Posted by Elysiumboy on 02/11/10
Last updated 02/11/10

Whilst driving home during early November 2009, I heard an interview on BBC radio 4's File on 4 about the newest form of stock market exchanges known as High Frequency Trading. For those of you who recognise the name Sergey Aleynikov, this is to do with the program codes he stole.

For those who have trouble receiving the radio version (this is due to an unexplained problem with bandwidths and can change every time you try), the transcript is below:

High Frequency Trading (radio edit)

High Frequency Trading (transcript)

Posted 02/11/10 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

At 400,000 transactions per second for each machine, the opportunity is now there for the big boys to swoop in and clean up.

Posted 02/28/10 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

Oh well! Not serious at all then I guess!

Posted by Elysiumboy on 06/09/09
Last updated 06/09/09

Brainless or imaginative?

Education - Essential Need Or Stereotypical Obsession

Let's begin with the more obvious point - there are going to be hundreds of different philosophies towards education, but we generally aim for the nearest school with the highest standard of test results.

In recent times both leading political parties, the Conservatives and New Labour, claimed that they had no intentions of increasing the number of private schools in Britain, but then had no intentions of closing the existing establishments down either.

This, to me, considering the subject and who it involves, is a contradiction. To begin with, private schools are few and far between, yet they seem to produce all of our prime ministers when a majority of the people come from Comprehensive education.

Unlike many years ago when most international business was exclusive to the rich, in this day and age there are several areas to see the common and uneducated person excelling; the armed forces, the business sector, the charity sector and in Unions to name a few.

Surely, maturity can play a huge part in a child's decision making. I for one, was classed as a day dreamer who preferred the world of fantasy over reality, when in honesty, I was simply showing an immaturity below my regarded age group.

One of my teachers realised my talent for story writing, but it fell on deaf ears to my year tutor as I spent a lot of my time outside his office. And so it was; I left school with very few qualifications and started out in the world on the wrong foot (according to them).

Based upon that period, then considering the new proposals to force another two years education on pupils who may never take in the knowledge they require, why shouldn't they be selective, rather than massive? Are they saying the problem is much bigger than we think or do they genuinely believe we all need an eduction?

Having worked in both office and factory, the one thing I can say is this can only lead to yet another breakdown in morality; how would you feel holding a degree and working in a factory or supermarket (yes, I know you already exist, but that's a conversation for another blog)? This is all based on the nonsense of Utopia!

Think of the restrictions on a child's life that you wouldn't put on a parent (at least that used to be the case). You might carry on working for a company that insists on a certain sock colour, but surely part of you would think someone has too much time to think. It may look uniform, but surely expression of dress, even in younger children, is a reflection of their personality and another tell tale sign of those lacking confidence (the key factor in virtually everything we do)?

The subjects listed below are national curriculum for key stage three pupils. Just ask yourself one question: How many of these subjects did I learn for nothing more than knowledge in idle chat?

Art & Design
Geography
Modern Foreign Languages
Personal, Social, health & economic education
Citizenship
History
Music
Design & Technology
Information & Communications Technology
Physical Education
Religious Education
English
Maths
Science

I'm not saying that you do not deserve to be in a better paid job or a better standard of living for your efforts, but why should you extend your prejudices to those without education when they assisted building your furniture, carpets, houses, cars, roads, offices, work for all emergency services, are many of the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and other parts of the world, deliver the packages that keep cities functioning and feed the economy with money, expansion, labour, consumption, enterprise and on the down side a hell of a lot of crime that can be stopped, but for political gaming (a.k.a. the make work philosophy).

It seems very odd to me that you claim to be doing things the way it should be, but don't mind allowing yourselves the biggest trouble making trait in our intellectual armour, prejudice!

Posted 06/09/09 annarlutz Groton, CT

Public education is wrong in so many ways. To me, the most glaring problem is the fox guarding the hen house. When children are taught in public schools, they are being taught the government approved version of each subject. They are not being given a variety of viewpoints and allowed to make decisions for themselves. So the government can influence their opinions and their amount of knowledge before they even have a chance to form them. In effect, the government can quell opposition before it even begins. As you mentioned in your blog, it also encourages discrimination. When children go to school, they are placed in groups according to their intelligence level. The problem is that these groups don't have much to do with actual intelligence. They are all about which children are the most socially acceptable and can conform most easily with the school standards. The "gifted" children have fewer behavior problems not because they are more intelligent but because they conform more easily to the classroom environment. The children with behavioral problems often only have difficulty adjusting to sitting still and quiet for 6 or more hours a day. There is much more I can say on this. I am strongly against public education. I am for education, but I think it would be much more effective and positive if the government were not involved.

Posted 06/09/09 TheYellowDart Frederick, MD

This is a special area of interest for me. I have researched this topic extensively. Of course a lot of the background documentation I have uncovered is US-centric not UK, but most of modern schooling comes originally from Prussia anyway whether it is UK or US flavor. My favorites on this topic are John Taylor Gatto, Ivan Illich, John Holt, and Charlotte Iserbyt. They all have fantastic books that go into this very angle at some length. Schooling is a perverse straight-jacket for the mind much the way the government operates in every other area of life - restricting liberty. And it is not so much the brainwashing of certain content; it is the mental disabling nature of the schooling method itself that is a problem for a freedom loving people regardless of the content. Learning is fabulous, but schooling is treacherous. Check out Weapons of Mass Instruction by John Taylor Gatto.

Posted 06/09/09 bspears1776 Harbor Pines, CA

I believe that men need to be educated in Latin and Greek so that they can think artificially like women, that is, artificially in an emotional and synthetic manner. Without being able to do so, women become "smarter" and dominant, and the equality between the sexes which is so important in a free and virtuous society is upset. I say they become "smarter" and dominant because it is the male archetype to be individualist and innovator, whereas it is the female archetype to be practical and a part of the collective. Obviously, both sexes have both archetypes within them. That being said, in today's education system, where men are not taught Latin or Greek, I think most men would probably be better off without education, because education merely makes them doubt themselves and makes them think that to be smart they ought to think like women. So, for this complicated reason, I agree with you, Elysiumboy.

Posted 06/09/09 LizLiz Brooklyn, NY

annarlutz - Interesting you say this. From my early years I was always told I needed to be in 'special' classes.. My parents would fight with the school to keep me out of special education. Of course the school found their way to get me in.. Instead of being in a special ed class ALL day.. a few hours a day I had to go to a 'reading' class... problem is.. I was already a good reader. I just didn't WANT to read what i was given. I was very bad at math.. was I put in a special class for that? NO. Into another public school.. same story. Pulled out of political science class and put into a 'reading' class.. Again. I was a very good reader and comprehended everything I read. I just hated spelling tests. My favorite.. In junior highschool I kept getting into fights with other kids (I was a country bumpkin in a city school. 'too white' or something).. The schools solution? Put me into a 'special education' class. Mind you.. I was an honor student. An honor student in a class of people who failed the grade before but were promoted anyway. I was deprived of all the 'luxuries' the debate team.. gym.. computer class.. science... and they were replaced with extra reading time... a 'anger management class' and dance instead of gym. AWFUL. Too this day.. I still cannot do more than basic.. BASIC math. But I have a 3.9 in my undergrad major.. ENGLISH. So public school.. kiss my ass.

Posted 06/09/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

I'll answer one at a time as I think this is an excellent subject of debate: Annarlutz - I make you absolutely right; I read through a recent blog about an American lass coming over to spend a year in our sixth form education (usually those going on to higher education). She was complaining about the lack of freedom in dress ware; I will not repeat some of the answers she got, but uniform to the cause was an absolute understatement; they were like drones loved up to the collective hive called school. It needs to get more personal. My son is an excellent example at the moment. He is not showing any interest whatsoever towards religious education, but he is excellent at design and technology, geography and English to name a few, but they will insist on teaching him a subject he will not learn for the next two years, wasting a fortune of taxpayers money and my sons time, when they have the facilities now to channel individuals into direct trades. So if I'm failing in maths, but I'm excellent with machinery and metalwork, why can't they start giving me the exact amount I need for a trade that stems from practical things, giving me the exact type of maths I need and therefore much easier to take in. So I agree that everyone needs an education, but what do they need an education in? How would that shape the business world if people were leaving education with the practical knowledge of machines they will come across in factory conditions even to the point of showing specific semi-skilled jobs like building site labour or several machine operations. I would have schools set up to actually make money via local trade. The kids get a project that will be sold by a local firm and they get paid for it, teaching the practicalities and rewards of hard work. I agree with you TheYellowDart, 'the mental disabling nature of the schooling method itself' says a great deal. They are stereotyping us then trying to force us to fit that stereotypical image. A good part of those uneducated people may be that way because they are obeying natural instinct to fight oppression. The nature is forceful towards the child where discipline rules and the fun is slowly creeping out of the window from too many rules restricting opinion. bspears1776 - I nearly went back into my day dreaming world when you started talking about dominant women, but seriously, it's woman's nature to be collective. If you read in history whilst the men were out hunting and generally coming back empty handed the women kept the place functioning by testing and collecting plants, berries and fruits for consumption, but like everything else in this world what should be in a natural balance is driven out of proportion into the realms of extremism. My personal opinion is, well, if they are collective and caring in nature, there are plenty of categories that woman could run efficiently and exclusively; I don't call that sexist, I call that the right person for the right job! LizLiz - I know the message was not meant for me, but if I may: We may be from different continents, but our kind of s**t happens constantly with developed countries. They try to force you into that mould with special this and special that, just like my younger son. Honestly, he is one of those cranky kids that you fall in love with from ten minutes of chat and lively is an understatement! He is very spirited, but he suffers from reading difficulties so they give him additional lessons. His reading has improved, but his sense of humour has waned and his temper soared. I haven't got it out of him yet, but I think it took it's toll being singled out like that. Do I assume that the system is now to blame for my child's change in attitude or do I suddenly decide (as they will) that I've become a bad parent over night because my son is becoming disruptive? I have never and will never deny my heritage, upbringing or associates I have met by saying my life has been bad, but I will say all I learned in school wasn't worth a carrot when I got into the real world because I'd been taught about a totally foreign existence to the one I had to live. If you have an education then great, but there has been a shift with the introduction of the minimum wage. A step up in society was needed to cover the advancement into the money to money exchanges on the international market and mass production coupled with cheap foreign manufacturers taking away industry. That meant jobs that normally required qualifications were filled with uneducated people and they worked. If you had decent qualifications in maths, how much of it do you use sitting in your office job. Most will do exactly what I did and pull out a calculator; add the Internet to your knowledge base and you can cover several lower sector job types that once required qualifications. That, in my opinion, is current society turned on its head and the only way for that to correct itself is for us all to come crunching back down from those international heights because there must be plenty of jobs up there that will be circulating around that money that doesn't exist, and then the qualified will regain their power of employment, but wages will fall before their profits and education will end up another victim of their idiocy.

Posted 06/09/09 BillNM , NM

Before all of our kids started homeschooling their kids, we used some of the public schools. Our Granddaughter Maureen was especially bright and was reading Curfew Must Not Ring Tonight when she was four. We asked the school administrators if she could begin in the second grade? Of course not. So, she had to begin in first grade. On Grandparents day, the teacher dropped by and asked if we were Maureen's Grandparents. She then said that Maureen was the brightest child she had ever had in her classes. THEN they jumped her to the third grade. Moral: Bureaucrats are only responsive to their charter! There should be NO public schools. Joke: Teacher asked the student if he was ignorant or indifferent? His reply: I don't know and I don't care! Joke: Test question is to expand (a + b)^n. Student's answer: (a + b)^n Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Posted 06/09/09 BillNM , NM

Nuts: Editor compressed the students answer. Try this: (a......... + .........b)^n

Posted 06/09/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

Lol! But what if they privatised all schools and left it to businesses to finance and the local community to run. That way the students will get first hand experience and schools directing them in labour skills that could range from building table to brick laying. Why do they assume all children need to be led down the same path. That's not equal opportunity when one is more skilled in a position he/she may not see until their early to mid twenties. It takes a lot to find a job you can settle in when you are clever, but unqualified. Even when I got decent positions they were poorly paid from employers taking advantage. I worked long hours to earn good money, but all that could have been solved if teachers were guiding pupils rather than programming them. I find schools more detestable now than I ever did being at one, but who is to say that isn't something that comes when you grow older, the rules become more apparent.

Posted 06/10/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

BillNM - I forgot to mention home schooling is one of my regular rows with the missus. We are forever fighting over the fact that I don't want them there. I have nothing against the teachers there and openly admit I'd think twice about standing up if it meant losing my job, but for a country they claim to be socialist we seem to separate on every value. However, let me add to that statement - If I was in a position where our future was so much in the balance with our kids, I'd class standing up as part of the job!

Posted 06/10/09 SteveNYGuy Wormit, United Kingdom

Having had experience with both the U.S. and U.K. education systems I find some interesting arguments to dissolve centralized education systems in favour of local, private or home schools. Points that come to mind are requirements for study on topics that are not assessed against the child's abilities, children slowed down while waiting for the "slowest" child in the class to catch up, the burden of administration to meet central government statistics and teachers that neither have the knowledge nor the capacity to understand individuality due to the perpetuation of a failed education system. That said, there are many good and great teachers that fight on regardless. One such teacher helped, in part, in making me realize that education is, for a small part, a game. We are told the rules, carry out the actions, learn from our own mistakes and either win or lose depending on how well we played. It is ironic that we look to generalize and tar children all with the same stick when each is unique and individual. Some can argue that as I am an individualist my view is somewhat bias. I would point out the different grades obtained, the different learning styles, children that are more physical or expressive and some being more methodical and read more. To group so many and try to impose a stringent style upon them fails them. If giving choice such as home school, private and general education is offered it does little but allow the unique child to blossom in circumstances that can best them. A memory comes to mind, which I should share as many can find points of interest. A teacher in elementary (primary school for U.K.) school was talking to the class the the children argued when can we leave this school or education (paraphrased). She was quick to reply that when we can read the N.Y. Times from cover to cover and understand it we no longer require education. In hindsight the reply best suited would have been... "If I could understand the full N.Y. Times (a rather large paper at its time) I wouldn't agree with the public education system nor with your assertion". Education serves many roles. It forms social skills with others. It (should) initially teach us how to learn. It should also bring up and strengthen some of our weaknesses required in general life as well as help to find our niche and nurture our qualities, whether that be scholar, laborer, singer or what have you. Steve Constitutionalist at home... libertarian whilst abroad.

Posted by Elysiumboy on 05/17/09
Last updated 05/17/09

Majority of Americans now 'pro-life,' poll says

For first time in 15 years of Gallup polling, 'pro-choice' is overtaken

NEW YORK - The Gallup Poll reported Friday that 51 percent of Americans now call themselves "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice" on the issue of abortion, the first time a majority gave that answer in the 15 years that Gallup has asked the question.

The findings, obtained in an annual survey on values and beliefs conducted May 7-10, marked a significant shift from a year ago. A year ago, 50 percent said they were pro-choice and 44 percent pro-life - in the new poll, 42 percent said they were pro-choice.

The new survey showed that Americans remained deeply divided on the legality of abortion - with 23 percent saying it should be illegal in all circumstances, 22 percent saying it should be legal under any circumstances, and 53 percent saying it should be legal only under certain circumstances.

The findings echoed a recent national survey by the Pew Research Center, which reported a sharp decline since last August in those saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases - from 54 percent to 46 percent.

Taken together, the two polls have elated anti-abortion activists, who had been stung by the November election results that placed President Barack Obama and other abortion-rights supporters in power in Washington.

Obama factor?
"Ironically, Obama's radical abortion policies and nominees may have helped make America more pro-life," said Wendy Wright, president of the conservative advocacy group Concerned Women for America.

The Rev. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the poll findings demonstrate that the anti-abortion cause "is a vibrant, growing, youthful movement."

"We are winning the battle for hearts and minds in our culture on the life issue," he said.

The president of a leading abortion-rights group, Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the Gallup findings "do not square with the voting patterns in the last two elections cycles."

"It would be a mistake for anti-choice groups to interpret this one poll as a signal that Americans want even more interference from politicians in their personal, private decisions, including a woman's right to choose safe, legal abortion," Keenan said.

N. Rapp / APChart shows abortion poll results

Another abortion-rights leader, Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards, questioned the terminology in the Gallup questions.

"The terms pro-choice and pro-life no longer define the parameters of the debate, witnessed by the fact that in the Gallup Poll, a majority of people say they are both pro-life and that abortion should be legal," Richards said.

She added that most Americans share Obama's stated goal of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies.

Planned Parenthood also noted that another recent national survey, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp., poll in April, reported 49 percent of respondents identifying as pro-choice and 45 percent as pro-life.

Across religious affiliations
The Gallup poll's release came just ahead of Obama's scheduled commencement speech Sunday at the University of Notre Dame, where he also is to receive an honorary degree. Those plans by the Roman Catholic university have sparked a wave of protests by anti-abortion activists, who contend Notre Dame should not honor a such a prominent supporter of abortion rights.

Gallup said its new poll showed an increase in the pro-life position across Christian religious affiliations, including an eight-point gain among Protestants and a seven-point gain among Catholics. It also reported a 10-point shift toward the pro-life category among Republicans but said there was no significant change among Democrats.

In the new poll, men identify as pro-life, 54 percent to 39 percent, while women also tilt pro-life 49 percent to 44 percent. A year ago, Gallup found more women calling themselves pro-choice than pro-life, by 50 percent to 43 percent, while men were more closely divided: 49 percent pro-choice, 46 percent pro-life.

Abortion is a hotly spoken about subject that has views on both sides in all developed countries, but it is a true conflict for the libertarian because it is a split in principles. I do not agree with abortion and would not condone any woman by my side having one, but I do not want to inflict my views on others nor do I believe my circumstances match everyone else, so how can someone like me vote against abortion when I don't believe in inflicting collective rule on the individual's rights or person?

I cannot say my way is right and the path we should all tread, but I sure as hell wouldn't say that about those in charge either. There is a huge population incraese to consider that would have likely have strenthened the USA's population by 70,000,000+ if you include those who were aborted since 1973 and their children, as the oldest generation would have only been 36 years of age. That's what we call in just about every part of the world we know of a population explosion and that's just one field! Just imagine adding the progress in modern medicine (although I believe they have better cures, but a slower process makes them more money) to the prevention of death and you have one major problem today! Whilst it is unpleasant, figures would suggest that it does play a role in keeping society from expanding too quickly and maybe viewed as a lesser of two evils.

Posted 05/17/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

I have voted for number one because it is not for me to take another's personality and assume it can fit into my beliefs. I guess what I'm saying is the only child I have the right to save or condemn is my own and my views towards others are surely outweighed by the views of the potential mother and father?

Posted 05/18/09 SteveNYGuy Wormit, United Kingdom

Whilst I would seek to consider the sources of such information I understand both your view and the views of others. I took this argument one step further, ironically, when I suggested the following when discussing the topic with someone: If each individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and by such actions as pro-choice would negate such rights of either the unborn or the newly born should we not consider allowing for this? In opposition would this not possibly negate the rights of the individual carrying or seen to support such child upon or after their birth? Would it be fair then to consider the idea of separating each as to allow each their individual rights neither negating one nor the other? In this way the rights of the child remain whilst the rights of the individual (considering such circumstances as rape or etc.) of the adult are considered and preserved. The problem with such ideas is that who would be granted the rights to separate each for the preservation of the rights for each? Would this not create a cost that someone would have to bear and is that cost possibly being brought upon another unwillingly creating a removal of rights? To do so would mean the parent's rights as well as the child's rights are, for the action to be considered, delegated to another unless the adult agrees. My argument attempted to provide each their respective rights but considerations still prevail and can create situations that may make the situation convoluted. Regardless, it is not a matter of state to decide as the state represents the individuals and each individual has their own rights. Steve

Posted 05/19/09 annarlutz Groton, CT

I think that this issue is used by politicians to divide us. Personally, I do not agree with abortion. I think it is a horrific practice that does indeed violate the rights of unborn children. However, I do not wish to impose my will upon others. It's hard to judge someone's actions when you've never been in their situation. I believe the solution to this problem is for politicians to stay OUT of morality. Politicians are a corrupt lot and therefore, cannot set morals for every American. If you are Christian, then you probably believe, like me, that God is the supreme judge. If that's the case, then it is for Him to decide the fate of a person who chooses to have an abortion. States should be allowed individually to set their own laws about this issue. Those wishing to have abortions can travel to states that allow it. Additionally, I think if there was less government interference and government spending on issues like this, there would be more prosperity. I think more prosperity would reduce the abortion rate by making people feel they can care for their child.

Posted 05/20/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

It's a dangerous subject because it sends you away from common sense and delving deep into emotion. I love kids myself and I would never be party to abortion, but if a woman chose to do so that I'd made pregnant, I don't think I could force her to take on that responsibility if she didn't think she was capable of it. It increases women's hormones and if they are under stress before it starts I think that kid could end up in more trouble if forced upon her! I have nothing but respect for people who support religion; I have nothing but disrespect for those who twist religion for ulterior motives and in a subject like this I really wish their was a God because we need his word to put these subjects to bed. It's even difficult to have some compromises because of rights infringements and I can't decide if it should be law according to each State, so to me it tangles too much with principles to sway either way on the subject. It is not right of me to vote in something like this because it is unlikely it would ever settle inside of me as the correct decision to go either way!

Posted 06/18/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

Very well said Dean, You don't hear Ron Paul mention the subject because he knows it shouldn't be a Federal matter. It's just a subject I don't often think about and I think it's time I took all views in about all subjects.

Posted 06/22/09 Gangofone Grottoes, VA

M, you have done a good job of airing this topic, it has caused some people to think. Personally, as I am not "Pro-life", does that make me pro-death? LOL! As much as I HATE abortion in principle, I hate slavery more! I have no right to inflict my will or morality on anyone that is not causing a victom. An actual individual has rights, a potential individual has none. When a place makes laws that make pregnant women slaves, it would be wise to invest in companys that make coathangers! Facts of reality dictate that some women will choose to end their pregnancy, for reasons that are their own. When forced, many have done an O.D. rather than face society pregnant. How will pro-life laws stop her then. Perhaps the pro-lifers prefer the employment for back alley butchers, for it is them that are creating these "jobs"! There is nothing like the EVIL in those that claim the moral high ground, as they force their will on others! I wonder how often these middle aged, pudgy men in their churches, are the reason why the unfortunate teenage girl needs an abortion? The louder they scream their moral stand, the closer I would look at their history! Today, does anyone know the meaning of the Scarlet Letter? Jim B.

Posted 06/25/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

That's right Gangofone and the other thing is if you give that child the full rights of the potential parents then what happens when the choice comes that either a baby dies or a mother dies. They haven't solved all the problems pregnancy and the moment you give an unborn child rights, it has to run right through the board. Do you see what I'm getting at? How can someone else make the choice to terminate the child or mother if both have equal rights?

Posted by Elysiumboy on 05/06/09

Take a look at Gordon Brown's fight back against the internet (oh dear!):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6229529.ece

What a dipstick, Gordon!

Posted 05/06/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

Pictures 1 and 4 are perfect!

Posted 05/06/09 Fu Manchu Belleville, MI

# 3 ummmm?

Posted 05/06/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

Believe it or not, that's our ex-deputy (Dawg) prime minister, John Prescott showing that we did evolve from monkeys!

Posted by Elysiumboy on 05/06/09
Last updated 05/06/09

I have written a letter to the political editors of all news papers in the hope of getting maybe one to return to older values. The Michael Savage incident and a note from a fellow blogger convinced me that it was time to start hitting back at my own country:

Dear Sir/Madam,

             &n
bsp;           I come from a lower end of society, but I have always loved where I come from and also respected those around me who advanced in their lives to higher levels. I happen to be very proud of the British public and that obviously included your good selves, but now I am disheartened and lost at how the upper part of society thinks!

They are making it blatantly obvious that they will not let anyone truly speak their mind and in honesty that is all Michael Savage does; I have watched his programmes many times and not once have I believed in criminal behaviour or violence because of what he says. He promotes using the political system for value instead of holding a prejudiced government that has created a prejudiced society, and surely this latest act only proves that!

In America, they are trying to label anybody who disagrees with the current government as terrorists, yet I have spoken to these people, read their views and commented, including saying that I would never back a terrorist organisation if that is what I believed they were. The answers I got and the things I've read are not violent in nature; they are just a bunch being pushed around constantly by a government that has changed from the freest country in the world to a state heading in the direction that we are.

I ask you to consider the following points:

I am not a religious man, but I have read the bible and it clearly states fear of a New World Order.

The term "New World Order" is an infamous worldwide conspiracy theory that has existed for many years and government officials know that.

I am not a conspiracy theorist; I have seen proof that they were making influenza strains with Avian and Human qualities. I am a person who studies and know the closest system to ours is the pig's, so is it not possible they tested this virus on this animal and accidentally created a super strain? You do not have to look far for the document - CIDRAP are a known organisation.

I can only ask you to ask the question, but we don't seem to realise how important we are to each other in the whole scheme of things and that we have never really been free; even when they handed the vote down, it was done to capture the parts of society in their grip before being handed to the masses.

We are only free to do want they think is right; they promote no part of our tribal ancestry and separate us constantly with prejudice, and when you think about it, the people who are trying to get rid of it are too extreme and end up causing it! Look at the fuss caused over banning words like blackboard, an obsolete term in this day!

These are only my opinions sir, and I do not presume them to be right or wrong, but I'm just trying to say how much faith is being lost in our system of government and to the three sectors of society - we are in it together and please don't take that as cliché as I am sure you can give me a sensible reason why inflation is in place when to me it looks like a tool of disaster! What did they think was going to happen when they were sending price signals of £10.00 for every physical £1.00 received. Quite frankly it seems ludicrous, but I will say no more.

Who will be banned next, Ron Paul - the only politician talking sense then following it through? What were they doing taking the monetary evaluation away from assets? You may laugh at my letter, sir, but this is not conspiracy theory; there is something wrong up there and the CDS time bomb that I have heard is far greater than they are letting on, has a lot to do with it - because it is unregulated and still going on!

Thank you for your time and I hope you can clear my mind.

Yours sincerely (and hopefully),

Mr M.R. Godden

Posted 05/06/09 annarlutz Groton, CT

I'm glad you wrote this. I hope they read with open hearts and minds. The UK is not making a secret of its anti-rights agenda these days. I was shocked and concerned when I heard about Michael Savage. From what I understand, that is only the tip of the iceberg!