Torture and Abuse: Favorite Tools of Despotic Authority

27.06.09 As official documents have slowly leaked out, or been released under legal pressure from public-interest groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), we’ve learned that the torture and abuse of captives under the guidance of Vice President Dick Cheney was part of an effort to generate evidence linking Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in order to justify launching war on Iraq. In other words, proceeding from a fundamentally false premise, captives were tortured to reveal facts that did not exist because Saddam never had any ties to al Qaeda!

So, it turns out that the infamous lie about al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein working together was extracted through torture in Egypt, a notoriously brutal dictatorship jointly sponsored by Israel and the U.S. government with billions of dollars of American taxpayer money.

… which, incidentally, should be hurled in the face of former Vice President Cheney, every time he is invited onto a TV show to repeat his claims that torture saved the US from further terrorist attacks — and to ignore the crucial role he played in actually using torture to launch an illegal war. [1]

The origin for the torture techniques used on detainees is one of the most bizarre ironies yet to emerge from this sordid tale. The military’s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) directly adopted methods, like water-boarding and sleep-deprivation, which were used by Chinese and North Korean Communist interrogators to elicit 'confessions' from captured American soldiers! [2] These torture tactics were studied, and then employed only as extreme simulations for escape and evasion training by U.S. soldiers. But then the JPRA re-engineered them to be used on detainees, just like the Communists they fought against in Korea.

Even more outrageous, the torture and abuse of captives in the 'War on Terror', or whatever the latest bogus title is that’s being officially used, continues under the Obama administration. This kind of official behavior has now been institutionalized but it still operates using erroneous beliefs in non-existent ‘facts’, searching for information that doesn’t exist in order to justify pre-existing plans and ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people in the process, wrecking the prestige of America, and directly endangering the safety of American’s everywhere through the inevitable retributive counter-attacks.

In the end, though, what is most significant about al-Libi’s torture tour through US proxy prisons and prisons run by the CIA is the realization that, throughout his long ordeal, US interrogators or their proxies were persistently using torture to secure information from him about other prisoners and other suspects — either in the presence of these men, or through the use of photographs — that was just as unreliable as his “confession” about the connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that these other “confessions” must, in turn, have led to further arrests and further torture, with a cumulative effect that is truly mind-boggling in its scale. [1]

The use of torture to elicit false information that subsequently implicates other innocent people, who are then captured and interrogated forming a chain-reaction, is primarily why the Obama administration is still having so much difficulty shutting down Bush-Cheney’s showcase concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. They have no valid evidence to put anyone on trial, but they can’t release them without effectively admitting that the captives were innocent to begin with and the whole thing is a sick fraud!

As soon as authority resorts to torture and abuse it sends out a blazing warning signal to everyone who’s paying attention: proper oversight has failed, this regime has lost all legitimacy to rule, and now must be replaced through any means necessary.

1. New Revelations About The Torture and Alleged Suicide Of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, by Andy Worthington, The Public Record, June 19, 2009.

2. Harsh Tactics Readied Before Their Approval, by Joby Warrick and Peter Finn, Washington Post, April 22, 2009.

---

Russia Defeats NATO's Plans for World Domination

29.08.08 When reading news articles in the western mass media you have to keep in mind that what they represent is not the views and concerns of the public, or even the collective national interest, but rather the attitudes and concerns of the ruling elite. The Georgian conflict is a perfect example of this. Every news article is an outpouring of rage, vilification, and torrents of slander directed against Russia for daring to move against Georgia. An objective reader has to conclude that the mass-media’s anger is totally disproportionate to the state of actual events, and a reader familiar with recent historical events will conclude that it represents chutzpah and hypocrisy of monumental proportions.

Georgia started the crisis, but the West is blaming Russia. Everywhere there is total disinformation, distortion of facts, and international attempts to isolate Russia. - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, August 2008.

Bush, Cheney, British PM Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, these clowns make mob bosses and drug lords look subtle and sophisticated in comparison. And if this is all just idle rhetoric then why are they saying inflammatory things that they know they can’t back up with action, guaranteeing a loss of credibility after their true impotence is revealed? The difference between Russia’s and the west’s leaders is like night and day, the Russians say what they mean and act consistently and accordingly to their statements while the west’s leaders generate clouds of angry and distorted rhetoric and fail to follow any of it with concomitant action, then they deflect all responsibility for their own behavior onto their opponents, take for instance Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband, "The Russian president says he is not afraid of a new Cold War. … He has a big responsibility not to start one."

The stunning detachment from reality reflected in the statements and attitudes of the western political leadership should be cause for alarm to everyone. Not only are they disconnected from the national citizens they purport to represent in their putative democracy, but in actuality they've been doing just about everything they can to ratchet up tensions with Russia and create a new Cold War even as they blame it all on Russia at the same time! The whole reason for NATO was to counter the military might of the Warsaw Pact, the military defense block encompassing Eastern Europe and the USSR. Yet after the Soviet Union dissolved and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded NATO did not cease to exist too, and instead NATO, guided by the planners in Washington DC, actually went on the diplomatic warpath, intentionally expanding into the very region of Eastern Europe that acted as Russia’s defensive buffer against military attack.

What did Britain and America think they were doing? Pushing NATO deep into the old Soviet Union and setting up a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic on the patently false pretence that it was to counter the (non-existent) threat from Iran was bound to add to Russia's already considerable paranoia, without achieving anything worth having. – Lord Robert Skidelsky [1]

Then NATO began military operations in Afghanistan, in conjunction with extensive U.S. diplomatic and economic efforts to manipulate and control Central Asia, most notably for that region's oil and natural gas resources. Georgia is a key portion of this master plan for what in essence amounts to world domination by NATO. Georgia hosts the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline designed to bypass Russia entirely, and now we begin to see some of  the real reasons why the political bosses in Europe and the United States are foaming at the mouth with rage. [2]

Now the Bush-Cheney regime is talking about cutting arms-reduction treaties, and Europe’s craven leaders are threatening to freeze Russia out of the WTO and kick them out of the G8 economic group, or even taking the 2014 Winter Olympics away from Russia! This is the height of stupidity. Russia has gone to enormous lengths to try and integrate with Europe politically and economically and now the west wants to throw all of that in Russia’s face over a week-long skirmish on Russia’s own border! It was Georgia that started the war with their military assault on South Ossetia, a direct result of military aid, political backing from the west, and the promise of NATO membership, yet the western mass-media and political heads consistently portray Russia as the sole cause of all the trouble.

Intentionally inflaming tensions with Russia is stupid every way you look at it because Russia can easily retaliate against Europe, NATO, and U.S. military and economic efforts, from cutting off supplying NATO forces fighting in Afghanistan to blocking sanctions against Iran and similar UN security council efforts, or Russia can expand relations in South and Central America.

President Saakashvili is a hothead. He invaded South Ossetia aiming to translate theoretical sovereignty into practical sovereignty and lost Georgia's theoretical sovereignty as a result. He ought to be removed by his people, not for war crimes but for gross incompetence. – Lord Robert Skidelsky [1]

The Georgian people are being used as pawns by Washington, NATO, and their increasingly unpopular leader who hides behind the shield of nationalism. The best interests of Georgians will not be served by any of these three forces.

The fact is that Washington/NATO has lost in Central Asia and their misguided backing of Georgia’s autocratic ruler is just another in a series of embarrassing failures, and that’s really what the threatening language and irrational invective is about. The chess players have defeated the street bullies and sewn up the last critical piece of the Central Asian oil and gas resource puzzle, signing a 20-year contract to sell Turkmenistan’s natural gas through Russia’s Gazprom. [2] NATO’s rulers have no one to blame but themselves for starting this foolish game of winner-take-all antagonism, shunning cooperation at every turn in favor of unilateral victory, and then losing in the end.

NATO’s rulers should be held accountable for their actions by their own people, but until justice is delivered it’s clear that the only way NATO can learn anything is the hard way – by losing.

1. David Miliband must stop playing with fire, by Lord Robert Skidelsky, The Times (UK) August 28, 2008.

2. Russia takes control of Turkmen (world?) gas, by M K Bhadrakumar, ATOL, July 30, 2008.

Georgia Conflict Part II - The Israel Factor

06.09.08 The U$ government is pouring cash into Georgia in order to prop up the reckless regime of President Mikhail Saakashvili,  and to protect foreign investments that are betting on Georgia as a viable, and potentially highly lucrative, oil and gas conduit. The Bush administration announced a $1 billion aid package for Georgia in September, “… making the former Soviet republic one of the highest per capita recipients of U.S. economic assistance. … The assistance plan, assuming it is fully funded by this administration and the next, would exponentially increase U.S. aid to Georgia, which totaled about $64 million in fiscal 2008. [1]

The money is part of an IMF and World Bank loan package, and you know what that means -- deep trouble for the Georgian people. Georgia’s President Saakashvilli, a New York trained lawyer, has been a major promoter of privatization of national assets, cutting taxes and tariffs, and generally opening up his country to international speculative investment. Georgian Prime Minister Gurgenidze has described it as “the world’s most successful supply-side fiscal experiment.” As a consequence the rich have gotten richer and the poor are even worse off than before. The situation is like a giant elephant draining a muddy pool of water amidst a drought. At the same time Georgia has racked up a perilous trade deficit that threatens the economic stability of the whole setup.

In early September 2008 Vice President Cheney made a blatant bear-baiting tour of the Caucusus region where he promised to include Georgia in NATO. But Cheney and his neo-con allies are interested in Georgia for more than just the pipeline, it turns out that Israel is deeply involved in Georgia too. In fact numerous members of the Georgian government are Jewish. Davit Kezerashvili, Georgia's Defense Minister, is a former Israeli who uses his connection to facilitate purchases of Israeli weapons using U.S. aid. [3]

The Jerusalem Post on Aug. 12 reported, "Georgian Prime Minister Vladimir Gurgenidze made a special call to Israel Tuesday morning to receive a blessing from one of the Haredi community's most important rabbis and spiritual leaders, Rabbi Aaron Leib Steinman. "I want him to pray for us and our state," he was quoted. [3]

Israel even has plans to use Georgian air-bases to get closer to Iran for an air-attack! “This would sharply reduce the distance Israeli fighter bombers would have to fly to hit targets in Iran. And to reach Georgian airstrips, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) would fly over Turkey.” [3]

At this point to call Saakashvilli reckless would be an understatement, he’s leading NATO into a war against Russia and trying to involve the Caucasus region in a full-blown Middle Eastern war!

The Bush-Cheney regime had to know that Georgia was going to attack South Ossetia, and it seems pretty clear at this point that they must have at least tacitly approved of Saakashvili’s military assault. The top national security aide to Cheney, Joseph R. Wood, was in Georgia just before Saakashvili launched his attack.

Writing in the New Statesman August 14 Misha Glenny noted how the US and Israel had worked to arm Georgia, so that “Saakashvili and the hawks around him came to believe the farcical proposition that Georgia’s armed forces could take on the military might of their northern neighbour in a conventional fight and win.”

Glenny noted that the Georgian minister for reintegration of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Temur Yakobashvili, had praised Israel for its military assistance. Following the assault on South Ossetia, Glenny stated, Yakobashvili had said “Israel should be proud of its military, which trained Georgian soldiers.” Thanks to its assistance, “We killed 60 Russian soldiers yesterday alone,” he said. “The Russians have lost more than 50 tanks, and we have shot down 11 of their planes. They have sustained enormous damage in terms of manpower.”

It is known that the US and Georgia held joint war games between July 15-31, codenamed Operation Immediate Response, which involved 1,000 US servicemen. One week later, on August 7, Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia. [4]

Unofficial NATO Expansion into Georgia

As part of a creeping expansion of NATO to include Georgia, that country has now been integrated into the alliance's electronic warning network.  “A Nato official said that the combined air surveillance arrangement had been negotiated before the crisis in Georgia. The technical switch-on, linking radars in Georgia to Nato, happened this week however.” [2] This action is exceedingly provocative towards Russia as it directly threatens their military defense, now NATO can track, monitor, and potentially attack Russian aircraft.

1. Rice: U.S. to Give $1 Billion to 'Help Georgia Sustain Itself, by Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, September 4, 2008.

2. Georgia linked to Nato early warning system, by Michael Evans,The Times (UK) September 5, 2008.

3. Israel of the Caucasus?, by Arnaud de Borchgrave, Washington Times, September 4, 2008.

4. Danger grows of NATO-Russian clash in Black Sea, by Julie Hyland and Chris Marsden, WSWS, September 1, 2008.

For more on this topic read NATO on the March: Plan Georgia, by Freydis
 

---

The bigger the crime the smaller the punishment; call yourself a government and you can commit all the crimes you want.

---

Book Review: My Autobiography, By Benito Mussolini,1928, Dover Publications 2006

29.06.08 The title of this book is self-explanatory; it describes Mussolini’s life and events primarily between World War I and the ascension of the Fascist party as the government of Italy.

Benito Mussolini was born in 1883 in northeast Italy, the son of a blacksmith and a primary school teacher. He describes fighting in World War I against the Austrian Empire in the north of Italy, winning the war militarily but then having their national gains thrown away through post-conflict diplomatic machinations. It’s not really clear what happened but it appears that the western leaders thought they were creating some kind of happy new world where war would be abolished, and that consequently Italy should just gave up all her war territory, such as portions of Yugoslavia with a long history of Italian cultural connections. After losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the war this was, not surprisingly, seen as a huge insult to the Italian people. At the same time after the war Italy was afflicted with very stupid and short-sighted government and national leadership, for instance they banned flight and aircraft development and had all airplanes dismantled!

Everyone else in Italy knew that something had to be done and soon because the country was a mess, rapidly getting worse; the established democratic government was running the country into the ground. Soon economic mismanagement created inflation, only adding fuel to the fire of discontent. Radical socialists, communists, and anarchists could smell blood in the water, and taking their guidance from Lenin and the new Soviet Union set about to start a workers revolution to turn Italy into a Soviet state.

Mussolini built up his party starting with his newspaper, battled socialists and anarchists in the streets, got elected to office as part of parliament, organized his troops to march on the capital whereby the king of Italy recognized the impending civil war and preferred the conservative social leanings of the Fascists to the radical promises of the leftists, so he put Mussolini in charge of the government. Mussolini assumed government responsibility and quickly set about to repair the crumbling image, infrastructure, and economy of the nation.

Fascism was not initiated to be just another political party:

I speak of movement and not of party, because my conception always was that Fascism must assume the characteristics of being anti-party. It was not to be tied to old or new schools of any kind. The name Italian Fighting Fascisti was lucky. It was most appropriate to a political action that had to face all the old parasites and programmes that had tried to deprave Italy. I felt that it was not only the anti-socialist battle we had to fight; this was only a battle on the way. There was a lot more to do. All the conceptions of the so-called historical parties seemed to be dresses out of measure, shape, style, usefulness. They had grown tawdry and insufficient—unable to keep pace with the rising tide of unexpected political exigencies, unable to adjust to the formation of new history and new conditions of modern life.

The old parties clung in vain to the rattling programmes. These parties had to make pitiful repairs and tinkerings in an attempt to adapt their theories as best they could to the new days. It was therefore not sufficient to create—as some have said superficially—an anti-altar to the altar of socialism. It was necessary to imagine a wholly new political conception, adequate to the living reality of the twentieth century, overcoming at the same time the ideological worship of liberalism, the limited horizons of various spent and exhausted democracies, and finally the violently Utopian spirit of Bolshevism.

In a word, I felt the deep necessity of an original conception capable of placing in a new period of history a more fruitful rhythm of human life.

It was necessary to lay the foundation of a new civilization. [p. 53]

According to Mussolini he built the Fascist party from the ground up from his own effort.

The Italian Bundles of Fight were now transforming themselves. They were to receive the new denomination of Fascist National party, with a central directory and supreme council over the provincial organizations and the lesser Fascist sections which were to be created in every locality. On that occasion I wanted with all my desire to strip from our party the personal character which the Fascist movement had assumed because of the stamp of my will. But the more I wished to give the party an autonomous organization and the more I tried, the more I received the conviction from the evidence of the facts that the party could not have existed and lived and could not be triumphant except under my command, my guidance, my support and my spurs. [p. 107]

The fascist regime was a resolute dictatorship; Mussolini assumed responsibility in the new government:

An existence wholly new began for me. To speak about it makes it necessary for me to abandon the usual form of autobiographic style; I must consider the organic whole of my governmental activity. From now on my life identifies itself almost exclusively with thousands of acts of government. Individuality disappears. Instead, my person expresses, I sometimes feel, only measures and acts of concrete character; these do not concern a single per son; they concern the multitudes, they concern and permeate an entire people. So one's entire life is lost in the whole. ... Progressive inflation and the printing presses gave to everybody the old illusion of prosperity. It created an unstable delusion of well-being; it excited a fictitious game of interests. All this had to be expiated when faced by the severe Fascist financial policy.

Abroad our political reputation had diminished progressively. We were judged as a nation without order and discipline, unable either to prosper or produce. [p. 148]

Obviously, given the high stakes involved, the Communists didn’t take their defeat gracefully. Their assassination attempts on Mussolini, and efforts to undermine the Fascist regime, were defeated because Mussolini rearranged the social and economic order to favor the workers, while simultaneously assuaging existing authority’s fears of revolution with appropriately conservative platitudes. The Communists just couldn’t compete against Fascism that was better organized, offered a more popular product, and most stunning of all actually delivered what they promised. This in fact demonstrated a remarkable difference between Mussolini’s Fascism and every other political party in that his effort wasn’t just an exercise in seizing control over the resources of the nation for his clique but he actually meant what he said and aimed to organize the nation for the common good. In this regard Mussolini compares Italian Fascism with the typical selfish party interests:

Old men of the socialist and syndicalist poses and postures were amazed and perplexed at the daring new reform. Another legend fell: Fascism was not the protector of any one class, but a supreme regulator of the relations between all citizens of a state. The Labor Charter found interpreters and attracted the attention of the studious in every part of the world. It became a formidable pillar of the new consituation of the Fascist State.

As a logical consequence of the Charter of Labor and of all the social legislation and of the magistracy of labor, came the necessity of instituting the Corporations. In this institution are concentrated all the branches of national production. Work in all its complex manifestations and in all its breadth, whether of manual or of intellectual nature, requires equally protection and nourishment. The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill.

In this new conception, which has found its logical expression in our representative forms, the citizen is valuable because of his productivity, his work and his thought, and not merely because he is twenty-one years old and has the right to vote! [p. 205]

Fascism Old and New

An important distinctions that needs to be made is that today’s ‘fascism’ refers to corporate control in primacy and state as subservient helper, think of the George W. Bush administration, war profiteering, deregulation, and so on. Mussolini’s Fascism was the opposite, it held corporate business interests as second with state control in primacy and thus business was regulated to serve national interests. Now, clearly both patterns eventually produce serious distortions, today’s fascism produces massive corruption, an environment antithetic to the well-being of the vast majority of the nation’s inhabitants, and is perfect for serving special interests while stealing form everyone else. Original Fascism unifies the nation and serves the public interest when under benevolent guidance, but puts enormous power in the hands of one or a few leaders who then find it all too easy to start wars of adventure or aggression. And without impartial oversight corruption blossoms.

A little further on I said: "Over all conflicts of human and legitimate interests, there is the authority of the government; the government alone is in the right position to see things from the point of view of the general welfare. This government is not at the disposition of this man or that man; it is over everybody, because it takes to itself not only the juridical conscience of the nation in the present, but also all that the nation represents for the future. The government has shown that it values at the highest the productive strength of the nation. A government which follows these principles has the right to be listened to by every one. It has a task to fulfill. It will do it. It will do it inexorably for the defense of the moral and material interests of the nation."

Little by little, the old labor structure and associations were abandoned. We were directed more and more toward the corporative conception of the state. [p. 204]

Fascism developed as a reaction to current political and economic conditions:

Fascism was not the nursling of a doctrine worked out before hand with detailed elaboration; it was born of the need for action and it was itself from the beginning practical rather than theoretical; it was not merely another political party but, even in the first two years, in opposition to all political parties as such, and itself a living movement. The name which I then gave to the organization fixed its character. And yet, if one were to re-read, in the now dusty columns of that date, the report of the meeting in which the Fasci Italiana di combattirnento were constituted, one would there find no ordered expression of doctrine, but a series of aphorisms, anticipations, and aspirations which, when refined by time from the original ore, were destined after some years to develop into an ordered series of doctrinal concepts, forming the Fascist political doctrine—different from all others either of the past or the present day. [p. 228]

Mussolini’s Fascist Italy allied with Hitler’s Germany during World War II and eventually lost against the combined military force of the Soviet Union and the western powers. In the end Italians didn’t reject Mussolini and the Fascist Party, so closely associated with his personality (much to his own chagrin), because of his governance or policies, they rejected him because he was attached to a war that was lost! The winning powers enthusiastically aided the process of discrediting Mussolini and Fascism for obvious ideological reasons. To this day leftists hate Mussolini (and of course Hitler) because both leaders negated the necessity of international socialism and usurped the popular labor policies  socialism uses as their primary selling point to the public. 

In comparison to Hitler, who learned much from the struggles of Italian Fascism, Mussolini was a much more cautious leader even to the point of foot-dragging at times. While Hitler was a visionary of global proportions Mussolini seems a more parochial thinker concerned with ordering his nation, and less so with ordering Europe or the rest of the world.

Benito Mussolini comes across as an articulate and educated person, hardly the stereotypical strong-man dictator. Mussolini’s demeanor throughout the book is refreshingly practical and friendly, at times bordering on conceited but in fairness his remarkable accomplishments certainly justify a measure of pride. Regardless of opinion characterizing Mussolini, My Autobiography is a fascinating book with a rare view of history and events that is well–worth reading. Unfortunately the book doesn’t cover history after about 1930, leaving a critical gap that will have to be filled by other sources.

* * *

Once secret documents reveal that the British spy service MI5 built up Mussolini using large payments to fund his newspaper and keep Italy in World War I.

Cambridge historian Peter Martland, who discovered details of the deal struck with the future dictator, said: "Britain's least reliable ally in the war at the time was Italy after revolutionary Russia's pullout from the conflict. Mussolini was paid £100 a week from the autumn of 1917 for at least a year to keep up the pro-war campaigning – equivalent to about £6,000 a week today."

As well as keeping the presses rolling at Il Popolo d'Italia, the newspaper he edited, Mussolini also told Hoare he would send Italian army veterans to beat up peace protesters in Milan, a dry run for his fascist blackshirt units.

"The last thing Britain wanted were pro-peace strikes bringing the factories in Milan to a halt. It was a lot of money to pay a man who was a journalist at the time, but compared to the £4m Britain was spending on the war every day, it was petty cash," said Martland.

From: Recruited by MI5: the name's Mussolini. Benito Mussolini, by Tom Kington, The Guardian, October 13, 2009.

---

China's Choices

11.12.05 & 27.06.09 The Chinese have been doing the same thing over and over for 4,000 years. Everything finally starts to come together in the climb back into modernity from isolation and social regression, and >bang<, China crashes back into riots, rebellions, and another civil war.

So, it’s worth mentioning that China today, in the early 21^st century, is still in a state of unresolved civil war as Taiwan is still considered to be a renegade province by the mainland regime. No one can be certain what will happen next for China, but considering the tenacious hold tradition and history have on the Chinese mind it isn’t too tough to form a likely hypothesis on near-future events. Most noticeable now is the break between the new  class of wealth and the party-military class that forms the heart of the military dictatorship currently running China. This disconnect is building the foundation for a second powerful, and eventually competitive, force that will challenge the ruling elite.

Deng Xiao Ping, in an effort to modernize a bleak and impoverished China, started this break by proclaiming the glories of becoming rich, and this trend can't be stopped now. Today China reports over 10% GDP growth annually, with skyscrapers and factories sprouting all over the densely populated eastern coast. The central party is starting to recognize the dangerous forces that rampant wealth outside of the parties control, and vast economic divisions within society, are exerting upon China as an unofficial  capitalist market economy. But when the party attempts to reign in the new rich they will discover a foe that doesn’t want to be nationalized and have their wealth taken away for the sake of the party, and not even if it's done under the guise of a need for promoting the greater public good.

The current interstitial period features a tug-of-war of bribes, corruption, and back room negotiations between the class of new rich  and the party, as both sides attempt to placate the other. This rampant corruption is intolerable to the longevity of the party as it eats away at the lingering remnants of official legitimacy it still has to govern the country. Meanwhile, a steadily rising tide of discontent in the ranks of everyone else in China, the masses that haven’t experienced any benefits from the new wealth, are becoming more violent and outspoken. This is clearly an unsustainable situation even without factoring in the massive pollution of the natural environment, the over-population problems in the cities, the unemployment crisis, the lack of health-care, the pending demographic time-bomb of millions of rapidly aging Chinese, and so on.

It is true that to a certain extent both party and the new independent rich need each other, but the goals of each side are not mutually compatible. The party still retains a tight grip on the military, as indeed the two are one and the same – the ‘People’s Army’ is really the ‘Communist Party Army’. If China had a flexible social structure then the different sides could potentially come to an agreement and work out their differences without the need to resort to violence and rebellion to rectify the rapidly compounding problems in the country. But China doesn’t have a flexible social structure, quite the opposite in fact. The Chinese don’t even have freedom of movement. For instance, all the rural Chinese flooding into the cities, desperate to escape extreme poverty and find a job, are there illegally because they don’t have the government paperwork allowing them to move. And they won’t get the paperwork because the government doesn’t want more people in the cities. Consequently, millions of formerly rural Chinese workers have virtually no rights because they don’t legally exist!

Watching from a safe distance it will be interesting to see if another civil war begins in China even without a resolution to the last one, or if new thinking can emerge and overcome historical trends.

---

Hook, Line, and Sinker (Nietzschian Delusions)

November 2007

---

Balance of Power

01.10.05 The events of the Cold War era show us that wars start when power becomes unbalanced. The Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) policy that emerged from the threat of nuclear self-annihilation in a hot war resulted in a relative, and perhaps counterintuitive, paucity of large-scale military conflicts over a period of five decades. And when a large scale military conflict did occur, such as the Korean war and the ‘police action’ in Vietnam, they were constrained from expanding into a worldwide conflict by a fear of nuclear Armageddon. In other words, what's especially startling about the five decades of the Cold War is how much worse it could have been.

This situation can be attributed to the balance of power that existed between the two superpower Empires, consisting of the United States and the Soviet Union, at least in nuclear weaponry. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the geopolitical scales went far out of balance resulting in the current worldwide ‘War on Terrorism’. This costly and deadly new global war will continue until the geopolitical forces return to a balanced equilibrium, either the United States becomes much weaker, or the rest of the world becomes much stronger.

And war is just terrorism with better funding, the eventual goals are the same in either case – influence of public opinion and the control of resources. It shouldn’t be a surprise that terrorists, insurgents, and indeed most any weaker military force, will violate the rules of the Geneva Convention. As the weaker power they will do anything they can to achieve a competitive advantage and cheating is about the easiest way to do that; by using brutality a weaker force can create fear and terror in order to gain a force advantage.

What's really surprising is when a superior military power violates the Geneva Convention mandates. The United States military is undoubtedly the most potent force on the planet but they display a remarkable weakness through the use of torture and other cruel and unusual punishments on detainees. Ostensibly, abuse and torture are for the purposes of interrogation, but an infantile desire for personal entertainment through the infliction of suffering on others is clearly evident as well in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and a multitude of covert and unnamed detention centers around the world the public is not even aware of, yet.

A balance of force is a very dangerous thing to lose through uncontrollable circumstance, but it’s simply embarrassing when done by choice. The Germans have always been an authoritarian group, but no greater expression of this culture of obedience to authority exists than the era of the Nazi party. The vivid historical recreation film Downfall (Der Untergang) of 2004 is a bleak and depressing account of the chaotic final days of Hitler and his staff and the insane behavior that inevitably emerges from an authority structure where allegiance is based on faith and unquestioning obedience. Downfall is quite illustrative of the need to always avoid granting too much power to too few, no matter how noble (or ignoble) their intentions may be. Americans figured this out over 200 years ago and had the mental brilliance to write it down in a Constitution, but the Germans had to learn all of this the very hard way, if indeed they have yet to figure it out at all.

Democracy is not meant to be efficient. Nazi Germany was meant to be efficient.

The conceptual appeal of democracy is that it works to create a widely dispersed balance of power. By granting everyone a voice and input into the shaping of events, democracy works to keep people involved, and as long as they are involved they have a stake in the outcome. British parliamentary democracy is an especially enlightened and functional system because it doesn’t create permanent losers that are locked out of the decision making process but instead compels participants to form coalitions that must take into account even minority voices. Conversely the American dual party system is one where the winner takes all, it creates angry losers that get forced to the side and a larger section of the population that eventually becomes so disenfranchised that civil disobedience and even violent revolution become the only means of gaining a voice and a stake in the outcome. But if you read Jefferson, maybe that was the part of the plan.

President Thomas Jefferson once stated that, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." He was right about the need for continual political turmoil and turnover, and I can think of quite a few today who have overstayed their welcome, but the sanity of violent methods in an interconnected world of compressed time and space is a problematic proposition if other options remain. Violent retribution is just an extension of the dual party system where winners take it all. Rules like these perpetuate irrational hyper-competitiveness and a mentality that doesn’t know how to say ‘sorry’ or to ever concede truth or reason in the arguments of the other side.

We need a system that is uncontrollable and a people that are unmanageable, not because these people are rebels or partisans, but because they don’t believe out of faith or follow out of obedience, because they seek the source of the truth rather than what is simply socially ‘correct’ at the present moment. In order to defeat the cancerous growth and spread of despotism we need a system of contained chaos that is bounded by environmental limitations and not by arbitrary, artificial laws and dictates. In this quest one should always measure and determine action based upon the most likely subsequent consequence, what will really happen, not what you wish to happen. We have to think of each action as being an input into a larger environment because the connections between cause and effect are often unclear in complex networks such as those that characterize modern society. Achieving a desired situation is akin to building a desirable environment.

---

Rising Stock: Investing in America's Future

February 2004

---

The Nihilism Effect of China’s Cultural Revolution

06.06.04 & 27.06.09 Say what you will about Mao Zedong – mass murderer, commie bastard, lover of fine wines, he was still a very shrewd character. Even when Mao made mistakes, and he made a lot, he still managed to learn from them and bounce back into power. Take for example the infamous Cultural Revolution. This was an intra-party conflict that took the form of a nationwide social battle, but the intent was to install 'revolutionary' principles in the youth of China,  meaning Maoist, communist dogma. After the disastrous central planning fiascos of the Great Leap Forward which lead to the starvation of countless millions of Chinese, Mao retained controlled over the army (PLA) but the rest was not reliable. Mao had to reassert his power after a series of failures left him increasingly marginalized politically, so he created the Red Guards consisting mostly of teenagers and young adults. The original orders to the Red Guards were to question authority, but the ulterior motive was to undermine Mao's power competition.

Schools Out

During the Cultural Revolution students were encouraged to criticize authority and challenge the loyalty of superiors throughout the country. "Mao appealed to the students to 'smash the four olds': old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits. Chaos ensued as Red Guards destroyed temples, artwork, books, and anything associated with traditional or foreign cultures." [1] Not surprisingly given the climate of repression already present, many Chinese kids adopted their newfound powers with gusto. Soon schools were closed and the students started marching around to find new venues to exploit. Red Guard (former) students were given free train tickets to travel around the country and spread ‘revolution’. This is especially notable given the strict regulations placed upon movement in communist China that remain even today. In the spirit of Mao’s reversal some schools even had jails added inside to put the teachers!

Mao’s Puppets

Although it officially lasted for ten years starting in 1966, the Cultural Revolution achieved its intended aim by April 1969 when Mao was confirmed as the supreme leader of the CCP and afterwards Mao no longer needed the Red Guards; some leaders were promoted but the turmoil could not be stopped that easily. The internal rage was so tightly channeled  that the Red Guards congealed into a cheerleading squad for the personality cult of Mao himself, waving his Little Red Book and obediently hurling questions and criticism only at Mao’s political and ideological opponents, which was Mao's plan to begin with.

However since for every dogma there is a heresy, factions inevitably formed and it soon became common for all sides to exploit the Cultural Revolution’s atmosphere to denounce their own opponents, and back and forth it went. Not surprisingly, in retrospect, the Red Guards nearly got out of Mao’s control, but given the cultural need for order in Chinese society Mao was able to come out the hero by shutting them down and reasserting his power through the Army. Mao reasserted control and sent students back to school, or into the fields, according to their docility towards his power cult.

It’s interesting to note the timing of China’s Cultural Revolution as compared against contemporary world events. In America and Western Europe, anti-Vietnam war protests were commonplace as were challenges to authority. The Cultural Revolution was probably not China’s version of the hippy movement because it lacked the spontaneity, but they both represented a release of accumulated social pressure in response to the hypocrisy and repression of authorities. Also note the vast cultural differences between the two regions. In the deeply authoritarian culture of China, even when given an outlet for rebellion, the students still chose to follow Mao as a cult god.

The Plan

The Cultural Revolution may have been a revolution in intent (for Mao) but was mostly just controlled and scripted insurrection in practice. Nonetheless it left some very deep marks on Chinese society, as did Mao in general.

From 1949 the institution of the People’s Republic of China under Mao set out to destroy most every existing social institution, except perhaps the nuclear family. Whatever platitudes were used to explain this to the masses the real reason in practice was to eliminate power competition, the competition for control of the masses that existed through social mechanisms outside of the influence of the Communist government. The second reason was that Chinese society was so steeped in superstition and social conservativism that the only way to change things was to destroy the existing institutions and rebuild from the bottom. The main problem is that classical Chinese culture is riddled with superstitions, like numerology, ‘mystical ecology’, feng shui, ghosts, ancestor worship, the list is lengthy. Unless it’s the correct day one can’t bury the dead or build a house. If anything bad happens it’s a curse and somebody is responsible. These superstitions make everyday life very time-consuming and difficult, to say the least. Even today these beliefs are strongest where Communism was weakest, such as in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

No study of China is complete without Confucius; even Mao couldn’t eliminate him, although as it turned out most Confucian rules served Mao's needs anyway. So, even though Confucius lived about 2,500 years ago, his edicts still exert significant influence upon Chinese culture, and not all of it beneficial. Much of the corruption and distortions of power and authority in China continue because of the Confucian rule that laws and official rules can’t be applied to authorities, because rulers are special! [2] The injustice and social hypocrisy that this mindset still creates today is simply staggering.

Chinese culture is extremely focused on morality. It’s not the religious sort of morality westerners immediately think of, but an ethical morality centered mostly on Confucian and Buddhist philosophy that in practice basically means obeying the ‘right’ and avoiding the ‘wrong’ that continually emanates from official authorities, such as government and paternal family members. Arbitrary right and wrong create a sense of power over things in life that cannot be controlled, such as fate and luck. But further, obeying arbitrary moral rules absolves oneself of the need for responsibility and careful decision-making because, since people want to do the 'right' thing, the choice and path has already been made! It’s ironic that Chinese culture, with its intense and ingrained fear of chaos, puts so much effort into controlling events that life eventually becomes chaotic and disorganized. Yet, cultures that are wiling to embrace a diversity of new ideas and random events exist in a very peaceful and orderly system, think of the Netherlands or England, for instance.

Aftermath

It’s a common lament of those Chinese who lived through the Cultural Revolution that whereas before and during they were idealistic and fervent believers, afterwards they believed in very little, if anything. The Cultural Revolution created a level of cynicism and futility that often takes the form of simplistic materialism and capitalist motivations in China today, but it's also true that materialism is about the only outlet for energy that is available and officially safe for the Chinese public to use. But it’s important to remember that this was definitely not the intended effect of the Cultural Revolution, and indeed Mao went to his grave still clinging to his belief in the success of this program. The Cultural Revolution was a cynical political power-play packaged as an idealistic crusade that ended up as nihilism in the populace; nihilism was the unintended social side-effect.

Stay Out of Control

Events in the Cultural Revolution demonstrated that people in regimented and centrally controlled societies, where their individual well-being depends upon favors and handouts from authorities, will tolerate incredible abuse and suffering. This is because ostracism from the collective and independent survival seems more dangerous than tolerating the abuse of the group. Mao’s Cultural Revolution hijacked widespread youth resentment towards repression to serve central political aims. Thinking about it, there’s a certain appeal to perpetuating a cynical and uncontrollable sector of society, for not only does it keep life interesting, but they also serve an important function in protecting society from despotism.

1. Cultural Revolution, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2001.

2. No rhyme or reason to China's rule of law, by Wu Zhong, Asia Times, January 14, 2009.

Economies of Scale

What is Communism?

13.08.03 North Korea has been an increasing concern both to the American government and public, or at least the western part of the country in striking distance of North Korea's missiles. The first thing China set out to do after being cutoff from the Soviets was to build an atomic bomb. Mao knew that the only way his regime could survive was to have a viable force for nuclear retaliation. North Korea's situation today is essentially the same, and not surprisingly their atomic ambitions are no different.

The motivation to obtain atomic weapons and the missiles to deliver them are clear enough, but to really understand North Korea we have to stop looking at them as a government, more specifically a Communist 'hermit' state, and see them for what they really are - a simple, but quite nefarious, criminal enterprise which is ultimately devoid of any permanent ideology. The North Korean ruling clique uses the same rhetoric to mentally enslave its populace for convenience and consistency rather than out of any love for Communist dogma in itself; Stalinist-Communist rhetoric is all they know.

But despite clinging to this ridiculously outdated dogma of convenience North Korea is an enlightening example of Communism taken to its ultimate level. The contemporary commentators have all assured us that Communism is dead, just as sure as the Berlin Wall is in nearly forgotten and broken remnants, but in fact this is not the case for many millions are still living it. Indeed, the only way to really understand Communism is to study it in practice. Studying Marxism is a useless effort to understand Communism because of the immense disparity between theory and reality, for in practice it's less about standardized ideology as it is about power, more specifically authoritarian control through subterfuge. Look at China, a 'Communist' government which isn't even Communist anymore! Although the government controls everyone's lives right down to the new digital ID cards, they do allow private property and even the pursuit of private wealth in certain proscribed regions. China today is really more Fascist than Communist because they have a national control of industry but still allow private property.

The point is that regardless of the code-words, revolution (the initial formation of a new state) is just the transfer of power from those that have it to those that don't. But always remember that human nature does not change even though the names and the faces in authority positions may. Thus it is very often the case that the exploited masses merely exchange one evil overload for another, and end up even worse off than before because the instigators have really done the coup seeking vengeance -- not the well-being of the public. President Harry Truman once wrote, "Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I’ve found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes." Before (and during) any revolution it is wise to consider who is taking control and where they're coming from.

Capitalism may be the unfettered pursuit of money-profit but Communism is definitely purified exploitation of the many by an elite few kept in place with power based on lies. Whatever words or methods are needed for that power exploitation are valid and will be employed under the guise of Communist dogma and ideology. Wherever you find it, Communism is just a cover story, a coded word for raw authoritarian control of the bodies, minds, and aspirations of the many by the few. This in itself is nothing new historically speaking but the rampant and calculated use of lies to control the minds of the exploited masses is.

By any definition life in North Korea is horrific. The stories of Korean citizens reduced to eating tree bark (or each other) to survive concurrent famines artificially created through inept and corrupt central planning are well documented. Yet despite this, and no successful example of functional Communism anywhere, the continued (minority) attraction to Communism is the same today as any day - partly due to good marketing and the progressive, powerful image that is conveyed to the public. But mostly the attraction is that it promises power to those that do not have it. It uses convincing arguments, yet none of them need actually be true, merely that they seem to be true. In the end Communism is just a lie, a ruse, because it never provides what it promises to the vast majority of those that work for it.

The structure of Soviet society in the late 1980s is best described as "a radical social pyramid." At the apex were the wealthy families who comprise under 2.5 percent of the population. ... Consumption of all types of goods and services was disproportionately enjoyed (relative to their income) by the elite Soviet class. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that members of this class received the most advanced health care, the best educational institutions for themselves and their children, and easy access to state-subsidized recreational facilities. One particular example illustrates the skewed nature of consumption. In one region of central Russia the elite (i.e., local and regional Communist Party officials) accounted for just 0.04 percent of the population, but supposedly "consumed between 56 percent and 100 percent of all the high-quality food in their region." From: Comparative Economics by James Angresano, 1996.

Everywhere you look, every example in practice is a screaming testament to this insidious fact. From Pol Pot's Cambodia to Stalin's Russia every case is the same, Communism in practice is the calculated and continuous exploitation of power by the few over the many using words and symbols to convey and convince the exact opposite of what is really happening, such as planned starvation and, poverty - targeted confusion to placate the public and defeat opponents.

When discussing the regime's control over the population of North Korea, many people cite the surveillance and monitoring capability of the large military and security service apparatus. While it is true that these organizations have their eyes and ears imbedded throughout the country, it is not these physical controls that give the regime its power over the population. The regime in North Korea derives the vast majority of its influence over the minds and hearts of the people through its absolute control and manipulation of all information made available to the local population. By controlling what a person hears, reads, and sees, one controls what he or she thinks and believes.  From: Testimony of Andrew S. Natsios before Senate panel on June 5, 2003.

The American World Order

19.03.03 It's important to point out that Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, the whole team which will hereafter be referred to as Bush & Associates, they all firmly believe themselves to be patriotic Americans. They are not doing what they do to be evil, they simply lack any reflective capacity to grasp the depth or effect of their egregious actions upon the public. When Bush & Associates see the millions of antiwar protesters around the world rallying to knock some sense into their administration they really believe them to all be just leftists loonies organized by some central committee and representing the whacko fringe that can safely be ignored. To the neo-conservative Bush & Associates, patriotism means using raw expressions of military might to acquire the resources needed to enhance American power and wealth. It doesn't matter how you do it or how nice, or how mean you look, just get it done -- because rules and treaties are for other people.

The working belief is that since America has the undisputed force, now is the time to use it to bend others to our will and scare the rest into fearful submission. This is about building a new world order based on fear, terror, and obedience to U$ dictates. No more OPEC threats, no more 1970s style gas crisis' - Condi Rice said it best, referring to Iraq: 'let them eat their oil;' give us what we want now or you will slowly starve to death.

The Iraqis are scared out of their minds of the American military machine. They saw what the first war was like, and despite the exaggerated claims of bravado and resistance, they're all in the back of their minds looking for the nearest U$ soldier to surrender to. If Iraq's military forces were lackluster in 1990, just think of what's left to defend with this time around? This war is not even that in a military sense, it's like hitting an ant with a sledgehammer; standard Ariel Sharon tactic true, but in his case it's more like a helicopter missile against a rock thrower.

Without doubt this is a self-righteous lot of true-believers and, not surprisingly, Bush & Associates are nearly all deeply religious people. They're so busy preaching their gospel and dwelling on their convictions that they fail to stop and think about the absurdity of it all. By ignoring public protests they discredit their stated respect for democracy. By abrogating international treaties on everything from space weapons to nuclear weapons testing they negate their stated value for cooperation and diplomacy. Bush & Associates make a mockery of their own values and continually undermine their own position, indeed they have become the most glaring example of everything they claim to hate, from terrorist fear tactics to despotic regimes!

But the true threat of this crusading machine run amok has not been lost on world leadership. From Europe to Asia, in public they may play-up allegiance to American dictates, but in private they will continue to slow and undermine the naked imperialism of Bush & Associates as the imperative threat to world stability that it is. Thus, today we are caught between two paradigms, the old view based on simplistic, jingoistic nationalism typified by Roman imperialism, and the new based on cooperative internationalism typified by the World Court and United Nations. Bush and Israel's Sharon truly believe that raw power, the domination of allies and the total defeat and humiliation of opponents, is the most desirable method of achieving and maintaining worldwide superiority. In the meantime it may be a bumpy ride but ultimately the old imperialist paradigm is doomed because worldwide cultural expectations of freedom and fair-trade have already shifted.

***

17.03.03 Today's power elites see the era of international institutions running the world as obsolescent, the New World Order needs some tweaking - the goal of singular dominance hasn't changed but the vehicle to arrive there has. And that vehicle is now the sole remaining superpower, the good ol' United States of America. The USA has been hijacked by a faction, ideologically a collection of Zionists and pro-Israel interests like Perle and Wolfowitz, Dispensationalist Christians like Karl Rove, and an assorted rabble of other 'neo-conservatives.' This clique has colluded with a few mega-corporate interests such as the fossil fuel and defense industries. And the connection between the money and the ideology is a deeply interwoven one, for after all many of the key players now making these political decisions were once members of those same favored industries. Cheney has Halliburton, Condi Rice came from Chevron oil, Rumsfeld has more connections with murky business' than anyone can unravel.

And lo it came to pass, British Petroleum merged with Amoco and swallowed up ARCO, then Exxon with Mobile and Chevron merged with Texaco and then Shell bought the U$ market licenses to both companies and ...

The United States helped build the predecessor to the United Nations, the League of Nations, but then went and sabotaged it. Once again the same thing is happening. Just like the 'democracy' talking heads Bush and associates are always pushing, it's only democracy when they hear the message they want, and when they don't it's dictatorship. Dubya himself said it best - listening to antiwar protesters would be like 'taking advice from a focus group'. Anything against war on Iraq is ignored or rejected while everything that supports it is trumpeted and magnified at maximum volume. Every piece of evidence real or manufactured that implicates Saddam in acts of evil are propagated, while those that don't are ignored or downplayed. When the UN or any international institution says what they want to hear it's a fine upstanding group worthy of respect, but when they say the 'wrong' thing it's all just a sign of weakness and inadequacy. Hypocrisy is the first word of the hour, and a savage retribution against those speakers of the truth is the second. Wherever the first is present the second must follow close behind to protect it by attacking the truth.

Just Try and Stop 'em

Today the Untied States of America finds itself completely unopposed and sees no reason to refrain from doing whatever it can do to enhance and aggrandize resources, power and wealth, especially when it can enrich the privileged elite running the show. If Bush Junior's war on Iraq fails then Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and the rest of the White House spin-team will just ignite some new military conflagration elsewhere as a diversion, just like they did with Afghanistan. If Iraq works as promised they'll just fixate and play it up for election 2004. Either way they see it as a win for the home team. But if they win most everyone else will lose, including the American public. Everything W Bush has done in office has made the world a less stable and a more dangerous place to live in. And it's no secret that the 'W' sees Ariel Sharon as a role model, he even went so far as to say that in public, "I would act exactly like Sharon" in Israel not long ago. The two examples couldn't be more similar, both can get away with anything, the dominant mass-media covers for both and no one has the military or economic power or influence to stop them. Remember: always escalate, and when in trouble over flawed policy and glaring hypocrisy just create a noisy diversion to catch the attention of the mass-media dogs. If you want to know where America will be in a year from now just look at Israel today because Bush is reading from the same script of manic militarism as Sharon; polarizing debate, escalating conflicts and effectively blowing their countries apart along every social seam and ideological fault line.

Prove me wrong

The early 21st century is the summation of the 'Cold War' fraud collapsing and the rise of a single country as undisputed master. Now we will witness a raw expression of power sugar-coated with platitudes for the mass-media to distribute to a placated and uncritical, acquiescent American audience. Iraq is but the first to be taken down, all of Israel's enemies will follow. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, even Egypt, they will all fall and be reprogrammed with pliant 'democratic' puppet regimes to mindlessly pump oil barrel after barrel for enriching the oil monopolists while smiling and kissing Israeli ass for the TV cameras.

Today we live in an era where authority is founded upon lies and hypocrisy and promoted by a chronically disingenuous and paranoid leadership living in constant fear of being revealed as what they really are. I don't like liars, few people do. Lies breed vengeance and vengeance spread widely enough will inevitable strike back at the source of the lies that started it all.

Know the guilty and recognize the responsible - stay focused and stay informed.

Usurpers always bring about or select troublous times to get passed, under the cover of the public terror, destructive laws, which the people would never adopt in cold blood. The moment chosen is one of the surest means of distinguishing the work of the legislator from that of the tyrant. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1762.

Liberation? Or occupation?

What's in a Name?

19.09.02 & 27.06.09 Much of the motivation behind Holology is to both better understand complex issues and also make them more lucid. Language is the primary communications tool we use in this effort, but words themselves are often an impediment to clear and concise understanding, rather than an aid. Most (possibly all) of these logical paradoxes, such as the cryptic statement 'I believe in nothing,' are merely a consequence of the language itself and are to be taken literally at the cost of sanity and sensibility. But language can be improved in numerous ways to enhance communication and clarity. The E-Prime method is one example:

Consider the forms of the verb 'to be': 'be', 'been', 'is', 'are', 'am', 'was', and 'were'. Semanticists have long recognized that these words contribute to imprecision of expression, ambiguity, and even logical mistakes. Some advocate eliminating all verbs of being, all forms of the 'is' of identity and the 'is' of predication. The resulting "purified" English carries the name 'E-prime'. ... Indeed, the average person commonly mistakes ambiguity for profundity. This weakness of the human mind makes people easy prey to advertisers, demagogues and snake-oil salesmen. From: Reduced English

Some have even gone so far as to create an entirely new language to circumvent the technical problems associated with English, for instance. Esperanto is an artificial one, merging Spanish, French and English into a simplified, theoretically easy to learn language. But however superior it may or may not be, it has failed to achieve any widespread acceptance. For many years Radio Austria International (ORF), used to (still?) produced shortwave broadcasts in Esperanto. The actor William Shatner was part of an unusual 1965 film called Incubus, done entirely in Esperanto.

All language is an artificial construction and therefore is merely a subjective tool with which to better understand the natural, objective structures and entities. But even as obvious as that should seem, on an everyday basis most people confuse words with the substance they symbolize, and speech for actual knowledge! In that regard mathematics is the ultimate language because although it is made up of artificial symbols it nonetheless is value neutral, it contains no cultural bias and can be understood by anyone.

Mathematical language permits irrelevancies to be excluded from the analysis of particular problems in an unambiguous fashion. It also allows us to avoid unnecessary thinking, by building certain necessary aspects of logical consistency into the mathematical formalism itself ab initia so we are assured that they will hold whenever we employ that formalism. Ordinary language does not contain these advantages. The grammatical correctness of an English sentence does not tell us anything at all about the truth or self-consistency of what it states. Some of the most powerful communicators ignore basic linguistic rules when they write, and thereby create a personal literary style. Mathematics allows no such artistic licence. [1]

But math is difficult to use mostly because we don't learn to communicate with math first and foremost, but only in a secondary capacity; we first learn to speak and read using letters and words. But regardless of the symbols we use, or even how effective they are for communications, describing and naming is a power in itself.

There's an internal power in naming that goes all the way back to the beginning of recorded history. Adam of the Bible was given that very power to name the animals by God in the Book of Genesis 2:19 "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was it's name." As a reminder, when I quote the Bible it's not to promote a theological viewpoint but to reference a historical document. I'm illuminating what people used to think, and millions still do, but some people have problems properly interpreting my motivation, so I feel obligated to point it out.

By granting arbitrary names to objective entities, the naming authority wields significant power within the social context, as well as an indirect authority over the thought process' of the people that think and speak using those word symbols, those arbitrary names. The novelist George Orwell demonstrated this principle in his monumental book 1984. That novel presented an extreme form of authoritarian dystopia where, by removing and perverting words and their meaning, government could control the minds of the public. By limiting the range of thought and expression, despotic authorities could minimize threats to their power and channel dissent into certain endeavors that served their interests, such as continual warfare or the neutralization of domestic dissidents.

Many years earlier another Englishmen wrote, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," in Act II, Scene II of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. This was a poetic way of stating that the rose would still be a rose even without the name. Even without a word to describe it we would still know about a lot of things. But a rose is a physical object we can all agree is pretty much easy to define. Vague concepts, such as those in philosophy, get quite confusing. We can legitimately ask: without a word would it exist? Likely any concept artificially concocted would be difficult if not impossible to adequately convey without a suitable language and common understanding aided by an appropriate name and label. So I would tend to side with the typical linguist position that words have power, that they do influence thought, but probably not to the extreme level of Orwell's 1984 dystopia. Linguists have a tendency to elevate language higher than it really is. Words and meanings are just a reflection of the ambient culture and its values - what people currently believe, how they act, what they value and the moral rules all are expressed in contemporary language.

Truth in Labeling

Food manufactures have been forced by law to accurately describe and label the contents of their products, because without standards and clear labels the customer can never be sure of what they're buying and what they're really eating. It's very important for everyone involved to know what they're getting, but honesty has other benefits because it evens the playing field and enhances fairness and allows rewards (and punishment) to be directed at the deserving parties. Since Holology is about human intelligence and intelligence is understanding and knowledge, it's important to make both as easy to acquire as possible. Truth in labeling is one way of achieving this.

One of the projects at the Department of Research is a list of famous individuals titled Who Are they Really? featuring famous people with a listing of their pseudonyms and birth names. This is meant to be an entertaining but nonetheless informative depiction of this 'truth in labeling' concept. And after all, some have done bad things, some have done good things, but how can anyone apply adequate responsibility for either without knowing who is really who? This is trying to interject a bit more accuracy into the debate, to put the blame or the reward where it belongs and allow the reader decide what they want to think beyond that.

But this sort of thing wouldn't be needed If the mainstream media made an honest effort to inform the public in a fair and objective manner. I can give you a perfect example of this gross failure to serve the pubic interest. If you have Encarta encyclopedia, you know the one form Microsoft, type in 'Hungarian Americans' now check out the list at 'Contributions to American Culture' there. You'll find Andy Grove, George Soros, Edward teller, Zukor, (Fox and Houdini I'm fairly sure) all of which are actually Jewish, nearly the entire list!

You cannot tell me Adolph Zukor of Paramount is Hungarian, come on! "Had he not wanted so much to be a merchant, Mr. Zukor might very well have become a rabbi. "I had the devil of a time persuading my uncle, Kalman Liebermann, who was a rabbi himself, that I wasn't cut out for the theological calling," said Adolph Zukor. Few things make me angrier than intentional inaccuracy, and there's no nicer way to describe it. This misinformation is from an encyclopedia after all! You're not going to see Soros at a Hungarian cultural event, he's not donating to help the preservation of the Hungarian people. He's not Hungarian and he doesn't care about Hungarians, he cares about his investments services and 'philanthropy'. Why not tell the truth that these people are just from Hungary?

So just what really is in a name? A whole lot actually - identity, authority, and even a subtle form of mind control. Confusion is power, just look at any Priest or Rabbi - they earn living from interpreting that confusion to the 'unenlightened' masses, what a scam! But by improving the accuracy of names and labels, and basically calling things what they truly are, we undermine their false authority while interjecting sanity and fairness into the debate.

1. The World Within The World, by John D. Barrow, Oxford University Press 1988.

'For Us Or Against Us?'

03.04.02 Ariel Sharon is a wonder when it comes to making new enemies. Just in the past week he's managed to outrage:

The International Red Cross -- by blocking ambulances, cutting the power to hospitals, and generally impeding medical and relief aid in every way possible while endangering the lives of rescue workers. The ICRC, in bald understatement, calls it a "sudden degradation" of relations with Israel.

The Media -- by endangering the lives of journalists, forming what the IDF calls "a closed military area" excluding everyone but the Israeli military, despite the fact that Israel has no legal right to do so in official Palestinian governed regions like Ramallah. This is easily the single most stupid thing Sharon has done (yet). It's got to be the first lesson every politician learns - don't ever get on the bad side of the media! And while it's one thing to revoke the credentials of two Abu Dhabi TV journalists, it's another to attack the same American news teams that have given Israel enormous allowances in the past. America's ABC, CNN, and even NBC have all been threatened with unspecified actions.

Worldwide Leftists. It's remarkable but much of the support Israel garnered over the past 50 years was from the political left itself, viewing the Israeli mini-state as an 'underdog'. This situation has completely reversed and now western peace activists in Palestine are actually saying their motive is to help the 'underdog', but it isn't Sharon's clique it's Arafat's! Also keep in mind that most of these peace activists are young people who will retain visions of IDF brutality and Palestinian suffering for lifetimes. So much for kibbutzim and happy Jewish kids fruit farming, it's more like Apache gunships and bloodstained walls. The long term damage to Israel's image is incalculable.

The U.S. Government and Bush administration. Poorly timed actions, blatantly contradictory demands especially against Arafat, the list grows by the hour. Talk about 'biting the hand that feeds you'! If Sharon had just waited a few months the U$ military would have pounded Iraq into rubble, again, and the smoke screen of that action would have worked well for Sharon to invade the territories. Thus eliminating two enemies for another decade or so. But now he'll win neither. If he wasn't still fighting Lebanon in his monomaniacal mind he could have been an Israeli hero, now he'll be lucky if he doesn't spend his remaining years behind bars in Belgium.

Christians -- by invading Bethlehem, endangering the lives of local Priests, and firing upon churches. Many Palestinians, that Israel claims are valid combatants, have sought refuge in the Church of the Nativity and reports of gunfire have emerged in the Santa Maria Convent, also in Bethlehem. Over the past fifty years, and despite the fundamental irony of doing so, most Christians provide active, or at least tacit, moral support to the Zionist state of Israel; but will this always continue? If that support were to be lost it would absolutely be the worst thing Sharon has perpetrated upon his own people.

So what is the point?
All it takes is one maniac in executive office and things can change pretty fast.

When will this end?
Probably as long as Sharon has the authority to continue his personal vendetta / obsession against Arafat.

And finally, why should we care?
I suppose if you don't have a political, theological, or racial connection to the parties involved then maybe not a whole lot. The problem is that every group that is unable or unwilling to act, speak, or appear to be neutral and impartial in the issue becomes dangerously entangled in the outcome. America's favored position towards Israel has, and continues, to generate significant worldwide animosity due to the actions of the Israeli government and its military. This antipathy and aggression will increasingly focus not just on Israeli intransigence but also on America's with sadly predictable consequences.

It is blatantly averred, again and again, that any criticism of Israel's policies is an expression of anti-semitism. With that assertion the argument is supposed to be closed. Of course, I reject this attempt at censorship by thus disqualifying the grounds for debate. No amount of suffering - be it of the Tutsis, Kurds, Armenians, Vietnamese, Bosnians or Palestinians - can confer immunity from criticism. - Breyten Breytenbach

Separate & Un-Equal

05.12.01 Israel is a country of rampant double standards and the most glaring is the bifurcated system dividing Arab and Jewish Israeli citizens. Arabs in Israel suffer under segregated schools and deeply segregated political power, for even though an Arab-Israeli can be elected to government positions they are never equated equal authority as Jewish politicians. The 120 member Knesset includes only nine Arab Israelis. It's an 'apartheid' system in every sense of the word. Also, it's interesting to note that Israel was a longtime supporter of South Africa, even covertly developing and testing nuclear weapons in conjunction with that apartheid regime, a regime that the American government sanctioned, subverted and lambasted as brutal and unjust! Many Americans even staged benefit concerts while funneling funds and moral support to the opposition leader, the communist Nelson Mandela and his associates. America itself even spent years of civil turmoil battling a system of social segregation and unequal justice only to presently support Israel's use of the same and worse against it's own citizens!

Yet as bad as the situation is for Arab-Israelis, the Palestinian populace is on an even lower footing, and although Israel is not the only country in the world to exploit Palestinian labor, it is the most conspicuous. Despite all the mutual animosity Israelis and Palestinians need each other economically, one for the cheap labor, the other for employment. Both sides know this but have, shall we say, differing interpretations of how it will be carried out. The Israeli government wants low paid serfs or indentured servants living completely separate lives without rights in segregated ghettos on the other side of the razor wire topped concrete barriers. Palestinians, like all workers, want living wages, freedom, and a safe home.

The desire for a Palestinian state is largely in response to the formation of the state of Israel slightly over 50 years ago by the UN; yet the reciprocal disallowance of which is a blatant double standard. The Palestinian desire for political independence, meaning the formation of a state of Palestine, is the true bone of contention between the two parties and what right-wing elements in Israel's government fear above all else. An independent Palestinian state would grant legitimacy and legal rights to the Palestinian people and could directly threaten the viability and legitimacy of the Israeli state for several reasons. First it would limit Israel expansion through the use of (illegal) settlements, second it would give the Palestinians voice at the UN, and third, would open the door for financial and moral support channeled directly towards a government replete with rights and sovereign boundaries.

And state sovereignty has plenty of benefits. Sharon and Arafat both have exceptionally sordid pasts but since Sharon has a state his atrocities are backed by legal force, while Arafat doesn't, hence Arafat's label as 'terrorist'. Sharon can argue from the respectable position of statesman, while Arafat only that of a special interest group. The state of Israel is the darling of authoritarians from Beijing to Washington because they respect and admire power, and power Israel has in bold superabundance. Israel has biological, chemical and even an undeclared nuclear arsenal with ultramodern American equipment, all unquestionably backed by American political muscle, a complicit American media, and the most powerful army of lobbyists in the world. The Israeli government sees no need to bargain or grant concession to anyone. Consequently the Israeli leadership perceives the Palestinian intifada as something akin to a slave uprising.

Look beneath the hyperbole of the mouthpieces and the rhetoric of the leadership and you'll see the tools and a consistent methodology.

The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) has been remarkably consistent in method against Palestine. The IDF is targeting every element that enhances Palestinian independence, hence the destruction of the Gaza airport, the runway was torn up by Israeli bulldozers. Arafat's police, called 'Force-17', has born the brunt of IDF strikes recently as well. Without understanding the true motivation of the IDF it seems especially ironic that despite Sharon's entreaties for Arafat to mop-up militants, police stations and even the jails holding Palestinian militants have been struck by Israeli aircraft, simultaneously nullifying Arafat's only means of arresting the militants and freeing the ones he already arrested!

Peres and Sharon: each play their role but work for the same side with Arafat caught in the middle of the 'peace process', a farce that continues indefinitely yet never achieves it's stated goal.

Further evidence of this policy of subjugation and control is exercised through the IDF, Shin Bet, and Mossad, as the continuing policy of using assassination, 'targeted killings', against the most outspoken and troublesome leaders in order to cow the populace and weaken organized resistance.

Physicist Albert Einstein once said "Peace in Palestine cannot be achieved through force, only through understanding." The decisions are not Arafat's, they are for Sharon to make because he alone has the military and political might to determine the tone and direction of the current conflict. Yet, as we've seen, Israel's polices of brutally repressing all Palestinian aggression has already seriously backfired and the worst is yet to come. Repression and injustice has created a state of chronic warfare, destroyed any livelihood the Palestinians had to divert them away from violence, and turned public opinion against Israel and towards support for the Palestinian cause. As long as Israelis allow themselves to be governed by authoritarians, beasts that only understand power and its unmitigated employment as a panacea for all problems foreign and domestic, they'll inevitably be drawn deeper into a vortex of uncontrollable hatred and vengeance from which extrication only becomes increasingly difficult.

The Moderate

13.11.01 In order to survive at the very top in the political circus it's important to appear a moderate. This is especially true within the western frictional, factional, multi-party, multi-interest system. I said appear a moderate not to actually be one, instead the prudent and cunning establish or subtly promote vociferous opponents on both sides to facilitate this illusion of the moderate centrist. Between these two relative extremes is what defines 'moderate' in the public's mind.

The reason for doing this is multifaceted.

First, it increases career longevity since few will wish to displace you through vote, coup, or assassination, with the more radical alternates waiting to take over.

Second, appearing the moderate makes bargaining and diplomacy that much more plausible, both foreign and domestic.

Third, making highly publicized and trivial concessions to opponent parties creates a useful aura of conciliation and cooperation.

Thus, radical or conservative, every successful political leader strives to achieve a public perception of a 'moderate', even if the true definition of that term is something else entirely. The rule to remember is that opponent parties should never be vanquished, merely kept weak, controlled, and disunited.

As top boss within a dictatorship, appearances can and should remain secondary to ruthless effectiveness at defeating, but not eliminating, opponents. Usually this implies keeping those threatening interests in chronic fratricidal conflict. It should go without saying that the most successful power-player apples both principles of the 'moderate' and enemy control within the limitations and expectations of the contemporary milieu.

Rules That Win Wars

20.09.01 Rule #1 If you can't go all the way to the capitol and park your tanks in front of the presidential palace and put your military officers in the position of lawmakers, like Gen. MacArthur in Japan, and then be willing to sit on the country for decades, if necessary to establish the friendly government, you can't win the war. And if your country is unwilling or unable to do this, don't even get involved. Because a war fought in half-measure is a war lost. Furthermore, a wounded nation and a humiliated leadership is a far worse threat than an unmolested one.

Rule #2 If you want to win the war you have to think in the long term, which is why America finds so many problems because even when they win the battle they lose the wars. They fund freedom fighters in Central America or Afghanistan, then a few years after the conflict blows over they have a powerful well trained new enemy.

Look at the Hungarian rebels in the 1950s, the Kurds, or the Iraqi resistance. America promises support, promises prompt aid and total allegiance, then turns around and leaves these disaffected rebels out to dry or be executed by the authoritarian regimes they resisted. America consistently antagonizes dangerous people then acts collectively mystified when they end up with highly motivated enemies a short while later. If you can't learn you'll get burned.

It's not enough to know how to tear down, one must know equally well how to build up; this is Holology.

Disconcerting Wall-Mounted Aphorism #19 [Wood, glass, printed paper; 13 x 10cm each]

November 2006

Ahh the wonders of war, state-sponsored mass-conflict: it's a little known fact that the great flu pandemic that killed millions, often in less than a day, was spread by the weakened and emaciated soldiers returning home from war, that being the Great war to end all wars, World War I.
That's your government at working defending the people from harm!