Monthly Archives: February 2014

Cops & Guns & Dogs & Dope

by musashi on Tue Feb 25

Cops & Guns & Dogs & Dope
(anagram for Gods Cop Guns Pedos)

It seems that the police justification for carrying firearms is twofold: Crown Immunity and the common law right of self defence.

A police officer is defined as a person who, whatever his rank within a police force, holds the ancient office of constable, ie one who has undertaken to serve the crown as an officer of the peace. His office is, in law, independent. He is not technically a crown servant since the crown neither appoints him nor pays him, nor is he a local authority employee. That’s what my law book says.

A soldier has crown immunity to carry arms because he is employed directly in HM Forces to travel to far off lands, experience exotic cultures, meet interesting people and kill them.

A police force is defined as a body of police officers maintained for a police area by a police authority. There are 43 police areas. Each police area has a police authority. There are normally 17 members of each police authority – nine drawn from local councils, three from local magistrates and five from independent members. My law book also says that, but not what or who these “independent members” are.

Appointments to a police force, and the direction of its operations, are matters for the chief constable who is himself appointed, subject to the Home Secretary’s approval, by the police authority.

The chief constable is not an independent police officer constable as he has no warrant card. If he was an independent police officer constable with a warrant card when he got the job with the private profit making company called ACPO then he had to hand it in. He is no longer an independent police officer constable and his powers of arrest and detention are only of the civil type which we all have. If a real independent police officer constable is present at a crime then he must request that one to make the arrest. Just like we must. John Hurst said that.

The London forces have a commissioner who, technically, is appointed by the crown and the detailed management of a police force is controlled by the Home Secretary. My law book says that as well.

So, an independent police officer constable is not appointed or paid by the crown but appointed by a chief constable, who is not an independent police officer constable, and who is appointed by a police authority made up of councillors, magistrates and independent members who are ‘not the crown’ and who is paid half by the Home Office and half by the police precept which is taken from us in council tax. See your council tax bill for the breakdown. I said that.

This begins not to sound like someone with “crown immunity” to carry unlicensed firearms, as is claimed in the ACPO PDF I have on the use of firearms in operations. That PDF is available on the net. I won’t even go into banned battlefield weapons such as Raptor ‘incapacitant’ sprays. D&C Police carry and use this spray but not the de-activant which is readily available from the suppliers of the spray. They said that – in an FOIR response.

A crown servant, on the other hand, is defined as any person in the employment of the crown (this does not include police officers or local government employees). So says my law book.

The Bill of Rights, 1688/9, which enshrines our right to self defence, says that we may “carry weapons for our defence as permitted by law.” The aforementioned weapons are not permitted by law. Rusty proved that one when he went to court and then to jail! At the moment that seems to be no more than a penknife with a blade no more than three inches long. My law book says that.

So, an independent police officer constable, who is not technically a crown servant, is appointed by a chief constable who is not an independent police officer constable with a warrant card and who is not a crown servant, and who works for a private for-profit company called ACPO, which is not part of the police authority, which is not a crown servant or police authority police force, and who is appointed by a police authority which is made up of ‘not the crown’ and only on the approval of a politician, and whose police force is managed by the same politician called the Home Secretary who pays half of the independent police officer constable’s wages and we pay the other half and he makes laws for them. Phew! Confusin’ innit?

The only mention of the crown, so far, is that these independent police officer constables have “undertaken to serve it”. Does any of this sound like crown immunity to carry firearms?

Let’s recap:
The police officer is not a crown servant
The chief constable is not a crown servant
The local police authority is not a crown servant
The local council is not a crown servant
The councillors are not crown servants
The magistrates are not crown servants
The independent members are not crown servants
ACPO is not a crown servant
The politician is not a crown servant
So where in hell does crown immunity come into it?

Anybody want to write in and ask them?

While you’re at it – and if you live in Manchester in particular – you might want to ask about the searches that routinely take place when some independent police officer constables, who are not crown servants and who are appointed by a civilian approved by a politician and working in a private for profit company, stroll about with passive response sniffer doggies nicking people innocently sitting at pavement cafés sipping their grenadine with a little bit of Percy in their pocket. I saw it on the telly so it must be true, real, honest and trustworthy!

I know of no publicly stated authority for doing this. The 1984 PACE Act says they can search just about anybody when they want to, but there must be some cause for reasonable suspicion. When that cause is the result of what must surely be an unlawful search then that cause is what our Yankee brethren call “Fruit of the poisoned tree.” It was not a fair cop, guv.

As these not very cute little fucking sneaks are purpose built for drug searches and have no brief for general policing duties they are, properly speaking, only allowed out in the public on operational exercises – not walkies. If they are out on Op Exes, do the independent police officer constables, who are not crown servants, appointed by a chief constable who is not an independent police officer constable and who was appointed by ‘not the crown’ to a private company subject to approval from a politician, have an open warrant for random search of the general public based on no reasonable suspicion and the general use of a dog trained for specific search tasks on specific operations?
Who gave an open warrant to him? Who signed this get-us-into-jail-free card?

Anybody want to write in and ask?

Walkies among the unsuspecting, post bank-scam boulevardiers on Manchester’s golden pathways is strictly limited to untrained civilian quadrupeds of the not grassing you up and getting you fucked over kind. Taking these little scamps out among the café crowd, who would otherwise have given no rise to reasonable suspicion of terrible drug abuse, then, is conducting random searches is it not?

PACE seemingly gives cops the right to stop and search anybody at any time in a public place but there must be good reason. The dog supplies this, of course, because he came and sat at your feet. Little cunt.

If you have been a victim of this arrogant and insulting fuckery then you might have a claim. A claim under what law? Police misconduct and unlawful searches, of course, but really, who gives a shit. Make it up as you go along – they do. Bastards!


Truth, in the true sense

Ramblings of a Madman

by musashi on Mon Sep 23, 2013

From earliest days my thoughts have been directed at what some call “other-worldly matters”. My interest in these ‘other’ matters may be described in the following sentence; ‘To experience objective Truth by the direct perception of Reality’.

Living in this world and being concerned with ‘the other world’ creates a conflict of perception and understanding and motive that must be resolved somehow. Questions there are aplenty, and questions beg answers. In this questioning and answering lies certain possibilities and potentials. Dissatisfaction is a concomitant condition, or a precondition, and observation of others (are they dissatisfied?) may imbue one with a particular understanding of human psychology, human learning and, in particular, the plastic nature of reality and morality. (Plastic is a Greek word, meaning “Shapeless”). Curiously, the interest in “other worldly matters” brings a greater understanding of this world. In some circles this is known as the “Lesser Understanding”. When we are young we desperately want to be just like everyone else. To be other than this is a rarity, and this desire clings to the whole life of too many of us. Being like everyone else includes possessing and believing the same information as the majority. In this way culture, values, morals, ethics, mores and paradigms are constructed. Look at the second and third generations of immigrants who brought their own languages and cultures and religious beliefs. They, the followers on, are mostly indistinguishably British in politics, language, accent, attitude and more.

Inherited wisdom, even basic perceptions and understandings of everyday matters – and the most distant and seemingly useless of information – is regarded with suspicion by a seeker. Everything is questioned by an intellect honed to needle pointed razor sharpness by the concern for other worldly matters and the distrust of the world we live in.

For example, we have all been told that cows are vegetarians, herbivores, and eat no meat. This information is so distant from us, as humans, that we never think to question its veracity or accuracy. The limited observation of those who give us this idea is never questioned either, and other of their observations may then be gratefully and unquestioningly accepted.

The absolute fact is that cows are by no means vegetarians, and consume much more meat than any human ever did or could at one sitting. It is apparently true that they are vegetarians, however, and we accept it as such because we do not see cows behaving in the same manner as the carnivores we are familiar with – and nor does it seem worthy of further research or debate. That cows are meat eaters is demonstrably correct, however.

This admittedly insignificant fact leads to other facts regarding human psychology being questioned, and the unreal nature of the human condition begins to be revealed. People do not like to be told that they are wrong. It threatens their place in the paradigm. It suggests that they are stupid, and it is a dangerous practice telling people that they are wrong. Much skill must be acquired before one can do this and survive the experience. That we accept that cows are vegetarians, without question, is symptomatic of our condition.

There are four universal human needs which I have identified, and observe continually, as a result: They are: Love; Belonging; Certainty and Purpose.

Each of these (coincidentally?) is measurably expressed in the film “The Matrix”, and Agent Smith openly accuses Neo of taking away his “Purpose”.

All of these may be threatened by using the simple phrase “You’re wrong!” That simple phrase needn’t be used in those direct terms, but be implicit in merely stating an opposing viewpoint.

Religious wars are the most obvious example of this.

The fulfillment of these four universal human needs are what is offered by many entities (organic and otherwise); for example, cults and their leaders. At this point it might be useful to pause and examine our understanding of “Cult”. It is almost certainly not what we think it is – or have been told it is. Our greatest cult leader is the Pope. Second is the Leader (Emir, or Khalifa) of the Ulema, and third is the Chief Rabbi of the San Hedrin. These are the three most dangerous men in history, and my life is forfeit for saying so. The words themselves are harmless enough, but the hierarchical, institutional, implicate order behind them offers Love, Belonging, Certainty and Purpose. This is what is challenged and threatened.

The Freeman “philosophy” is no different. Or is it? You may care to consider this matter at your leisure.

The number of enemies we have may be counted on one five fingered hand. They are: Religion; Politics; Money; Government; Ourselves.

Religion creates politics, politics draws money to it, money controls government and government enslaves the people and ensures, by various means, that the core programme in Ourselves contains a belief in the others. All of these others can supply, in one form or another, ersatz though it is, the four universal human needs, but the ‘fight’ can only be directed successfully at one of the five – Ourselves.Any other pursuit is to remain within the paradigm.

It is no accident that, throughout the length and breadth of the march of time, shamans, mystics, esoterists (or is it esoterrorists?) and their like have been hunted down and eradicated wherever they were found. Witness the Albigensian Crusade, and it is significant that, when Turkey was brought into the western fold and secularised under Kemal Attaturk in the twenties, a proclamation immediately banned and criminalised the ancient, traditional esoteric teachings of the Sufi in that country. The seven hundred year tradition of the Mevlevi Order – popularly known as The Whirling Dervishes – was driven underground and the state-permitted practice of the superficial remnants became a mere tourist attraction. To all but a few, the function of this whirling is lost, though the chains of transmission of the teaching are evident in other places.

Another, lately arrived and alternative, paradigmatic truth is that – “If we fight our enemies with the same violence that they inflict on us we will become them.”

This is no more than a subtle control mechanism given us by those who would maintain the status quo, and is current in the modern, so-called alternative culture to whom it was issued and from whom it proceeds. (Observe the heightening of emotional content when this is challenged!) This is, as in the example of the cows above, again, demonstrably wrong, and needs only a bare modicum of objective thinking to dismiss it as falsehood.

The argument that to be violent in response to Their violence is to become ‘them’ is an invalid one. If it isn’t, then the soldiers who took up arms and fought Hitler’s fascists became fascist themselves.

Is this not so?

If to take up arms against evil is to become evil, then we are the children of evil men and our fathers are become our enemy. I dispute this, yet my opponents in any debate on the matter would almost certainly be composed of those whose pedigree, intellect, perceptive abilities and intent within the alternative movement are undisputed and above suspicion. They are high profile combatants in this war of survival, much listened to and repeated, but are, in fact, living demonstrations of the mechanisms of inherited or transmitted wisdom obfuscating and delaying enlightened action and being.

The emotional content of humanity is a powerful and, consequently, dangerous thing. It has its rightful and useful place within us, and without it we would be less than we are, but one of the necessary acts of those who are concerned with other worldly matters is to reduce emotional content to its rightful level and proper place of operation. The paradigm we are in, however, contains a number of mechanisms custom built and designed to be constantly in use to raise this emotional content in us. The greatest of these mechanisms is called The Film Industry. It is no mere accident, or desire to give value for money, that the early, silent films, were accompanied by a man on a Wurlitzer providing the musical accompaniment to the unheard words of the actors. Nor is it a merely decorative addition to add canned laughter to sitcoms and comedy shows. We are being directed every bit as much as the actors themselves. When something is missing – in this case, audible dialogue – we tend to replace it with the next best thing. It would have been easy to provide a voice-over for these silent films, but musical accompaniment was preferred.

Music comes to us in two basic forms – the Intellectual, and the Emotional. We may listen uncomprehendingly to the Italian words of “O Mio Babbino Caro”, in Puccini’s Madam Butterfly, but, unless you lack human emotion you could easily, like me, be brought to tears. I do not speak Italian, but the swell of emotion in me when I listen to it is very real. This is evidence that the understanding of words and their meaning, or even hearing them, are not necessary to raise emotional content.

Intellectual music, though never entirely devoid of emotional content, is seldom heard in the film industry’s distributed products – not even in the allegedly factual presentation of a science-based documentary. This is no mere accident for, to be successful in its intent, we must be emotionally involved. If we were not, then the intent would fail and we would cease to go to the cinema, or watch or listen to their products on any other medium. We watch and listen specifically to be emotionally affected! This is why we go – we want to be affected. This demands examination, surely?

Even the alternative media supply their counter-reality offerings with musical accompaniment which takes the fear deeper, or the anger higher. The introductory music to Laurel and Hardy films, for example, contains ridicule and mockery which prepares us for their inept and comical dealings with the world. Without the preparatory and accompanying music they are merely irritating and bumbling incompetents, incapable of learning and doomed to repeat and relive their miseries. The introductory music of any film generally informs us of the genre we may expect to be viewing.

It has been rightly said among those who search for objective reality that the indiscriminate audition of music is dangerous.

Psychologists have long known that if they can engage the emotion content of someone then they can tag on whatever thoughts, beliefs and so on that they might care to. The process is subtle. It is not harmlessly co-incidental that our enemies early on took control of Hollywood. Nor was it a matter of public benefit that the British government created the BBC TV and BBC radio. The timing of this creation? – the 1930’s; heyday of Skinner and the Behaviourists. Before then, the phrase “Everyone knows that!” had little currency. Now, thanks to the mass media, it is indisputably correct, although what “everyone knows” – usually worthless or dis-empowering – is carefully selected to promote and maintain the paradigm. That which is Real, True and Important is known by very few indeed. In this, a point is made of making sure that “Everyone does not know that!”

The routes which supply us are the routes which deny us.

Such pithy one liners, often rhyming, as I have just invented there, are dangerous things – easily remembered, emotionally attractive, and make us sound clever when we repeat them. As such, you are forbidden to repeat it without formal investigation of it. Truth becomes a cliché when overly repeated without real understanding, and even the very ignorant may say ”Everyone knows that!” If we ask “How does everyone know that?” we will see some confusion and internal scrambling for the high ground as a threat is perceived within the simple question.

High emotional content is a barrier to understanding. If you doubt this, then try to reason with an angry man – or one who is recently fallen in love. Both of these conditions are held to be forms of madness.

I speak here of ordinary human love – not the ‘spiritual’, unconditional, universal Love that Idiots and Fools like me say exists, and which, we also say, may be experienced in traveling the path to objective reality. Ordinary human love, we Fools and Idiots insist, is a shadow of Real Love, just as conscience is evidence of our innate sense of right and wrong. The question asked of Phaedrus “And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is bad? Need we ask to be told of these things?” was rhetorical and meant only to return him to his own inner knowing. No answer was necessary – only an inner experience, a return to natural understanding, from which he could proceed in proper action.

Almost all of us – and there are few exceptions – live in a state of unknowing and yet, somehow, we imagine that, in this state, we are able to make right choices of what is right and what and whom to believe.This is not possible.

The 12th century Persian mystic, Mansur al Hallaj, was publicly dismembered for heresy for saying “An’al Haqq.” – “I am truth”, when he told his students he was God. The emotional impact of his statement was too great for the religious authorities who were externalists, and those who judicially murdered him for threatening their beliefs comfortably managed to abandon one tenet of their beliefs in order to condemn and remove him to, they thought, save another: i.e. there is no God but God.

Madmen are held to be “Touched by God”, and are under His protection. No harm may be done them. In their world of externals, only a madman would claim to be God.

When our emotional content is threatened we are capable of many insane actions, temporarily denying our own claims in order to protect or prove our own claims. This alone evidences the condition of unknowing.

One of the hidden lessons here is that state sponsored religion has no Real value, being composed merely of the externals of formal ritual (inherited wisdom) and espousing hope and faith (unknowing) rather than providing a vehicle (action through understanding) by which all men may approach Truth.

This is the reality we live in and it affects all of us. Neither is it restricted to religious, doctrinal dogma, but finds its application in a variety of human activities. We find that the protectors of morality and ethics and religion and law, in every culture and every time, routinely abandon morality and ethics and religion and law in order to uphold and enforce them. The trauma of Orwellian double-think encompasses their troubled and fragmented Selfs.

Thomas a’ Kempis, a Christian mystic, wrote a book eight hundred years ago when Christian mystics were particularly active, entitled “A Cloud of Unknowing.”

In all the passing years, has the cloud thickened or thinned? It is a reasonable question, though really more useful to the actuary than the Madman wandering the world in search of his Beloved.