by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
A bandana is a very useful piece of equipment. Ideally, if possible, you should always carry one on you, better still two.
The simple bandana has several uses for the camper, hiker, hunter, or anyone who spends time in the outdoors. A bandana cost very little and are worth their weight in gold, not that they are very heavy either.
The bandana is a classic. Yet not an establishment classic. It’s an outside classic. A rebel classic. It works for Hell’s Angels, Outward Bound instructors, rock guitarists and earthy hipsters.
Always carry at least one on you or maybe even two. They weigh next to nothing and when folded up take up little room in your pack or in your hip pocket. In the summer months a wet bandana around my neck while hiking, fishing or hunting will help to keep you cool and it can also help to keep biting insects off your neck.
Simply fold two corners of the bandana over to form a triangle and then fold or roll the entire into a long piece about 2-inches wide. Then dip the bandana into any water source, creek, river, lake, or such, or even, if you can afford the water, use water from your canteen. Wrap it around your neck and tie it in place or use a neckerchief slide to hold it in place. A cool wet bandana used in this manner is a real comfort on a hot day or when in an area where there are lots of mosquitoes and other biting insects. The bandana can also be dampened and tied around the forehead to help keep you cool on a hot humid day.
The bandana can also be tied on top of the head to keep the sun’s rays from baking one's brains. It is then simply worn in the fashion of the pirates head cover, the latter which was nothing else but a bandana or large kerchief.
In addition to that all the bandana also has emergency “first aid” uses too. It can be used as a compress to apply pressure to a cut or wound to help stop bleeding or in the case of a cut artery or amputation it can be tied and used as a tourniquet. The latter though is not longer recommended in First Aid training and may not be carried out by trained and qualified First Aiders. No tourniquets are permitted for use nowadays. But, in the field and when need then a torniquet still is the best and easiest way to stop a bleeding. Either you, if you are the injured person, or your “patient” dies or he may lose a bit of a limb, in the most severe cases. Which is the better, one must judge.
It can also be used as a cold compress on the head in case of fever and if ice is available it can be made into a makeshift icepack in seconds simply by putting ice in the center of the bandana then pulling the four corners up together and tying them.
The bandana can also be used as a bandage or it can be used as an arm sling for an injured limb but in this case two bandanas tied together works better. Bandanas can also be used whole or torn into strips to make ties for splinting a broken limb in an emergency situation. It can also be tied around the head and used as an eye patch. It can also be tied over the nose and mouth in a triangular fashion and serve as a dust mask.
While out camping the bandana also has its uses around camp as a potholder for lifting hot pots and pans while cooking over an open fire. For that purpose fold the bandana into a thick square piece of cloth for this purpose to supply more insulation between hand and the hot handles of the pots and pans. After one has eaten, the same bandana that was used as a potholder could be be used as a washcloth to wash the dishes! A spare bandana could be used to dry the dishes too. Though it would be advisable to keep two bandanas in one's pack for “dishes only” purpose as that is much cleaner and healthier that way.
It can be called upon to be a handkerchief, a napkin, a hat, a headband, a hair tie, a pants tie, a dog leash, an SOS flag – or as an actual bandana.
Carry a bandana everywhere. You’ll never need to harm trees by using paper napkins. Great for bad hair days. You can also use it to disguise yourself or to protect your hands when sliding across a quickly rigged zip line. (All action heroes should carry a bandana.) let’s see, we’ve covered the use of the bandana to “beat the heat” and we’ve covered its use fore emergency “first aid”, so, I guess we have covered about all uses in a short piece here.
I am sure that there are a multitude of other uses for the bandana that we have not covered here, so, therefore, any reader out there wants to add to that please feel free to do so via the comments.
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), May 2008
Bluetooth: A Danger to Privacy
Bluetooth leaves you open to intercept by anyone
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
If you are concerned about your civil liberties and privacy then it may come as a shock to you to discover that you may have, unwittingly, been allowing your phone to signal your every move to the great wide world, including your communications.
Bluetooth, which is, as most will know, a wireless link built into many mobile telephones, makes our movements trackable by anyone equipped with a PC and an appropriate receiver. And this means ANYONE, not just the security services and the police, if that would not already be bad enough. Anyone, as the word says, can listen in and track where you are if they have the right equipment.
Vassilis Kostakos at the University of Bath in the UK placed four Bluetooth receivers in the city's centre. Over four months, his team tracked 10,000 Bluetooth phones and was able to "capture and analyse people's encounters" in pubs, streets and shops.
Bluetooth is now more of a privacy threat than the more frequently publicised RFID chips, Kostakos says. "If people are worried, they should turn off the Bluetooth function on their mobile phones."
Not everything, as we can, yet again see, that is supposedly good for us, is so.
“Oh, but without my 'Bluetooth' I cannot make phone calls on the move”, I hear some complain. “Can we not just make those things safer?”
Well, we probably could and could add encryption, if you, the consumer, is willing to pay the high costs then.
What is wrong with safely stopping your car, motorbike or your bicycle, to take or make that call? Also, no call is that important that it cannot wait until you get to a safe location where to return the call or make a call.
If you are concerned about your privacy, as said, turn the Bluetooth function off. While it may be something that can and does make life easier it also, yet again, is something that can be used to invade our privacy and to spy on us.
© M Smith (Veshengro), May 2008
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
If you are concerned about your civil liberties and privacy then it may come as a shock to you to discover that you may have, unwittingly, been allowing your phone to signal your every move to the great wide world, including your communications.
Bluetooth, which is, as most will know, a wireless link built into many mobile telephones, makes our movements trackable by anyone equipped with a PC and an appropriate receiver. And this means ANYONE, not just the security services and the police, if that would not already be bad enough. Anyone, as the word says, can listen in and track where you are if they have the right equipment.
Vassilis Kostakos at the University of Bath in the UK placed four Bluetooth receivers in the city's centre. Over four months, his team tracked 10,000 Bluetooth phones and was able to "capture and analyse people's encounters" in pubs, streets and shops.
Bluetooth is now more of a privacy threat than the more frequently publicised RFID chips, Kostakos says. "If people are worried, they should turn off the Bluetooth function on their mobile phones."
Not everything, as we can, yet again see, that is supposedly good for us, is so.
“Oh, but without my 'Bluetooth' I cannot make phone calls on the move”, I hear some complain. “Can we not just make those things safer?”
Well, we probably could and could add encryption, if you, the consumer, is willing to pay the high costs then.
What is wrong with safely stopping your car, motorbike or your bicycle, to take or make that call? Also, no call is that important that it cannot wait until you get to a safe location where to return the call or make a call.
If you are concerned about your privacy, as said, turn the Bluetooth function off. While it may be something that can and does make life easier it also, yet again, is something that can be used to invade our privacy and to spy on us.
© M Smith (Veshengro), May 2008
Happy New Year 2008 to you all
Happy New Year 2008
I would like to take this opportunity to wish all our readers, friends and associates, as well as our enemies, a very happy & prosperous New Year 2008.
I would like to take this opportunity to wish all our readers, friends and associates, as well as our enemies, a very happy & prosperous New Year 2008.
Christmas crisis brewing
Apparently there is a Christmas crisis brewing...
According to a UK government think tank, Christmas should be downgraded unless other religious festivals are marked on an even footing.
The Institute of Public Policy Research has suggested various ideas to make the UK more multicultural. It also wants "national culture" barriers to be torn down to help immigrants settle into the UK.
In a report due to be published in coming weeks, the organisation said: "If we are going to continue to mark Christmas - and it would be very hard to expunge it from our national life even if we wanted to - then public organisations should mark other major religious festivals too. Even-handedness dictates that we provide public recognition to minority cultures and traditions."
Duh? I beg pardon! To this one could only say that this is a “predominately” Christian country, though I am not a Christian, and if people have a problem with that then they do have an option; and that is to leave. No one has asked them to be here or to stay here.
You do NOT have the right to never be offended. This society is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you as an individual! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be. So, if someone says something you don't like either argue it out with them or leave it be.
You do NOT have the right to change our country's history or heritage. You do not have the right to impose Sharia Law on this country in any way, shape or form, or any other law. This country has a legal code and it is valid for all. This country has a freedom of religion, which means you are free, as is everyone else, to worship your God or no God; with no fear of persecution. You are given the freedom, nowadays, it was not always thus, to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. You are not forced to go to church every Sunday, as once was the case in Britain, not even on Christmas Day are you forced to attend, therefore do not try to impose your rules on us.
Unfortunately, it would seem, that the people of this country are, in general, spineless, and will permit, for the sake of “peace” to allow themselves to be trampled upon by others who do not mean to be peaceful.
© M Smith, December 2007
According to a UK government think tank, Christmas should be downgraded unless other religious festivals are marked on an even footing.
The Institute of Public Policy Research has suggested various ideas to make the UK more multicultural. It also wants "national culture" barriers to be torn down to help immigrants settle into the UK.
In a report due to be published in coming weeks, the organisation said: "If we are going to continue to mark Christmas - and it would be very hard to expunge it from our national life even if we wanted to - then public organisations should mark other major religious festivals too. Even-handedness dictates that we provide public recognition to minority cultures and traditions."
Duh? I beg pardon! To this one could only say that this is a “predominately” Christian country, though I am not a Christian, and if people have a problem with that then they do have an option; and that is to leave. No one has asked them to be here or to stay here.
You do NOT have the right to never be offended. This society is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you as an individual! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be. So, if someone says something you don't like either argue it out with them or leave it be.
You do NOT have the right to change our country's history or heritage. You do not have the right to impose Sharia Law on this country in any way, shape or form, or any other law. This country has a legal code and it is valid for all. This country has a freedom of religion, which means you are free, as is everyone else, to worship your God or no God; with no fear of persecution. You are given the freedom, nowadays, it was not always thus, to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. You are not forced to go to church every Sunday, as once was the case in Britain, not even on Christmas Day are you forced to attend, therefore do not try to impose your rules on us.
Unfortunately, it would seem, that the people of this country are, in general, spineless, and will permit, for the sake of “peace” to allow themselves to be trampled upon by others who do not mean to be peaceful.
© M Smith, December 2007
Brits gave up their gun rights...
...is again and again the slogan that we hear amongst members of the survivalist and patriot communities in the USA and the same slogan is now being taken up by the NRA as well, it would seem.
Nothing is further from the truth.
What those people, all of them, who think they know (everything) better, just do not WANT to understand, despite having been told repeatedly ad infinitum is the fact that the British people have NEVER had such a right as to the keeping and bearing of arms as that granted to US citizens and guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Still, however, they insist on using Britain (and Australia) as an example as to what happens when a country gets disarmed, claiming that the people “gave up their right to keep and bear arms”.
You cannot give up and surrender something you have never had.
While it is correct that ever since the handguns were taken out of the hands of law abiding civilians, who legally owned those with proper issued firearms certificates and all that, gun crime has shot (pardon the pun) through the roof in the UK but gun in the hands of civilians, whether handgun or other, could have prevented that either. Why? Because no British “citizen” (and I use the term citizen loosely as theoretically the British are “subjects” rather than “citizens” under the law) who might have legally owned a handgun could have even contemplated – and this is the same with other guns, including shotguns – of using a legally owned gun in self-defence, let alone in order to prevent or stop a crime perpetrated against someone else. The user of such a weapon in such a scenario would have been charged with firearms offences and gone to jail, under a murder charge probably had the villain be killed in the process.
So, when are those with an agenda and a huge battleaxe to grind are going to stop using the UK (and Australia) as an example? Those that make such claims, e.g. that the Brits and Ozzies have given up their gun rights pedal nothing but lies, plain and simple and they know full well that they do.
Brits (and Ozzies) did not give up their rights to own (and use guns); they never had any such rights. Owning and using a gun was a privilege granted by the government, same as in Germany and other European countries, with the differences that there was a time when any Brit could go and buy a shotgun and own it without even the need for a license. This changed, however, due to the armed robberies that were being committed with shotguns, sawed off ones frequently, during the 1960's. That was the only difference between Britain, say, and Germany, where a license if required for shotguns, and that is all, generally, bound up with the official hunter's licence and such.
Please, American Survivalists and Patriots, get into into your heads. The British people never had any gun rights. It was all privilege and nothing more. Protect what you have but do not accuse the like of the Brits of being cowards and yellow for “having given up their gun rights”, as you call it, which they have NEVER had.
To reiterate once again: You cannot give up and surrender something you have never had.
© M V Smith, November 2007
Nothing is further from the truth.
What those people, all of them, who think they know (everything) better, just do not WANT to understand, despite having been told repeatedly ad infinitum is the fact that the British people have NEVER had such a right as to the keeping and bearing of arms as that granted to US citizens and guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Still, however, they insist on using Britain (and Australia) as an example as to what happens when a country gets disarmed, claiming that the people “gave up their right to keep and bear arms”.
You cannot give up and surrender something you have never had.
While it is correct that ever since the handguns were taken out of the hands of law abiding civilians, who legally owned those with proper issued firearms certificates and all that, gun crime has shot (pardon the pun) through the roof in the UK but gun in the hands of civilians, whether handgun or other, could have prevented that either. Why? Because no British “citizen” (and I use the term citizen loosely as theoretically the British are “subjects” rather than “citizens” under the law) who might have legally owned a handgun could have even contemplated – and this is the same with other guns, including shotguns – of using a legally owned gun in self-defence, let alone in order to prevent or stop a crime perpetrated against someone else. The user of such a weapon in such a scenario would have been charged with firearms offences and gone to jail, under a murder charge probably had the villain be killed in the process.
So, when are those with an agenda and a huge battleaxe to grind are going to stop using the UK (and Australia) as an example? Those that make such claims, e.g. that the Brits and Ozzies have given up their gun rights pedal nothing but lies, plain and simple and they know full well that they do.
Brits (and Ozzies) did not give up their rights to own (and use guns); they never had any such rights. Owning and using a gun was a privilege granted by the government, same as in Germany and other European countries, with the differences that there was a time when any Brit could go and buy a shotgun and own it without even the need for a license. This changed, however, due to the armed robberies that were being committed with shotguns, sawed off ones frequently, during the 1960's. That was the only difference between Britain, say, and Germany, where a license if required for shotguns, and that is all, generally, bound up with the official hunter's licence and such.
Please, American Survivalists and Patriots, get into into your heads. The British people never had any gun rights. It was all privilege and nothing more. Protect what you have but do not accuse the like of the Brits of being cowards and yellow for “having given up their gun rights”, as you call it, which they have NEVER had.
To reiterate once again: You cannot give up and surrender something you have never had.
© M V Smith, November 2007
Britain threatened by US over proposed Iraq pullout
In the US certain quarters are threatening cooling of relations of the relations and also trade problems should the UK government go ahead with it proposed pull out of troops from Iraq.
It would appear that the relationship that is supposed to be two-way between the US and the UK is still the same as ever, or maybe even worse. The US plays the bully boy who says “if you don't do as we say that will have consequences”. It is about time Britain showed the mettle it once had. Do we really need the USA? No more than we needs Europe. Let us look after ourselves first. Let's get our boys home and get out of that ill conceived conflict. The people of Iraq do not want either the USA not the UK troops in their country. Let them get on with it themselves. If it leads to a break-up of Iraq into three separate entities then so be it as well. But, oh no, the problem is the oi, despite what we are being told and led to believe and the control of the oil is currently in the hands of the coalition; or shall we put a name to it, in the hands of Haliburton and other US companies. There is not even the slightest control over how much oil is going through the pipeline shipping the oil out of the country. Apparently, so this writer has been told by some sources, the measuring gear has been disconnected. No one knows how much oil is being exported and it is more than likely that only a very small proportion of the money gets back to the Iraqis.
On the other hand, there is more and more private military in Iraq now that the British troops are hardly needed anyway. But, with the British pulling out the US no longer would have the chance to say that it is not a US led and organized war.
How dare the American government and especially the establishment threaten a sovereign nation, such as the United Kingdom in such a way; a country that has stood by its side in more than one of those conflicts conceived by the USA in order to secure oil supplies. It never had anything to do with freedom and democracy, like when a senator in the House asked during the first Gulf War when the then president of the USA, Bush Snr. stated that we were fighting for freedom and democracy since when Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were democracies and the next day or so was then told by the president that, in fact, it was about the oil.
It is obvious that it is all about oil and – maybe, just maybe – also about getting a base, yet again, not too far away from Russian territory. It can be seen well enough that oil is the factor here for why, otherwise, is nothing been done about human rights abuses in the former Rhodesia, now called Zimbabwe, with the so-called president of theirs, the title of dictator would be more appropriate, Mugabe, destroying the once richest country on the African continent, next to South Africa. Or why is nothing done in other regions of conflict and human rights abuses and wholesale murder and ethnic cleansing on the African continent. The truth is that none of those countries have any exploitable oil reserves. That is the very reason.
Let's get our boys home and stop following the lead of the USA into every idiotic conflict. The same is true for Afghanistan. The lessons from the past should have given some idea that Afghanistan cannot be won either. It did not work in the time of the British Raj, nor did Czarist Russia succeed at that time. No one has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan. What does make them think that they could do it now? Both of those conflicts are futile and will also do nothing to stop so-called Islamist terrorists and terrorism. The truth is that it will create more terrorists.
Is it not high time that the UK told the US where to get off; a running jump off Beachy Head would be a nice idea.
© M V Smith, August 2007
It would appear that the relationship that is supposed to be two-way between the US and the UK is still the same as ever, or maybe even worse. The US plays the bully boy who says “if you don't do as we say that will have consequences”. It is about time Britain showed the mettle it once had. Do we really need the USA? No more than we needs Europe. Let us look after ourselves first. Let's get our boys home and get out of that ill conceived conflict. The people of Iraq do not want either the USA not the UK troops in their country. Let them get on with it themselves. If it leads to a break-up of Iraq into three separate entities then so be it as well. But, oh no, the problem is the oi, despite what we are being told and led to believe and the control of the oil is currently in the hands of the coalition; or shall we put a name to it, in the hands of Haliburton and other US companies. There is not even the slightest control over how much oil is going through the pipeline shipping the oil out of the country. Apparently, so this writer has been told by some sources, the measuring gear has been disconnected. No one knows how much oil is being exported and it is more than likely that only a very small proportion of the money gets back to the Iraqis.
On the other hand, there is more and more private military in Iraq now that the British troops are hardly needed anyway. But, with the British pulling out the US no longer would have the chance to say that it is not a US led and organized war.
How dare the American government and especially the establishment threaten a sovereign nation, such as the United Kingdom in such a way; a country that has stood by its side in more than one of those conflicts conceived by the USA in order to secure oil supplies. It never had anything to do with freedom and democracy, like when a senator in the House asked during the first Gulf War when the then president of the USA, Bush Snr. stated that we were fighting for freedom and democracy since when Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were democracies and the next day or so was then told by the president that, in fact, it was about the oil.
It is obvious that it is all about oil and – maybe, just maybe – also about getting a base, yet again, not too far away from Russian territory. It can be seen well enough that oil is the factor here for why, otherwise, is nothing been done about human rights abuses in the former Rhodesia, now called Zimbabwe, with the so-called president of theirs, the title of dictator would be more appropriate, Mugabe, destroying the once richest country on the African continent, next to South Africa. Or why is nothing done in other regions of conflict and human rights abuses and wholesale murder and ethnic cleansing on the African continent. The truth is that none of those countries have any exploitable oil reserves. That is the very reason.
Let's get our boys home and stop following the lead of the USA into every idiotic conflict. The same is true for Afghanistan. The lessons from the past should have given some idea that Afghanistan cannot be won either. It did not work in the time of the British Raj, nor did Czarist Russia succeed at that time. No one has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan. What does make them think that they could do it now? Both of those conflicts are futile and will also do nothing to stop so-called Islamist terrorists and terrorism. The truth is that it will create more terrorists.
Is it not high time that the UK told the US where to get off; a running jump off Beachy Head would be a nice idea.
© M V Smith, August 2007
Police call for return of Internment
One of Britain's most senior police officers has, so it is reported, demanded a return to a form of internment; with a power for police to lock up suspected terrorist indefinitely without charge while investigations are going on.
Police officers on the ground, so are we told, are asking for this, to enable them to investigate everything properly and without a rush. Right, sure they are. And on an airfield nearby a squadron of pigs is preparing for take off.
It is NOT the police services, I am sure, that are asking for this per se but it is the leaders of those police services being stooges for the powers that be who want a means of detaining anyone who they deem to be a danger to society – for that read also a danger to them and their agenda – without charge, trial and evidence.
Most British MPs would never go along with this if the demand would come from government directly whether from the Home Secretary or the Secretary responsible for Homeland Security. However, if they can be made to believe that the police, and especially the investigating officers, are asking for this then it will be much easier for the MPs to be swayed towards such a move.
Once those powers are granted to police (and other agencies) to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely in interment what is to say that those are not applied also to anyone else the powers that be deem to be a danger; a danger more to them and their shenanigans than to any member of the public. Who after all decides who is a terrorist and who not? What is the determination of a terrorist? They say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Internment could also, I am sure, in the end be applied to all those that simply speak out against the doings of the government and its agencies. Free speech, we have been told only some months back by a minister of the Home Office is NOT an unalienable right but just a privilege granted to the British subjects and that it could be suspended or withdrawn at any time. We must remember that the UK does not have a written constitution where such rights are enshrined and that the often cited Magna Carta and the Bill of Right does not, actually, have any bearing on the rights of the ordinary subjects of Her Britannic Majesty; none whatsoever. Those rights were and still are, in truth, for the aristocracy and the King's and Queen's liege lords only.
Things are afoot in the European Union and the UK here especially that can only be seen as worrying and when viewed through the eyes of a Rom, a Gypsy, like myself then all those things are very reminiscent of the times of the Nazis and National-Socialism and the era of Stalinism. Both were and are but opposite sides of the same coin. The West is heading currently very much down the slippery slope of fascism yet again, fuelled by the fear of Muslim terrorists and also, for some reason the Gypsy is in the firing line.
All I am seeing is that the EU and not just the EU alone in headed down into dangerous waters that will entirely undermine all personal freedoms to the extent of turning all of its “citizens” into numbers.
I assume the reason they now are therefore also going after the Gypsy is because the Gypsy lives still outside the control of the state to some degree.
We, those of the Rom, and others that may be concerned, must keep a watchful eye on all those developments, especially those that are not paraded that openly. The freedom of all of us is under threat and it is not threatened by a handful of militants and such like but by our very governments.
© M V Smith, July 2007
Police officers on the ground, so are we told, are asking for this, to enable them to investigate everything properly and without a rush. Right, sure they are. And on an airfield nearby a squadron of pigs is preparing for take off.
It is NOT the police services, I am sure, that are asking for this per se but it is the leaders of those police services being stooges for the powers that be who want a means of detaining anyone who they deem to be a danger to society – for that read also a danger to them and their agenda – without charge, trial and evidence.
Most British MPs would never go along with this if the demand would come from government directly whether from the Home Secretary or the Secretary responsible for Homeland Security. However, if they can be made to believe that the police, and especially the investigating officers, are asking for this then it will be much easier for the MPs to be swayed towards such a move.
Once those powers are granted to police (and other agencies) to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely in interment what is to say that those are not applied also to anyone else the powers that be deem to be a danger; a danger more to them and their shenanigans than to any member of the public. Who after all decides who is a terrorist and who not? What is the determination of a terrorist? They say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Internment could also, I am sure, in the end be applied to all those that simply speak out against the doings of the government and its agencies. Free speech, we have been told only some months back by a minister of the Home Office is NOT an unalienable right but just a privilege granted to the British subjects and that it could be suspended or withdrawn at any time. We must remember that the UK does not have a written constitution where such rights are enshrined and that the often cited Magna Carta and the Bill of Right does not, actually, have any bearing on the rights of the ordinary subjects of Her Britannic Majesty; none whatsoever. Those rights were and still are, in truth, for the aristocracy and the King's and Queen's liege lords only.
Things are afoot in the European Union and the UK here especially that can only be seen as worrying and when viewed through the eyes of a Rom, a Gypsy, like myself then all those things are very reminiscent of the times of the Nazis and National-Socialism and the era of Stalinism. Both were and are but opposite sides of the same coin. The West is heading currently very much down the slippery slope of fascism yet again, fuelled by the fear of Muslim terrorists and also, for some reason the Gypsy is in the firing line.
All I am seeing is that the EU and not just the EU alone in headed down into dangerous waters that will entirely undermine all personal freedoms to the extent of turning all of its “citizens” into numbers.
I assume the reason they now are therefore also going after the Gypsy is because the Gypsy lives still outside the control of the state to some degree.
We, those of the Rom, and others that may be concerned, must keep a watchful eye on all those developments, especially those that are not paraded that openly. The freedom of all of us is under threat and it is not threatened by a handful of militants and such like but by our very governments.
© M V Smith, July 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
