is no oil to speak off there that can be stolen. Thus no intervention.

Politicians and corporations are the only ones who benefit from those wars and the multi-national corporations especially. We must not forget that Krupp guns and other German hardware were in use on both sides of the war in the East during World War Two. It is the warmongers, the arms industry, and others, who make the profits on the backs of the young (and not so young) men and women they sacrifice happily (it's not their sons and daughters) and they happily supply both sides.

The people, if they are not whipped up into nationalistic frenzy, would happily shake hands with those on the other side as they do not have any quarrels with them. German socialists and communists and even social-democrats fought side by side with Soviet soldiers against a common enemy, and that was a true enemy, Hitlerite fascism. And this was also seen when ordinary Tommies and Germans celebrated Christmas together in no man's land.

Wars are, predominately, created by greed for land or resources and have very little to do with freedom and the protection of liberties. War is nothing but organized murder perpetrated by the ruling class forcing the lower classes to do the dirty work.

If someone is not infringing on my liberties then he is not my enemy. Anyone, however, who is trying to oppress me, and my brothers, is my enemy.

Let's resist wars and the call to arms, unless it is really for our freedoms, and create a world at peace. We owe it to ourselves and the Planet.

© 2013

The right to self-defense

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Under British law it was once totally acceptable to defend oneself and others from attacks and harm but nowadays this has become the sole reserve of the law enfarcement services, basically, especially outside of one's own home.

Everyone in Victorian England and before, especially the men, carried a club, that is to say a cudgel, of some sort or, if he was a person of standing a sword or sword cane and it was accepted by the law that people had the right to defend themselves from attack by whatever means.

Today the criminal has more rights in England than any law-abiding subject of Her Britannic Majesty and the mere thought, almost, of carrying a stick (or something else) for the purpose of self-defense is considered against the law.

Any stick, for instance, especially if perceived as a cudgel, will be immediately considered and offensive weapon in the eyes of the police and the courts of law.

In fact, in Victorian times it was considered a right to be able to defend oneself and even by use of a firearm and many people had and carried such.

Over time, however, the people have permitted the lawmakers to whittle away all those rights by increments and the people also gave those rights away, basically, in return for promised protection by the law and the police.

The response time of the police has never been a great one and the truth is that they really only can come in after the event when a person has been attacked and injured or even killed by an attacker.

Nowadays we have arrived at such a state when the attacker is being treated more favorable than the victim should the latter have had a weapon of any sorts on his or her person with which to defend him- or herself. And even the person who just beats an attacker “to pulp” with his or her hands could find him- or herself charged with a felony.

Has the world gone mad? I would surely say so...

Time the people took back the streets and the right to proper self-defense as it once was the case.

© 2013

Homeland Security monitors domestic and foreign journalists

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Russia Today has reported that the US Homeland Security monitors journalists, and not just, it would appear and of that we can be certain also, American journalists.

Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental right of the US Constitution and it might allow journalists to get away with a lot in America, but the Department of Homeland Security is on the ready to make sure that the government is keeping dibs on who is saying what.

Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November 2011, Washington has now the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.

Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own definition of personal identifiable information, or PII, such data could consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.”

Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding Blogger, can now be victimized by the agency, without any cause.

Also included in the roster of those subjected to the spying are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees that do the same and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” which to itself opens up the possibilities even wider.

The department says that they will only scour publicly-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.

The development out of the DHS comes at the same time that U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady denied pleas from supporters of WikiLeaks who had tried to prevent account information pertaining to their Twitter accounts from being provided to federal prosecutors. Jacob Applebaum and others advocates of Julian Assange’s whistleblower site were fighting to keep the government from subpoenaing information on their personal accounts that were collected from Twitter.

In fact an appeal against this judgment was quashed, yet again, and the government intends to pursue Twitter further for the details of WikiLeaks supporters to be handed over. And those details could be more, apparently, than of those people mentioned in the court judgment.

At the end of 2011 the Boston Police Department and the Suffolk Massachusetts District Attorney subpoenaed Twitter over details pertaining to recent tweets involving the Occupy Boston protests.

The website Fast Company reports that the intelligence collected by the Department of Homeland Security under the NOC Monitoring Initiative has been happening since as early as 2010 and the data is being widely shared with both private sector businesses and international third parties.

Somewhere along the line they do not seem to have read the First Amendment to the Constitution which clearly states that: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Which part of “Congress shall make NO LAW” do they not understand?

The biggest problem in all this is that the great majority of Americans, as per usual, only concerned as to whether they can watch TV and go to the Pizza or Burger joint, are totally unaware of the fact that their liberties, for which hundreds of thousands died in many conflicts, at home and abroad, are being eroded one by one.

The land of the free – no longer – and the home of the brave (that also went out of the window, methinks).

WAKE UP, AMERICA!

© 2012

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Freedom, yours and mine, is not free, even though the word free freely forms part of it. Far from it.

Freedom comes at a high cost in effort and sweat and often in blood and hast to be fought for tooth and nail and that time and time again.

At this very moment in Europe we are on the best way of loosing many freedoms that were hard fought for during World War Two against the Nazis and the first country in line trying to – once again – abolish them and demanding that they be demolished all over the EU, is... and you guessed it right, Germany.

All across the European Union freedom is under attack.

Already a year or two ago the German government instigated the “Bundestrojaner” (Federal Trojan) with which they, legally, can infiltrate anyone's computer and not just discover what an individual (or organization) has on the computer. Nay, they can even alter, destroy, remove or substitute files, folders and programs, and all written into the appropriate laws.

Germany would like to have the entire EU adopt such measures in the same way as it is Germany, and one or two other EU member states, who presses for the introduction of “Vorratsdatenspeicherung”, which means the retaining of all Internet data for individuals and companies via their service providers for several years. And this includes every email, every website visited, every contact made via social networks and every post, etc.

France and Italy have enacted laws against (foreign) Gypsies on their soil and rumor has it, via a number of Russian news agencies, that the EU has been or is in discussions with the government of the Russian Federation (and the Ukraine) to take all of Europe's Gypsies. It would appear that the EU would like to ethnically cleanse its member states of the Romani People.

Now, after the attack by a right-wing extremist in Norway the German government once again in the forefront calls for restrictions to the Internet use and for total surveillance of where people go, what they do, etc.

Italy already tried to, basically, outlaw Bloggers some two years or so ago when it dug up the old postwar law that made it illegal for all but government-approved journalists and newspapers to be reporting and writing news and editorial pieces and, according to the government a Blog was, therefore, an unauthorized newspaper and thus illegal. When governments head into that direction we know they are running scared of the people, in the same way when they try to disarm the citizenry.

Freedom is not free and we must always fight to retain our freedoms but too many have decided that they would like to have more security and as soon as that demand is made freedoms go out of the window.

Demands for more security and “peace of mind” to governments always seem to be a license – or so at least they see it – to put in more and more surveillance and more and more restrictions to freedoms until those freedoms, hard fought for, no longer exist. Then it is too late.

We must demand from the governments not more security but the right to defend ourselves against those that may wish us harm and those that wish to steal from us, and those that wish to destroy our freedoms. But, alas, too many people are not prepared to think and do for themselves. They want their governments to think and do for them. After all, they say, that is what they pay taxes for; to have everything done for them.

Do not sacrifice freedoms for peace of mind and an illusion of security. Fight your own fights and demand the right to defend yourself and your own neighbourhoods. The police always is reactive anyway. We must be proactive and also proactive as far as our freedoms go.

© 2011

Website login with Biometric Identity Card

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Germany, Summer 2009: According to information moves are afoot for German computer users, and I doubt it will remain German ones only if the EU has any say in that, to having to use their biometric personal identity cards – such ID cards are compulsory in Germany – for logging in at Internet sites, such as Ebay, and others.

No longer will pseudonyms be permitted and neither made up personal information. Instead the ID card's details will be used to create accounts and used for logins. Aside from the simple issues of data security – well, not so simple really – there are issues here of privacy and such.

Big Brother definitely is taking over, as far as I can see, and biometric IDs and token RFID logins on PCs can easily be combined and thus track, basically, our every moves now on the computer; at least as regards to those sites where login is required.

While to begin with it is said that this will be for the online auction and other trade sites as well as for online shopping accounts only, it has already been muted that this system is going to be extended to all social networking sites as well, such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.

Noooo good at all. This is a privacy and ID theft disaster waiting to happen. Help!

Aside, as said, from the fact that this may be an ID nightmare waiting to happen it also means that any kind of anonymity and thereby personal privacy on the Internet will be gone.

Big Brother will then know precisely, through the use of the ID card, as to where you spend your time online and, probably, even what you “say” online, what you buy in an auction or in an e-store; you name it it will rack it.

Now someone tell me again that we are not headed for a total “Big Brother” world, with the powers that be trying to control every individual and his or her actions and lives.

Food for thought! And a call for action, perhaps?

© 2009
<>

Cars outlawed in suburb of Freiburg, Germany

In part of the German transition town of Freiburg motorcar ownership has been, practically, outlawed.

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Now we have arrived at the point where the true face of the man-made lbal Warming/Climate Change myth is being laid bare, namely people control.

Originally it was voluntary in such places to give up the motorcar but now it has become compulsory and car ownership is basically made against the law.

First they try to persuade people out of their cars and to give their internal combustion engine cars by making it a climate survival issue and by using high fuel prices. Then, finally, they simply say no to cars completely and bingo; people have lost the ability to live and work where they choose.

While I am certainly no lover of the infernal combustion engine and motor cars, as I am not a car owner nor a driver, but a cyclist, they do have their uses and I will defend anyone's right to own one in spite of this.

Too me the agenda of people control by removing the “right” to own a personal motorcar hidden behind the man-made climate change myth has been obvi0ous for a considerable time; in fact ever since the 1970s when they were claiming that we were headed for a new ice age and were giving the same flawed supposed facts.

While I am certainly not denying that the world's climate is indeed changing I very much, and so do others, doubt that it is caused by human activities or belching and farting cows.

The aim has been for some decades already to get ordinary people out of their cars for good and to make them live nearer to their work again, as used to be the case during and after the Industrial Revolution and before the arrival of the motorcar and its availability to the masses. This, in most cases, means a move back into the towns and especially cities.

People who live in towns and cities are easier to control than those living outside the urban areas.

Remove people's means and freedom of personal travel and they will have to move back into the conurbations as to be close enough to their jobs so as to reach them by public transit systems, by bike or on foot. People thus can be controlled and corralled there if and when the powers that be decide. Nice one, Henry!

The permanently increasing gasoline and diesel prices are yet another attempt to get people out of their cars for it is not so much the companies – though they as well – that make to the increases in prices of fuel while crue oil remains steady in price, but the taxes levied by government.

One must wonder though as to why governments seem to be working on killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

It does not make sense unless, obviously, the control of the people means much more to the powers that be than any revenues that they can get from the taxes on gasoline and diesel.

We have seen an attempt – though often less than halfheartedly – to curb, for lack of a better work, the use of the motorcar by private citizens ever since the 1970s to be honest and more often than not for the selfsame reasons as the environment and the protection of same given.

Henry Kissinger in his now infamous statement of that time said that if you would wish to control nations you would have to control fuel and if you would like to control people it would be food that you would have to control.

The nation control was tried immediately after... enter the oil crisis that never was... and what we are seeing now is another past of the people control. Take away people's freedom and means of personal transportation that allows them to live in the countryside but work in the cities and you control where they can live and work. Marvelous, is it not?

What we saw, as said, in the “oil crisis” was a blatant attempt of trying how far they could go with what they were doing and they got a considerable way with it. Now it is going further with an attempt being made to actually make the car, driving and car ownership socially unacceptable in the same way as they did with smoking (in public).

Now, in order to live in some places, one will have to forgo car ownership and use and while I am, as I said, am all for less cars on the road, especially for the unnecessary journeys, I will also defend anyone's right to own a car and use it (responsibly).

Once, for whatever reason, government, etc., make such rules then what is going to come next one can but ask.

Next we will be told, no doubt, that we have to live in such and such a place, in this or that street, in such and such kind of home and do this or that job, and no other, no choice. This cannot be permitted to happen.

There is one little note that I would like to insert here and that is that what we perceive as the right to car ownership and use may, in fact, be a privilege granted to those that do drive amongst us for does not everyone have a government issued driver's license and license plates. Government could thus claim that, therefore, it is a privilege granted that can also be taken away, rather than a right. But still I defend anyone's whatever it may be to own and operate a car even though I do not drive nor own one and have chosen to cycle instead and use other means of transportation. But that is my choice, to a degree, as it is also governed by another factor, aside from the lack of funds for it all.

We must keep a close eye on the truth here and not be misled by smokescreens of this or that environmental catastrophe. While the car contributed, no doubt, to smog and other pollution and I would rather see an end of the ICE simply because of the particles in the exhaust that is harmful to our health, I disagree with forcing people to give up their cars.

If cars are outlawed only outlaws will have cars, in the same way as too guns. And where guns have been outlawed we see that only villains now carry then, and some of those wear uniforms too.

© 2009
<>

Private Web spies monitor activists online for Australian police and attorney-general

God defend me from my friends – from my enemies I can defend myself

by Michael Smith

A private intelligence company has been engaged by police in Australia to secretly monitor internet and email use by activist and protest groups, according to a report.

The company was hired by Victorian Police, the Australian Federal Police and the federal Attorney-General's department to monitor and report on the internet activities of anti-war campaigners, animal rights activists, environmental campaigners, and other protest groups.

The Melbourne-based firm has for the past five years monitored websites, online chat rooms, social networking sites, email lists and bulletin boards, so says the report, and has gathered intelligence on planned protests and other activities, and even though many, if not even the majority, of those on the watch list have broken no laws.

Welcome to the fascist Dominion of Australia. Then again, it would appear that the mother country, Britain, is headed the same way, with the security services running roughshod over all civil liberties possible. Is this a sign of things to come?

This private intelligence company has also prepared threat assessments and intelligence reports for government agencies that included material from media reports, speeches, academic journals and publicly available company data, but no private correspondence, so it is claimed, was monitored.

As to the latter I would, personally, be very dubious. If they go as far as they have gone the chances are that they may have gone further still but that this is more secret than other things.

The company was not named at the request of its management for fear extremists may target the firm.

The news comes a month after Victorian police were found to have targeted community and activist groups in a long-running covert operation.

So much for the claims of freedom and liberties in Australia. If that is freedom and liberty then I would not want to see what happens should they change tack.

There is one difference between Australia and the UK and that is that in Australia it seems to be easier to find out those things that the services are up to compared to the UK. In the latter place the law and the culture of secrecy makes getting such information very difficult indeed, despite of the “Freedom of Information Act” and if they can claim that they are monitoring suspected terrorists then, well, no chance of getting info and anything that ends up leaked and then published could get one killed.

© M Smith (Veshengro), November 2008
<>