I beg to disagree. Like it or not...The secret services are there legally to serve the state. Their function is to protect the state by informing the executive of any individual or mass threat, internal and external to subverting or, undermining or destroying the state by undemocratic, illegal or violent means. The state is considered as independent and exists to administer the law equally and fairly between the various groupings, classes, ethnic and religious, the different sectors, from business to trade unions, the body corporate, vested interests and to protect individual civil liberties and the conduct of free and fair elections to all governing institutions, whether it be the executive, the law making process and its enforcement.
As a citizen of the state, I may disagree with the politics of the state, or the methods of the state, or the leaders of the state or the organs and institutions of the state; or when it comes to enforcing the laws of the state. I have the right to defend my rights. As long as I exercise that right of dissent through the democratic process, through the use of my rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to vote, then I have the right to have those individual human rights of mine, respected.
By the same token, if a member of the the secret services or the body corporate of any other agency of the state, including law enforcement, or the military establishment, as well as the intelligence and security services operate illegally and violently and deny me my human rights, then they too, as individuals and as a body corporate are subject equally to the laws of the state, and can be subjected to the law of the land.
That is a fundamental principle of the rule of law...and I respect it. Why? Because, what other alternative is open to me? If I act unlawfully and undemocratically, if I use illegal, unlawful or criminal or violent strategies, to change the state, then I am using the same means as that minority in the present state who work for the preservation of the status quo, and all I will be doing is replacing the state with a new leadership, which uses the same powers and methodology as the old. Such an "end game" is not my intention, never was, never will be. I would rather not change the state at all, than go down that route.
Not all members of the establishment, or the ruling circles are bad, not all of them are committed to the present follies or developments which are taking place, either at home or on the world stage. Not all of them are striving to destroy or remove the electoral process. I have to believe that there are good people who work for the state, by "good" I mean those who are also concerned with human rights, and, who, in their own way, struggle to preserve and protect those rights, and protest where and when those rights are undermined. Such people deserve our support whenever we know or get to hear about them, and it would be terrible if we were to class them with those people who are responsible for the carnage and chaos and big brother attitude which is being exacerbated by the scientific and technological developments of today.
Now, these views I am expressing may be unpopular with some, and that is most unfortunate...but it is, nevertheless, what I believe, and the older I get, the even more so, I believe in it...and the more I will defend it. And...yes, those scientific and technological developments are going to move at a greater and faster speed, so much so, that we already find that pace of development difficult to keep up with. No individual has the knowledge, some kind of group think and advanced learning skills are needed in the future in my view, and that development should take place in a world of equal opportunity.
One day, all information collected by the state will be made available to us, and in that way, such information will be used to protect our rights, rather than the highly selective use made of it today, by those elements who are determined or frightened of not sharing knowledge and power. Corruption has been around since humankind existed, and I don't see it ever being removed, no matter what human socieity exists...
With kind regards,
On 26/11/2015 18:18, Michael Best wrote:
It depends on what the goal is. If you want to feed them information, you leave them in place and presumably unawares. If you want to exploit them, then interaction is needed. Doubling is almost impossible without letting them know what you know. There's also purposefully incorrectly IDing them, and keeping them out of meetings. It depends on what the game is, who the players are and how they define their endgame.
Yes, getting the state to subsidize and sponsor meetings is a great idea. Трест exploited it like few in recent history have been able to.