A historical speech

I'm not really of friend of politics, most of the times it rather makes me mad to hear the dissonant and incoherent utterings of people who appear to be quite insane. Yet sometimes even politicians say things which rather touch my heart than try to screw my mind. The speech given about the decision of the Ecuadorian government belongs to this category, and as it is probably under reported in the mainstream media, and for my personal pleasure, and as hobby historian, I could not resist to republish it in full length in its english translation.

Statement of the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on the asylum request of Julian Assange

On June 19, 2012, the Australian citizen Julian Assange, showed up on the headquarters of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, with the purpose of requesting diplomatic protection of the Ecuadorian State, invoking the norms on political asylum in force. The requester has based his petition on the fear of an eventual political persecution of which he may be a victim in a third State, which can use his extradition to the Swedish Kingdom to obtain in turn the ulterior extradition to such country.

The Government of Ecuador, faithful to the asylum procedure, and attributing the greatest seriousness to this case, has examined and assessed all the aspects implied, particularly the arguments presented by Mr. Assange backing up the fear he feels before a situation that this person considers as a threat to his life, personal safety and freedom.

It is important to point out that Mr. Assange has made the decision to request asylum and protection from Ecuador because of the accusations that, according to him, have been formulated for supposed “espionage and betrayal” with which the citizen exposes the fear he feels about the possibility of being surrendered to the United States authorities by the British, Swedish or Australian authorities, thus it is a country, says Mr. Assange, that persecutes him because of the disclosure of compromising information for the United States Government. He equally manifests, being “victim of a persecution in different countries, which derives not only from his ideas and actions, but from his work by publishing information compromising the powerful ones, by publishing the truth and, with that, unveiling the corruption and serious human rights abuses of citizens around the world”.

Therefore, for the requester, the imputation of politic felonies is what backs up his request for asylum, thus in his criteria, he faces a situation that means to him an imminent danger which he cannot resist. With the purpose of explaining the fear he has of a possible political persecution, and that this possibility ends up turning into a situation of impairment and violation of his rights, with risk for his integrity, personal security and freedom, the Government of Ecuador considered the following:

1. That Julian Assange is a communication professional internationally awarded for his struggle on freedom of expression, freedom of press and human rights in general;
2. That Mr. Assange shared with the global population privileged documented information that was generated by different sources, and that affected officials, countries and organizations;
3. That there are serious indications of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that can put at risk his safety, integrity and even his life;
4. That, despite the diplomatic efforts carried out by the Ecuadorian State, the countries from which guarantees have been requested to protect the life and safety of Mr. Assange, have denied to provide them;
5. That, there is a certainty of the Ecuadorian authorities that an extradition to a third country outside the European Union is feasible without the proper guarantees for his safety and personal integrity;
6. That the judicial evidence shows clearly that, given an extradition to the United States, Mr. Assange would not have a fair trial, he could be judge by a special or military court, and it is not unlikely that he would receive a cruel and demeaning treatment and he would be condemned to a life sentence or the death penalty, which would not respect his human rights;
7.  That, even when indeed Mr. Assange has to respond to the investigation open in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor’s office has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange from the total exercise of the legitimate right to defense;
8. That Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed during that investigation:
9. That Ecuador has verify that Mr. Assange does not count with the adequate protection and help that he should receive from the State of which he is a citizen;
10. That, according to several public statements and diplomatic communications made by officials from Great Britain, Sweden and the United States, it is deduced that those governments would not respect the international conventions and treaties and would give priority to internal laws of secondary hierarchy, contravening explicit norms of universal application; and,
11. That, if Mr. Assange is reduced to preventive prison in Sweden (as it is usual in that country), it would initiate a chain of events that will prevent the adoption of preventive measures to avoid his extradition to a third country.

Accordingly, the Ecuadorian Government considers that these arguments back up Julian Assange’s fears, thus he can be a victim of political persecution, as a consequence of his determined defense to freedom of expression and freedom of press, as well as his position of condemn to the abuses that the power infers in different countries, aspects that make Mr. Assange think that, in any given moment, a situation may come where his life, safety or personal integrity will be in danger. This fear has leaded him to exercise his human right of seeking and receiving asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the United Kingdom.

Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador defines clearly the right to grant asylum. Regarding those dispositions, the rights to asylum and shelter are fully recognized, according to the law and international human rights instruments. According to such constitutional norm:
“People who are in a situation of asylum and shelter will enjoy special protection that guarantees the full exercise of their rights. The State will respect and guarantee the principle of no return, aside from the humanitarian and judicial emergency assistance”.

Moreover, the right to asylum is recognized in the Article 4.7 of the Organic Law of Foreign Service of 2006, which determines the faculty of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration of Ecuador to know the cases of diplomatic asylum, according to the laws, the treaties, the rights and the international practice.

It is important to outline that our country has outstood over the last years for welcoming a huge number of people who have requested territorial asylum or refuge, respecting with no restriction the principle of no return and no discrimination, while adopting measures towards granting the refugee status in an efficient way, bearing in mind the circumstances of the requesters, most of them Colombians escaping the armed conflict in their country. The High Commissioner of the United Nations for Refugees has praised Ecuador’s refugee policy, and has highlighted the meaningful fact that these people have not been confined to refugee camps in this country, but they are integrated to society, in full enjoyment of their human rights and guarantees.

Ecuador states the right to asylum in the universal brochure of human rights and believes, therefore, that the effective application of this right requires the international cooperation that our countries can provide, without which its enouncement would be unfruitful, and the institution would be completely ineffective. For these reasons, and bearing in mind the obligation that all the States have assumed to collaborate in the protection and promotion of Human Rights, as it is established in the United Nations Letter, invites the British Government to provide its contingent to reach this purpose.

For those effects, Ecuador has been able to verify, in the course of analysis of the judicial institutions regarding the asylum, that to the confirmation of this right attend fundamental principles of general international law, which because of their importance have universal value and scope, for they are consistent with the general interest of the international community as a whole, and count with the full recognition of all the States. Those principles, which are contemplated in the different international instruments, are the following:

1. The asylum in all its forms is a fundamental human right and creates obligations erga omnes, meaning, “for all”, the States.
2. The diplomatic asylum, the refuge (territorial asylum), and the right to not being extradited, expulsed, surrendered or transferred, are comparable human rights, thus they are based on the same principles of human protection: no return and no discrimination with no distinction of unfavorable character for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other type of opinions, national or social origin, birth or other condition or similar criteria.
3. All these forms of protection are ruled by the pro homine principles (meaning, most favorable to the human being), equality, universality, indivisibility, complementarity, and inter dependency.
4.  The protection is produced when the State which grants the asylum, refuge or requested, or the protective potency, considers that there is a risk or fear that the protected person may be a victim of political persecution, or are charged with political felonies.
5.  It corresponds to the State which grants the asylum to qualify the causes of asylum and, in the case of extradition, to value the evidences.
6. Regardless of the modality or form in which it is presented, the asylum has always the same cause and the same legal object, meaning, political persecution, which is a legal cause; and to safe guard the life, personal safety and freedom of the protected person which is a legal object.
7. The right to asylum is a fundamental human right, therefore, it belongs to the ius cogens, meaning, the system of imperative norms of right recognized by the international community as a whole, which does not admit a contrary agreement, annulling the treaties and dispositions of international law against it.
8. In the unforeseen cases on the law in force, the human being is under the safe guard of the humanity principles and the demands of the public conscience or under the protection and empire of the principles of the law of people derived from the established uses, of the humanity principles and the dictates of the public conscience.
9. The lack of international convention or internal legislation of the States cannot be legitimately claimed to limit, impinge or deny the right to asylum.
10. The norms and principles that rule the rights to asylum, refuge, no extradition, no surrender, no expulsion and no transference are convergent, to the necessary extent to perfect the protection and providing it with the most efficiency. In this sense, the international law of human rights, the right to asylum and refuge and the humanitarian law are complementary.
11. The rights of protection to the human being are based on ethical principles and values universally admitted and, therefore, they have a humanitarian, social, solidarity, assistant and pacific character.
12. All the States have the duty to promote the progressive development of the international law of human rights through effective national and international laws.

Ecuador considers that the right applicable to Mr. Julian Assange’s case is integrated by the whole principles, norms, mechanisms and procedures foreseen on the international instruments of human rights (regional or universal), which contemplate among their dispositions the right to seek, receive and enjoy asylum for political reasons; the Conventions that regulate the right to asylum and the right of refugees, and that recognize the right to not be surrendered, returned or expulsed when there are founded fears of political persecution; the Conventions that regulate extradition and that recognize the right to not be extradited when this measure can mask political persecution; and the Conventions that regulate the humanitarian right, and that recognize the right not to be transferred when there is a risk of political persecution. All these modalities of asylum and international protection are justified by the need to protect this person of an eventual political persecution, or a possible imputation of political felonies and/ or felonies connected to these last ones, which, to Ecuador’s judgment, not only would put at risk the life of Mr. Assange, but would also represent a serious injustice committed against him.

It is undeniable that the States, having contracted with so numerous and substantive international instruments- many of them judicially binding- the obligation to provide protection or asylum to people persecuted for political reasons, have expressed their will to establish a judicial institution of protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, founded as a right in a generally accepted practice, which gives those obligations an imperative character, erga omnes that, being bonded to respect, protection and progressive development of human rights and fundamental freedoms, are a part of the ius cogens. Some of those instruments are mentioned bellow:

1. United Nations Letter of 1945, Purposes and Principles of the United Nations: obligation of all the members to cooperate in the promotion and protection of human rights;
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948: the right to seek and enjoy asylum in any country, for political reasons (Article 14);
3. American Declaration of Men’s Rights and Duties of 1948: the right to seek and enjoy asylum in any country, for political reasons (Article 27);
4. Geneva Agreement of August 12, 1949, regarding the Due Protection of Civilians in War Times: in no case it is due to transfer the protected person to a country where they can fear persecutions because of their political opinions (Article 45);
5. Agreement on the Refugees Statute of 1951, and its New York Protocol of 1967: forbids to return or expulse refugees to countries where their life and freedom may be in danger ( Article 33.1);
6. Convention on Diplomatic Asylum of 1954: the State has the right to grant asylum and to qualify the nature of the felony or reasons of persecution (Article 4);
7. Convention on Territorial Asylum of 1954: the State has the right to admit in its territory people it judges convenient (Article 1), when they are persecuted for their beliefs, opinions or political filiations, or by actions that may be considered political felonies (Article 2), not being able the asylum granting State, to return or expulsed the asylum seeker that is persecuted for political reasons or felonies (Article 3); in the same way, the extradition does not proceed when it is about people who, according to the required State, are persecuted for political felonies, or for common felonies that are committed with political purposes, nor when the extradition is requested obeying political motives (Article 4);
8. European Extradition Agreement of 1957: forbids the extradition if the requested Part considers that the felony imputed has a political character (Article 3.1);
9. 2312 Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 1967: establishes the granting of asylum to the people that have such right according to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including people who fight against colonialism (Article 1.1). The denial of admission, expulsion or return to any State where they can be object of persecution is forbidden (Article 3.1);
10. Vienna Convention on the Right of the Treaties of 1969: establishes that the norms and imperative principles of general international right do not admit a contrary agreement, being null the treaty that at the moment of its conclusion enters in conflict with one of these norms (Article 53), if a peremptory norm of the same character arises, every existent treaty that enters in conflict with that norm is null and ended (Article 64). As far as the application of these articles, the Convention authorizes the States to demand their accomplishment before the International Court of Justice, with no requisition of conformity by the demanded State, accepting the tribunal’s jurisdiction (Article 66 b). The human rights are norms of the ius cogens.
11. American Convention on Human Rights of 1969: the right to seek and receive asylum for political reasons (Article 22. 7);
12. European Agreement for the Repression of Terrorism of 1977: the required State has the faculty to deny extradition when there is danger of persecution or punishment of the person for their political opinions (Article 5);
13. Inter American Convention for Extradition of 1981: the extradition does not proceed when the requested has been judge or condemned, or is going to be judge before an exception tribunal or ad hoc in the required State (Article 4.3); when, with arrangement to the qualification of the required State, it deals with political felonies, or connected felonies or common felonies persecuted with political purposes; when from the case’s circumstances, can be inferred that the persecuted purposes is mediated for considerations of race, religion or nationality, or that the situation of the person is at risk of being aggravated for one of those reasons (Article 4.5). The Article 6 disposes, regarding the Right to Asylum, that “none of the exposed in the present Convention may be interpreted as a limitation to the right to asylum, when this proceeds”.
14. African Letter of Men and People’s Rights of 1981: the right of the persecuted individual to seek and obtain asylum in other countries (Article 12.3);
15. Cartagena Declaration of 1984: recognizes the right to refuge, to not being rejected in the borders and to not being returned;
16. Fundamental Rights Letter of the European Union of 2000: establishes the right to diplomatic and consular protection. Every citizen of the Union may seek refuge, in the territory of a third country, in which the Member State of nationality is not represented, to the protection of diplomatic and consular authorities of any member State, in the same conditions of the nationals of that State (Article 46).

The Government of Ecuador considers important to outline that the norms and principles recognized in the international instruments mentioned, and in other multi lateral agreements, have preeminence over the internal laws of the States, thus such treaties are based in a universally oriented normative by intangible principles, from which a greater respect is derived, guarantee and protection of human rights against unilateral attitudes of the same States. This would subtract efficiency to the international law, which otherwise has to be strengthen, so the respect of fundamental rights is consolidated in function of integration and ecumenical character.

On the other hand, since Julian Assange requested political asylum to Ecuador, dialogues of high diplomatic level have been held, with the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States.

In the course of these conversations, our country has appealed to obtain from the United Kingdom the strictest guarantees so Julian Assange faces, with no obstacles, the judicial process open in Sweden. Such guarantees include that, once treated his legal responsibilities in Sweden, he would not be extradited to a third country; this is, the guarantee that the specialty figure will not be applied. Unfortunately, and despite the repeated exchanges of texts, the United Kingdom never gave proof of wanting to achieve political compromises, limiting to repeat the content of the legal texts.

Julian Assange’s lawyers requested the Swedish justice to take statements of Julian Assange in the premises of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Ecuador translated officially to the Swedish authorities its will to facilitate this interview with the purpose of not intervening or obstacle the judicial process that is carried out in Sweden. This is a perfectly legal and possible measure. Sweden did not accept it.

On the other hand, Ecuador searched the possibility that the Swedish Government would establish guarantees to avoid the onward extradition of Assange to the United States. Again, the Swedish Government rejected any commitment on that sense.

Finally, Ecuador directed a communication to the Government of the United States to know officially its position on the Assange’s case. The consults referred to the following:

1. If there is a legal process in course or the intention to carry out such process against Julian Assange and/ or the founders of the Wikileaks organization;
2. In the case of the above being truth, what kind of legislation, in which conditions and under which maximum penalties would those people be subjected;
3. If there is the intention of requesting the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.

The answer of the United States has been that they cannot offer information on the Assange’s case, with the allegation that it is a bilateral matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom.

With these antecedents, the Government of Ecuador, faithful to its tradition to protect those who seek shelter in its territory or in the premises of its diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to the citizen Julian Assange, on the basis of the request presented to the President of the Republic, through a written communication dated in London on June 19, 2012, and complemented by a communication dated in London on June 25, 2012, for which the Ecuadorian Government, after carrying out a fair and objective assessment of the situation exposed by Mr. Assange, attending his own sayings and argumentations, intakes the requester’s fears, and assumes that there are indications that allow to assume that there may be a political persecution, or that such persecution may be produced if the opportune and necessary measures are not taken to avoid it.

The Government of Ecuador has the certainty that the British Government will know how to value the justice and rectitude of the Ecuadorian position, and in consistency with these arguments, trusts that the United Kingdom will offer as soon as possible the guarantees or safe conducts necessaries and pertinent to the situation of the asylum requester, so their Governments can honor with their actions the fidelity they owe to the international laws and institutions that both nations have contribute to shape along their common history.

It also trusts to maintain inalterable the excellent bonds of friendship and mutual respect that unite Ecuador and the United Kingdom and their respective people, confident as they are in the promotion and defense of the same principles and values, and because they share similar concerns about democracy, peace, Good Living, which can only be possible if the fundamental rights of all people are respected.

How to destroy social movements

Sometimes, even Facebook can link to valuable information. I thought long and hard about why Occupy Melbourne didn't really get off the ground, although it had an amazing collection of talent. Then I read the lengthy explanation underneath this cute picture, and had a better idea of what social movements are up against, and that it simply crumbled under psy-op attacks as described below.

================

HOW INFILTRATORS AND DISINFORMATION AGENTS WORK: 

How government counter intelligence operates on Facebook and internet forums.

These tactics have been repeatedly used in many activist groups, the tactics highlighted below are a common blue print, that government agents use in all campaigns that they have been assigned to, usually because whatever the campaigns objectives are, they may in some way be damaging to the establishment.

Psy-ops

Psychological operations, the label is quite self explanatory, this is the techniques they employ
to “head fuck” their victim, and also confuse other genuine group members. I will list various techniques that I have both been victim to and observed on social networking sites, mainly Facebook.

1. Character Assassination

They identify who is potentially the biggest threat, they then set about getting that person removed from the group, they have various means of doing this, and most entail discrediting that person in one way or another. Whispering is their most common method, ie, private messaging other members of the group, and telling lies about their victim. They then pick off the members of the group one at a time, until the only players left in the game are the other government "shills".

When they have pinpointed who they deem to be the biggest threat to their agenda, they set about the most despicable character assassination. If you comment on forums, they will twist things you say, they will at all times be working towards having other group members think they are good and moral, and you are bad and immoral. They will take totally innocuous things which you have said, and try and twist them so as you appear hypocritical, a liar, insensitive…..it goes on and on!

They will stoop as low as they see fit, they may even befriend your bitter Ex partners to get as much "dirt" on you as possible.Then they will proceed to post their findings all over Facebook.

2. Whispering

The whispering can be telling other group members that their chosen victim has been either ridiculing them, or doing/saying something that could be damaging to the campaign. To ensure that the person they are messaging does not go straight to you and report the correspondence, they may suggest that you are a dangerous or very vindictive person, and that they are afraid of you.

Having personally been the victim of their whispering campaigns, I can tell you from first hand experience, that it is very difficult to defend yourself from the unknown, people just distance themselves from you, and you are in the dark, and have no clue why.

3. Dummy Friend

One of their number will befriend you, confide their secrets, and embark on a bonding process, this is one of their most deadly weapons, it is designed so that you will then confide things to them, and they can then form a “psychological profile chart” on you, they then use this against you, as they will know your weak spots. Your new “Dummy Friend”, will try at all costs to establish a bond with you and gain your trust. They will gently try and influence your opinions, often telling you lies, and trying to distance you from other genuine campaigners.

Your new Dummy Friend will invent dramas, claiming someone has been very nasty to them, the someone could be a genuine campaigner, or one of the psych-ops team. The invented drama will be reported in such a way as to warrant a reaction of some sort from you, this could result in them dragging you into a public slagging match, or you contacting the “nasty person” with accusations. Either way, you come out of it looking bad, while dummy friend smells of roses.

Dummy friend may pretend to have an illness or disability of some sort to make you feel protective of them. Dummy friend can be very clever, and will play you like a fiddle! Dummy

friend will present you with "evidence" about other genuine campaigners, which will suggest that they are in fact an infiltrator, and cannot be trusted. When you have been presented with this fabricated evidence, if you react in any way, and make any kind of comment about the person, that comment will then be passed onto them. Be aware, Dummy Friend will at all times be passing all your messages onto the other members of the psy-ops team.

It will also be Dummy Friends job to plant the seeds of paranoia, always passing on tittle-tattle about this one or the other one gossiping about you. When you eventually cop on that dummy friend has betrayed you, this is when dummy friend becomes their most lethal, they know they have been exposed and they will then publicly use all the information they have on you in public forums, at this stage they can say what they want as they know you don’t trust them any more, so they don’t need to worry about protecting that bond.

Dummy friend at this stage attempt to protect their identity amongst the rest of the group, will make out you are paranoid, crazy, a nut job if you try and reveal to the rest of the group what they have been up to. Dummy friend is by far the most lethal member of the psy-ops team.

4. Rows rows rows!

They also instigate rows within the group, two agents will be in charge of the two warring factions, innocent members of the group take sides, and get drawn into their manufactured saga.

They will publicly attack the people they see as their biggest threat. They will malign and discredit them in the most despicable manner. They just love fighting, and at all times will be planting seeds all over the place to start rows. The most effective way to damage a campaign is to have continuous in-fighting. Dummy friend will play a big part in this, because if they have said something slanderous about you somewhere, and you did not see it, dummy friend will see it and pass it onto you. Even when you know their tactics, and you know that they are just trying to drag you into a public slagging match, it is very difficult not to react, and to just let the posse slander you on forums/groups/pages etc. In the manufacturing of these rows, they will either just straight out lie about you, or take things you have said, and report them totally out
of context.

Psy-ops agents are Masters at manipulation, coming off as truthful, knowledgeable,
and witty. Many of these tactics leave people feeling confused about what to believe, the whole while having fallen into their traps of paranoia, discontent, and criticism.

The whole thing ends in chaos “divide and conquer” the oldest trick in the book!

The constant rows often mean that genuine campaigners leave, either after being attacked, or because the constant fighting is wearing them out. Then the whole campaign either falls apart, or their order becomes the order of the group. If they are in control of the group, they will steer the group in a direction which will hinder not enhance the overall campaign.

5. Time wasting

The psy–ops team will at all times be devising ways to waste your time. Time wasted is time not spent on the campaign. An example of this would be to publicly accuse you of some kind of wrong doing, it is human nature that when wrongly accused you will want to clear your name. Clearing your name may entail trawling through emails and messages from two years ago to back up your innocence in the slanderous claims.

Another method they use is to get “dummy friend” to send you links which they say is evidence of wrong doing of another team member, trawling through these links will take up an inordinate amount of your time and energy.

Dummy Friend is the most dangerous member of the psy-ops team, and will at all times be working behind your back to destroy you. Dummy friend will also send you links to obscure forums all over the net, where the other psy-ops team will be ridiculing and slandering you, remember, this is a full time paid job for these people, so don’t be surprised at the vast amount of time they use setting these stings up.

6. Multi-characters

One of the psy-ops team, may in fact be 4 members of the group, they will often have numerous identities, and often even start rows with themselves to try and drag other group members into taking sides and getting involved in the manufactured drama. Divide and conquer.

7. Victimisation

While you are their victim, and they are at all times working towards discrediting you and victimising you, they will make attempts to make others think it is in fact the other way round. There are many ways they can do this.

When it then becomes very obvious what they are up to, and you block them, they will spend the next two or more days going to other forums all over the place to discredit you further for blocking them, they will accuse you of being a liar, a hypocrite etc etc. All the time making out that they have been a victim to you! Should you attempt to defend your actions on these forums, you will then be pounced on by the other psy-ops team, and a full scale slagging match ensues. I now ignore all such attempts to embroil me in their dramas.

8. Exposure

This is their greatest fear, and when exposed they will join forces and attack like the nest of vipers that they are, when there has been full exposure, it means that they have to create new identities and go through the entire process again of gaining trust and influence in the group, they have done this in the past, but they prefer to avoid this, and retain the positions they already hold. They will go to great lengths to have people think that they are the victims, and the person doing the exposing is in fact the infiltrator.

They will point out the great amount of time that they have devoted to the campaign, which is often more than the genuine campaigners, as they are full time employees so to speak, and getting paid for all they do! On the face of it they may appear to have been great supporters, but when you scratch the surface just a little and examine what they have been doing in the shadows, and not the light, a very different picture emerges of their actual contribution.

Make no mistake, these people are often masters at what they do, they have been trained in mind manipulation, and know every trick in the book, as to how to influence group actions and behaviour.

It is their ultimate goal to head fuck the entire group, genuine supporters when faced with this level of Machiavellian tactics give up and leave the campaign. Others continue to support, but from the side lines, and do not get involved in the group activities, and I really don’t blame them!

I have penned this, firstly to outline my own position at not defending myself from their attacks, as I realised long ago that interactions with them are futile, and only serve to damage the campaign with in-fighting, secondly to let other supports be aware of the tactics they use, awareness will save you a great deal of time and annoyance.

A group of 27,000 was formed; the above tactics were used to totally disintegrate the group. I have seen many more of lesser volume obliterated by this.

I would urge all supporters, if you see arguments that appear to be among supporters, stay well clear, let them fight among themselves, do not join in, and do not be swayed by the lies they tell, question their motives in trying so hard to discredit honourable people and/or create hysteria, distrust, fighting, and an unhealthy environment.

==============================

As I consider fb not really a useful resource for collaboration, I copied the content over here. I encountered some of these strategies this morning, and still hope that information about psy-op strategies can immunise a sufficiently large part of those still willing to engage for the global occupy movement.

I think it's also handy to have the text handy in a format that makes copy and paste easy. Some of the things here happen also as part of 'normal' unhealthy interpersonal and group dynamics. In those situation I found 'calling one's bluff' usually can transform a situation to a less damaging outcome, or even, given a basic common intent to cooperate, into a win-win situation.

America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally

Repost from www.craigmurray.co.uk

100,000 HITS IN 100 MINUTES CRASHED THE SITE. WE DON’T KNOW YET IF GENUINE INTEREST OR DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK. OUR BRILLIANT WEBHOSTS HAVE QUADRUPLED THE RESOURCE, BUT IF YOU CAN HELP TAKE THE STRAIN BY REPOSTING I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL.

I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.

This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world.

The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in the treaty.

Article 22

1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.

The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.

The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.

I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10.

There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles.

Narrative reality

I read a tweet from @MaxKeiser about the Batman massacre, half an hour after it happened. Like so many events, the random killing of people in a cinema attracted global attention. It took less than 24 hours not only to have the facts reported, 12 people killed and over 50 wounded, and a prime suspect being arrested after the shooting, but also have people talking all over the globe.

The alleged killer, with hair dyed red, wearing SWAT gear and a gas mask, had his flat booby-trapped with some sophisticated bombs that could have easily killed unsuspecting intruders. The mayhem started by someone entering through an emergency exit, throwing a smoke bomb and then the shooting started.

Basically, we know little more in terms of facts about this event. Yet our minds want to know more. We got exposed to a vicarious trauma, which needs transformation or it will lodge into our psyche. We know instinctively that something 'wrong' happened, luckily not to us. The circumstances suggest that it could happen to us, we can easily identify with going to the movies to watch some spectacular emotional roller coaster made in Hollywood.

Human nervous systems have been prewired to perceive injustice, and our minds demand closure. This means either believing that this event can't be repeated, or that some sort of punishment is dished out to the perpetrator. A psychopath on the loose creates nightmares for the community, understanding this event as a cruel 'act of god' allows the grieving process to start.

The 'lone gunman' narratives describes the current official reading of the story, no worries, we got him in jail, mourn your dead and move on. However, living in the age of web 2.0, of social media, 'talking points' find entirely new ways of being evaluated. The diversity of opinions on the interwebs approaches infinity, and random webs of connections make memes traverse the globe with increasing speed.

We don't even need to wait for some TV team to present their cluelessness, or some pre-scripted version of events, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube quench our thirst for information faster than any single commercial entity ever could. Media consumption has many of us desensitised towards random blood spilling, unless we identify the victims with our in-group. While we're used to hundreds of victims in bombing in the Middle East, massacres in the 'center of current civilisation' make it easier to appeal to our empathy glands.

The preparation for the Batman massacre opens the door to many questions, especially as to how this could all happen. Without a forensic reconstruction of the timeline of this event asking why he did it can't lead to useful conclusion. At this stage, we can't even conclusively say whether James Holmes has killed anyone. A movie theatre filled with smoke makes positive identification nearly impossible, especially of someone wearing a gas mask.

We haven't heard a confession of Holmes on record. During his court appearance he didn't say a word, and looked drugged. Ostensibly, he informed police upon his arrest about the booby-traps in his apartment, another detail that raises suspicion. The Joker, which he impersonated, would have enjoyed blowing up cops, remorse or respect for uniforms seems out of character.

The loner/nutcase explanation remains easiest to come to some closure, without really changing the vicarious trauma. The idea of a complex psy-op offers an alternative path to closure, and doesn't necessarily work out better to deal with the trauma. Although Ireland, Spain and Greece currently demonstrate how little governments hesitate to act against their people, condemning them to poverty and starvation to make some friends filthy rich, blind trust in government is one of aims of state education that usually sticks.

For now, we can only conclude that something really fishy goes on when the official narrative sticks with lone gunman myth. But then, seeing chemtrails on a regular basis might convince you as well to scrutinise messages from media and government a bit more thoroughly.

The Olympic Games in London start.on Friday, I doubt that we'll hear a convincing story from official sources. I wonder whether there's some important date within the Games, I hope David Icke chose the timing of his event well, otherwise the Batman Massacre might look tiny in comparison to London. It certainly withdraw the focus of the security screw up from G4S, which invited many ideas about the next 911 to finalise the NWO takeover (or however you call a prison planet, or global fascism, or One World Government, or Neo Feudalism, or Check mate for mankind, or what ever).

Yet, unless you know someone who was sitting in the Aurora theatre, or someone who was involved in its preparation, you can easily find solace by some simple considerations. It doesn't really matter what exactly happened. But the probability to fall victim to such an event is really small, lottery millions kind of small. Sharks and lightning will get you faster, and if the endgame has begun (and have any idea what endgame means) then better prepare yourself.

If we want to save this planet, everyone is needed. If the endgame continues, most people are dispensable. However, the people, united, can never be defeated. Sweet dreams of the Dark Knight.

Finalised Matters

I've been to the Magistrate's Court several times now, yet never before encountered such a long queue to get inside. Armed with some paper work, I made it inside, just to find out that my case wasn't listed.

I heard also that there is no case listed for next week, so the at least the prosecutor kept this part of the promise. Later today, I received the letter confirming that I don't need to appear again. It's dated two days later than the adjournment letter I received last week, kind of amazing how long delivery within the same city can take.

So at least this episode of living in a police state worked out positive at the hand. Not only didn't I have to pay any fines, I guess at least Melbourne Bike Patrol will leave me alone when I'm unicycling. To quote my prosecutor: These matters are now finalised.

On the brink

The middle of the solar year has just gone, winter solstice in the Southern Hemisphere, summer solstice in the Northern. 2012, the year of many apocalyptic prophecies and even more apocalyptic policies. The empire increases its effort to quench human spirit and enslave the majority of the population.

A glimpse of hope emerged last year with Occupy Wall Street and its many memetic offspring. More and more people world wide not only liberated themselves from the idea that 'government cares for all', but also started caring for each other and get organised.

The wrath of the Empire came fast and vile, filled prisons and thus lined the pockets of the private prison industry like Serco or Wackenhut. The disneyfied news media reported diligently about yet another futile violent protest, elegantly omitting any useful information.

Hundred thousands protest in Mexico against a stolen election, similar numbers protest in Spain against being enslaved to pay for some gambling bankers debt. Japan rises against the use of nuclear power with hundred thousands. Greeks hardly stayed calm since the IMF and Germany took their country over. The middle East is still boiling, hotter than ever.

The traces of the implementation of the New World Order are plenty and wide spread. Without going too far back into conspiratorial history, IMF, WTO and World Bank might be the governance to implement the Agenda 21, an official plan to save the planet.

Cool, not only is there some understanding that this planet needs saving, there's even a masterplan for it. Hold your horses, not everything might be as attractive as it seems in first place. 'Saving the planet from environmental destruction' is only the sales point of a plan that identifies mankind as biggest obstacle towards a 'sustainable planet'.

I admit, I want to save the planet. Not singlehandedly, as mythical hero archetype, rather in cooperation with like-minded people. I don't believe in the Messiah myth, which keeps our fixation to leaders alive. Self-organising groups of people have shaped the face of this planet, and this eternal principle of (human) life cannot be broken.

Yet a weird game determines the amount of resources available to any specific group of people on this planet. Since the invention of the magic scheme called 'legislation' a large part of the global population is forcefully put under its evil spell. The historic empires eradicated custodians of their lands, and replaced them with lesser wizards with the responsibility to maintain the magic spell of law.

Domestication of conquered people followed usually similar patterns, if they survived at all. Their cultural identity was subverted to subdue to the rules of the conqueror, from total ban to replacing just the top of the hierarchy.

The latest threat to the hierarchy comes ostensibly from machines. The creation myth of most contemporary societies portraits strict hierarchy as a given, and inevitable. Somebody's got to do the nasty job of bossing the rest around, and many societies regard this as a family affair. Soon, we can retire them, and have some machines bossing mankind around.

It's all for the best of all. My synapses scream and sigh simultaneously while writing something so wickedly Orwellian. While science still largely shies away from the exploration of consciousness, and has only ill-defined concepts of 'intelligence', Artificial Intelligence will blow us away. Or a comet. Or an alien attack. Or global warming. Or the sun exploding. Or the Oil Crisis. Or the Food Crisis. Or the Water Crisis.

When some people think about the future, they often see their biggest fears magnified. While contemplating plans about my individual future these 'globally accepted threats' want some attention. But they don't get it in their designed ways. I can choose whether to subscribe to the idea of humans as helpless, inferior beings needing a guiding hand for anything or whether to accept the challenge of free will.

Depending on the circumstances, we have been programmed to prefer everything 'just like it is', including a self-perception as unimportant and replaceable cog in a much, much larger wheel. Many lack the imagination required to consider a world without the big wheel government as desirable. Media provides us with a plethora of dystopian memes, which clutter our ideas about a potential future.

Assuming that most people on this planet are harmless, a cooperative society emerges easily. The biggest mistake in perceiving a future society lies in taking every bit of the now and converting it into a better working equivalent. Most of the jobs done today are entirely redundant, to keep people busy and reinforce their conditioning on a daily basis.

One essential area for human survival has already largely moved into the hands of the corporate Empire: food. Other omnivores on this planet require about twenty hours per week caring about food, it makes us look quite stupid in comparison if we aim for 40 hours a week. At least in most industrialised countries, homelessness reflects just economic inequality, not a scarcity of resources.

Although a lot of damage to the environment needs active repairing/healing, in average we would do much less in terms of 'job'. If essentials like water, electricity, heating, shelter, communication infrastructure come for free (and there is no compelling reason why it can't be so), the jobs for 'competing for the best offer in these services' go away.

We have developed more than enough technology and products to ensure a comfortable life for every human being on this planet. As of yet, this comfortable life would hardly be sustainable, as most economic processes have been optimised for 'profit', while neglecting efficient (economic) solutions. Transforming the industries we need and want as mankind towards sustainability, that means conscious of the interdependence of mankind to this ecosphere we call planet Earth, sounds like an insurmountable task.

Yet since the idea of ecology became more popular in the 70s of the last century, it raised already the general awareness about environmental concerns, and led to some positive steps towards sustainability. However, this environmental awareness gets now hijacked by the proponents of the Agenda 21, which want to save the ecosystem by culling the majority of humans.

The future remains unpredictable, although some consequences of maintaining the current status quo become very apparent. Especially the contamination with radioactivity, in combination with the exposure to dangerous chemicals erodes life expectation and general health, not only in humans, but in the entire chain of life.

Liberating this planet from its parasitic leadership only begins the next step of evolution. A memetic shift needs to prepare the majority of people not to panic once the emperors without clothes have gone.

Deceit instead of defeat?

Going to court last tuesday didn't turn out to be fun. The combination of little sleep, public transport and Melbourne winter weather turned into a cold which still lingers around a bit. It eased a little bit when Sergeant Mark Stephens rang me up to tell me about his decision, whether to prosecute me for unicycling without a bike helmet or not.

While I stayed much calmer on the phone than at court, Sgt. Stephens sounded a bit apprehensive. He stated, however, that the both charges against me were dropped. My vague information about the second charge was enough to find it, so after patiently listening and making sure that I got him right, I asked for a written confirmation about the charges being dropped.

His reaction seemed a bit odd to me at the time, as if I should simply rely on his word. He even asked for my address. I'm quite sure there will be a file with my name available to him, but I went along anyway. The easiest way to prosecute someone is certainly to prevent the defendant from showing up.

So i asked Sgt Stephens for a written confirmation before the date of the second charge (July 30th), and was surprised to find a letter from the Magistrate Court today, as he suggested it might take time for this written admission of error.

What I got though was an 'Advice of hearing', stating my first charge was adjourned for a 'mention' on the 24th. So far, it looks like the second broken promise by people in Vic Police uniform. If it wasn't a silly game, I would turn the attack around and start suing Vic Police for harassment. However, mentioning harassment in person to one of perpetrators seems more satisfying than deploying a phony legal system against itself.

Another opportunity to stay calm while speaking truth to power, hidden behind a uniform swearing allegiance to the genocidal British crown. At least I now know what to expect, and might have some fun with the interaction after all.

Law and justice

I went to the Magistrate's Court today, as I am officially charged with the 'summary offense' of failing to wear a bike helmet on a unicycle. It helped a lot to have been there before, and knowing bits of the proceedings that apply to 'offenders' like me.

Instead of seeing the Magistrate to explain as to why a unicycle is not a bike, although it was legally defined as one until 2009, I had a bit of a talk to some of the prosecutors. Paper is patient, it's perfectly possible to fill it with lots of contradiction without the medium being affected in any way. I lost my patience a bit, and still managed to pick some interesting information on the way.

The charge itself needs some intellectual detours to make sense. There is the mismatch between 'unicycle' and 'bicycle helmet', which could make people suspicious in first place. Then again, law is not about common sense. If common sense would play a larger role in everyday life, we wouldn't need a plethora of laws, which, according to the prosecutor I spoke to, can't be known in its entirety even by police men.

The charge contained a hard copy of the dictionary of Victoria's road rules, the green marked part defines a bicycle as plenty of things, including unicycle. However, the part marked in red states the version of the legal text, it is from1999.

The law applicable to the charge, referred to on the summary sheet, clearly states Road Safety Road Rules of 2009 as the bit I ostensibly offended against. Okay, I admit, once things get defined in the law to ease fining citizens, it seems unlikely that a law will change to reflect common sense again. The current version of the law reflects what determines a bicycle, and legally distinguishes between uni- and bi-cycle.

When I mentioned that I felt harassed by the treatment of Constable Tyrell, the prosecutor mentioned that Vic Police is entitled to do a lot more than just stopping me and taking my details. In a way, it seemed like in the Stanford Prison experiment, the person in uniform emanating a sense of entitlement and infallibility.

Superficially, the entire case looks more than ridiculous. Besides the cognitive dissonance required to consider a unicycle the same as a bike, using two versions of the same legal text in the same bunch of documents shows how little scrutiny for detail the people dealing with this charge displayed.

I never had a court case before, and being considered as an 'offender' fails to instigate any confidence in the legal system. My crime: unicycling. How outrageous. How socially inacceptable. How non-conforming.

I guess the implicit attempt to shift blame towards me got my Liver Qi rising. While at least one Melbourne Bike Patrolero admitted his error, just like in Terry Gilliam's Brazil, 'officials' don't like admitting mistakes.

The shocking admission that police men 'don't know all the laws' and are entitled to random activities that seem to me just like harassment doesn't raise confidence into the local authorities at all. If common sense goes overboard, and people in uniform act like street robbers, the notion of a 'free' society has died.

So what the friendly prosecutor communicated was 'follow orders from police, no matter whether they are in line with legislation or not'. Don't feel harassed for being hindered in your ways, treated like a criminal, having to spend time and money to make those who 'protect the law' read the laws in first place. What a brave new world.

Making the world a sadder place with shoes

In a lot of parts of the world walking barefoot was the norm for millennia. I love the sensation of walking barefoot, and while the 'civilised' environment isn't the nicest to walk on, using barefoot shoes is the next best thing. I happily confess wearing shoes for the last three years or so that provide a similar amount of feedback from the ground like walking barefoot, while providing a lot of protection from things you might step on.

As bodyworker, I advocate freedom for the feet, although it might remove my client's necessity for treatment. Evolution provided us with the a thick skin under our feet, which moved us through all sort of terrains. But then, all I have is my personal experience, my own understanding of the evolutionary process and potentially the support of a minority of like-minded people. I obviously lack the impulse to do good by preventing harm at all costs.

The One on One Movement is a different kettle of fish. Blake Mycoskie went to Argentina and saw not only barefoot people (o shock, o horror!), he also saw the terrors of a shoeless existence:

Why shoes?

Many children in developing countries grow up barefoot. Whether at play, doing chores or going to school, these children are at risk:

•A leading cause of disease in developing countries is soil-transmitted diseases, which can penetrate the skin through bare feet. Wearing shoes can help prevent these diseases, and the long-term physical and cognitive harm they cause.

•Wearing shoes also prevents feet from getting cuts and sores. Not only are these injuries painful, they also are dangerous when wounds become infected.

•Many times children can't attend school barefoot because shoes are a required part of their uniform. If they don't have shoes, they don't go to school. If they don't receive an education, they don't have the opportunity to realize their potential.

Oh my god, disease and infection lurk in the soil, and children miss out in their conditioning to become a worker bee. And, for fornication's sake, it's children AT RISK! Would somebody pleeeeeeeeeease think about the kids!

So let's imagine a small Argentinian village, subsiding on agriculture, and engaging a bit in crafts and trade. What kind of problems might a place like that face, after the reign of US supported dictators, a total economic crashes in the 80s of the last century?

Good Man: Hello, villager, I came here to help the children.

Villager: Hello, wow, that's fantastic! Welcome!

( Friendly hug follows)

V: We can need some help....

GM: That's what I thought as well

V: Access to clean water would be great

GM: Sure.

V: And with the high taxes we struggle to bring food onto the table

GM: That's bad.

V: There's no hospital and no doctors around.

GM: Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I can't really help you directly with any of this, but indirectly.

V: What do you mean?

GM: I got shoes.

V: ???

GM: With shoes your kids can walk to the water supply, and keep their feet sheltered on the long way a doctor. 

V: We have shoe makers, but not all of us want and can afford to wear shoes all the time.

GM: Shoes protect your children from harm.

V: Why not a wind generator?

GM: Shoes. Everyone is better off with a pair of shoes.

V: Or some solar panels?

GM: Shoes. Step into the new world.

V: A new communal well?

GM: Shoes is what I got, shoes is what you get.

V: Shoes?

GM: Shoes. Your kids will just love them, trust me.

V: O my, I get the shoes blues... (walks away barefoot)

Donating and sharing seem and sound similar, yet they are worlds apart. By donating a specific good, one subverts the existing local market and creates a dependency. That way, much of African food production was undermined and heavily damaged, just to be picked for cheap by foreign companies. 

The shoe economy might be less essential for survival than food production, yet mankind has evolved far from being instinctively driven food processors (although some revert for shorter or longer periods of time into such a state). A free and just world won't be poor, only the promoters of the status quo insist on austerity as primary survival strategy. 

If I share life-sustaining knowledge (how to cook, grow food, heal, arts, crafts) I empower the receiver, If I share life-sustaining resources (food, shelter, attention) I also empower the receiver, by assisting and easing his/her survival needs. Donations don't empower, and might contribute to more problems than were helped initially.

So while it's honourable to engage in a good cause, it's much easier to help your own community. Not that it doesn't matter how well off our remote brothers and sisters are, without a personal connection we wouldn't know anyway. Unless, of course, unless everyone is better off with a pair of shoes.

8 circuits programming

Human experience is a wonderful thing, in fact, it's the only way the human form can access 'reality'. Behaviour depends largely on how well our needs are met, the environment around us. Yet what we perceive as our needs determines whether we nurture our 'self' or our 'false ego'.

It doesn't seem very common in the Western World to reflect on one's elementary needs, and the way we fulfil them. We don't need to reflect at all - most living beings very successfully master the school of life without self-aware thoughts. At least as far as we can tell.

Reflecting our own behaviour, the way we interact and connect to other and our environment, makes us human. Cultural behaviour patterns changed drastically over the centuries, yet consciousness creates also patterns of communality. Competition and cooperation describe one basic axis along which organisation happens, not mutually exclusive but in a blend of method, intention and challenge.

Exclusiveness describes best the most hazardous programming of the contemporary matrix. It's one of those words describing an 'ideal' situation which as such cannot exist in this universe. It's a part of the Aristotelian toolkit to stupefy the masses, distracting from the essential unity of all living beings.

Like Madonna in her song 'Material Girl', it's a common assumption in the general population that we live in a 'material' world. We get programmed to operate in a world of matter, manipulation 'real' things all the time. Matter, however, turns out to be a very persistent illusion, and much less solid than commonly believed.

Magic begins for a lot of people already in the realm of electronics, bits and bytes exceed comprehension. Or take at least some moments to be understood. Bits and bytes are the 'stuff' programs are made of, and the stuff programs manipulate. Data and program become indistinguishable unless they operate in their designed context.

Once the context is known, a mere 'data dump' allows to reconstruct the algorithm as well as the data. Hackers use this method to extract data from memory or to reverse engineer software. The human mind, the infallible tool exclusively exquisite in its evolutionary emanation, cannot fall prey to any hacking, or can it?

Whether minds can be hacked or not, a lot of money is made in selling specific methods to do it. NLP, Scientology or 'The Secret' taps into the desire to better control the outcome of interactions in our favour.

I ascribe much of these method's success to the fact that most human minds come pre-programmed with propaganda anyway. The global memepool is currently dominated by the most belligerent society in known history, maintaining a dystopic view of reality. The Disneyverse looks harmless on first sight, yet it sells mainly sex and violence.

The magic wands of Hollywood prepare gullible humans for a life of disguised slavery, serving a psychopathic minority that consider this planet their 'exclusive' playground. Lulled into the illusion that we as mankind are smarter than ever in history false believes enter irresistibly into the minds of the manipulated masses.

Civilisations have come and gone in known history, and most likely as well in unknown history. We covered our nudity fairly soon after our 'appearance' as species, displaying our ability to develop technology already 100,000s of years ago. We can only guess about the level of sophistication of bygone civilisations, assuming their inferiority shows pure hybris.

It seems likely that 'empires' emerged after civilisations. Cooperation yields collective advantages and creates wealth. As warfare doesn't contribute to the essential survival needs of a group, it requires a certain level of wealth to exist before it can manifest.

As humans required technology to transform from part of the food chain to the top predator the need for safety arose from the existence of highly successful predators that simply didn't respect our authority as masters of the universe. Lions, tigers, bears, even wolves and foxes just so survived the genocidal attacks of a mankind possessed by the idea of owning this planet.

If we know our environment, it provides us abundantly. The amount of mass migration following genocides, combined with environmental destruction of sparsely populated areas like rain forests means that less cultures survived in the 21st century which could share their ancient knowledge how to live on this planet.

Luckily, information cannot be destroyed unless it enters a black hole. While many lineages have been broken or distorted, it only requires the proper program to access the global consciousness. As each of us connects to the cosmic consciousness, many ways for individual access exist.

Unless many good teachers roam this planet, reprogramming yourself to venture into your own life, instead of following a carrot and stick drill on a daily basis, requires at least some work. Without doing things (thought experiments don't count) you will get stuck in your program. Customising your mind provides so much more fun than any cool desktop background.

While sharks still make the news on a yearly basis for chewing on humans, the statistical probability to fall prey to a predator are pretty low. The mosquito, combined with the Gates Foundation's greed, warrant most 'animal caused' human deaths. The fear of being hunted down transformed into the fear of being hunted down by diseases, which became our 'natural enemy'.

Again, the programming puts the perception into a slanted perspective. We learned to prevent causes of diseases, at least to a certain degree. Life style remains the Holy Grail that cannot be changed for the sake of better health. We have been deluded to mistake some wants for our needs. We want a quick fix, salvation now, which often seems like a disguised death wish.

Predators exist, diseases exist, nevertheless these threats to human survival seem essentially manageable, given a deeper understanding into the nature of life. Evolution necessitates maintaining and restoring health, we're the first species to have specialists for this task.

Not only have we found methods to extend individual life spans by some amazing medical procedures, we also can heal injuries of animals we favour to survive. The life around us supports us, provides us with the energy for own metabolism, and we developed means to support life in return.

Yet as long as we get stuck with the Armageddon programming that permeates many mainstream media productions, the abundance of solution for an seemingly insurmountable amount of problems remains invisible.

While it takes quite some time to program the subconscious from outside, it can be re-programmed amazingly fast. If something within the human nature resembles a computer, it's the binary structure of our subconscious.

On autopilot, we don't have time to evaluate complex data collections, binary decisions provide immediate action. Sex and safety belong to the essential triggers to activate subconscious programming, even the suggestion usually suffices to induce either mild arousal/desire or fear or both at the same time.

As most of us spend only little time per day truly 'conscious', especially in situation where our primary buttons are pressed, our subconscious programming determines most of our behaviour. As long as it is our own, there's no need to worry. Most programs, however, were implemented non-consensual as part of the cultural inheritance of the society we grew up in.

The implemented programs need reinforcement to stay active - two weeks holiday might be enough to losen the circuits, two days of rat race usually suffice to revert any positive effect. Withdrawal certainly works to a degree, yet it's less efficient than directly addressing the subconscious programming.

Removing some or much of cultural programming sharpens the lenses of perception. Once we understand how smoke and mirrors work, we can easier experience what's really there. A beautiful fractal pattern in perpetual motion: Life in this universe.

Ultimately, happiness comes down to choosing between the discomfort of becoming aware of your mental afflictions and the discomfort of being rules by them.

Raptile

This might like an unlikely blog for nerdy stuff, but then, always expect the unexpected. Maybe it's more a story about persistence than about technology, be warned though, I will mention nasty tech stuff.

Some month ago I heard about 3d printing, and got on a mad internet hunt to find out more. The reprap series took my liking, and I found someone in Adelaide that offered ready built Prusa Mendels for a reasonable price.

However, by some stroke of fate my machine arrived elsewhere, and the replacement machine came with a broken z-axis connector. The dream of plug'n'play was gone, well, I knew beforehand that setting up a print host would be enough of challenge, but instead of figuring out 'soft' problems I needed to get out spanners and screwdriver to get things back into action.

Luckily, I received a good amount of spares for the broken part, although I couldn't find too much documentation about the bits I needed to do. Some glued parts were in the way, and I didn't feel too confident in my fixing attempts. It took me literally ages to level the printer, and to dare to connect to its supposed host.

Dealing with Windows installation of Java, Python and some more bits and pieces turned into a nightmare. I relived my frustration that I experienced during my first professional exposure with Windows 1994: An orgy of badly organised system structures and confusing dialogue boxes, an utter lack of common logic, a training in obedience to the machine.

Anyway, the mechanical setup looked okay, what did I know, I never saw a 3d printer in action before. And after remembering that problem-solving with win software usually meant deleting everything and starting over, taking care each step in down in the right sequence, I got a bit further in having something like a printer interface up and running.

I think it took me only half a day to have figured out how to talk to the printer via the interface, and I could dare to see it moving. I could move x and y axis fine, I didn't understand how to move the z-axis. When I used the z-home function, disaster stroke. The side of the z-axis that had survived the transport crashed down, and without a z-stopper (which I moved out of the way without knowing what it was) the z-steppers kept spinning and spinning, until I removed power.

I waited until the next day to get the spanner and screwdriver, replaced the connector with a spare, which took quite some reaming, and had another go. However, in my attempts the night before I changed a driver setting (it's a not a nix system, it still needs to reboot to learn new things), which effectively removed the usb-to-serial driver.

Three or four reboots later I was where I was the night before: A 3d printer that seemed mechanically okay, a software talking to it, and eager to get this thing to print something. I pushed the connect button, and saw the 'start' reply from the printer controller. I spend some time moving the extruder along its axis, noticing that it was tricky to level with the print surface.

When I got ambitious and tried to print, the feeder for the extruder moved, but the temperature sensor for the hotend always showed 500 degrees, and nothing seemed to happen. I aborted printing, and played with the manual switches for hotbed and hotend, yet the mystery remained.

Then the next disaster stroke. While I tried again the homing functions, strange noises occurred while moving the y-axis, and a nut rolled underneath the printer. I was happy enough to print a model on the edge of the build platform (still haven't figured out how to move around with the print tools), and then the y-axis belt came off.

While my hope went up during the last couple of days, the number of obstacles seem to multiply. Even the small model I want to use as test needs plenty of PLA, but as yet I haven't really seen it moving at all. So while I'm relatively confident to fix the y-axis (relatively), the extruder looks like a bigger problem.

At least I had the opportunity to revise my OpenScad skills. Surely, I could use an online printing service, but I'd rather do this after fine-tuning (rapid prototyping, innit) at home. So tomorrow, it's back to some real tools, while searching the interwebs for info about hotends and temperature sensors.

Unacyclist

I did many things as hobby in my lifetime, yet unicycling is something to last. Most urban environments offer sufficiently levelled surfaces, it's a bit faster than walking, much more fun though, and it reminds me of my work as Alexander Technique teacher in a mindful and non-intellectual way.

I also love the reaction of people I encounter along my cruises. Today's ride on a sunny autumn day was action-packed like never before, with some big surprises along the way. At the moment, quite a lot of the bike paths I usually take are blocked off, finding a safe route into the CBD can be quite challenging.

Off peak hours, Lygon Street doesn't scare me much, as long as the cars stay on their lanes the parked cars offer enough space for a slow moving unicycle. Bikes overtake me a lot, and while I soaked in the sunny afternoon, a MAMIL (middle-aged men in lycra) overtook me on his racing bike. He swerved over the tram tracks, and threaded his front wheel into the tracks on the way back. Ouch.

In Dr ABC fashion, while some helper guarded the cyclists from traffic, I moved his bike out of the way, before helping the guy to the side of the road. Assuring he was fine, besides some bruises, I cycled on. At the next set of traffic lights, someone had ripped the metal casing for the button open, when I started my index finger hooked into the sharp end and cut it.

Slightly bigger than a needle prick, the wound bled a bit. When I found something to wrap around the finger, I swerved a bit to the 'wrong side' of the bike track, which was greeted by another MAMIL with an 'Fuckwit!' outcry.

At the end of this section of the bike path, a school class was gathered next to it, spotting me early and spreading excitement. "You're awesome! I saw you yesterday! A unicycle!" And when I finally passed next to them, a round of applause accompanied me. After bowing and thanking it was hard to wipe the smile off my face.

The cruise along Royal Parade and the uni campus went smoothly, yet I kept my guard up for a potential encounter with Melbourne Bike Patrol. The center piece of the most liveable city of the world is currently a nasty construction site, with most of the pavement fenced off for a tight pedestrian squeeze. So unlike in the good old days (last December), when there was hardly any car traffic from the State Library down to Flinders Street Station, I had push along the pavement, and then switching to the road whenever possible.

Finally, on the block of Melbourne City Hall, I spotted two blue-shirted bike patrollers on the other side of the road. I continued my ride, swerved onto the pavement to walk over the pedestrian crossing, when I heard my name. "L, can we talk to you for a moment?"

It was the same constable that gave me last fine, however, his approach was this time much friendlier. He told me that a letter is on the way to me, revoking the fine. It become obvious that they had researched the current road code, and wanted to stop any further processing. More importantly, it seemed as if now the entire bike patrol knew about the lack of compulsory helmets for unicycle. At the next block of Swanston Street, one patroller I hadn't seen before, addressed me by name to spread the good news.

I still don't know how happy I can be about the change of events. Even the short talks I had indicated how much the police knows now about me, and at least the Unacycling incidents. Although I get myself prepared to stand my case in court, I don't insist on turning this into a hilarious spectacle.

28 Khwei

Life is just a ride, it goes up and down and round and round. The more riders we meet, the more obvious the arbitrariness of social conventions become. Among all that seems superficially different lye some fundamental similarities.

We get trained to accept the current society as necessary for our survival as species, and even more importantly, as 'nation'. The need for 'a leader' is hammered into our heads from multiple directions. We tend to forget that those moment in life that shaped it essentially, when we fell in love, when we witnessed birth or death, when we felt one with the universe, know no leader.

Life happens, within us and around us, and while we can pay attention to some events others evade us.  Luckily, a lot of interesting events require the participations of a large number of people. You have already missed out on a lot of fun (and some less fun) action if you didn't hang out with occupy yet, yet the evolution needs you as well.

Technology has created a wealth that can easily support every human being on this planet, although most of it found its origin in weapons research. War is still an accepted tool for inter-'national' relations, and a highly profitable area for the application of high tech. The abundance of technological achievements, especially fuelled by Open Source and Creative Commons, could mean an end of all toiling as wage slave.

Some people just do the things they consider beneficial to the well-being of their community. Mankind got mindfucked to believe that technological abundance would lead to a breed of couch potato imbeciles. Well, the experiment in social engineering succeeded to some degree.

The retaliation wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Pakistan, were never declared, just started.  The same holds true for the war against the population of the Western World, which started in 2008 with the first so-called GFC. De facto, it opened the gates to legal economic slavery, just like the feudal system that plagued Europe for many centuries.

The Icelandic people understood that bowing to the IMF meant slavery to bail out the gambles of a feudalistic banking system. The Greek, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and many other European citizens realise that they got sold out by their Goldman-Sachs appointed heads of state.

Let's minimise the use of 'war' money, and experiment with our own currencies. Why not design fancy notes and pay occupiers for the time they spend for the movement?

Evolutionary mathematics

How can a group of people bring about a fundamental shift in society? Can we analyse civil movements with mathematical metrics to improve the efficiency of strategies and the definition of goals?

The occupation in Melbourne is still in its Early Adaptor stage, although it seems to resonate enough with a potentially 'critical' mass that can bring things to a tipping point. Allow me to set out some hypothetical numbers while forgetting about ideological bullshit. Melbourne has roughly 4 million citizens, which means if 5% of the population constitute a 'critical mass', it would take 200.000 Melbournians to liberate this city from its oppressors (if the same thing happens globally).

200.000 sounds like a lot, it's probably more than the 'alternative' parties count as members in whole Australia. But occupy isn't a political party, it's more like a life style choice. So metrics from other areas of life might better reflect such a number can be achieved or not. For simplicity's sake and inspired by sometimes shaky optimism, I assume that theoretically 200,000 could be convinced to commit their alliance to the idea of leaderless, consensual direct democracy.

Between now and 200,000 Melbourne occupiers lies the growth of the movement. Growth happens cyclical, linear or exponential. Although most systems and structures based on exponential growth constitute a big part of the problem, a phase of exponential growth is required to save this planet before the greedy few have wrecked it entirely.

Time for some calculations. Let's take 100 people, committed to contribute to the growth of the movement. The goal for each of them is to find a single ally per week. Even for people with a daytime job this sounds like an achievable target. In a linear model, it takes 2,000 weeks (roughly 38 years) to get our magical 200,000 together. A job for a lifetime, a Sisyphus task. Farewell, Mother Earth, will be late for your rescue as we got sidetracked supporting the system of destruction.

Now let's bring some magic in, exponential growth. Our 100 people win allies, not consumers or subscribers, and show their alliance by doing the same. After a week there will 200 'members', after two weeks 400, and so on. Now guess how many weeks it'll take with this growth rate to get to 200,000. Don't peer ahead and spoil your fun. I happily distract you for a while - isn't distraction the real opium for the masses, be it sport, politics, porn, drugs, drama and media?

Already after two months the barrier to 10,000 allies is broken, and the numbers will jump within the next month (after 12 weeks) over the 200,000 mark. Even with only 10 people as starting point it would take a mere 19 weeks to grow to a number where even a 10% mobilisation rate would exceed the size of most rallyes that took place in recent history in Melbourne.

While this might sound like a pyramide scheme, there's an essential difference. In a flat hierarchy, everybody is allowed to take their share from the gains of the operation. The idea of property, especially of land, contradicts the common interest, especially in highly populated world. And alliance (or membership) wouldn't necessarily mean membership fees (do we really need money on an abundant planet?).

Before we can agree how to heal the planet and to evolve mankind the system of madness needs to be stopped. Dr. ABC, first of all, remove the danger. 200,000 people in Melbourne's streets would certainly bring many things to a stop, and initiate a wave of civil disobedience that potentially brings back justice into society.