This, from Techdirt via haiku, touches on the mealy-mouthed way the government angles to remove rights from the common person and align the UK with countries such as China, North Korea and Iran.
Some time back, I showed the fine detail to a Russian friend who, until then, had seen Britain as the bastion of freedom of speech etc. He looked this over and said that if it is true, it’s heading in the direction of his old country, the USSR.
The nanny state is better described as the matriarchal state, and if the model used is circular rather than linear, then patriarchy, though a circumference away from matriarchy at the other “end”, is nevertheless right beside it in the totalitarian chord.
In other words, patriarchy and matriarchy are two aspects of the same notion – that daddy and mummy know best, which is a twisting of the very real model of the family the totalitarians are also trying to break down [see Paris demonstration a few days back]. The logical flaw, of course, is that we are adults, not children.
Realizing that, the PTB go about making us children or if not us, the following generations and the tools include the dumbing down of education in a massively comprehensive manner, e.g. the IB and the World Core Curriculum, with schools worldwide now signed up to the new standard of excellence but at the same time, the new worldview.
This worldview constantly comes through in the teaching materials, the texts, on a daily basis, for the world’s children, so that they grow up accepting the same “truths” and never question them. And the universities are packed with such academic staff and the teacher training organizations and those who appoint them.
You need only go back to the open plan education movement of the 70s and trace it back to see the phenomenon at work. And it is then enshrined in government documents, such as forms asking you for sexual orientation or ethnicity.
And as with the genesis of the daleks, the moves have to originate somewhere, in something seemingly innocuous and for our own good. Such as in the feelers put out by these guardians of the people:
While the UK sometimes has moments of sanity in exploring copyright issues, it often seems that politicians there are even more willing to accept absolutely bullshit claims from the legacy entertainment industry at face value.
Take, for example, the recent parliamentary debate over a new intellectual property bill, in which UK politicians made some absolutely crazy statements, arguing that it may be time to start throwing “persistent” file sharers in jail, and attacking Google for not rewriting its search results to match what the local version of the RIAA (the BPI) wants.
Gerry Sutcliffe MP said that he believed that “millions of complaints [to Google] have not been dealt with”, a point underlined by John Leech MP who recalled “the complacent attitude taken by [Google’s] representatives to the whole issue, as though it had nothing to do with them and was not their problem.”
Create a problem in your terms, using your own strawman and then attack anyone else, especially with its base outside your own jurisdiction. Muslim nations are good at this sort of thing.
[….] “At some time, this Government must have a proper look at the almost monopoly status of this huge, multinational, non-UK business and ask whether it is good for our content industries. I have a sneaking feeling that it is not,” Sutcliffe said.
“I have seen the evidence from the British Phonographic Industry. It sent 50 million notices to Google asking it to take down links to illegal — I emphasize, illegal—sites. Google should not be doing that. What on earth is going on if it receives 50 million requests to take down links to illegal sites?
And “illegal” means, of course, anything going against the mass of legislation you’ve pushed through as, say, Gordon Brown and his predecessor did in such a short space of time. That which was perfectly legal is now deemed illegal.
That is, as my Russian mate points out, how the USSR asserted control, putting people in positions where they can’t help but act “illegally” and are therefore in a state of being chargeable at all times, should the government wish to avail itself of that.
“It is time to call in the Competition Commission: we cannot continue to allow Google to be the gateway to content industries when they do them so much damage.”
“The” Commission, meaning some independent body no one questions, such as, for example, the Leveson Enquiry presumably? The Hutton Enquiry? Models of non-bias.
And as Techdirt comments:
Of course, it’s hogwash that the complaints “have not been dealt with.” Google has shown time and time again that when it receives valid complaints, it takes down the links to that content within hours, despite receiving so many requests. Most other search engines take much, much longer. Second, the whole 50 million links thing is a total red herring.
If the sites are illegal, as Sutcliffe claims, then there should be lawsuits against them to take those sites down. But the problem is that the sites generally, have not been found to be illegal. And, many of the sites are used for all sorts of legitimate offerings as well.
Yet, Sutcliffe and BPI seem to think there’s a magic wand that can be waved to determine what’s legitimate and what’s not.
Even more troubling, however, were the comments from Mike Weatherly, who is now David Cameron’s “Intellectual Property advisor,” but who in the past worked for both the legacy recording and movie industries.
“Ultimately, we need to consider withdrawing internet rights from lawbreakers, along with imposing fines and, as a last resort, custodial sentences,” he told the debate.
And there is the strategy in one, delivered to the people in a hands raised in the air “what-are-we-to-do” manner, not unlike Hitler’s final solution where he pleaded with the people just what he was to do with the Jewish question – should he do nothing at all?
Do whatever you have to, cry the people.