It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK aclimation to increased military presence.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:
JAK

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I came across a post the other day which mentioned a concern about


...acclimatization and getting everyone accustomed to the security measures/military presence.


It seems a reasonable concern to me, and having a quick poke about online I discovered something I has missed which could easily support concern over the idea of possible acclimatisation: Labour to set up military Schools

Labour wants to set up military schools

A military school could be set up in every region of England under Labour to raise aspirations in poor areas.

Shadow education secretary Stephen Twigg wants to see the armed forces and service charities helping to run so-called "service schools".

These would have a "distinct service ethos" and would employ qualified teachers, some with a forces background.


A distinct service ethos. So the ideology of these schools will rest upon the aspiration of military service? Sounds quite like a purposeful step toward militarism. A little paranoid perhaps?

Labour MPs call for new military schools

military schools would be ideal for areas with the greatest social and economic need, MPs said.

...

And shadow education secretary Stephen Twigg said: "The cadet experience engenders a sense of responsibility and citizenship which combines fun and instils companionship. We want to spread this throughout all schools, while promoting lasting links between pupils from different backgrounds through their cadet experience."



Perhaps not. So, those "with the greatest social and economic need" in society... oh I can't go on. Wait a sec, I'm feeling queasy,


Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ~ George Orwell


Sorry, that's better. So, the poorest in society, those with no/least choice, would find themselves/their children schooled through an institution with an inherent, if not primary motivation to advocate military service. What a fantastically refreshing and ground breaking new idea for a political elite to advocate! Oh, wait... no, I was thinking of Orange flavour ice-lollies with space dust for extra zing, sorry. Where were we? Ahh yes, pushing the idea of military service for those considered of least value to a ruling caste. No, this is an outmoded vile insult. Attempting to instilling the idea into the minds of children through a mutation of the educational process which is supposed to elevate and liberate mankind? 'Outmoded vile insult' is three words, in reply this needs just two, the second of which is 'you!'.

The heart-warming idea born of nothing but compassion for children who find themselves disadvantaged in society through... I dunno (nasty, nasty fate dictating that they be born to the wrong parents? Karmic retribution for offences in a previous life? Being born into a class based society which not only perpetuates existing poverty but encourages the monopoly of power and an ever increasing societal divide actively financed by a democratically disguised dictatorship of wealthy social elites? *shrugs* ) comes from Military Academies: Tackling disadvantage, improving ethos and changing outcome (A ResPublica Green Paper) and has already, unsurprisingly, received glowing attention:


Boot camps for the poor

Plans to open military-run academies in deprived areas were condemned as "national service for the poor" today.

Right-wing think tank Respublica urged the government to open a pilot programme of military academies in underprivileged areas to "tackle poor discipline and educational failure" in the wake of last summer's riots.

...

The think tank claimed that troubled youngsters would benefit from receiving pastoral care from those with a military background.

It added that the academies will also help students into employment by forming partnerships with defence and other manufacturing firms that offer apprenticeships.



A quick look at ResPublica Director

Phillip Blonde – Director.

Minister backs plan for massive state sell off of assets

In a move designed to go even further than Margaret Thatcher's historic sale of council houses in the 1980s, a new report from a leading think tank urges a sweeping transfer of ownership from the public sector to community groups.


Phillip Blond: The man who wrote Cameron's mood music

Phillip Blond donor dissects ResPublica’s unpublishable and inadequate work

Last year, this blog  exclusively revealed the financial troubles being faced by the notorious ResPublica think tank, run by Phillip Blond, the self-proclaimed guru of Red Toryism and supposed architect of the Big Society concept. As the story was picked up by the national press, a bizarre picture emerged of an organisation in a state of deranged chaos – staff locked out due to unpaid rent, company-funded  Regency chairs decorated with 80s-style soft-porn and all sorts of other oddities.


Feel free to go and look up a little more yourself so we can note any perceived forwarding of this practice. It does seem somewhat odd to me though that even at the height of the the Troubles the apparent military profile, its public presence in society both physically and via media attention, was lower that it is today.

I've seen people talk over whether Huxley or Orwell's vision is more relevant today. Perhaps Huxley's vision is being used to detract attention from Orwell's nightmare.




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Wow wow wow wow wow. I don't know what to say other than that I share your concern and disgust... thanks for taking the time to write this thread S+F



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Please stop saying UK when you mean England.

1. The are other countries in the UK, some of which don't even wish to be part of the UK and won't be for much longer.

2. Labour are just a political party, who aren't even in office, and thus have little power to do anything, let alone intervene in the military.

England isn't the UK.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiflad
Please stop saying UK when you mean England.

1. The are other countries in the UK, some of which don't even wish to be part of the UK and won't be for much longer.

2. Labour are just a political party, who aren't even in office, and thus have little power to do anything, let alone intervene in the military.

England isn't the UK.


I for one hope Scotland votes against leaving the UK. It all depends on how convincing Salmond is I suppose?

OP..... I think labour is touting ways to tackle the creeping tide of joblessness and hopelessness facing the youth of today. With military cuts happening though the plan wouldn't cut the mustard. Once out of military school there would be few military jobs?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
After the Olympic False Flag the UK will have the military on the streets permanently


JAK

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by fiflad
 

  • Although this issue may be directly aimed at England at the moment I don't think this concern applies only to England, hence the use of UK in the title. I think taking a dismissive attitude on these grounds is, at best, short sighted. Perhaps you would you prefer I took the position of 'Bugger the rest of the UK' but I would be just as interested if this were focused on Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. As a single example perhaps, recalling the situation of the 'Poll Tax' when the Tories considered and abused Scotland as little more than a side interest and political testing ground, if self interest were not such a motivating factor that particular situation could have been understood and confronted earlier. The argument of 'Why should I care about...' is exactly what the Tories of that decade utilized. From there why should I care about Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? Troubles yea, but not on my doorstep so no problem eh? 'First they came for...' If you want to sweep aside any concerns because you don't want to play with England any longer and are hoping there are others who agree and will make that idea a reality then that's your decision; for me though not only does it seem a precariously unguarded stance but it is also your position. The latter part of your isolationist statement "don't even wish to be part of the UK and won't be for much longer." is merely a privilege of through at the moment which not only doesn't limit my perspective and concerns presently but would not do so even if the situation were otherwise.

  • The argument that Labour aren't in power so this position is not cause for concern is again, I would suggest, very short sighted. It has been aired. The concern should come from that fact that the idea is in the minds of ministers and would seem so acceptable that the public revelation of and political alignment to such an idea by either of the two main political parties is not deemed detrimental. Ignoring common sense, a quick peek at history (increasing political control of the Soviets after the Russian revolution, the insidious build up of state (U.S.S.R.) sponsored favouritism against and aggression toward the Anarchists fighters during the Spanish Revolution both of which led to bloody silencing) offers great examples of why is advisable to pay attention to trends and ideas before someone actually arrives at your door.


reply to post by Grifter81
 


I would like to think this was nothing but an ill-considered yet well meaning position... (here it comes) but I think your suggestion of Labour considering steps in relation to the current economic climate which are seeming set against the consideration the increasing military cuts and 'downsizing' plays right into the hands of this being not only a way of ensuring a flow of military recruits from amongst the poorest in society but also an indoctrinated acceptance of increased military presence in everyday life and the fostering of an uncritical, or at least far less objective view, of any military activity. That potentially conflicting position fits well when considering what less desirable motivations may lie behind the idea which is easily understood as purposefully and directly ingraining a state sponsored ideological perspective in schoolchildren.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JAK
 


I see your point and I had considered the fact that military schools would in fact provide an endless flow of new recruits.

The indoctrination of young children that goes with it is concerning but does this not already happen to some extent in our schools now? Personally I think any 'visible' increase in military presence in the UK would be accepted by the public at large because they are there to 'keep us safe'.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join