Nation of slaves

[obyknven]

Newest historic research - during last 800 years  UK ruled by same families of masters (around 1% of populace).

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/fulltext.html

Freedom, democracy, social mobility lol,  So epic subslaves!

[Guard Dog]

Uh oh Wals... he's on to you!

 

Edited November 26, 2014 by Guard Dog

[Walsingham]

Damn straight. If only we were Russians! We could eat all the Freedom we wanted.

[kgambit]

Damn straight. If only we were Russians! We could eat all the Freedom we wanted.

 

In Russia Freedom eat you ......

[Guard Dog]

Better watch out Oby. Now that you've let the Brit ruling class know you're on to them you might run into a well dressed, well-spoken, tea sipping, jag-u-war driving British guy who say's "Terribly sorry" before shooting you in the head with a Walther PPK.

 

  It could happen!

[BruceVC]

Better watch out Oby. Now that you've let the Brit ruling class know you're on to them you might run into a well dressed, well-spoken, tea sipping, jag-u-war driving British guy who say's "Terribly sorry" before shooting you in the head with a Walther PPK.

 

  It could happen!

 

[obyknven]

 

ВЫ ВСЕ ВРЕТИ!

Expected reaction so expected. Nation who yet obey to Medieval lords last 800 years  can't react to such researches by different way.

[obyknven]

Murica is not better. 

 

 

THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.

Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United States could add more troops, or the United States could add a lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.

Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in.

How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been condensed and edited.

IDEAS: Where does the term “double government” come from?

GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the birth of the Economist magazine—they still have a column named after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested that there are two sets of institutions. There are the “dignified institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords, which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he suggested that there was in reality a second set of institutions, which he referred to as the “efficient institutions,” that actually set governmental policy. And those were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British cabinet.

IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?

GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that president continue those same policies in case after case after case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.

IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?

GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision….Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.

The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on autopilot.”

IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?

GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences.

IDEAS: Couldn’t Obama’s national-security decisions just result from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million lives?

GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.

IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American political system.

GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot explained about the British population, that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger picture is still true—policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.

IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?

GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html?event=event25

[Guard Dog]

Jeez oby who am I supposed to be afraid of here? A few weeks ago you said the jews were running everything. Then it's the guy who lives in the penthouse of the pyramid. The cartoon you posted makes it look like the sleestack from Land of the Lost are the ones to worry about. Heck when I was growing up they told me I had to be afraid of the Russians. I'm confused... who should I be worried about again? 

 

[Walsingham]

I

 

Jeez oby who am I supposed to be afraid of here? A few weeks ago you said the jews were running everything. Then it's the guy who lives in the penthouse of the pyramid. The cartoon you posted makes it look like the sleestack from Land of the Lost are the ones to worry about. Heck when I was growing up they told me I had to be afraid of the Russians. I'm confused... who should I be worried about again? 

 

 

In my considered opinion we should be afraid of whoever is controlling oby.

[HoonDing]

Insulting royalty is a capital offense.

[obyknven]

http://www.iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16294

 

UK Internet filters and the IAA forum

Last year a new internet law was passed in the UK. This required customers signing up to new internet service plans to "opt out" of installing filtering software. The law was sold to the public as a way of preventing children from accessing adult material.

I was staying at a relative's house over the weekend and tried to access the IAA forum from their computer. It returned a message saying that the filters had blocked access to the site, as it was categorised as "violence and weapons". However, for some reason the BOCN forum could still be accessed as usual. I never heard this angle discussed when they were passing the law. I have no idea whether this also extends to other providers, as my experience was with one provider and one specific computer.

At present there is a way to remove sites from the block list individually. However, it makes me wonder if this law was passed as a way to gradually get the public to accept compulsory internet filters. This would be much the same as creeping gun control laws. If not, perhaps it allows the serivce provider to force the company's own agenda on users.

I wonder how far down the road it will be when access to any information regarding firearms is restricted by law in the UK. I could also see them saying that anything critical of the government or its policies is "not suitable for children", and eventually the entire general public.

Of course if it does come to this, the filters could always be bypassed as users in countries like China already do. I am surprised more effort has not been made by governments around the world to restrict the internet. Never before has the average person been able to access so much news and opinion outside of the mainstream media. I can see why effort to restrict it is starting now. However, it seems that free internet is not something that will be given up easily, as there is opposition to it across the entire political spectrum. Many people today also rely too heavily on it.

 

So much freedom lol

[obyknven]

Help is near.

[Walsingham]

And you're really doing your bit from your mom's basement.

 

*weak rejoinder*

[obyknven]

And you're really doing your bit from your mom's basement.

 

*weak rejoinder*

Yep. In my mom's basement i have much more freedom than you at home. Though you are quite happy, it's some sort of nonnatural selection when British elites send all liberal people (aka rioters) into colonies (North America, Australia) and transform British nation into happy submissive slaves. Long live to obeying!

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/uk-police-arrests-10-more-over-facebook-posts-inciting-riots/2505

UK police arrests 10 more over Facebook posts inciting riots  

Summary: 10 more men have been arrested in connection with messages they posted on Facebook allegedly encouraging people to riot in the UK.

[Walsingham]

Incitement to riot is a crime. Doing it on the interwebz doesn't magically make it legal.

 

Wee reminder there, 'oby'. Don't accidentally go too far and post something your mom wouldn't approve of. The nasty nasty policemen might show it to her.

[obyknven]

I just leave this here.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/king-richard-iii-dna-tested-queen-elizabeth-may-not-be-true-queen-of-england

 

DNA tests were conducted on the bones of King Richard III. Those bones were found buried in a parking lot. According to Tuesday, Dec. 2 report by MSN, those tests casts doubt on whether or not Queen Elizabeth is the true Queen of England....

...

The break in the DNA could have occurred anywhere within the 19 links between the King Richard III and the living descendents of John of Gaunt. There is no way of knowing where that break took place. If that break took place within a few generations of King Richard III, the current reign of Queen Elizabeth and the future reigns of her descendents can be questioned. However, it is highly unlikely anyone will be asking the Queen of England for a sample of her DNA.

 

Even if the Queen Elizabeth is proven not to be genetically the true Queen of England, it will not change the current monarchy. The Tudors took the throne by force at the Battle of Bosworth. Ironically, King Richard III died at that battle in 1485.

In other words Queen has no rights to power, but nation of Brits can't stop obeying.

[Gorgon]

How far are we going back to establish credentials. Past a handful of userpers who killed or exiled the old kings and took the crown for themselves ?

[Walsingham]

Note that our royalty do not feel the need to strip to the waist.

 

 

 

 

 

And if they did, Putin would burst into tears.

[Valsuelm]

And if they did, Putin would burst into tears.

 

Lucky him. Most of the rest of us would go blind.

[Walsingham]

 

And if they did, Putin would burst into tears.

 

Lucky him. Most of the rest of us would go blind.

 

 

Too late. Far, far too late.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Russia is just a neofeudalistic duchy. Modern Russia exists as many western politicians can only dream off--unapproachable oligarchy and openly corrupt bureaucracy sitting high above the peasant and serf population. Putin has more economic sense than many of the fascists around the world, but he's still a fascist autocrat. He came to power through the ranks of the secret police. There are never good people working in secret police and intelligence agencies ever--for any country, entity, at any point in history. Just the corrupt and those waiting for the opportunity to become corrupt. Just ask Alexander Litvinenko.

[obyknven]

lol.  Do you can explain me now: Why ex-KGB agent Litvinenko  is good guy for Westlings, but in same time ex-KGB agent Putin is bad guy? Do you like Litvenenko so much only because  he betray own people and he is pet of Russian mafia boss (Berezovsky - another hero of Western people - criminal, creator of Chechen wars)? Or Westlings just like so much people who work entire life in KGB/NKVD/GULAG?

 

Yet another (but forgotten) hero of western people - Georges Agabekov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Agabekov

Entire life he fanatically worked in Cheka/OGPU (and cause death of many people), but when his career become unsuccessful he suddenly  flee to West. Obviously he known what happened with his old parents in this case (GULAG and execution), but this is don't stop him. Assassinated by Soviet agents (they use contraband trade as  bait for him - yet another proof of his high morale).

 

Probably Westlings like such rascals, but sorry, Russians traditionally assassinate these traitorous bastards.

 

But this is offtop here, let's return to British nation... 

Edited December 8, 2014 by obyknven

[Walsingham]

Russia is just a neofeudalistic duchy. Modern Russia exists as many western politicians can only dream off--unapproachable oligarchy and openly corrupt bureaucracy sitting high above the peasant and serf population. Putin has more economic sense than many of the fascists around the world, but he's still a fascist autocrat. He came to power through the ranks of the secret police. There are never good people working in secret police and intelligence agencies ever--for any country, entity, at any point in history. Just the corrupt and those waiting for the opportunity to become corrupt. Just ask Alexander Litvinenko.

 

Er... what about George Bush Snr.?

 

But i agree with your general point. Work in the security services should bar you from overseeing them.

[HoonDing]

Give the man a break, oby.