The good, the bad and the ugly


If you think the following is far-fetched and untrue then please check out the reference material. If you know how things work and want to make a real difference then please pass on this link:

How do things really work and how fragile is freedom?

The story so far:

The Isle of Man is now a player on the global stage. Whether or not we have professional players is a matter of opinion. Past blog posts have demonstrated that UK legislation is being copied and pasted. “There seems very little point in reinventing the wheel.” Mr Earnshaw has stated.

Clauses in the Justice Bill are considered by many to be more suited to crime-ridden inner cities than the quiet little backwater we are. We have also been told that even more stringent clauses than were in the original UK legislation are inserted somewhere in the process. We know of meetings between the UK Ministry of Justice and counterparts from the Isle of Man. We are informed that generally no record is kept of these meetings.  We have also learned about Chatham House and Chatham House Rules which stipulate that no records are to be kept in order to encourage frank discussion.

These issues obviously mean that we are open to UK and global influences – without our (the electorate) being aware of what is going on. We have no Freedom of Information Act and are unable to find out what happens at the highest levels of government. We have discovered that former British and US leaders have referred to secrecy and subversion within their governments. In other words we need to know who we are dealing with and above all we need to know what is going on.

The references below show us that globalism is based on collectivism, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”, which is a form of communism or Marxism. If you think that globalism does not affect the Isle of Man then please watch out for future posts. There is clear evidence that we are subject to more and more forms of control and restrictions of personal choice. Totalitarianism has never been announced with pride before its introduction. No – controls have always been stepped up gradually.

Wouldn’t all this be covered in the mainstream media, you ask? You mean the mainstream media that brings us Becks as front page news, the media that claims that investigative journalism is too expensive and difficult to practice so we hear repeated reports from “recognized sources” instead? Yet strangely when it comes to celebrity stories there seem to be no limits to investigation.

We need clued-up politicians to cope with this situation. We also need and demand transparency – a Freedom of Information Act. Even with this in place you still need to know which questions to ask. But without this what kind of a system do we have? What we have is high level talks with the UK and we have no idea what goes on. We also know that,  “Council of Ministers  considers a paper submitted by the Chief Secretary. This has been described as a standard phrase to describe matters arising from Westminster.”

Does this sound like your idea of open government? In view of the fact that via our highest levels of government we are dealing with other jurisdictions and know little of the agenda of other players or what is discussed in these meetings, it sounds quite worrying to me – just my opinion, of course. All the above references are documented and categorised on this blog.




Non-transparency, secrecy, subversion and infiltration have been concerns of several former US presidents including Eisenhower and JFK.

There is evidence that the EU legislative process is less than transparent and that the European Council refused to permit a consolidated form of the Lisbon Treaty to be published until it had been signed by all countries. We are told that some leaders did not know what they had signed. It was not a treaty as such but a list of clauses relating to previous legislation.

Valerie Giscard D’Estaing stated that:
Public opinion will be led – without knowing it – to adopt the policies we would never dare present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden or disguised in some way.

MEP Jens-Peter Bonde tells us that a stated intention in the treaty is that most laws will be adopted in secret by civil servants. 

So much for transparency in the EU then.

However, it seems that non-transparency is quite prevalent in various jurisdictions. We are told that some organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergs and Common Purpose also have rather opaque practices. Common Purpose uses Chatham House Rules i.e. no minutes of meetings are kept.


Globalism and the New World Order. Many western political leaders refer to the New World Order and globalism, based on collectivism  – which is a form of communism.

It seems that the adoption of collectivism precludes the observance of the rights of the individual. It’s all about the good of the greater number. We’d better start getting used to being told what to do.


These things are not distant and global there is a British connection:
Despite the fact that the previous references concern the EU and the US, the situation in GB is much the same. Indeed former naval officer Brian Gerrish thinks it could be possible that we are actually at the hub of things. He tells us about the organisation called Common Purpose and explains that this organisation is involved in offering courses to the police.

We also discover that there are further less-than-transparent organisations such as the Tavistock Institute and the Fabian Society. Various politicians from both main parties are members but do not seem to like to admit this. BG tells us that the aims of these organizations appear to reflect the aims of a Communist Manifesto.
We hear of references to “re-wiring” people through neuro-linguistic programming. We discover that Common Purpose likes people to “lead beyond authority”.  Although the workings of Common Purpose are less than transparent we discover that Merseyside Police had nearly £48k worth of CP training in a ten year period.


The Isle of Man also has issues of non-transparency: High level meetings are held between the Ministry of Justice and Isle of Man counterparts where “in general no formal or permanent record of these meetings is kept and most often action points are agreed between the respective officials.” We are aware of proposed seemingly irrelevant legislation, rushed legislation and “hugely complicated” draft bills. There is evidence that the drafting of the Justice Bill did not take the views of all parties into account. The Minister of Home Affairs has told us he is a facilitator and has seeminlgy been unable to make a statement about the difference between police needs and wants. Why are larger bills preferable to several shorter bills? Why is Tynwald time being taken up with debates about legislation arguably more suited to large inner-cities when we have a low crime rate and good detection rates? Why do we appear to copy and paste our legislation from the UK and particularly – why on earth are even more stringent clauses inserted – and by whom? What is going on?

Cause for concern?

Please pass on the URL:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s