Democratic hacktivism?

Abigail thought she was doing the right thing to blow the whistle on company corruption but she lost her job anyway, so she feels she is in a good position to judge what hackers are doing and the penalties they should get, if any, for exercising their democratic rights as citizens to expose all that is rotten in the world.

"My complaint against company corruption was swept under the carpet and I was swept out the door," says Abigail, "so I can understand why hacktivists prefer direct action like hacking to indirect action like lodging complaints, rallying a protest group or setting up a website to publish their grievances."

"The former hits the target, the latter doesn't," says Abigail. "However, which ever path is taken there is a penalty to pay in one form or another - exercising democratic rights or doing the right thing is never without personal costs."

"Peaceful protests often get out of hand and activists are arrested and charged with aggravated trespass and other misdemeanors, ending up in prison for anything up to three months or more," says Abigail, "and it does seem grossly unfair that hacking 'protests' carry anything up to 10 years in prison in the UK (and twice as much in the US)."

"Let's face it, the majority of these hacktivists are kiddie scripters with basic IT skills and putting them behind bars for anything up to 10-20 years when they're still in their teens is totally out of proportion," says Abigail. "Sure, they know what they are doing carries heavy penalties and is seen by some as cyber terrorism, but when you're motivated by idealistic principles and you know that nothing else is going to work besides exposing to the world all that is rotten about governments and their buddy corporate crooks the risk seems worth it."

"Also, I am perfectly aware that hacker collectives such as Anonymous and LulzSec do not always engage in 'democractic' hacktism," says Abigail. "LulzSec, particularly, is a splinter group which appears less concerned with political agendas than with hacking for lulz (laughs) and why they targeted Sony is beyond me, but perhaps the company has many disgruntled young employees who wanted to wreak revenge by hitting the company where it would hurt most."

"Taking the Visa and Mastercard websites offline and targeting PayPal in protest against the blockade these companies placed on WikiLeaks was definitely political," says Abigail, "and same goes for the hacking of security firm HBGary which revealed, of all things, a proposal by them to the Bank of America to discredit journalists and activists."

"I believe that the vast majority of hacktivists have no criminal intent - they do not steal data and sell it to the highest bidder - and in protesting against rotten government and corporations by taking down their systems (Dos, denial of service) they are definitely helping to improve IT security by exposing the vulnerability of systems."

"At a time when more and more sensitive government information about us is put online in addition to the masses of online information about us collected by private companies we need to know that the people we entrust with this information are keeping up to date with security."

"That some hackers actually believe they should be given monetary compensation every time they successfully breach IT security says it all," laughs Abigail. "I, too, believe that I should have been handsomely compensated for exposing company corruption - but instead I was shown the door."

"Emperors don't like being told that they have no clothes on, and if it takes a bunch of kiddie hackers to show us how rotten the emperor and his empire is then that's okay with me," says Abigail. "They are not terrorists; they are not killing anyone or threatening lives; they target the bad guys; and they are doing a job that somebody needs to do."

"The right of activists to protest against heavy-handed government is enshrined in democratic nations," says Abigail, "and the sort of activism that once worked to end apartheid and bring about civil rights will not work on the problems we have today."

"Hacktivism is the way of the future,” says Abigail, “and whatever ‘crimes’ hacktivists like LulzSec and Anonymous commit they are chickenfeed compared to the crimes committed by governments and corporations.”

Read more by Abigail:

haunted by whistle blowing

The interview circuit’s grapevine

whistle blower in difficulty

Cyber wars and Chinese time bombs

UN subverts democracy?

Decca works with an activist organization pressuring the government on several issues and explains how the group subverts democracy by using the United Nations to give authority to their demands.

“The United Nations is the source of all progressive policies in human rights, health and environment since WWII,” says Decca. “The idea of anthropogenic climate change, for instance, came from the UN and through emissions trading it will redistribute wealth and dictate how every citizen of the world will lead their day-to-day lives.”

“The United Nations, itself founded upon a movement for world peace after WWII, is now the means by which activists can attempt to subvert the democratic process and force their beliefs upon recalcitrant home governments by virtue of those governments being members of the UN and signatories to UN Human Rights, Environment and Health directives.”

“UN members are not elected, they are appointed; there is much corruption in their ranks – as there is in home governments; and while UN directives are not yet enforceable (the USA as well as many other home governments have defaulted), there is every possibility that one day will become enforceable by virtue of the UN’s aspiration to be the only government in the world.”

“Once activists gain the ear of an unelected UN member – and convince them of the worth of their cause, as well as the possible enormous wealth to be generated by it in view of the global nature of the activity, the UN makes policy directives and publishes reports and recommendations which it sends to home governments urging adoption of a standard set of legislative control/uncontrol measures.”

“With respect to controlling wealthy industries, measures start small with education in schools (which most industries agree is the 'proper' sort of government response),” explains Decca. “UN directives may then recommend discouraging exposure in schools and public places; and then suggests legal and economic measures to prohibit exposure in both public and private places, to force disclosure of chemical additives in the manufacturing process, to ban advertising and promotion, and, of course, to impose punitive taxes on users and industry – but never, ever, the banning of the product (because the object is to control it, and spread the wealth from its use by citizens to the controlling bodies, as well as its manufacturing and taxing bodies).”

“Because home governments are democratically elected to represent the wishes of the people being governed, most of whom would be engaging in the ‘disgusting activity’, including the politicians themselves,” explains Decca, “the UN’s recommended legislative control measures are seldom enacted, and this is where my group does its real work.”

“As activists, we engineer public support by gaining media attention and in doing so we shame politicians into enacting the UN recommendations.”

Read more by Decca on this issue:

student activism

Media driven social policy

A career as an activist

misuse of 'war' for other issues?

Education and activism

Welfare funding for activists

activist cults and sin taxes

Who voted for WHO?

Becky is concerned that the unelected World Health Organization (WHO) - set up in 1948 as an agency of the unelected United Nations – is setting the agenda for our health budget, wasting taxpayer funds on vanity projects and surreptitiously forcing home governments to accept a globalist policy.

“The WHO is a global organization which by-passes democratic processes and undermines national sovereignty,” says Becky. “Nobody voted for WHO; nobody elected its representatives as overlords of the world’s health; no nation asked for its guidance; and no society had any say in any of the health directives inflicted on their nations by it.”

“The WHO, with its headquarters in Geneva, is not a ‘health’ organization,” says Becky. “It is a medical organization which, from the beginning, pursued an idea of ‘health’ which was very similar to Adolph Hitler’s fanatical ‘healthism’ - and its founding medical members were of the same age as Hitler, too, and shared his hatred of smoking.”

“It is an anachronistic organization representing 1940 ideals which has been inflicted upon, and accepted by, the world almost without question,” says Becky. “And, rather than concentrating on genuine global health problems – the old infectious diseases, malaria, malnutrition, etc which still plague us – one of its very first priorities was a vanity project - to control tobacco smoking - and this priority has continued to the present date unabated despite new pandemics, AIDS, SARS etc and never ending wars and famines.”

“This priority shows that the medical establishment under the auspices of WHO is continuing, this time on a global scale, the policies of the Nazi medical establishment in relation to social domination via the cult of ‘healthism’.”

“Public Health has been used by the UN as a mode of infiltrating nations around the world,” says Becky. “It has stripped nations of their cultural, social and political heritage and aligned them with the vanity projects of an elite medical establishment.”

“In relation to the smoking vanity project, for instance, it was under the auspices of WHO that the Godber Blueprint was established in 1975,” says Becky. “Since then, a global bureaucracy has been built up – at taxpayer’s expense - to protect the original Blueprint and affect its fulfillment.”

“Like many in the medical profession, Godber was a fanatical anti-smoker who made smoking control a moralist ideological crusade,” says Becky. “He said that smoking is a dirty, anti-social practice; that smokers are nicotine addicts; that we should aim to have a non-smoking generation and a non-smoking world by the year 2000; and that waging a war against smoking was a ‘proper’ activity of health departments everywhere.”

“Godber had a narrow, fixed and flawed opinion of smoking as well as a dangerous view of Public Health which, over the decades, has not changed and culminated on 21 May 2003, at the 56th World Health Assembly, with the unanimous adoption of 167 nations of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.”

“This Convention placed governments under international obligation to monitor tobacco use and prevention policies; protect people from tobacco smoke; offer help to quit tobacco use; warn about the dangers of tobacco; enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and raise taxes on tobacco (to pay for the WHO’s global monitors, protectors, helpers, warners and enforcers) ,” says Becky. “This confirms my view that WHO is conducting a global moralistic ideological crusade.”

“While the world suffers from the global war on terrorism - and cancer and other health researchers beg for funds to help them cure diseases that are the real global scourges – it is nice to know that the WHO has its priorities right, isn’t it?”

Read more by Becky on this issue:

Bogus health research

Sinful Pleasures

Anti-smoking media tarts

Licensed to smoke?

Le Grand Fag Parasite

self-employment in parasitic britain

parasites and brain drains

Bravo Gen-O Bama!

Considering that President Bush's success in gaining two rapacious terms in office was largely due to the mass of first time votes from money-mad and gung-ho Gen-Y (born 1979-1986), Minnie is heartened that the first time votes of those born after 1986 presage a new generation of caring, sharing Americans -- Gen-O after their inspirational leader Obama.

"My grandchildren voted for the first time in the 2008 election and they volunteered their time and energy all year to get the message out," says Minnie. "71% of first time young voters came out for Obama compared with 53% for Kerry in 2004. Doesn't that prove that Gen-O is very different from Gen-Y?"

"They were heartbroken, like I was, when Bush won a second term because they were old enough, by 2004, to understand that the Iraq War was a personal Bush vendetta to 'get' Saddam and was made popular by massive looting and pillaging opportunities for those who supported him -- but being under voting age in 2004 there was nothing they could do about it."

"No wonder Gen-Y voted for Bush a second time," sighs Minnie. "They were making a killing from his administration, if not in job opportunities then in a mass of real estate and financial scams; and the absence of concerted anti-war sentiment among them was shocking."

"I don't want to tar every Gen-Yer with the same brush because my generation, the 1950s Boomers, had its goodies and baddies, too," explains Minnie. "It's just that I think Gen-Y stands out as a really money-grubbing greed-is-good lot. All of the real estate and financial enterprises around here were run by them. They flipped their houses, took their loot and are now set up for life at the age of 30."

"They thought they were the masters of the universe or something. I've never seen such a distinct group of young people with such big ideas of their own importance, and they were rude, mean and arrogant to go with it. Successful, yes, but at what price to the rest of us?"

"I truly believe that the generation born after 1986, represented by my grandchildren, is a more caring and sharing lot, compassionate about the plight of poor people not just at home but around the world, too," says Minnie. "And they hate war, just like my generation does."

"That Barack Obama came to the fore when he did, to lead the new generation of young voters, is a miracle," enthuses Minnie. "Hillary Clinton could not have done it. And that's why I call these first time voters Gen-O."

"They were looking for someone with vision, someone who wanted to change our society from a greed-is-good, dog-eat-dog society to one that better represents their caring values, and they worked their butts off like previous generations never did to ensure Obama's victory."

"We're embroiled in two unwinnable wars on the other side of the world, we have massive debt, our economy is in recession, the gulf between rich and poor is now virtually unbridgeable and it's horrible, too, that race and religion have raised their ugly heads in this election."

"Obama has a hell of a mess to clean up after eight years of the Bush administration," sighs Minnie, "but he can do it, and he will do it with the support and enthusiasm of Gen-O and all of the young people coming up to vote at the 2012 election."

"Congratulations Obama and bravo Gen-O for putting your country before your pocket.”

smoking invasions

Like most smokers, Moya, 48, is under considerable pressure at work to quit her enjoyable habit even though smoking is something she indulges in at home -- not at work -- and she is fuming that her civil liberties are being violated and invaded in this manner. She sees the whole quit smoking campaign as being as criminal, shortsighted and venal as the Iraq invasion, and believes that it's pushed by the same type of opportunistic people, for the same reasons.

"Although it's not a life-threatening violation of my civil rights -- as the criminal invasion of Iraq was, and still is, to Iraqi citizens," says Moya, "the quit smoking war is still very much a criminal act -- it's creating discriminatory attitudes in my place of work that are violating my civil liberties to enjoy a legal product in the sanctity of my own home."

"What I do at home is absolutely no business of my employer and it's deplorable that a comment I made to a coworker about smoking ended up being reported on my employment file," says Moya. "This is Big Brother gone crazy and next thing they'll be wanting to know what we eat for breakfast and what we do in bed."

"As I see it, the quit smoking campaign came about as a result of someone getting lung cancer and successfully litigating against the tobacco companies," says Moya. "That person may very well have developed lung cancer from a bacterial infection whether he or she smoked or not, but once the precedent had been set -- and the dollar signs started flashing -- that was the end of freedom for smokers."

"From then on, smokers became the enemy and the lies started coming thick and fast -- such as smokers are killing themselves and others (some of us may very well be doing that, but so are drinkers, drivers, meat eaters, gun owners, etc); we are bankrupting the health services with our smoking-related diseases (and paying for them ten times over with tobacco tax); and we crave liberation from the thralls of addiction (yeah, sure, we embrace the efforts of the nicotine-Nazis with love and gratitude.)"

"The illegal invasion of Iraq -- against UN decisions -- came about as a result of Mr Bush and the warmongers being frustrated at failing to nab Osama and going after Saddam instead," says Moya. "One criminal excuse after another was given in order to justify the illegal invasion -- Saddam was a monster (he may have been, but so are lots of other rulers and even Hillary Clinton is seen as being one by a fellow Democrat! ); he had stockpiles of WMD (Hans Blix found none); and the Iraqis crave liberation (yeah, sure, they embrace our gun-toting troops with love and gratitude)."

"The quit smoking campaign and the decision to invade Iraq are also alike in that they were based on shortsighted premises by people who have no understanding of consequences and no way to back off without losing face -- making them dangerous people."

"Their jobs -- their wealth and their pension funds -- depend upon successfully completing their mission and maintaining control over the outcome," says Moya. "They refuse to admit that they were wrong in invading Iraq -- that Saddam was the right person to rule a divided nation -- and they also refuse to admit that they were wrong in making such deceitful claims against smokers."

"The Iraqi people they claimed to be 'liberating' are now living in fear, anger and helplessness, wishing Saddam were back in power," says Moya. "And that's the way many ex-smokers feel. The rewards of being a non-smoker are not what they were cracked up to be -- all of the hidden reasons why people become smokers in the first place come back with a vengeance when they give it up."

"I have personally seen several acquiantances at work sink into deep depression when they quit cigarettes," says Moya. "Now they are on prescribed medication and spending just as much on their meds as they did on cigarettes. Big deal!"

"And there has been no massive decrease in the so-called smoking-related diseases either," says Moya. "Rather that admitting that other factors cause these diseases, the health authorities now claim that people who once smoked have already done the damage. Hmm, more reason to keep on smoking, then?"

"Finally, by far the closest likeness between the quit smoking campaign and the invasion of Iraq is, you guessed it, money!" sighs Moya. "They want a bigger cut of the Iraqi oil fields and they want a bigger cut of our money -- if not in tobacco tax then in quit programs and products."

"They've already pushed the Iraqis too far by overstaying their welcome -- and they're pushing smokers to the end of their tether, too," says Moya, "and I have no idea whether they doing what they're doing out of grotesque money-grubbing greed, arrogant self-righteous hubris or just plain dumb stupidity."

"The only way the warmongers can win decisively in Iraq is the same way the anti-smokers can win decisively in the smoking war -- imprison or shoot all the dissidents."

"I don't think there are enough prisons and bullets to achieve this end and while fellow citizens may not be too concerned about this sort of thing happening in Iraq they may start squirming when the dissendent smokers at home start getting rounded up -- or will they?"

"Judging from what's happening at work -- and what's happening in society at large --I honestly fear that our national identity as a feircely proud and free nation has been so watered down with foreign immigrants from totalitarian nations that the concept of civil liberties is fast disappearing from our national psyche."

"That so many so-called democratic freedom lovers still see the Iraq invasion as justifiable -- as justifiable as smoking and other bans -- is really scary," says Moya. "I feel so sorry for the next generation raised on Big Brother television and Big Brother government -- as well as control freaks at school and work -- because they will never know what freedom is."

"And most of all I feel sorry for the Iraqis -- especially the ones who smoke, and that's an awful lot of them -- because if western style democracy takes off in that country, they're going to be hit with an invasion of their smoking rights next."

narcissists and psychopaths in government

Gladys is from an older generation that despises the New World Order for not only spawning governments that dictate rather than do our bidding but also for providing the narcissists and psychopaths among us with a niche they would never have found decades ago.

"We've all come across these people in our private lives," says Gladys. "The narcissistic store clerk who tries to influence you into buying something they think would be better for you, because they say so; or the psychopathic check out clerk at the '10 items only line' who counts every item and aggressively refuses to allow you to buy the 11th item in your basket. Putting people like this in REAL positions of power over us is what dictatorships do, not democratic governments."

"Narcissists -- those possessing a personality disorder marked by an overestimation of their own appearance and abilities and an excessive need for admiration -- are drawn to positions of power like moths to a flame," says Gladys, "and governments with an agenda to push appear to deliberately recruit these flawed individuals because of their personal characteristics. Who better to change our behavior than the narcissists who childishly demand that the world revolve around themselves and that others alter their behavior or appearance to conform with theirs."

"Got too many fat people, smokers or slackers? Call in the narcissists," laughs Gladys. "Who better than the narcissists, addicted to complete domination over whatever space or situation they find themselves in -- believing themselves to be more special than anyone else, and more perfect in every respect -- to whip people into shape."

"They think in black and white terms, you're with us or against us, there is no middle ground," says Gladys, "and being masters of character assassination -- of playing the man rather than the ball -- they can be ruthlessly cruel in trying to make everyone conform to their impossibly perfect standards."

"Unlike narcissists -- whose excessive need for admiration can be controlled somewhat by consistent ridicule -- psychopaths are truly dangerous people," says Gladys, "and the fact that they are fast taking up more and more positions of power within our governments, removing our freedoms and leading us back to slavery, is something all of us should condemn."

"Psychopaths have a personality disorder marked by aggressive, violent and anti-social thoughts and behaviours," says Gladys, "and their worst trait of all is a complete lack of remorse or empathy. They are the hatchet men and woman that governments might employ for short periods in national emergencies, but certainly should NOT employ in positions of permanent employment where they can gain totalitarian control over others, enrich themselves by fraudulent means and engage in abuse of law-abiding citizens with impunity."

"Without a cause to inflame their passions, both narcissists and psychopaths are dangerous, but should they actually espouse the cause of their political masters -- which would be likely, taking into consideration why they were employed in the first place -- the power they have been given can have disastrous effects on the rest of us."

"Take any issue -- obesity, guns, smoking, global warming, whatever," says Gladys. "Rather than attacking the industries whose products produce the undesired effects, these people have been given free reign to attack the consumers instead -- peaceful, law-abiding citizens, often vulnerable people without the resources to fight back."

"It is our behavior -- our consumption of these products or irresponsible use of them -- that is at fault," explains Gladys, "and it is their job to teach us a lesson in good behavior by massive and expensive public education onslaughts, reinforced by personal attacks -- name-calling, bullying, bizarre accusations, domineering intrusions, assaults on democracy, discrimination and the use of force if necessary."

"It has nothing really to do the cause, whatever it might be -- causes come and go -- but everything to do with power," says Gladys. "In political systems set up to protect us against dictators, how is it that our governments are employing these crazies to crush us and force us to do their bidding?"

"What sort of democracy are we living in where these narcissists and psychopaths are given power to brazenly demand all right of control over public and private property as well as the private lives and personal choices of others?"

"How are we supposed to defend our democratic rights against people who are pathologically incapable of understanding or caring about human values and feelings and the future consequences of their actions?"

"As the saying goes," sighs Gladys, "the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum."

"We can rid ourselves of their political masters -- those responsible for hiring them -- at election time," says Gladys, "but how can we rid ourselves of these monsters who now just about rule our public service and all the advisory bodies out there -- and, conceivably, can even rig elections to ensure their political masters remain in power?"

"Narcissists and psychopaths, by nature, have no respect for democratic principles and will use the system, unashamedly, for personal gain," says Gladys. "Do we wait until they expose themselves -- by doing something so outrageous that they're forced to resign -- or do we demand, right now, an ongoing psychological assessment of all people in public employment and root them out before they do more damage?"

anti-smoking blindness

Cora lives in a small community which got along okay before the anti-smoking propaganda came along. Now, it's not only divided over the issue but it's also blinded by it as to the real causes of death and disability in the community, if not the world.

"Since the so-called war on terror, one young man in our community has died fighting for the freedom of other people in other lands -- and two have come back wounded," says Cora. "All of these boys were smokers or came from smoking families, and I would imagine this scenario fits a lot of our fighting men and women."

"Tell me, why it is okay to waste young lives fighting for the freedoms of Iraqis and Afghans while at the same time they're taking away OUR freedoms," sighs Cora. "And, to add more fire to this argument, don't they know that more Iraqis and Afghans smoke than don't smoke?"

"Why would the Iraqis and Afghans want freedom and western democracy if it means that they, too, will one day be forced to quit smoking in order to join the New World Order?"

"If our soldiers didn't die for freedom -- yeah, even the freedom to smoke -- then what did they die for?" asks Cora. "Big Oil, Halliburton or the Bush family's prestige?"

"None of the anti-smokers I've spoken to seem to understand the irony of this situation and they are totally blinded by their prejudices," sighs Cora. "All that matters to them is that THEY don't get to smell our smoke any more, and THEIR lives aren't shortened any more by our smoke. Freedom is a word that's missing from their vocabularies."

"Well, let me tell you, not one person -- smoker or otherwise -- has died of lung cancer or any smoking-related disease in this community for as long as I can remember," says Cora. "All those smoking death statistics that the health department is coming out with must apply to the big cities where carcinogens other than cigarette smoke play a part."

"I'll tell you what people are dying from around here," confides Cora. "They're dying of alcoholism, road traffic accidents, heat exhaustion in the summer, pneumonia in the winter and just general old age."

"And now we have the death of a healthy young man to add to our community death statistics," sighs Cora. "And it's a death from a totally preventable cause -- war."

"Why are people so blinded as to the real causes of death?" asks Cora. "Why are they believing all those anti-smoking lies about smokers causing their own premature deaths as well as those of others?"

"The deaths of the 3,000 people who were killed by 9/11 were an absolute tragedy -- an unavoidable one, as far as we know," says Cora, ''but can we say the same for the equal (and growing) number of our young people who've died in the subsequent war of revenge?"

"And what about the incredible number of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan who've died in this war -- the so called 'collateral damage'?" asks Cora. "Don't they matter?"

"If the anti-smokers want to bring up the mythical number of 'preventable' deaths from smoking," says Cora, "then they should be forced to focus their eyes on the very REAL number of preventable deaths from war, alcohol, motor vehicles and everything else."

"Could it be that they're too busy raking in the profits from war, alcohol, motor vehicles and everything else to care?"

"All I know is that the anti-smokers around here are just smug-happy to have won their right to a non-smoking environment over our right to smoke and couldn't give a fig about the war or anything else," says Cora. "We are banned from smoking everywhere except in our homes, and even that right is now being threatened."

"Before the bans, we had smoking and non-smoking areas and everyone was happy," says Cora. "Why did the government have to step in and change all that with its anti-smoking propaganda based on questionable health hazards?"

"Frankly, I feel bad talking about my pathetic right to smoke when thousands of people around the world are dying terrible deaths from war, diseases and starvation," sighs Cora, "and yet if the whole thrust of the anti-smoking movement is to eradicate preventable deaths and disabilities then why are they focusing on smokers and turning a blind eye to the MAJOR causes of preventable deaths and disabilities -- wars, alcohol, motor vehicles, bacteria, viruses, poverty and overpopulation?"

"In fact, why did our government start a war that would kill more people than smoking has ever caused?"

"If you can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke, guys, then put a peg on your noses or hassle the tobacco companies to produce perfumed cigarettes," says Cora. "Just don't insult my intelligence -- and blind those with less intelligence -- with your exaggerations about smoking hazards and how much you care about human lives."

silent majorities and protection rackets

According to Melody, the trouble with democracy is that it works on the principle of majority rule but majorities are always silent and sheep-like and the only people who gain from the system are rich minority groups with politicians in their pockets.

"In all governments -- democratic or not -- the deal is this," explains Melody. "We'll take care of you, we'll handle all the tough stuff, trust us. Give us your money and all you have to do is go about your daily life and abide by the laws we make for your good."

"It sounds like a reasonable deal -- a neat social contract -- doesn't it?" laughs Melody. "But it's nothing more than a massive protection racket."

"Very few of the laws governments pass are for our good," says Melody, "and very few of the baddies they are protecting us from are out to get us."

"On the contrary, most of the laws governments pass are for the good of vested interests, not us" says Melody, "and most of the baddies they are protecting us from are out to get these vested interests, not us."

"You only have to look at the situation in Iraq to see the truth of this," says Melody. "Saddam Hussein's regime may have been brutal in comparison to ours, but he kept law and order in a country that doesn't have a silent majority of sheep like ours does."

"The invasion of Iraq was nothing more than a bully boy tactic -- one gang leader moving in on the lucrative turf of another gang leader," says Melody. "On the pretext of weapons of mass destruction -- and then the democratic rights of Iraqi people -- our government fooled our silent majority sheep that Iraq was a danger to us."

"The vested interests like Halliburton and Big Oil have made a killing out of the Iraq invasion," sighs Melody, "and the silent majority sheep still send their children to be slaughtered in a war which never was, and never will be, for our good."

"Our government, led by whatever party and whatever vested interest, has a bloody history of using the silent majority sheep to line the pockets of the rich and powerful," says Melody. "Even the American Revolution was started by the rich tea merchants of Boston. It was easy to whip up hatred for the king and the Westminster parliament among the rag-taggle refugees from mother England, but essentially they just changed one political master for another."

"In 1915, during WWI, a terrible influenza epidemic -- Spanish Flu -- swept around the world and millions dropped dead like flies and yet the war went on regardless," says Melody. "The real enemy -- the real focus of our government -- should have been this bug, but it wasn't. Why? Because governments have always been more concerned about the economic interests of a vested minorities than the health interests of the majority sheep."

"It's tragic that the only system of government -- communism -- that held out any hope for a people rather than a money focused economy was also usurped by the racketeers," sighs Melody. "In it's pure form, a communist community would be living in heaven, not the hell their greedy leaders dumped them in."

"What's happening right now in China, for instance, is scary," says Melody. "In their efforts to catch up with the West, the new economic masters are turning China into a polluted and disease-prone wasteland."

"With globalization, more of our food is coming from parts of the world that have no health regulations," says Melody, "and more of our immigrants are coming -- and going -- from these places, too."

"I'm concerned about our government cutting back on health measures in order to fund its vested interest wars and vested interest causes," says Melody. "I believe another pandemic is coming and our government -- paid by the silent majority to protect it -- is deliberately playing down this threat while stocking up the bunkers that are going to save them, not us."

"I look at all the anti-terror laws the government is passing and wonder whether their real purpose is to erode our freedoms and make us incapable of acting to save ourselves when the crunch comes," says Melody. "Are the security cameras, phone taps, strip searches, background checks and incredible delays in getting anything done or going anywhere really to protect us from terrorists?"

"Terrorists, or freedom-fighters, have been with us since our freedoms were first threatened," says Melody. "No great cause -- be it Christianity, democracy, slavery or whatever -- was achieved without terrorism and bloodshed."

"I don't want to focus my argument entirely on Iraq," says Melody, "because the whole war over there is being used as a smokescreen to hide what's happening here."

"One by one our freedoms are being demolished and the silent sheep like majority are not only being fleeced but led over a precipice," warns Melody. "Right now, apart from the big vested interests, certain minority vested interests are also driving the government. Some things once unacceptable are now acceptable -- such as homosexuality -- and some things once acceptable are now unacceptable -- such as smoking."

"The silent majority go along with whatever the government does because that's the deal, that's the social contract," says Melody. "They hug the homosexuals they once despised, and despise the smokers they once hugged."

"With a change in government, who knows what minority vested interests will next drive the country?" asks Melody. "Will we be hugging Arabs and despising Jews? Kissing paedophiles and spitting at SUV owners or gun owners?"

"The point to be made is that we are being socially engineered -- even genetically modified like Monsanto's food," says Melody, "and if we must be subject to a government run protection racket then why should we remain silent about what we want to be protected from?"

"I believe we have more chance of being killed by a simple flu virus than by trans fat, SUV pollution, global warning, cigarette smoke, a terrorist's bomb or a crazed gun owner," says Melody, "and we should all demand that our taxpayer dollars go into measures designed to stop these bugs getting into our country."

marginalizing minorities

Mina makes the point that a civilized society is mostly judged by how it treats its minorities, so how civilized are we in comparison to other nations in relation to our treatment of people who don't exactly fit the socially acceptable norm?

"We've largely overcome our distaste for lepers and homosexuals, for instance," says Mina, "and other races and religions are now mainstream by virtue of constitutional rights or increased numbers -- they are no longer minorities -- but what about smokers and obese people?"

"I know they're out there -- the media is constantly focusing on the health problems they are causing and the astronomical amount of our taxpayer money being wasted on them," says Mina, "but I just don't see as many of them around as I once did."

"For many of us, their marginalization -- their disappearance from our workplaces, streets, parks, beaches and malls -- may be welcome," says Mina, "but I believe it is incredibly hypocritical of us to demonize these people, sweep them under the carpet and pretend that we are a civilized society."

"Come to think about it, it's not just smokers and obese people who've disappeared off the radar but disabled people, too."

"It wasn't so long ago that it was part of normal, daily life to deal with someone who was deaf, blind or intellectually challenged -- or a little person or someone in a wheelchair," says Mina, "but these days I could go for months without seeing anyone with a disability."

"What's going on?"

"I remember one young man in a wheelchair once telling me that it was a hassle trying to negotiate his way through a busy city -- and he hated people staring at him," muses Mina. "I can imagine how someone like that can give up trying."

"And because smokers and obese people have to put up with a lot more than people staring at them -- the bad publicity they get makes them open slather for insults and abuse from the crazies among us," sighs Mina, "I guess they have given up, too."

"I hear that a lot of smokers and obese people have left to live in more hospitable countries such as Spain, Greece or Cuba," says Mina, "but that would be only those who have the financial ability to do so."

"The ones who remain must necessarily be the poor," says Mina, "and with a fat tax being proposed in line with tobacco tax, these poor people are going to become destitute soon."

"No wonder they are nowhere to be seen!"

"The options our government offers these people seems to be shape up or ship out (get out of the country or die -- from social isolation, abuse and exorbitant taxes or from the greatly exaggerated risks of smoking or over-eating)."

"Neither option is particularly civilized," sighs Mina. "If I were obese I wouldn't like to be forced into stomach stapling or a strict diet for the rest of my life; and if I were a smoker I wouldn't like to be forced into taking socially acceptable nicotine patches or antidepressants."

"A civilized society embraces all people, warts and all, doesn't it?"

"The crux of this matter seems to be when on earth did our government gain the right to dictate what people can and cannot do in their private lives, especially in relation to legal substances?" asks Mina. "We can buy tobacco and junk food on every street corner, so why are we demonizing and marginalizing those who buy these products?"

"It doesn't make sense to me," sighs Mina, "and neither does the media focus on crazy government statistics and weird scientific experiments in relation to the health costs of obesity and smoking."

"What about the health costs of vehicles, alcohol and -- dare I say it -- old age itself?"

"Logic tells me that the main blow-out in our health care costs is due to people living longer," says Mina, "and yet we're not staring at old people, abusing them and marginalizing them, are we?"

"Oh, hang on, I think we're doing that, too."

"I remember a health official once proposing to deny surgery to everyone over 70," says Mina. "He was laughed out of town, of course, but in its efforts to cut costs I can see the government being forced one day to reexamine proposals such as this."

"Already, smokers and obese people are being denied surgery in some countries -- despite having paid tax all of their lives," says Mina, "and the rest of us, being non-smokers of normal weight, are not batting an eyelid. Why? Because the government and its media minions have carried out such a successful hate campaign against these minorities."

"All the government has to do is wage a similar hate campaign against the elderly -- or SUV drivers, or gun owners or any other minority group that you care to nominate -- and before you know it these people are marginalized and denied services (not necessarily health care) which their tax dollars were paid to provide."

"When you marginalize people you create a climate of revolution," says Mina. "On their own, smokers, obese, disabled and elderly people are seen as pathetic and weak, easily swept under the carpet and forgotten, but as a united force they could have the numbers to take on the rest of us."

"And why shouldn't they demand to be treated better?" adds Mina. "They are part of the social contract, too."

"The trouble with these minorities is that they are short on funds -- either being in low paid employment or on disability or old age pensions," says Mina. "Even if they were able to disregard their differences and meet on common ground, their revolutionary spirit would soon fizzle out with a threat from the government to cut off their pensions."

"Maybe there's an opportunity here for a bright young lawyer to shoot to stardom by putting the civil back into civilization and the demos (people) back into democracy."