show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

FOUR BRAVE MEN - FASCIST EU PERSECUTES WHISTLEBLOWERS

  • 2 Replies
  • 1035 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3556
  • +75/-0
FOUR BRAVE MEN - FASCIST EU PERSECUTES WHISTLEBLOWERS
« on: June 19, 2013, 10:25:43 PM »
LATEST FROM FREENATIONS

www.freenations.freeuk.com/news-2013-06-19.html

 

FOUR BRAVE MEN - FASCIST EU PERSECUTES WHISTLEBLOWERS

Rodney Atkinson

 

So, as in all Orwellian nightmares it is the reporter of crimes who is arrested or persecuted and the real criminals are not even investigated never mind put on trial. Such is the fascist nature of the European Union and of the European Governments which kow-tow to its anti democratic power.

 

Paul van Buitenen was a senior member of the EU's own Audit Commission when he revealed facts about the ?6,000m losses in the EU budget due to fraud and mismanagement. He was threatened by Commission employees and taken to view guns stored on Commission premises - very subtle!

 

Bernard Connolly, who was Head of the Commission department responsible for working on the introduction of the Euro, and who wrote the book "The Rotten Heart of Europe" was excluded from Commission buildings, his picture was put up in public corridors, he was ordered, illegally, not to leave the country, his phone was tapped, his wife was followed in the street and received many nuisance telephone calls and his house was broken into. In other words a deliberate programme of vicious intimidation by those European Institutions which David Cameron thinks are essential to Britain's future!

 

Hans Martin Tillack, a Journalist for the German magazine Stern, published material exposing corruption in the European Commission's statistical office, Euro-Stat. Belgian police seized documents and his computer in raids on his home and office in March 2004. The well-known Brussels reporter said he was interrogated for hours without being granted contact with anybody and his treatment sparked worldwide condemnation from media and journalists' organisations. Aiden White of the European Federation of Journalists said: "The commission makes unsubstantiated allegations against a reporter and then gets access to his confidential files which potentially compromise anyone who has talked to him. It is a shocking denial of justice to journalists and their sources". It was not until 2009 that Tillack was eventually exonerated when he was awarded 10,000 Euros damages and 30,000 Euros costs by the Belgian Government. It was not the only time that heavy handed, not to say oppressive, actions of the Belgian Police did the dirty work for the Commission.

 

Ashley Mote, the former UKIP MEP, who has done much to expose fraud, corruption and illegality in the European Union to a wider audience, had his home raided, his phone and documents taken by the police following the publication of his memoirs "A Mote in Brussels Eye".

 

Three months later (June 2013) he has heard nothing. No accusations, no arrest, no explanation as to what he might have done wrong. Despite several letters to the Chief Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire he still does not know (In this once free country of the rule of law!):

 

? Why the raid took place at all
 ? On what grounds the police were granted a search warrant
 ? By whom, and at what court the warrant was signed
 ? Why it referred to "the offences" without explanation, clarification or the use of the qualifying word "alleged"
 ? Who or what organisation persuaded the police to act
 ? Why they did not talk to him first, assuming there was anything to talk about
 ? Why they have kept his mobile phone for so long
 ? Why they have retained a few papers since early March, none of which can be of any relevance to anyone else, having returned the rest almost immediately
 ? Why they have refused to answer any questions or explain themselves

 

Mote writes to me:

 

In addition to all that, my entirely reasonable questions seeking an explanation of Chief Constable Andy Marsh's prima facie breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 also remain unanswered. So do my questions to Hampshire's newly-elected Police and Crime Commissioner, Simon Hayes, who seems not to have exercised his own responsibilities to challenge the Chief Constable under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, Section 1(7).

 

Mote knows his law and so is of course a big threat to the fascist powers of the EU and the extension of those powers through the spineless British Government. All this I warned about in publications since 1989 for the European structures being built were a clear indication of the resurection of those corporatist fascist ideas, economics and politics which we thought we had defeated in 1945. No one in Britain can say they were not warned!

 

A written question about the police raid on my home was asked in the European Parliament and answered by the Lithuanian Commissioner for "Taxation, Customs, Statistics, Audit and Anti-Fraud", Algirdas Semeta. He denied any knowledge of my affairs since 2010. It is always possible, of course, that he was being economical with the truth, as the European Commission so often is. A letter from my MP Damian Hinds to the Home Secretary was side-stepped by the junior minister Damian Green who took three pages to say I should complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Evasion at every turn.

 

Mote's "crime" of course is to spend so much time credibly exposing EU corruption something which the pathetic British press, if they still had an ounce of democratic sense would also be exposing and thus defending people like Mote. One of Mote's efforts involved taking

 

several boxes of carefully documented and thoroughly researched evidence to the Serious Fraud Office (all of which was ignored and dismissed with contempt), to Scotland Yard (ditto), to a committee of the House of Lords (whose europhile chairman chose to turn a blind eye) and numerous MPs on both sides of the House of Commons (who were never able to gather enough support for effective action).

 

So, as in all Orwellian nightmares it is the reporter of crimes who is arrested or persecuted and the real criminals are not even investigated never mind put on trial. Such is the fascist nature of the European Union and of all the European Governments which kow-tow to its totalitarian power.

 

 


*

the watcher

  • Guest
Re: FOUR BRAVE MEN - FASCIST EU PERSECUTES WHISTLEBLOWERS
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2013, 10:34:17 PM »
Of course .  But so many cannot grasp what Meyer - from a German Jewish family  Germany > US, was saying.  I say that his words are NOW.  The evidence is all around us.  And the crimes are vast by comparison with the Third Reich because all the rules, except the Hague convention, were laid down at Nuremberg and at Geneva.  Take Syria - aggressive war is in train.  The supreme war crime.  These psychopaths are utterly lawless, thus in part defining their psychopathic nature.

 These people cannot warm to the smile of a child or brush a tear from its cheek.  They hjave no idea what I mean in my being when I say 'No mother and child should be in the least harmed anywhere in our still beautiful world'. 

     
         

         



I wrote:  May I send this around my contact list? - it is a brilliant 'quote' and so relevant.

 

 


           
'They Thought They Were Free'
by Milton Mayer, The Germans, 1938-45


(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)






"What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap between the government and the people. And it became always wider.....the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think....for people who did not want to think anyway gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about.....and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated.....by the machinations of the 'national enemies,'  without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.....

"Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'.....must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing.....Each act is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next.

"You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even talk, alone.....you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.'  But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes.

"That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed.

"You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father.....could never have imagined."
sent in by Ferne


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3556
  • +75/-0
Police States, Theirs and Ours
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2013, 10:46:47 PM »
Police States, Theirs and Ours


angloUSflag

Anyone who?s shocked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden?s revelations that the US state is spying on its citizens shouldn?t be. Liberal democracies have routinely spied on their own citizens, long before Google, Microsoft, Verizon and the iPhone made the job easier. And they?ve done so while denouncing official enemies like the Soviet Union and East Germany?and today Cuba and North Korea?as police states. Indeed, what?s changed isn?t the fact of state surveillance, but its scope and reach.
 Writing about Canada, political scientist Reg Whitaker and historians Gregory Kealey and Andrew Parnaby note that ?the police showed quite remarkable energy and zeal in spying on large numbers of citizens. (An official) commission (of inquiry) discovered in 1977 that the RCMP security service maintained a name index with 1,300,000 entries, representing 800,000 files on individuals? [1] at a time the country had a population of only 24 million!
Interestingly, Whitaker et al don?t call the RCMP?s security service a ?secret police,? or Canada a ?police state,? though a secret police force that maintained dossiers on three percent of its country?s population might be termed such by someone not so concerned about stepping lightly around the myth that liberal democracies are bastions of political freedom. (They are bastions of political freedom, but of a certain type: that which leaves private ownership of the economy firmly in place and the owners firmly in charge.)
 IN REALITY THEY ARE BASTIONS OF STATE CAPITALISM WITH A MASSIVE PROPAGANDA DEPT.

State capitalism has various different meanings, but is usually described as a society wherein the productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist manner, even if such a state calls itself socialist. Corporatized state agencies and states that own controlling shares of publicly-listed firms, and thus acting as a capitalist itself, are two examples of state capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

OF COURSE THIS IS JUST FASCISM!!
Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
 Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy (1922-1943)

WE HAVE THE POLITICAL FREEDOM TO ELECT OUR DICTATORS
 WE ONLY GET TO VOTE FOR OUR DICTATORS AND THEY CAN RAPE CHILDREN AND START ILLEGAL WARS AND STEAL THE NATIONS WEALTH??BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW
 THEREFORE THEY ARE DICTATORS
 Among the Canadians that Canada?s police state spied on was Tommy Douglas, a leader of the mildly left-leaning New Democratic Party, who served as the premier of one of Canada?s provinces. Douglas, grandfather of TV spook Kiefer Sutherland, and who is credited with pioneering Canada?s state-run health insurance program, died almost 30 years ago. All the same, the Canadian government refuses to make public its file on the prairie preacher turned social democrat politician.
Disclosure, the Canadian police state insists, may reveal the names of informants, some of whom may still be alive, while deterring others from working with the political police, for fear their names may come to light in the future as informants. [2] Stasi informers who spied on their neighbors, workmates and acquaintances are reviled, but enmity isn?t heaped upon your neighbors, co-workers and acquaintances who are informers for Western police states. At least Stasi informers were defending a more egalitarian and humane society than the one it replaced and that has taken its place. Western secret police informers defend states that preside over growing inequality, intolerably high unemployment, a war on unions and wages, and which pursue predatory wars on foreign countries that refuse to allow the rape of their natural resources, labor and markets by the Western states? ruling classes.
Canada?s NSA equivalent, the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), has, like its better known counterpart south of the border, been scooping up ?billions of bits of information transmitted around the world in cyberspace or on airwaves.? [3] Canada, along with the US, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, is part of a signals intelligence community, called the Five Eyes, which spies on the other partners? citizens and then shares the data with them to circumvent laws prohibiting domestic spying.
These laws allow the major English-speaking capitalist democracies to back up their rhetoric about political freedom, while the cozy sharing arrangement among their electronic surveillance agencies frees them from the inconvenience of actually having to live up to it. And like the NSA, CSEC collects ?meta-data,? information on the date, duration, location and recipients of phone calls, e-mails, and text messages transmitted in Canada. Today, rather than having files on only 800,000 of its citizens, the Canadian police state has the raw material to assemble files on the vast majority of them.
Whitaker et al call state surveillance of citizens in liberal democracies political policing, which seems far more legitimate (legitimizing) than the name used to describe (discredit) the same behaviour in communist countries. When Cuban or North Korean officials place their citizens under surveillance, they?re accused of totalitarianism and police state repression, though it seems very unlikely, in light of the Snowden and other revelations, that either state can match the scope of snooping that liberal democracies can use to police their own citizens? political behaviour.
The term ?political policing? in lieu of ?police state repression? sanitizes the practice when it happens in liberal capitalist states, and is sanitized again when it is acknowledged that ?policing politics?.has been done and continues to be done? in every liberal democracy, but that it ?is inherently anomalous in liberal democracies.? [4] This, of course, is an oxymoron. Spying on citizens and disrupting the activities of those who challenge the established order can?t be inherently anomalous in liberal democracies if it is done in every one of them. It must, instead, be an invariable trait of liberal democracies.
 MAYBE BECAUSE WE DO NOT LIVE IN A ?LIBERAL DEMOCRACY?
IN TRUE DEMOCRACYS THE PEOPLE ARE THE EXECUTIVE AND THEY MAKE THE DESCIONS
 IN DICTATORSHIPS THE ELITE MAKE THE DESCIONS AND THE PEOPLE ARE BEATEN INTO FOLLOWING!
 EXAMPLE? PRE-CRIME IN THE UK!!
 Charlie Veitch of the Love Police (UK) was arrested today from our own home on suspicion of a ?conspiracy to cause a public nuisance? tomorrow at the Royal Wedding. By nuisance, they mean speaking freely in a public space, which is what Charlie does. He went to the police recently, on his own accord, to discuss how he is entirely non-aggressive and not a threat to them but a friend to them.
 If you were wondering if the UK is still a democracy ? the answer is evidently no. I have never known so many democratic activists be arrested, not only on suspicion of thought-crime, speech-crime, or political assembly crimes ? but now actually these ?offenses? as PRE-crime?!
http://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/royal-wedding-dictators-and-war-criminals-walk-our-streets-free-speach-is-denied-and-the-the-fascist-police-dept-of-pre-crime-is-installed-all-to-celebrate-another-royal-parasite/
 LIBERAL DEMOCRACY OR FASCIST DICTATORSHIP WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE LIVING IN?
But then, so too is political policing an invariable trait of every other kind of state. Whether it?s North Korea or Cuba spying on its own citizens, or the United States, Britain and Canada doing the same, in all cases, political policing serves a conservative function of defending the established order against those who would challenge it. ?[T]he political police,? argue Whitker et al, ?are always on the side of the political/economic status quo?. [5]
 THIS IS BECAUSE WHEN THERE IS STATE THERE IS NO FREEDOM
 WHEN THERE IS FREEDOM THERE IS NO STATE!!
 EVEN A STATE THET CLAIMS THE BE MORAL CAN ONLY CORRUPT AND FEED OFF THE PEOPLE IT CLAIMED TO SERVE
 THAT IS WHY DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS THE ONLY WORKABLE SOLUTION
 IT HAS WORKED FOR SWITZERLAND FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS AND IT SAVED ICELAND FROM BEING SOLD AS  DEBTOR SLAVES BY THIER CENTRALISED LIBERL DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY!!
 The difference is that political policing in liberal democracies is ?an activist conservatism on behalf of capital against its perceived enemies.? [6] Political policing in East Germany, the Soviet Union, or today in Cuba and North Korea, is likewise an active conservatism, though not on behalf of capital, but against it, and on behalf of capital?s enemies.
It?s naive, then, for anyone in a liberal democracy who poses a serious threat to the established order to believe the state is going to let them be, free to exercise political freedoms that exist largely as a rhetorical contrivance. Challenging the established order is like going to war, and anyone who goes to war and is shocked to discover that the enemy fights back is seriously deluded about war, the state, and the nature of the enemy. All states are police states, including those most attached to rhetoric about political freedom.
 In contrast, people who present no serious challenge to the state are typically indifferent to the state panopticon. They reason correctly that since they have nothing to hide, and that they identify with the state and have no inclination to challenge the class that dominates it, that the political police won?t trouble them.
 Alternatively, there are people who, while they are not against the state, are in favour of reforms which would restrain the class that dominates the state from pursuing its interests to the fullest. From the perspective of the political police, these people must sometimes be subjected to surveillance to discover whether their quest for reforms is in reality a veiled challenge to the established order, and if not, to provide early warning if it metamorphoses into one. It is these people who are typically the most agitated by political policing, for inasmuch as they conscientiously keep their opposition within legal bounds and are not actively hostile to the state, they believe their privacy should be inviolable. In their view, their activities are ?legitimate? (within bounds that do not seriously challenge the established order) and therefore are not fair game for surveillance. Hence, those who seriously threaten the established order know the state will spy on them, and accept surveillance as a reality of war; the apolitical are indifferent, because they know the state has no reason to disrupt their activities; while the reformers are agitated, because they?ve discovered the state isn?t neutral and may indeed disrupt activities they believed to be legitimate and legal.
British Labour MP Chris Mullen?s thought experiment, the novel A Very British Coup, explores the question of whether the British state would allow a leftist government to pursue far-reaching socialist reforms even if the government played by the formal rules. His conclusion: no. The political police, working with the United States, would orchestrate the government?s overthrow. It has typically been the case that left-wing movements that have come to power in liberal democracies either quickly abandon their agenda or actively pursue it and are replaced, as a consequence, by a military dictatorship or fascist coup. Under threat, capital shares none of the reverence for liberal democracy that moderate socialists so ardently display and believe in, to their detriment. Even Venezuela?s Hugo Chavez, whose challenge to the established order within his own country was partial at best, was briefly toppled in a coup, and remained menaced throughout his tenure as president by the efforts of the United States and owners of the country?s private productive assets to disrupt his government?a government that scrupulously operated within the boundaries of liberal democracy.
ALL STATES OPPOSE FREEDOM
 IF THEY DO NOT WITHER AWAY THEY WILL GROW AND CORRUPT
 THAT IS WHY DIRECT DEMOCRACY WITH THE PEOPLE AS EXECUTIVE IS THE ONLY WORKABLE SOLUTION!!

Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a form of democracy and a theory of civics in which sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy(US,UK,EU), where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

STATE SOCIALISM IS NOT THE ANSWER
 IT IS JUST STATE CAPITALISM WITH THE STATE ACTING AS THE CAPITALIST
 Likewise, it?s naive to think that the state in communist countries will not spy on, and try to disrupt, the activities of those who seriously threaten the established socialist order, and who seek to bring about a return to a society of exploitation, or subordination to foreign tyranny, or both. To object to this practice would be to elevate abstract ideas about political freedom above freedom from exploitation, oppression, hunger, and insecurity; to make the freedom to politically organize for the creation of conditions of exploitation senior to freedom from exploitation. Objecting to the Cuban state spying on citizens who want to return to the days of Batista and US domination is like objecting to the machine-gunning of an advancing Waffen SS column. It may not be pretty, but is necessary to defend something better than the alternative.
To sum up, police state measures?the stock in trade of all states, whether of exploiters or the previously exploited?are neither intrinsically objectionable nor inherently desirable, any more than nuclear technology is. So long as societies are divided by class, there will be states, and so long as there are states, there will be political police. Political policing, like nuclear technology, can be used for good or ill, to protect or destroy, to advance or hold back. We should be for it when it?s used for good and to advance; against it when it?s not. And we should be clear too that as much as the states they revile, liberal democracies are police states, and will always be, so long as the parasitism of capitalist society produces a determined opposition to the parasites.
 I DISAGREE WITH THE LAST STATEMENT
 NEVER EVER AGREE WITH STATE SURVEILLENCE
 IT IS THE STATE ITSELF THAT CAUSES OPPRESSION NOT CAPITAL
 POWER IS THE OPPRESSOR AND STATE ONLY EXISTS TO MAINTAIN POLITICAL POWER OVER SOCIETY
 POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY
 WE NEED TO BRAKE THE CHAIN OF STATE SOCIAL ENGINEERS!!
?AND THOSE THAT ARE INSANE ENOUGH TO THINK THEY CAN RUN OUR LIVES BETTER THAN OURSELVES!!!!

By Stephen Gowans
 Global Research, June 17, 2013
 gowans.wordpress.com

Notes

1. Reg Whitaker, Gregory S. Kealey and Andrew Parnaby. Secret Service: Political Policing in Canada from the Fenians to Fortress America. University of Toronto Press. 2012. p. 9.
 2. Colin Freeze, ?CSIS fights to keep Tommy Douglas spying file under wraps,? The Globe and Mail (Toronto), February 10, 2010.
 3. Michelle Shephard, ?Web snooping vital, spy agency boss says?, The Toronto Star, October 23, 2005.
 4. Whitaker et al, p. 10.
 5. Whitaker et al, p. 11.
 6. Whitaker et al, p. 12.


email
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL