Assange and Occupy International-an Interview

Today, I have watched an exclusive interview with Julian Assange on RT.  That the Russian television station would show an exclusive interview is not an accident. The Friends of Occupy were at the interview-Occupy New York and Occupy London. Assange and others explained how Occupy came to be and where it is going.

It is a global movement starting in Tunisia, moving from there to Greece, Italy, Spain and other places. The Day of Rage in 2010 was also a beginning. Social media and what is called "swarms", that is movements. These people are against nation-states. They claim that that national leaders are no longer accountable, that the institutions are not viable. IMF, WTO etc are which groups they see as the real leaders. While some conservatives may agree on who is really running countries, the language and agenda of the Occupy is very different than, let us say, tongue-in-cheek, the Acton Institute.

There are different streams, as the persons in the groups stated, galvanized into one large movement. This is a global movement, which the Americans do not understand. The Indignatos, for example, were in New York, anarchists travelling. Egyptians were in Occupy Wall Street. The European movement is connected. They admitted that without the new media, without the Internet, twitter and other stuff, they would not have made the main media at all. This was an online movement which moved offline.

What Assange talked about was political techniques. These people are the grandchildren, spiritually. of  Saul Alinsky. Street drama, hand waving, etc. are planned--communication for online audiences is planned. These Occupy leaders are against all coercion, and have no real plan except creating consensus online.These young people have memorized Rules for Radicals.

They are in some ways naive--they are engaging in what they call the political imagination. They are in some ways extremely good at what they do. They are not (quote), "talking about legalities" with regarding to occupying places, but about defiance. They do not accept the existing order at all. The Occupies are, as Assange said, "mini-states" which the Occupiers control. They want it to be serious. They do not want nutsy people or naked people, for example, as they do not want their movement ruined. There were drummers, for example, and they negotiated with the drummers. Without rules, there is anarchy. But, that is what this is all about--different levels of anarchy.

There is a worry from Assange that nutsies will rise to the top.

In three weeks, there were 800 worldwide Occupies...one of the members said the "enemies are worldwide".

I want to say and this is a quote, that they want the "end of capitalism".


Of course, they blame the police for all the violence. Watching Occupy Rome in the Autumn and the violence was not started by the police. Some want violence and some do not. Some what to push the envelope and see how far they can go.

They are against all the structures which govern the world at this time. Wake up Europe, wake up America.

Update: I am adding Dr. Sanity's excellent article here. It is connected.

Update Two on Occupy Bilderberg 2012: Check out this article.

Joy is a sign of Christian belief

Reason 23,976 why I am a Christian. Joy is a sign of Christian belief. You won't believe this unless you read it. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/pakistan-muslim-clerics-sentence-4-women-and-2-men-to-death-for-singing-and-dancing-at-wedding.html

British Government Attack on Freedom of Conscience Heats Up

There are many ways to try to destroy the Catholic Church. None have worked. Many have caused pain and misery for Christians through-out the ages. We are heading for a remnant Church.

Things are heating up in Great Britain and in Ireland as to persecution of the Catholic Church. There are three areas of attack with endanger religious freedom in these two countries.

The first is the push for civil marriages for homosexual and lesbian couples.
The second is the increased interference in so-called Catholic schools regarding the curriculum.
The third is the restriction of conscience protection for doctors and nurses.

Here is a complete article from LifeSiteNews on the latest and on-going attack. To use the word attack is not to exaggerate. Those who can should act now, especially voters. Do not ignore this period of consultation. Make your views known, please.

Doctors must refer for abortion, perform ‘gender reassignment surgery’: UK draft guidelines

Thaddeus Baklinski

Tue May 29 16:25 EST

Abortion

LONDON, May 29, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A draft of new guidelines titled “Personal beliefs and medical practice” issued by the UK’s General Medical Council warns doctors that exercising their conscience rights to not prescribe contraceptives, including the abortifacient morning after pill, as well as not referring for abortion or performing “gender reassignment surgery,” could endanger their license to practice.

“Serious or persistent failure to follow this guidance will put your registration at risk,” the document forewarns.

Under the guidelines, some circumstances allow a doctor “to opt out of providing a particular procedure because of your personal beliefs and values.” However, this provision is set aside in the case of gender reassignment surgery because, say the guidelines, refusal would amount to discrimination against an identifiable group of patients.

“The exception to this [opt out] is gender reassignment since this procedure is only sought by a particular group of patients and cannot therefore be subject to a conscientious objection. This position is supported by the Equality Act 2010 which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment,” the draft states.

While physicians can refuse to participate in abortions under Section 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967, the new guidelines state patients seeking “a procedure you have a conscientious objection to” must be referred to another doctor who will carry out the procedure.

The draft guidelines also state that doctors “may have a conscientious objection to providing contraception.” However, they “cannot be willing to provide married women with contraception but unwilling to prescribe it for unmarried women. This would be a breach of our guidance as you would be refusing to treat a particular group of patients.”

Paragraph 54 of the guidelines sums up the restrictions on doctors acting on their personal beliefs with the statement, “You must not express your personal beliefs (including political, religious and moral beliefs) to patients in ways that exploit their vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress.”

Chief Executive of the General Medical Council, Niall Dickson, said in a statement, “We know that personal beliefs are central to the lives of many doctors and patients.

“Our draft guidance seeks to balance doctors desire to practise medicine in line with their own personal beliefs, whilst ensuring that they are providing patients access to appropriate medical treatment and services.

“We do want to hear what doctors and patients think about the draft guidance and we hope as many people as possible will respond to our consultation by 13 June.”

Bishop Tom Williams, Chairman of the Bishops’ Conference Healthcare Reference Group, criticized the draft guidelines and urged Catholic healthcare professionals to respond to the General Medical Council consultation.

Bishop Williams said in a statement that the GMC guidance “does not have a balanced or positive appreciation of the value of religion,” and that, “Both religion and conscientious objection seem to be treated as problems to be minimised and circumscribed as much as possible.”

He said the guidelines fall far short of achieving their stated purpose and instead have the possibility of creating “an atmosphere of fear in which doctors are prohibited from ever expressing their own religion,” with the result that they “would directly discriminate against certain categories of doctor and indirectly discriminate against patients who may be deprived of a healthcare professional from their community who understands their concerns.”

“It is important that the voice of Catholic doctors and patients is heard in this consultation, which ends in mid June,” Bishop Williams concluded.

Dr David Albert Jones of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, a Roman Catholic academic institute that engages with the moral questions arising in clinical practice and biomedical research, has produceda document outlining key issues of concern in the GMC’s Personal Beliefs guidelines in order to assist healthcare professionals and patients to understand the issues and to respond to the General Medical Council consultation.

“The Anscombe Bioethics Centre echoes this encouragement [of Bishop Tom Williams] to respond to the GMC consultation, as the Personal Beliefs document will be of great and lasting significance for doctors and for patients. The more people who are able to respond, the more evidence this will provide to the GMC of the serious concerns of doctors and patients on these issues,” Dr Jones said.

The Anscombe Bioethics Centre’s “Notes and Key Points on Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice” is available here.

The link to the General Medical Council (GMC) Consultation on Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice explanation page is available here.

The link to take part in the Consultation is available here.

The General Medical Council’s document titled “Personal beliefs and medical practice” is available here.

The Boredom of the British

The British are so weird and get bored easily. I just learned today that in 1809, two bored men bet that one of them in competition could make a house the most famous house in London. The bet was horrible as the man who one the bet did not even use his own house, but his neighbors, Mrs. Tottenham. The poor widow even received at least one coffin on this day. Now, that is mean. Here is the article in wiki on it, but I have heard of this crazy story from others.

Why the British do such weird things is beyond me. But, maybe someone could do this and irritate a famous person in the White House. Security wouldn't allow it.

The Berners Street Hoax was perpetrated by Theodore Hook in the City of Westminster, London, in 1809.^[1][2] Hook had made a bet with his friend, Samuel Beazley, that he could transform any house in London into the most talked-about address in a week, which he achieved by sending out thousands of letters in the name of Mrs Tottenham, who lived at 54 Berners Street, requesting deliveries, visitors, and assistance.^[3]

On 27 November, at five o’clock in the morning, a sweep arrived to sweep the chimneys of Mrs Tottenham's house. The maid who answered the door informed him that no sweep had been requested, and that his services were not required. A few moments later another sweep presented himself, then another, and another, 12 in all. After the last of the sweeps had been sent away, a fleet of carts carrying large deliveries of coal began to arrive, followed by a series of cakemakers delivering large wedding cakes, then doctors, lawyers, vicars and priests summoned to minister to someone in the house they had been told was dying. Fishmongers, shoemakers, and over a dozen pianos were among the next to appear, along with "six stout men bearing an organ". Dignitaries, including the Governor of the Bank of England, the Duke of York, theArchbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Mayor of the City of London also arrived. The narrow streets soon became severely congested with tradesmen and onlookers. Deliveries and visits continued until the early evening, bringing a large part of London to a standstill.^[4]

Hook stationed himself in the house directly opposite 54 Berners Street, from where he and his friend spent the day watching the chaos unfold.^[4]

People who have time like this now blog.