Political arithmetics
According to Francis Fukuyama's inane "End of history" thesis, all societies "naturally" tend to democracy. He also claims that democracies don't fight each other.
According to the "liberators" of Iraq this country is now a "democracy". According to evil bureaucrats of the EU Turkey is a democracy as well, and suited to join the EU bureaucrat mafia.
After the US backed invasion of Turkish troops in Northern Iraq this leads to a variety of possibilities.
Option 1: Iraq is no democracy.
Option 2: Turkey is no democracy.
Option 3: Fukuyama and heaps of other neoconservative political analysts are a bunch of imbeciles.
Option 4: Fukuyama and heaps of other neoconservative political analysts are a bunch of blatant liars.
In my humble point of view all of the above hold true.
Conclusion: Representative governments are just tyrannies in disguise. Working actively against governments is no terrorism, but mere self defense. Governmental "anti terror activities" just abolish the few democratic achievements that made wage slavery acceptable. In a time, when it's possible to have millions voting for their American or Australian or whatever Idol, it's a piece of cake to have referendums for any crucial decision, instead of bipartisan collusion to privatize governmental duties.
Any politician who insists that direct democracy is impossible is an active enemy of democracy, and should be reeducated in facilities like Guantanamo Bay or Christmas Island. The global society can no longer afford to feed parasites called politicians. Governments are no necessity, but a disease of society.
Resources wasted for warfare could feed everyone on this planet, and even allow everyone a happy, healthy and wealthy life. The only obstacle to this are governments and psychopathic judicial persons (also known as corporations). Stop enjoying your chains.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Part of the problem or part of the solution
Reading the newspaper really early in the morning can spoil good mood quite immediately. News consists mainly of bad news, and due to modern communication this bad news comes from all over the world.
Let's start with terror, the evergreen for newsmakers since 2001, regurgitating 3000 deaths over and over, while ignoring 25000 people that starve daily. As there are hardly any terrorists on this planet (there are some, but they are even rarer than regular murderer, maybe as much as other serial killer, but that's just a guess), each suspicion is reported with vigor.
However, as terrorism is utterly useful to transform democracies into Orwellian nightmares, and to disguise the uselessness of most politicians, terrorists and secret services work in hand in hand. Maybe even to a degree that most terrorism simply wouldn't exist without the active help of those "intelligence services", whose mere existence is an insult for democracies. Even before 911, ASIO tried to hire people who are now terror suspects.
Luckily, the Stalinist Anti-Terror-Laws in Australia muzzle anyone ever suspected to be a terrorist, so it's hard to judge whether guys like Jack Thomas and David Hicks met more ASIO or more Al-Qaeda members (if there are huge differences). Working for the muscle part of government means you officially belong to a lower class, not only by breaking laws (as ASIO employee), but by being a guinea pig which is exposed long term to hazardous materials. The war on terror, fought in Afghanistan, has only increased the opium harvest, and created the next generation of people who know hardly anything but war, and is now officially "rethought".
Maybe the thinking should start before the killing, but that would be asked a lot from people enjoying their incompetence in spending other peoples money (politicians, in case you were wondering) to make their friends in the killing industry rich.
The failure of local governments like the Australian doesn't imply in any way that a global government would produce less harm. The UN, the closest thing to the nightmare of global governance, was caught again using children as their prostitutes, this time in Haiti. If indigeneous people in Australia are suspected to abuse their children, their land is taken away. When will the biggest and meanest child abuse organisation, the UN, be dissolved?
It's just bad apples, I hear you say, "they" (corporations, governments, UN, organised religions, fill in your favorite crime syndicate) do more good than bad. Well, do they? Privatising education, health care, pensions and other parts of public, common infrastructure is good for a chosen few, but not the general public. Since the demise of communism as threat to the Western World most civilised achievements of society have been reverted, and racketeering will soon extend from GST to Intellectual Property laws that penalize you for a humming a tune, license fees for the flowers that grow wild in your garden, and Global Warming tax for breathing.
I shouldn't read the news in the morning, it certainly upsets me. And I didn't even get to the opinion page yet.
Reading the newspaper really early in the morning can spoil good mood quite immediately. News consists mainly of bad news, and due to modern communication this bad news comes from all over the world.
Let's start with terror, the evergreen for newsmakers since 2001, regurgitating 3000 deaths over and over, while ignoring 25000 people that starve daily. As there are hardly any terrorists on this planet (there are some, but they are even rarer than regular murderer, maybe as much as other serial killer, but that's just a guess), each suspicion is reported with vigor.
However, as terrorism is utterly useful to transform democracies into Orwellian nightmares, and to disguise the uselessness of most politicians, terrorists and secret services work in hand in hand. Maybe even to a degree that most terrorism simply wouldn't exist without the active help of those "intelligence services", whose mere existence is an insult for democracies. Even before 911, ASIO tried to hire people who are now terror suspects.
Luckily, the Stalinist Anti-Terror-Laws in Australia muzzle anyone ever suspected to be a terrorist, so it's hard to judge whether guys like Jack Thomas and David Hicks met more ASIO or more Al-Qaeda members (if there are huge differences). Working for the muscle part of government means you officially belong to a lower class, not only by breaking laws (as ASIO employee), but by being a guinea pig which is exposed long term to hazardous materials. The war on terror, fought in Afghanistan, has only increased the opium harvest, and created the next generation of people who know hardly anything but war, and is now officially "rethought".
Maybe the thinking should start before the killing, but that would be asked a lot from people enjoying their incompetence in spending other peoples money (politicians, in case you were wondering) to make their friends in the killing industry rich.
The failure of local governments like the Australian doesn't imply in any way that a global government would produce less harm. The UN, the closest thing to the nightmare of global governance, was caught again using children as their prostitutes, this time in Haiti. If indigeneous people in Australia are suspected to abuse their children, their land is taken away. When will the biggest and meanest child abuse organisation, the UN, be dissolved?
It's just bad apples, I hear you say, "they" (corporations, governments, UN, organised religions, fill in your favorite crime syndicate) do more good than bad. Well, do they? Privatising education, health care, pensions and other parts of public, common infrastructure is good for a chosen few, but not the general public. Since the demise of communism as threat to the Western World most civilised achievements of society have been reverted, and racketeering will soon extend from GST to Intellectual Property laws that penalize you for a humming a tune, license fees for the flowers that grow wild in your garden, and Global Warming tax for breathing.
I shouldn't read the news in the morning, it certainly upsets me. And I didn't even get to the opinion page yet.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Liberty City Seven
In June 2006 the media celebrated a victory in the fight against home-grown terrorism. Although nothing was found that provided evidence for any terrorist activities or plans, like nearly always when "terror suspects" get arrested, the FBI knew for sure that these guys were bad - because they set them up.
While the mainstream media used this case to increase terror paranoia, Paul Watson interpreted the case as a typical falseflag operation.
Now, 18 months later, the court case implodes. The print edition of The Age has a short notice about this in its "In Brief" section, yet no mentioning of this case can be found in the online edition.
What do we learn from this? Nothing really new - arrests of terror suspects are inflated, acquittals are not worth mentioning, even if governmental agencies like the FBI actively created these "terror cells". Informing the public about the nefarious activities of intelligence agencies certainly wouldn't help convincing the public that the torture victim David Hicks needs further mistreatment by his own government.
If governments can only protect us from the terror they create themselves, we would be much safer without them. 3000 people were killed on 911, the US government happily sacrificed more than 3000 soldiers, who died in their aggressive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it does not care about the health of the returning soldiers and couldn't prevent the torrent of suicides among Iraq veterans. Not to mention the thousands of people who died and suffered from lung diseases after 911 in NYC, because they were knowingly send back into a toxic hell. Trust the government, they know best how to kill people.
In June 2006 the media celebrated a victory in the fight against home-grown terrorism. Although nothing was found that provided evidence for any terrorist activities or plans, like nearly always when "terror suspects" get arrested, the FBI knew for sure that these guys were bad - because they set them up.
While the mainstream media used this case to increase terror paranoia, Paul Watson interpreted the case as a typical falseflag operation.
Now, 18 months later, the court case implodes. The print edition of The Age has a short notice about this in its "In Brief" section, yet no mentioning of this case can be found in the online edition.
What do we learn from this? Nothing really new - arrests of terror suspects are inflated, acquittals are not worth mentioning, even if governmental agencies like the FBI actively created these "terror cells". Informing the public about the nefarious activities of intelligence agencies certainly wouldn't help convincing the public that the torture victim David Hicks needs further mistreatment by his own government.
If governments can only protect us from the terror they create themselves, we would be much safer without them. 3000 people were killed on 911, the US government happily sacrificed more than 3000 soldiers, who died in their aggressive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it does not care about the health of the returning soldiers and couldn't prevent the torrent of suicides among Iraq veterans. Not to mention the thousands of people who died and suffered from lung diseases after 911 in NYC, because they were knowingly send back into a toxic hell. Trust the government, they know best how to kill people.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Suboptimal subprimes
Although our global news do their best to prevent people from thinking, by terrorizing them with their inflated fairy tales about the global threat of terrorism, another scare was invented to distract the world's population from the systematic abuse of entire populations: The US subprime crisis.
I worked for years in the financial industry, and used this time as good as I could to understand our global monetary and economic system. So much I would like to give you an easy, logical explanation for the current craze that haunts the globe, I cannot. What I learned about it was sufficient to draw personal consequences, but our economic system does not work along logical rules, it compares better to casino games.
The global monetary system as we use it at the beginning of the third millennium (according to the counting of the Christian world) maintains simply the support of a chosen few on the expense of the worlds population. Some breadcrumbs are spread towards the former middle-class of Western societies to create the illusion of "equal opportunities in the market", but like with a game of roulette, the banks always win.
Hold on, you might say, even banks can go bankrupt, and they did so in the past. Well, in comparison to any other businesses this rarely happens, and it never endangers the monetary system as such. Money, and having heaps of it, was only the first step to enslave the population. The next step in sucking the population dry was to convert money into property, which endures longer than currencies that came and went over the course of history.
Taking control over formerly common physical resources prevented communities from becoming independent and self-reliant. Although land-grabbing remains popular, stealing common knowledge with copyrights, patents and intellectual property created a society entirely dependent on the whims of those owning the Central Banks of this world.
Central Banks like the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England or the European Central Bank carefully maintain the idea that they are some sort of public institution, which never held true. No central bank is democratically controlled, nor do they protect any other interest than their very own.
The energy required for our economic system, money, is controlled by a minority that takes a share in any official transaction that happens (not to mention places like CitiBank, which profits a lot from laundering drug money). Taxes, leases, tenures, rent, Intellectual Property fees and interest put enormous wealth in the pockets of the maintainers of money.
Money, as we all know, does not grow on trees. It is produced by debts, and backed by nothing but our believe in the trustworthiness of their issuers. Economic crisis, like it happened in 1929, can endanger this trust, but it's just a special form of magic that keeps this funny system alive.
Our secret masters, central bankers of this planet, forced their string puppets, also known as politicians, to guarantee a monopoly for issuing the tools to exchange economic energy. This is the meaning of "legal tender", which is printed on the pieces of paper called banknote in the English speaking world. (The Euro banknotes do not even contain any hint on legal tender, they display a copyright notice instead).
Of course, using money for economic exchange has a lot of pragmatic advantages. The illogical nature of our current monetary system, however, means that we feed some parasites who were given the (absolutely undemocratic) privilege to control the currency. The basic flaw is its inherent insustainability, due to the fact that we feed some selfish 'queen bees' of our human hive, who, unlike the queens of a beehive, don't really care about the fate of their fellows.
Those in charge of the monetary system defend its current emanation with teeth and claws, or rather laws and wars. The value of money consists in an agreement, but doesn't exist inherently. Agreements can change, our fixation on debt-based money is a bit like claiming that cricket is the one and only permissive way to play a ball game.
Yet, instead of setting up a sustainable monetary system, the ruling parasites rather fix the system whenever it's on the verge of collapse (which happens quite often lately). Usually any fix involves a bit of collateral damage, but this affects mainly the users of the system (which haven't transform magic papers into property). Any instability offers a splendid opportunity to increase inflation, a typical disease of the current system.
The subprime crisis doesn't really harm the banks - it just transforms interest payments over the new decades into property. Surely, some players on the end of the hedging game will loose some money, but they are less hard hit than anyone that looses their house. There might even be a dent in the growth of profits for some banks. But as long as the bankers don't decide to burn those houses that they own know instead cashing in on them in long term, their game of dominating the monetary affairs of the rest of the world goes on. And on. And on.
Although our global news do their best to prevent people from thinking, by terrorizing them with their inflated fairy tales about the global threat of terrorism, another scare was invented to distract the world's population from the systematic abuse of entire populations: The US subprime crisis.
I worked for years in the financial industry, and used this time as good as I could to understand our global monetary and economic system. So much I would like to give you an easy, logical explanation for the current craze that haunts the globe, I cannot. What I learned about it was sufficient to draw personal consequences, but our economic system does not work along logical rules, it compares better to casino games.
The global monetary system as we use it at the beginning of the third millennium (according to the counting of the Christian world) maintains simply the support of a chosen few on the expense of the worlds population. Some breadcrumbs are spread towards the former middle-class of Western societies to create the illusion of "equal opportunities in the market", but like with a game of roulette, the banks always win.
Hold on, you might say, even banks can go bankrupt, and they did so in the past. Well, in comparison to any other businesses this rarely happens, and it never endangers the monetary system as such. Money, and having heaps of it, was only the first step to enslave the population. The next step in sucking the population dry was to convert money into property, which endures longer than currencies that came and went over the course of history.
Taking control over formerly common physical resources prevented communities from becoming independent and self-reliant. Although land-grabbing remains popular, stealing common knowledge with copyrights, patents and intellectual property created a society entirely dependent on the whims of those owning the Central Banks of this world.
Central Banks like the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England or the European Central Bank carefully maintain the idea that they are some sort of public institution, which never held true. No central bank is democratically controlled, nor do they protect any other interest than their very own.
The energy required for our economic system, money, is controlled by a minority that takes a share in any official transaction that happens (not to mention places like CitiBank, which profits a lot from laundering drug money). Taxes, leases, tenures, rent, Intellectual Property fees and interest put enormous wealth in the pockets of the maintainers of money.
Money, as we all know, does not grow on trees. It is produced by debts, and backed by nothing but our believe in the trustworthiness of their issuers. Economic crisis, like it happened in 1929, can endanger this trust, but it's just a special form of magic that keeps this funny system alive.
Our secret masters, central bankers of this planet, forced their string puppets, also known as politicians, to guarantee a monopoly for issuing the tools to exchange economic energy. This is the meaning of "legal tender", which is printed on the pieces of paper called banknote in the English speaking world. (The Euro banknotes do not even contain any hint on legal tender, they display a copyright notice instead).
Of course, using money for economic exchange has a lot of pragmatic advantages. The illogical nature of our current monetary system, however, means that we feed some parasites who were given the (absolutely undemocratic) privilege to control the currency. The basic flaw is its inherent insustainability, due to the fact that we feed some selfish 'queen bees' of our human hive, who, unlike the queens of a beehive, don't really care about the fate of their fellows.
Those in charge of the monetary system defend its current emanation with teeth and claws, or rather laws and wars. The value of money consists in an agreement, but doesn't exist inherently. Agreements can change, our fixation on debt-based money is a bit like claiming that cricket is the one and only permissive way to play a ball game.
Yet, instead of setting up a sustainable monetary system, the ruling parasites rather fix the system whenever it's on the verge of collapse (which happens quite often lately). Usually any fix involves a bit of collateral damage, but this affects mainly the users of the system (which haven't transform magic papers into property). Any instability offers a splendid opportunity to increase inflation, a typical disease of the current system.
The subprime crisis doesn't really harm the banks - it just transforms interest payments over the new decades into property. Surely, some players on the end of the hedging game will loose some money, but they are less hard hit than anyone that looses their house. There might even be a dent in the growth of profits for some banks. But as long as the bankers don't decide to burn those houses that they own know instead cashing in on them in long term, their game of dominating the monetary affairs of the rest of the world goes on. And on. And on.
although banks central common control crisis current economic energy game global happens instead intellectual interest maintain monetary money population property subprime system world
created at TagCrowd.com
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
A christmas fantasy
Just imagine a gang of white Australians, aged from 14 to 24, decide to gang rape District Court judge Sarah Bradley. "she looked like she wanted it", claims one of the rapists, "and she didn't bite the cocks we put in her mouth". The judge, from non-european descendance (if there is one in this racist country), tells her that she obviously was consenting - wearing a skirt, showing off her cleavage.
"She looked over to us, and the expression in her eyes was not to be mistaken. The screams of joy, while she was sandwiched, made it obvious that she wanted all of us." To violence against women, Australia says no on the telly, but gang raping children yields no prison. A female judge that is racist enough to hint that a ten year old indigeneous girl would consent to be gang raped makes me sick.
Ex PM Howard demanded a version of history, that glorifies the genocide of the native people in Australia, was not re-elected, but the spirit of being "Australian", eradicating those animals with a dark skin, lives on. Howard send the army to indigeneous communities to "end to child abuse", but Australian judges simply don't care about child abuse. Have the organisers of a child pornography ring in Queensland been disowned, like entire communities in the Northern Territory?
Not at all. Land robbery just works to prevent child abuse in ostensibly genetically different people, and laws to protect children are only designed to protect white children. Pedophiles around the world love to hear this message. Visit the indigeneous communities up north in Australia, the black kids are gagging for it, and the judges are lenient when the victim is not white.
Tax payers pay for judges like Sarah Bradley, who made it obvious that the native population in Australia is not protected by law. It's not called Apartheid here, but as long as this racist judge doesn't end up in jail herself, it's not really different. The is no bill of rights in Australia, and it seems like there won't be any until the genocide is finished.
Just imagine a gang of white Australians, aged from 14 to 24, decide to gang rape District Court judge Sarah Bradley. "she looked like she wanted it", claims one of the rapists, "and she didn't bite the cocks we put in her mouth". The judge, from non-european descendance (if there is one in this racist country), tells her that she obviously was consenting - wearing a skirt, showing off her cleavage.
"She looked over to us, and the expression in her eyes was not to be mistaken. The screams of joy, while she was sandwiched, made it obvious that she wanted all of us." To violence against women, Australia says no on the telly, but gang raping children yields no prison. A female judge that is racist enough to hint that a ten year old indigeneous girl would consent to be gang raped makes me sick.
Ex PM Howard demanded a version of history, that glorifies the genocide of the native people in Australia, was not re-elected, but the spirit of being "Australian", eradicating those animals with a dark skin, lives on. Howard send the army to indigeneous communities to "end to child abuse", but Australian judges simply don't care about child abuse. Have the organisers of a child pornography ring in Queensland been disowned, like entire communities in the Northern Territory?
Not at all. Land robbery just works to prevent child abuse in ostensibly genetically different people, and laws to protect children are only designed to protect white children. Pedophiles around the world love to hear this message. Visit the indigeneous communities up north in Australia, the black kids are gagging for it, and the judges are lenient when the victim is not white.
Tax payers pay for judges like Sarah Bradley, who made it obvious that the native population in Australia is not protected by law. It's not called Apartheid here, but as long as this racist judge doesn't end up in jail herself, it's not really different. The is no bill of rights in Australia, and it seems like there won't be any until the genocide is finished.
Unspoken fascism
Governments systematically get rid of their core business, providing services for their citizens. They follow the trend of Big Business to outsource tasks, ostensibly to reduce costs. The promise of reducing costs, however, is hardly ever fulfilled, expenses just get shifted to different accounts with the same company, and the total cost, especially on a long term basis, increases.
Yet without believing in this myth, which is quite eloquently perpetuated by smart dressed consultants from companies such as KPMG, PWC and the like, and instead assessing the whole picture, outsourcing helps just those companies that make money in suggesting other companies to do so.
Logic and efficiency are not the primary strategies used in business, but networking is. As long as deciders can gain unencumbered profits from outsourcing, they have no reason to think about the damage they produce to their company. After all, once you spend some time in middle und upper management, you made enough friends to fall softly into a similar position in another company, often as payback for favors you provided earlier. Mutual back-rubbing, also called networking, protects well from individual responsibility.
Private companies don't necessarily profit from outsourcing, customers don't like it too much when they have to deal with call centers in foreign countries, but group think still advocates this detrimental idea.
Governments, traditionally slow in adapting trends, now happily joined the idea of outsourcing to get rid of the few things they deserve getting tax money for. As the term "outsourcing" might easily disclose that the government no longer cares about their business, they call it PPP, Public-Private-Partnership.
So what's this PPP thingie? The public part is the administrative part of government, ie civil servants who have an incredibly safe job no matter how badly they perform. The "public" itself has no influence on choosing those positions of power, they just can elect some representative that try to place their friends in manager roles within the governments administration. Although the public is part of the term PPP, it has no say in it.
Another P in PPP is "private", finally something good, as private enterprise is the cornerstone of our glorious capitalist system, isn't it? Any citizen is a private person, so it's good for those entrepreneurs in a country. Well, at least those who have the resources to take over something like the public transport system, which are "private" entities such as big companies. A group of bus drivers and mechanics, who might be able to organise transport and maintenance of a bus fleet wouldn't even be considered to run public transport - what do they know about it?
The final P is partnership, not only a nice sounding word, but the only part of the term describing the reality of PPP. The networking between governmental admins and high level company management finally yields results. Sometimes the need to privatise away governmental responsibilities is so urgent, that tendering would just obstruct the boost in efficiency expected from redirecting tax payers money.
Whereas most Western governments had massive debts, they prevented bankruptcy so far, unlike millions of private enterprises. Even massive companies like Enron went down the drain, ruining the lives of thousands who trusted in them. Yet, according to governments officials, private companies work more efficiently, a claim that hardly can be proven at all.
So basically PPP describes nothing but a collusion between corporations and governments, and the results are mostly a reduction in service for higher charges. Privatisation of telecommunication and public transport in Europe, US and Australia followed along this pattern, but the success of those strategies (less work and profitable follow-up positions for the government part, competition free and highly subsidized business areas for the corporation part) cry for an extension of this idea.
Governments systematically get rid of their core business, providing services for their citizens. They follow the trend of Big Business to outsource tasks, ostensibly to reduce costs. The promise of reducing costs, however, is hardly ever fulfilled, expenses just get shifted to different accounts with the same company, and the total cost, especially on a long term basis, increases.
Yet without believing in this myth, which is quite eloquently perpetuated by smart dressed consultants from companies such as KPMG, PWC and the like, and instead assessing the whole picture, outsourcing helps just those companies that make money in suggesting other companies to do so.
Logic and efficiency are not the primary strategies used in business, but networking is. As long as deciders can gain unencumbered profits from outsourcing, they have no reason to think about the damage they produce to their company. After all, once you spend some time in middle und upper management, you made enough friends to fall softly into a similar position in another company, often as payback for favors you provided earlier. Mutual back-rubbing, also called networking, protects well from individual responsibility.
Private companies don't necessarily profit from outsourcing, customers don't like it too much when they have to deal with call centers in foreign countries, but group think still advocates this detrimental idea.
Governments, traditionally slow in adapting trends, now happily joined the idea of outsourcing to get rid of the few things they deserve getting tax money for. As the term "outsourcing" might easily disclose that the government no longer cares about their business, they call it PPP, Public-Private-Partnership.
So what's this PPP thingie? The public part is the administrative part of government, ie civil servants who have an incredibly safe job no matter how badly they perform. The "public" itself has no influence on choosing those positions of power, they just can elect some representative that try to place their friends in manager roles within the governments administration. Although the public is part of the term PPP, it has no say in it.
Another P in PPP is "private", finally something good, as private enterprise is the cornerstone of our glorious capitalist system, isn't it? Any citizen is a private person, so it's good for those entrepreneurs in a country. Well, at least those who have the resources to take over something like the public transport system, which are "private" entities such as big companies. A group of bus drivers and mechanics, who might be able to organise transport and maintenance of a bus fleet wouldn't even be considered to run public transport - what do they know about it?
The final P is partnership, not only a nice sounding word, but the only part of the term describing the reality of PPP. The networking between governmental admins and high level company management finally yields results. Sometimes the need to privatise away governmental responsibilities is so urgent, that tendering would just obstruct the boost in efficiency expected from redirecting tax payers money.
Whereas most Western governments had massive debts, they prevented bankruptcy so far, unlike millions of private enterprises. Even massive companies like Enron went down the drain, ruining the lives of thousands who trusted in them. Yet, according to governments officials, private companies work more efficiently, a claim that hardly can be proven at all.
So basically PPP describes nothing but a collusion between corporations and governments, and the results are mostly a reduction in service for higher charges. Privatisation of telecommunication and public transport in Europe, US and Australia followed along this pattern, but the success of those strategies (less work and profitable follow-up positions for the government part, competition free and highly subsidized business areas for the corporation part) cry for an extension of this idea.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.Benito Mussolini
business companies corporate describes efficiency fascism finally governments idea management money networking outsourcing positions power ppp private profit public system term think transport
created at TagCrowd.com
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Two major believe systems fight eagerly for supporters: science and religion. Of course, most supporters of science will deny calling their discipline a believe system and probably start arguing, using terms like objective truth or reality.
These wonderful memes gained a stronger influence to the human mind during the Age of Enlightenment, and enjoy still overwhelming popularity. Yet, reality looks more like a zoom through an fractal landscape than the still life science dares to study.
The mind, the tool that allows awareness of the connectedness of life, suffers from neglect of scientific observations. Even psychology withdrew from William James idea of introspection to the creation of endless scales and methods to measure electric and chemical activity.
Our emotions, modern psychology tells us, sit in the amygdala, which controls our emotion by sending out neurotransmitters. The DNA holds the blueprint for these neurotransmitters, which are composed out of set twenty different amino acids. If we find ways to chemically or electromagnetically influence the brain, we can manipulate behaviour. If we look closely enough we might even identity the genetic origin of undesirable traits.
Unfortunately this implies that psychology has reached a stage of dogmatism, in which dogmas from neighboring disciplines slip through the filter of skepticism. A lot of biologists still adhere to genetic determinism, and have rather strange ideas about evolution. Our genes, however can only yield any influence on your development in the right environment.
Yet the soulless idea of a biochemical automaton fits nicely into lack of concept of the human mind that psychology so desperately evades. The human mind, however, commands a community of about 50 trillion cells, each one organised into labor sharing components.
Each cell reacts on its environment, and functions for the common greater good. In a balanced and resourceful environment each cell can theoretically produce any protein coded in its DNA. Science has no interest in finding out why which protein gets produced, as it lacks interest in exploring evolution without the preposterous assumpting that mankind is its pinnacle.
Genes are a wonderful thing, and without them the world would look differently. But like anything alive, taken on its own, without embedding them into a proper environment, nothing will happen. That inherent limitation of genetic engineering does not stop scientists from conducting experience with our perma-evolving biosphere.
Nature and nurture don't compete about their influence to create another living being with an individual set of patterns of behaviour, they cooperate. We can certainly find competitive elements in the way natural systems interact, but self-organisation and cooperation dominate in the game of life.
We live on a spot of universe that provides an abundant excess of energy. Chlorophyll converts this energy, and makes it available for other life forms. The sun provided enough entropy for the primordial soup to cook up life, and sustained it in an abundant variety for billions of time our planet spun around it.
The dependency on this complex, solar-power driven universal life support system becomes more apparent when we try to escape from it. Although the spherical structure of our planet still makes many minds spin, some people dreamt about living on the moon or even on mars, which unlike our planet, have no atmosphere. Our habit of breathing oxygen depends on the primary solar energy converters, that not only provide the basis for chemical energy conversion but only conveniently produce this gas so important for our metabolism.
This appears only as a lucky coincidence if you haven't understood evolution (or misunderstood Darwin in popular ways). Although the analytic western way of thinking favors to consider systems separately, preferably in the dysfunctional state of being deconstructed to its basic elements.
The species that exist today exist today because they managed to coexist best. The term ecosystem describes this interdependency of species precisely, yet the sanitised nature patches in the crowded cities of this planet make the complexity of ecosystems hard to fathom, especially on a global scale.
The information age provided a power boost for the dichotomy meme. One and zero, the binary division of the world showed its supremacy by the digitization we experience nowadays. If computers operate binary, and can do so many things, maybe life is just black and white? 1 = humanity, 0 = nature?
The way some people treat our planet demonstrates that this mind set exists, and an elaborate set of laws protects their business interests against greedy mother nature. Deliberately destroying parts of our life support system seems foolish, but rationality has not the strongest influence on human behaviour.
The idea that evolution has a winner, like a competition, distracts from the amazing ways of cooperation between species. The "us or them" meme still goes strong. Once we lost the from God appointed position as owner of planet, we might end our siege of nature as well.
These wonderful memes gained a stronger influence to the human mind during the Age of Enlightenment, and enjoy still overwhelming popularity. Yet, reality looks more like a zoom through an fractal landscape than the still life science dares to study.
The mind, the tool that allows awareness of the connectedness of life, suffers from neglect of scientific observations. Even psychology withdrew from William James idea of introspection to the creation of endless scales and methods to measure electric and chemical activity.
Our emotions, modern psychology tells us, sit in the amygdala, which controls our emotion by sending out neurotransmitters. The DNA holds the blueprint for these neurotransmitters, which are composed out of set twenty different amino acids. If we find ways to chemically or electromagnetically influence the brain, we can manipulate behaviour. If we look closely enough we might even identity the genetic origin of undesirable traits.
Unfortunately this implies that psychology has reached a stage of dogmatism, in which dogmas from neighboring disciplines slip through the filter of skepticism. A lot of biologists still adhere to genetic determinism, and have rather strange ideas about evolution. Our genes, however can only yield any influence on your development in the right environment.
Yet the soulless idea of a biochemical automaton fits nicely into lack of concept of the human mind that psychology so desperately evades. The human mind, however, commands a community of about 50 trillion cells, each one organised into labor sharing components.
Each cell reacts on its environment, and functions for the common greater good. In a balanced and resourceful environment each cell can theoretically produce any protein coded in its DNA. Science has no interest in finding out why which protein gets produced, as it lacks interest in exploring evolution without the preposterous assumpting that mankind is its pinnacle.
Genes are a wonderful thing, and without them the world would look differently. But like anything alive, taken on its own, without embedding them into a proper environment, nothing will happen. That inherent limitation of genetic engineering does not stop scientists from conducting experience with our perma-evolving biosphere.
Nature and nurture don't compete about their influence to create another living being with an individual set of patterns of behaviour, they cooperate. We can certainly find competitive elements in the way natural systems interact, but self-organisation and cooperation dominate in the game of life.
We live on a spot of universe that provides an abundant excess of energy. Chlorophyll converts this energy, and makes it available for other life forms. The sun provided enough entropy for the primordial soup to cook up life, and sustained it in an abundant variety for billions of time our planet spun around it.
The dependency on this complex, solar-power driven universal life support system becomes more apparent when we try to escape from it. Although the spherical structure of our planet still makes many minds spin, some people dreamt about living on the moon or even on mars, which unlike our planet, have no atmosphere. Our habit of breathing oxygen depends on the primary solar energy converters, that not only provide the basis for chemical energy conversion but only conveniently produce this gas so important for our metabolism.
This appears only as a lucky coincidence if you haven't understood evolution (or misunderstood Darwin in popular ways). Although the analytic western way of thinking favors to consider systems separately, preferably in the dysfunctional state of being deconstructed to its basic elements.
The species that exist today exist today because they managed to coexist best. The term ecosystem describes this interdependency of species precisely, yet the sanitised nature patches in the crowded cities of this planet make the complexity of ecosystems hard to fathom, especially on a global scale.
The information age provided a power boost for the dichotomy meme. One and zero, the binary division of the world showed its supremacy by the digitization we experience nowadays. If computers operate binary, and can do so many things, maybe life is just black and white? 1 = humanity, 0 = nature?
The way some people treat our planet demonstrates that this mind set exists, and an elaborate set of laws protects their business interests against greedy mother nature. Deliberately destroying parts of our life support system seems foolish, but rationality has not the strongest influence on human behaviour.
The idea that evolution has a winner, like a competition, distracts from the amazing ways of cooperation between species. The "us or them" meme still goes strong. Once we lost the from God appointed position as owner of planet, we might end our siege of nature as well.
behaviour cell cooperation energy environment evolution exist genetic human idea influence interest life mind nature planet produce psychology science species support system ways
created at TagCrowd.com
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Television, the drug of the nation. At least Michael Franti claimed this, first with the Beatniggs, then with the Disposable Heroes of HipHopcrisy. Of course I agree, although I enjoyed the tiny bubble of acceptable public TV programs, especially on SBS.
But since the demontage of the Australian mediascape by new legislation has begun, SBS joined the ranks of propaganda channels. Tonights program was about the most disappointing bulk of bullshit I ever saw on that channel.
As part of the Lost Worlds series the miracles of Jesus Christ unfolded again for the disbelieving eyes and minds. In docu-drama style the accounts of the apostels replayed on the screen, not as bloody and violently as in the Passion of Christ, but taken from the interesting question: Did JC really believe he was god?
This way of profiling a celebrity's life was supposed to bring the person Jesus Christ closer to our hearts, humanizing the Übermensch and messiah. And so it's not surprising that all sources used for this piece of junk came directly from the Vatican's most successful PR scam, the Holy Bible.
Why bother with the fact that none of four apostels ever encountered JC, as long as their account of Jesus' fondness with certain prophets explains his selfless death in psychologically compelling terms.
Why bother that Roman historians of JC's lifetime have ignored the man, that created so much unrest, and such a lasting phenomena. Instead, we find out that Jesus received his Godly mission straight while being baptised, went confused in isolation to be tempted by the devil, came back stronger and holier than before, although he used funny methods for exorcisms.
I don't mind that some people believe ancient books to be the literal words of a male threatening metaphysical Überbeing. A lot of people in the Western World believe to life in democracy, so delusional believes seem to reflect the normal functioning of human minds (statistically speaking).
But it's a mystery to me how this advertisement for Christianity made it into a series of archeological documentaries. The attempts to maintain certain myths of society become more and more ludicrous.
But since the demontage of the Australian mediascape by new legislation has begun, SBS joined the ranks of propaganda channels. Tonights program was about the most disappointing bulk of bullshit I ever saw on that channel.
As part of the Lost Worlds series the miracles of Jesus Christ unfolded again for the disbelieving eyes and minds. In docu-drama style the accounts of the apostels replayed on the screen, not as bloody and violently as in the Passion of Christ, but taken from the interesting question: Did JC really believe he was god?
This way of profiling a celebrity's life was supposed to bring the person Jesus Christ closer to our hearts, humanizing the Übermensch and messiah. And so it's not surprising that all sources used for this piece of junk came directly from the Vatican's most successful PR scam, the Holy Bible.
Why bother with the fact that none of four apostels ever encountered JC, as long as their account of Jesus' fondness with certain prophets explains his selfless death in psychologically compelling terms.
Why bother that Roman historians of JC's lifetime have ignored the man, that created so much unrest, and such a lasting phenomena. Instead, we find out that Jesus received his Godly mission straight while being baptised, went confused in isolation to be tempted by the devil, came back stronger and holier than before, although he used funny methods for exorcisms.
I don't mind that some people believe ancient books to be the literal words of a male threatening metaphysical Überbeing. A lot of people in the Western World believe to life in democracy, so delusional believes seem to reflect the normal functioning of human minds (statistically speaking).
But it's a mystery to me how this advertisement for Christianity made it into a series of archeological documentaries. The attempts to maintain certain myths of society become more and more ludicrous.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
20 cents to save Australia
The elections are getting closer, and so the fear level has to be increased on the expense of tax-payers again. While there was a pleasant break during wintertime in broadcasting and advertising of the "Snitch on your neighbors" campaign, it has become more popular again.
Even though Australia has still not been hit a terrorist attack (which isn't too surprising, as Europe and the US not only have massively more inhabitants, but are way more present in the global media than the funny island down under), Australians are encouraged to be suspicious about their neighbors, and report to their "terror hotline", even anonymous, if desired.
I know someone, who actively works against democracy, meets regularly with foreign terror suspects, and is involved in spreading fear throughout Australia. His name is Philip Ruddock, General Attorney of Australia. His disrespect for democracy is so appalling that I encourage anyone to spend 20 cents to ring up Australia's "terror" hotline from a phone booth and tip him off anonymously.
I would suggest using a public phone, probably in a side road and out of sight of traffic surveillance cameras. Depending on the fun that might arise from fulfilling your duties as a responsible citizen to tip off this brazen enemy of free speech, the rule of law and democracy, it might be still a good idea to vary the locations from which you call 1800 123400 to raise your concern about this terrorist mastermind.
If you like the idea, spread the word. As we can see with the corruption scandal of the Victorian Police, being in an important position doesn't make you morally superior or prevents you from being a crook. Together we can stop Philip Ruddock from spreading terror in Australia, let's do it!
It's free (1800 number), it's fun and it means you care about your community.
The elections are getting closer, and so the fear level has to be increased on the expense of tax-payers again. While there was a pleasant break during wintertime in broadcasting and advertising of the "Snitch on your neighbors" campaign, it has become more popular again.
Even though Australia has still not been hit a terrorist attack (which isn't too surprising, as Europe and the US not only have massively more inhabitants, but are way more present in the global media than the funny island down under), Australians are encouraged to be suspicious about their neighbors, and report to their "terror hotline", even anonymous, if desired.
I know someone, who actively works against democracy, meets regularly with foreign terror suspects, and is involved in spreading fear throughout Australia. His name is Philip Ruddock, General Attorney of Australia. His disrespect for democracy is so appalling that I encourage anyone to spend 20 cents to ring up Australia's "terror" hotline from a phone booth and tip him off anonymously.
I would suggest using a public phone, probably in a side road and out of sight of traffic surveillance cameras. Depending on the fun that might arise from fulfilling your duties as a responsible citizen to tip off this brazen enemy of free speech, the rule of law and democracy, it might be still a good idea to vary the locations from which you call 1800 123400 to raise your concern about this terrorist mastermind.
If you like the idea, spread the word. As we can see with the corruption scandal of the Victorian Police, being in an important position doesn't make you morally superior or prevents you from being a crook. Together we can stop Philip Ruddock from spreading terror in Australia, let's do it!
It's free (1800 number), it's fun and it means you care about your community.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Somehow I started thinking about Australian values. Maybe it's because of the election time, maybe it's because of some remarkable statements by the PM of this country.
Richard Pratt, the Australian billionaire, confessed to price fixing together with the second supplier of the goods Mr. Prick sells. He feels bad about ripping off virtually every Australian, because he got caught. Even thought he used, in the good old drug dealer style, prepaid phones and secret locations for his nefarious negotiations.
Mr. Leader Howard steps in. As PM he is used to screw the Australian population (GST for the high life of dole bludging backbenchers!!!!), so he takes sides. Mr. Pratt is an honarary citizen of this country, even though in most nations he would end up in jail, while Dr. Haneef, who cares about the health of Australians, even though he is none, is chased away.
What do we learn from this? Government without control is tyranny. We screwed you, so what? We make the laws, so that we can screw you as much as like, and you even have to pay for it. Go to China, if you don't like it. Go fast, because if you don't shut up, you're a bloody terrorist and we send you to Christmas Island.
Even though it might change their attitude, I wouldn't want to send Johnny, Peter and Kevin to Guantanamo. Ditch them in the middle of their 'native' country. Their ancestors gloriously survived by living in cities, while committing genocide to the two-legged animals in Australia, so they know how to take the hardship of the land they raped and chose to live in.
If they manage to survive the desert, and have acquired private health care and a private pension while being there, we might welcome them back to the community. If not, they can inspect their investment of tax payers money in Christmas Island for the rest of their time.
But then, most people like being sheep. And so they truly believe things change, when another high-level dole bludger becomes PM. What on earth drove me to this jingoistic country? Anyway, the country that owns me isn't much better, so it doesn't really make a difference where i experience the advent of global tyranny.
Richard Pratt, the Australian billionaire, confessed to price fixing together with the second supplier of the goods Mr. Prick sells. He feels bad about ripping off virtually every Australian, because he got caught. Even thought he used, in the good old drug dealer style, prepaid phones and secret locations for his nefarious negotiations.
Mr. Leader Howard steps in. As PM he is used to screw the Australian population (GST for the high life of dole bludging backbenchers!!!!), so he takes sides. Mr. Pratt is an honarary citizen of this country, even though in most nations he would end up in jail, while Dr. Haneef, who cares about the health of Australians, even though he is none, is chased away.
What do we learn from this? Government without control is tyranny. We screwed you, so what? We make the laws, so that we can screw you as much as like, and you even have to pay for it. Go to China, if you don't like it. Go fast, because if you don't shut up, you're a bloody terrorist and we send you to Christmas Island.
Even though it might change their attitude, I wouldn't want to send Johnny, Peter and Kevin to Guantanamo. Ditch them in the middle of their 'native' country. Their ancestors gloriously survived by living in cities, while committing genocide to the two-legged animals in Australia, so they know how to take the hardship of the land they raped and chose to live in.
If they manage to survive the desert, and have acquired private health care and a private pension while being there, we might welcome them back to the community. If not, they can inspect their investment of tax payers money in Christmas Island for the rest of their time.
But then, most people like being sheep. And so they truly believe things change, when another high-level dole bludger becomes PM. What on earth drove me to this jingoistic country? Anyway, the country that owns me isn't much better, so it doesn't really make a difference where i experience the advent of global tyranny.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
For all that we see or seem,
is just a meme within a meme.
Fundamentalist atheist Richard Dawkins defines meme as a unit of cultural information. Simpler said: memes construct the consensus reality of groups of people. Any abstract concept can only be expressed as meme, my favorite linguistic tool of consciousness. A meme looks a bit like an idea, but while ideas are attributed to individuals, memes gain their importance by collective use.
A group of correlated memes builds a memeplex. For example, the bible and the organisations operating with reference to this book make up the christian memeplex. Memeplexes help organising knowledge about areas without personal exposure, as well as they help integrating individual experiences into the fabric of society.
Like genes, memes mutate and adapt to their environments. Their lifetime and rate of mutation exceeds that of individual human genes, and compares most likely best to viral characteristics. Memeplexes might morph significantly by exchanging large numbers of individual memes without compromising the pseudo integrity of the memeplex. Political parties and their connected ideological memeplexes demonstrate this memetic malleability on a regular basis.
Fruits of scientific research, spiritual experiences and group interactions shape memes and vice versa. Memes provide the mental glue for society, shared beliefs about the physical and metaphysical world. Memes sometimes try to describe truth and objective reality, but we have no proof that these memes (truth and objective reality) correlate to anything existing in nature.
Yet memes don't grow on trees, some of them have been carefully crafted to fulfill very specific purposes. Memes are transported by language and art. This makes media in its various occurrences to the primary maintainer and distributor of memes. Who ever controls the media, can influence the propagated memes.
In tribal societies, song, dance and paintings provided the medium for memetic survival. These societies have not met the memes of human superiority and ownership of nature, which made them in the eyes of British colonialists in need to be civilised. Parasitic strata of society like politicians and military require a wealthy society with a weakening dominating memeplex to establish the memetic and physical takeover of communities, counties, countries and finally the entire planet.
Control over humans derives from the design of social norms and their active promotion as dominating memeplex through the available media of any given time. Many people still believe that some sort of natural laws justify the hierarchical structures of societies. Shifting their perspective towards the understanding that hierarchical organisation is only one potential meme to structure society might ease the process of retransformation into a community based species.
Although every human is equipped to learn a language, most of us are rather consumers than creators of memes. The distribution of memes has for a long time been a privilege of the dominator class, which has adapted and morphed local memes into the dominator memeplex. However, even though the commoners had a little chance to act against the memetic domination throughout history, local memes could easily survive.
The time of memetic dominance has ended with the information age. The multitude of interpretations of individual group and events offer the freedom to chose your memetic make up, to customize your mental skin. Tear the matrix apart. Stop being deceived.
Knowledge and information appear overwhelming to some people, who have otherwise no problem recalling "facts" about the life of film, tv or sport celebrities. The concepts of memes offers a way to organise knowledge, the knowledge about ways to organise knowledge, and a way to remove mental debris systematically (plus maybe at least three other things I can't recall right now).
The memetic revolution follows along two pathways: deconstruction and construction. The language of the dominating classes perpetuates harmful memes, which need deconstruction. A comprehensible language for the functioning of the meme machine mind needs construction. Experience isn't the byproduct of life, it's the essence.
construction deconstruction dominating experiences group hierarchical human individual information knowledge language life memeplex memes memetic mental objective offer organise people provide reality society
created at TagCrowd.com
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The terror attacks of September 11 2001 mark the beginning of a new era in global politics. The United States, sole global superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union, did not act as global role model for the "End of History", like Francis Fukuyama suggested after the end of the Cold War, but was faced with a new enemy.
During the Cold War, the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) by the use of nuclear weapons prevented the US and USSR from engaging in an open war, as such a war, even if done pre-emptively, was considered suicidal. Instead, both superpowers fought proxy wars in places like Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan.
The Post-Cold-War era was far from being peaceful. The US engaged 1991 in wars in Iraq and 1999 in Kosovo, and suffered from terror attacks on the WTC in 1993 and on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. However, restrictions of civil liberties didn't take place after these attacks, at least not on a global scale.
That changed after the 911 attacks. 6 weeks later President Bush signed Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, known as Patriot Act, and its western allies have enacted similar legislation since then. Canada and the UK introduced new anti-terrorism legislation at the end of 2001, the European Union passed similar legislation in 2003. Australia followed suit in 2004, just after the train bombings in Madrid.
However, the anti-terrorism laws failed to act as deterrent. Terror attacks happened in Bali in 2002 and 2005, in Madrid 2004, in London 2005 and in Mumbai 2006. The icon of 21st century terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, has not been captured, but numerous people ended up in dubious prisons like Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects, without the presumption of innocence or legal representation.
The anti-terror legislation does not only affect terror suspects, but all citizens. Security checks at airports have increased, several countries plan to introduce ID cards with biometrical information, people have been banned from boarding planes for expressing their opinion by wearing t-shirts with political messages.
Yet some consequences are less palpable. Surveillance has been made much easier and CCTV camera became ubiquitous in public spaces. The increased security measures require more funding, so that more taxpayer's money is spend on the war on terror. This essay evaluates the phenomenon of 21st century terrorism, the reaction of state actors to it and the consequences for civil liberties.
Terrorism is not a new strategy, yet the scale of the 911 attacks is certainly unprecedented. The images of destruction and the high number of casualties reminded of war, brought by global communication networks to living rooms all across the planet. Although wars in the traditional meaning involve state actors, the US administration considered the terror attacks as an act of war and reacted accordingly.
Five days after 911 President Bush said:
The American president kept his promise, and being a neo-conservative (realist) he waged two traditional wars that still linger on. Afghanistan was invaded on October 5 2001, three weeks before the Patriot Act was signed, and the Iraq invasion began on March 20 2002.
Although these wars were announced as part of the Global War On Terror, they fit into the strategies of neo-conservatives in the US which were devised well before 911. The neo-conservative think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), founded in 1997, urged President Clinton 1998 in an open letter to complete the unfinished business in Iraq and to impose a regime change.
Ten out of 18 signatories of this open letter became part of the Bush administration, but their influence did not end there. PNAC released in 2000 the strategy paper Rebuilding America's Defenses, which stresses the importance of increasing the US' influence in Central Asia and the Middle East, maintaining America's unique position as a dominant military power, the need for further militarisation and pre-emptive action.
However, by the time the document was released, threats like terrorism and rogue states were not considered as grave danger for the US, which could justify a massive increase in military spending.
The "new Pearl Harbor" happened on September 11 2001, and consequently key issues of Rebuilding America's Defenses like unilateralism, pre-emptive warfare and increase in military spending, became part of President Bush's National Security Strategy.
Especially the war in Iraq, a unilateral move of the US without legitimation from the United Nations Security Council, has raised a lot of criticism. More Americans have been killed in Iraq than on 911, and the torture affair of Abu Ghraib has tainted the US administration's claim to protect human rights.
With the Military Commisions Act of 2006 the US introduced the concept of illegal enemy combatant, a legal construct that denies suspects habeas corpus, allows for indefinite detention and denies the right of compensation for those who were held in error.
According to President Bush, the war on terror requires the need to arbitrarily detain people to CIA prisons outside the US, and withhold their basic human rights. However, two basic questions about global terrorism seem to be neglected whenever new anti-terror legislation is introduced: the efficiency of proposed changes in legislation, and the size of the problem of global terrorism.
Less than 4,000 people have been killed in the attacks in New York 2001, Bali 2002 and 2005, Madrid 2004, London 2005 and Mumbai 2006. Acts of terrorism, no matter how spectacular, are luckily rare events, and remain - statistically seen – a much less likely cause of death than suicide, traffic accidents, substance abuse or other lifestyle choices, not too mention an average of 25,000 people starving daily due to the imbalances of the global economic system.
The motivations of terrorism are difficult to study, as it is a rare phenomenon, and might find its origins in a diversity of local causes. The simplified rationale promoted the US government, that terrorisms primary goal is the destruction of western liberties, has not proven helpful in counteracting terrorism.
Yet without calling the 911 attacks an attempt to abolish the freedom of western countries, support for the unilateral war efforts of the US would have been unlikely. The 911 attacks can be understand as violent opposition against the US foreign policy in the Middle-East, and its support for Israel. The restrictions of civil rights by the introduction of anti-terror legislation eradicated a lot of liberties taken for granted in democratic societies.
The freedom to assemble, freedom of speech and the privacy of citizens have been severly restricted. If it was the aim of global terrorism to destroy western liberty, western governments have acted as an indispensable helper, and the war could end.
The increase in governmental power to spy on its citizens has not yet proven efficient, but more cases in which these powers were abused become known. The loss of civil liberties for those who disappear in secret CIA prisons is very apparent, yet even in Australia the rules of law have been suspended for terror suspects.
The first victim of the Australian anti-terror laws was Faheem Lodhi of Sydney, who was sent for 20 years into a high-security prison.
This stand against terrorism meant that Lodhi was sentenced for a thought crime – he did not commit any acts of terrorism, nor were an concrete plans for a terror attack found. His crime consisted of knowing another terror suspect, having maps of Sydney's electricity grip and a copy of an internet pamphlet describing how to build bombs.
The presumption of innocence was not used in this case, he was sent to jail for a possible future intention. The latest victim of the terrorist hunt is Dr. Haneef, a Brisbane doctor who is a distant cousin of someone linked to the failed terror attacks in Glasgow in July 2007. Dr. Haneef was detained without charge for 20 days, lost his working visa and can't return to Australia, although no proof of any terrorist activity could be found.
Once someone gets in the spotlight of any suspicion of terrorism, basic rights will be revoked. Political activists were banned from participating in protests against the G8 conference in Germany and the APEC conference in Sydney, even with a clean legal record.
The idea of pre-emptive activity has spread from warfare to jurisdiction, with dire consequences not only for terror suspects, but for any citizen. Entire areas in Sydney were blocked from public access, demonstration in front of the security fence were not permitted. The $170 million spend for APEC's security did not prevent the team from ABC's show Chaser – War on everything to enter the security perimeter with a faked motorcade.
The ABC comedians did not expect to succeed with their prank, yet they demonstrated the illusion of absolute security. The Australian taxpayers had to pay the bill for the APEC conference, while not even being allowed to show their dissent.
Conclusion
Terrorism became an ubiquitous news item since 911, although terror acts remain rare events. The war on terror reaped the lives of hundred thousands people in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hasn't achieved any of its nominal goals.
Terrorism certainly poses a risk to society, but the size of this risk seems grossly exaggerated in comparison to other challenges the globalised world faces. The war on terror, however, cannot be won, and will last forever, or unless citizens demand from their governments to stop it. Terror is a concept, not an enemy, and using the phrase "war on terror" is not only semantic nonsense, but also distracts from the casualties this war has produced so far.
Yet as long as the "war on terror" continues, the removal of civil liberties is unlikely to be reversed. Especially the restrictions for demonstrations severely impaired the ability for citizens to influence the political process and the public opinion, both vital components of healthy democracies.
The restrictions of civil rights are less visible than the terrible images of destructions following terror acts, but they affect far more people than those acts, at least by the way their taxes are spend. Acts of terrorism, however, are basically criminal acts with an untypical motivation. The experience with the legal system shows that laws cannot prevent crime, yet this idea is suggested by the battery of new anti-terror legislation.
Terrorists can take life, but they cannot change the legal system of societies, only governments can do this. If they primary goal of "global terrorism" is the abolition of freedom in democratic societies, governments acted as their accomplices with the introduction of anti-terror legislations. Civil liberties have never been granted deliberately by governments, most of them have been fought for with democratic means, which are on the brink of becoming illegal.
During the Cold War, the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) by the use of nuclear weapons prevented the US and USSR from engaging in an open war, as such a war, even if done pre-emptively, was considered suicidal. Instead, both superpowers fought proxy wars in places like Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan.
The Post-Cold-War era was far from being peaceful. The US engaged 1991 in wars in Iraq and 1999 in Kosovo, and suffered from terror attacks on the WTC in 1993 and on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. However, restrictions of civil liberties didn't take place after these attacks, at least not on a global scale.
That changed after the 911 attacks. 6 weeks later President Bush signed Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, known as Patriot Act, and its western allies have enacted similar legislation since then. Canada and the UK introduced new anti-terrorism legislation at the end of 2001, the European Union passed similar legislation in 2003. Australia followed suit in 2004, just after the train bombings in Madrid.
However, the anti-terrorism laws failed to act as deterrent. Terror attacks happened in Bali in 2002 and 2005, in Madrid 2004, in London 2005 and in Mumbai 2006. The icon of 21st century terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, has not been captured, but numerous people ended up in dubious prisons like Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects, without the presumption of innocence or legal representation.
The anti-terror legislation does not only affect terror suspects, but all citizens. Security checks at airports have increased, several countries plan to introduce ID cards with biometrical information, people have been banned from boarding planes for expressing their opinion by wearing t-shirts with political messages.
Yet some consequences are less palpable. Surveillance has been made much easier and CCTV camera became ubiquitous in public spaces. The increased security measures require more funding, so that more taxpayer's money is spend on the war on terror. This essay evaluates the phenomenon of 21st century terrorism, the reaction of state actors to it and the consequences for civil liberties.
Terrorism is not a new strategy, yet the scale of the 911 attacks is certainly unprecedented. The images of destruction and the high number of casualties reminded of war, brought by global communication networks to living rooms all across the planet. Although wars in the traditional meaning involve state actors, the US administration considered the terror attacks as an act of war and reacted accordingly.
Five days after 911 President Bush said:
"As I said yesterday, people have declared war on America, and they have made a terrible mistake, because this is a fabulous country. … This is a new kind of -- a new kind of evil. …. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."
The American president kept his promise, and being a neo-conservative (realist) he waged two traditional wars that still linger on. Afghanistan was invaded on October 5 2001, three weeks before the Patriot Act was signed, and the Iraq invasion began on March 20 2002.
Although these wars were announced as part of the Global War On Terror, they fit into the strategies of neo-conservatives in the US which were devised well before 911. The neo-conservative think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), founded in 1997, urged President Clinton 1998 in an open letter to complete the unfinished business in Iraq and to impose a regime change.
Ten out of 18 signatories of this open letter became part of the Bush administration, but their influence did not end there. PNAC released in 2000 the strategy paper Rebuilding America's Defenses, which stresses the importance of increasing the US' influence in Central Asia and the Middle East, maintaining America's unique position as a dominant military power, the need for further militarisation and pre-emptive action.
However, by the time the document was released, threats like terrorism and rogue states were not considered as grave danger for the US, which could justify a massive increase in military spending.
„[T]he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".
The "new Pearl Harbor" happened on September 11 2001, and consequently key issues of Rebuilding America's Defenses like unilateralism, pre-emptive warfare and increase in military spending, became part of President Bush's National Security Strategy.
Especially the war in Iraq, a unilateral move of the US without legitimation from the United Nations Security Council, has raised a lot of criticism. More Americans have been killed in Iraq than on 911, and the torture affair of Abu Ghraib has tainted the US administration's claim to protect human rights.
With the Military Commisions Act of 2006 the US introduced the concept of illegal enemy combatant, a legal construct that denies suspects habeas corpus, allows for indefinite detention and denies the right of compensation for those who were held in error.
According to President Bush, the war on terror requires the need to arbitrarily detain people to CIA prisons outside the US, and withhold their basic human rights. However, two basic questions about global terrorism seem to be neglected whenever new anti-terror legislation is introduced: the efficiency of proposed changes in legislation, and the size of the problem of global terrorism.
Less than 4,000 people have been killed in the attacks in New York 2001, Bali 2002 and 2005, Madrid 2004, London 2005 and Mumbai 2006. Acts of terrorism, no matter how spectacular, are luckily rare events, and remain - statistically seen – a much less likely cause of death than suicide, traffic accidents, substance abuse or other lifestyle choices, not too mention an average of 25,000 people starving daily due to the imbalances of the global economic system.
The motivations of terrorism are difficult to study, as it is a rare phenomenon, and might find its origins in a diversity of local causes. The simplified rationale promoted the US government, that terrorisms primary goal is the destruction of western liberties, has not proven helpful in counteracting terrorism.
Yet without calling the 911 attacks an attempt to abolish the freedom of western countries, support for the unilateral war efforts of the US would have been unlikely. The 911 attacks can be understand as violent opposition against the US foreign policy in the Middle-East, and its support for Israel. The restrictions of civil rights by the introduction of anti-terror legislation eradicated a lot of liberties taken for granted in democratic societies.
The freedom to assemble, freedom of speech and the privacy of citizens have been severly restricted. If it was the aim of global terrorism to destroy western liberty, western governments have acted as an indispensable helper, and the war could end.
The increase in governmental power to spy on its citizens has not yet proven efficient, but more cases in which these powers were abused become known. The loss of civil liberties for those who disappear in secret CIA prisons is very apparent, yet even in Australia the rules of law have been suspended for terror suspects.
The first victim of the Australian anti-terror laws was Faheem Lodhi of Sydney, who was sent for 20 years into a high-security prison.
"Justice Anthony Whealy said while there was little case law to guide him, the courts must take a stand against terrorism."
This stand against terrorism meant that Lodhi was sentenced for a thought crime – he did not commit any acts of terrorism, nor were an concrete plans for a terror attack found. His crime consisted of knowing another terror suspect, having maps of Sydney's electricity grip and a copy of an internet pamphlet describing how to build bombs.
The presumption of innocence was not used in this case, he was sent to jail for a possible future intention. The latest victim of the terrorist hunt is Dr. Haneef, a Brisbane doctor who is a distant cousin of someone linked to the failed terror attacks in Glasgow in July 2007. Dr. Haneef was detained without charge for 20 days, lost his working visa and can't return to Australia, although no proof of any terrorist activity could be found.
Once someone gets in the spotlight of any suspicion of terrorism, basic rights will be revoked. Political activists were banned from participating in protests against the G8 conference in Germany and the APEC conference in Sydney, even with a clean legal record.
The idea of pre-emptive activity has spread from warfare to jurisdiction, with dire consequences not only for terror suspects, but for any citizen. Entire areas in Sydney were blocked from public access, demonstration in front of the security fence were not permitted. The $170 million spend for APEC's security did not prevent the team from ABC's show Chaser – War on everything to enter the security perimeter with a faked motorcade.
The ABC comedians did not expect to succeed with their prank, yet they demonstrated the illusion of absolute security. The Australian taxpayers had to pay the bill for the APEC conference, while not even being allowed to show their dissent.
Conclusion
Terrorism became an ubiquitous news item since 911, although terror acts remain rare events. The war on terror reaped the lives of hundred thousands people in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hasn't achieved any of its nominal goals.
Terrorism certainly poses a risk to society, but the size of this risk seems grossly exaggerated in comparison to other challenges the globalised world faces. The war on terror, however, cannot be won, and will last forever, or unless citizens demand from their governments to stop it. Terror is a concept, not an enemy, and using the phrase "war on terror" is not only semantic nonsense, but also distracts from the casualties this war has produced so far.
Yet as long as the "war on terror" continues, the removal of civil liberties is unlikely to be reversed. Especially the restrictions for demonstrations severely impaired the ability for citizens to influence the political process and the public opinion, both vital components of healthy democracies.
The restrictions of civil rights are less visible than the terrible images of destructions following terror acts, but they affect far more people than those acts, at least by the way their taxes are spend. Acts of terrorism, however, are basically criminal acts with an untypical motivation. The experience with the legal system shows that laws cannot prevent crime, yet this idea is suggested by the battery of new anti-terror legislation.
Terrorists can take life, but they cannot change the legal system of societies, only governments can do this. If they primary goal of "global terrorism" is the abolition of freedom in democratic societies, governments acted as their accomplices with the introduction of anti-terror legislations. Civil liberties have never been granted deliberately by governments, most of them have been fought for with democratic means, which are on the brink of becoming illegal.
'In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs that fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, "just to keep the people frightened".'(Orwell, 1984)
acts against america anti-terror attacks citizens civil global governments however iraq laws legislation less liberties people president restrictions security suspects terror war western
created at TagCrowd.com
Friday, October 12, 2007
Cunningly surreal reconciliation. Cool shit rap. Thank you, John Howard, you're the man. The man without any moral, a sycophant toward big money, a mate towards his filthy rich friends and a leader.
Mr Howard seems to know that he would never pass the character requirements set up by Kevin "Heinrich" Andrews, so he preemptively takes sides of those billionaires that funded there wealth by screwing their customers.
However, it is understandable that Howard has sympathy for a high-level dole bludger like Pratt or Kerry Packer. He himself is busy disguising his utter uselessness, or rather maintaining the myth of the need for a "leader".
But now, after initiating the next land grab from the hands of their original custodians, rewriting Australian history to make it literally more white, Mr. John coconut Howard considers contemplating reconciliation with the Aboriginal people.
From a psychological point of view, Howard is either a pathological liar or has an extremly distorted perception of reality, traits certainly shared with his opponent. Pratt screwed his customers, abusing his position of power, lauded by Howard, occupying the position of highest political power.
So this "leader" openly shows his disrepect for his voters by sanctifying high level business crimes, as well as he continues the occupation of terra nullius by handing out mining right in the Northern Territory to Areva.
In the style of a fascist dictator he openly asks to rewrite history books and teach the whitewashed version of the Australian genocide success story. And if he continues to act out like a little Mussolini, John Australian Values Howard will be reelected.
Mr Howard seems to know that he would never pass the character requirements set up by Kevin "Heinrich" Andrews, so he preemptively takes sides of those billionaires that funded there wealth by screwing their customers.
However, it is understandable that Howard has sympathy for a high-level dole bludger like Pratt or Kerry Packer. He himself is busy disguising his utter uselessness, or rather maintaining the myth of the need for a "leader".
But now, after initiating the next land grab from the hands of their original custodians, rewriting Australian history to make it literally more white, Mr. John coconut Howard considers contemplating reconciliation with the Aboriginal people.
From a psychological point of view, Howard is either a pathological liar or has an extremly distorted perception of reality, traits certainly shared with his opponent. Pratt screwed his customers, abusing his position of power, lauded by Howard, occupying the position of highest political power.
So this "leader" openly shows his disrepect for his voters by sanctifying high level business crimes, as well as he continues the occupation of terra nullius by handing out mining right in the Northern Territory to Areva.
In the style of a fascist dictator he openly asks to rewrite history books and teach the whitewashed version of the Australian genocide success story. And if he continues to act out like a little Mussolini, John Australian Values Howard will be reelected.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Obsessions come and go, some rigid, some flow. Technology attracts many people. I cannot resists its temptation, still believing in the opportunity of an utopian society. Technology fostered ephemeralization, getting more out of less, which creates an average wealth unknown from our limited historical perspective.
Although governments use technology for surveillance and control, spreading mobile communication widely around offers new opportunities to organise. The Internet has become a vital tool to coordinate resistance, wireless access can help leaving less traces.
Melbourne Wireless want to provide free community broadband network access, like some nice people that provide open access to passersby. I'm pretty sure the DS will help me massively tapping into this ethereal resources. However, this will involve reviving old coding skills. I can see heaps of networks, I just can't connect as yet... which is annoying.
Now for something completely different: Moore's Law will finance the revolution.
Although governments use technology for surveillance and control, spreading mobile communication widely around offers new opportunities to organise. The Internet has become a vital tool to coordinate resistance, wireless access can help leaving less traces.
Melbourne Wireless want to provide free community broadband network access, like some nice people that provide open access to passersby. I'm pretty sure the DS will help me massively tapping into this ethereal resources. However, this will involve reviving old coding skills. I can see heaps of networks, I just can't connect as yet... which is annoying.
Now for something completely different: Moore's Law will finance the revolution.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Two weeks after I acquired my latest gizmo, a Nintendo DS, the hacking kit arrived in the mail. I already had a 2GB Micro SD compatible with the SuperCard Lite, ready to go with Romloader and DSLinux.
I was a bit surprised when I opened the package as I finally realised what I ordered. The SuperCard Lite and the NinjaPass were fine, but I didn't get the X9 MicroSD reader, but a cheap looking flimsy one. The SuperCard works with MiniSD - something in my collection of portable memory I havent got yet.
With a preconfigured MicroSD card, two fresh 2GB Kingston MicroSDs, two Slot 2 booting devices, one Passkey (SuperKey) and a Slot 1 booting device (NinjaPass) I was ready to start testing and tasting delicious DS homebrew.
As yet, I have to figure out how to format the new MicroSDs. With an adapter I can use them in my cameras, and the cameras transfer the content okay, but there seems to be no proper filesystem on the card. Attached with the MicroSD reader I cannot see card nor format it via DiskUtil.
Finally I found the formatting option on my digital videocam, and again, the Finder offers to initialise an unreadable media, but DiskUtil gives only input/output with every formatting option.
Next try will be with the good old Ixus. Unfortunatly the Ixus doesn't mount its memory as disk but interacts with iPhoto, which limits the file upload opportunity. The Ixus software might be able to handle file transfers, but it only formats to 1gb. Let's see what will happen. Nuffing. Great.
No loader found is NinjaPass Response, let's see what happens once I put the loader via the videocam mount onto it... If this sounds a bit complicated, that's exactly how I think about it, and I course the inventors of the raw file format and such.
So I put the latest loader and a DSOrganise Version from their website on it, and now into the ninjapass.... Wicked. And stupid me. Or not? I can start into the Ninjapass, but DSOrganise just hangs about.
Let's see what the moonshell will do. Victory is mine!!!!!! The default speed setting is x4, I changed it to x3, and DSOrganise booted up fine. I will still try to format the card into something readable by the MicroSD reader and the Mac, it's less cumbersome than firing the camera up each time I want to tranfer files.
It's a bit strange that I can't set the default speed for the MicroSD card, I always have to manually set it to the right speed. However, even my first DSLinux kernel started up (woohoo!!!), although I can't log in right now (what's the default password again?).
So the happy homebrew session can begin, and customizing of the moonshell for example....
Absolutely awesome. The DS turns out to be a little wonder. I can even choose between running stuff from the NinjaPass or the supercard lite... means I can sell the superpass/supercard bundle to someone :) And the patched version of DSOrganise locates easily three APs in reach. I still have to figure out how to connect to the web, so far I had no luck.
The most important things to remember for me now:
I was a bit surprised when I opened the package as I finally realised what I ordered. The SuperCard Lite and the NinjaPass were fine, but I didn't get the X9 MicroSD reader, but a cheap looking flimsy one. The SuperCard works with MiniSD - something in my collection of portable memory I havent got yet.
With a preconfigured MicroSD card, two fresh 2GB Kingston MicroSDs, two Slot 2 booting devices, one Passkey (SuperKey) and a Slot 1 booting device (NinjaPass) I was ready to start testing and tasting delicious DS homebrew.
As yet, I have to figure out how to format the new MicroSDs. With an adapter I can use them in my cameras, and the cameras transfer the content okay, but there seems to be no proper filesystem on the card. Attached with the MicroSD reader I cannot see card nor format it via DiskUtil.
Finally I found the formatting option on my digital videocam, and again, the Finder offers to initialise an unreadable media, but DiskUtil gives only input/output with every formatting option.
Next try will be with the good old Ixus. Unfortunatly the Ixus doesn't mount its memory as disk but interacts with iPhoto, which limits the file upload opportunity. The Ixus software might be able to handle file transfers, but it only formats to 1gb. Let's see what will happen. Nuffing. Great.
No loader found is NinjaPass Response, let's see what happens once I put the loader via the videocam mount onto it... If this sounds a bit complicated, that's exactly how I think about it, and I course the inventors of the raw file format and such.
So I put the latest loader and a DSOrganise Version from their website on it, and now into the ninjapass.... Wicked. And stupid me. Or not? I can start into the Ninjapass, but DSOrganise just hangs about.
Let's see what the moonshell will do. Victory is mine!!!!!! The default speed setting is x4, I changed it to x3, and DSOrganise booted up fine. I will still try to format the card into something readable by the MicroSD reader and the Mac, it's less cumbersome than firing the camera up each time I want to tranfer files.
It's a bit strange that I can't set the default speed for the MicroSD card, I always have to manually set it to the right speed. However, even my first DSLinux kernel started up (woohoo!!!), although I can't log in right now (what's the default password again?).
So the happy homebrew session can begin, and customizing of the moonshell for example....
Absolutely awesome. The DS turns out to be a little wonder. I can even choose between running stuff from the NinjaPass or the supercard lite... means I can sell the superpass/supercard bundle to someone :) And the patched version of DSOrganise locates easily three APs in reach. I still have to figure out how to connect to the web, so far I had no luck.
The most important things to remember for me now:
- L/R and down start the slot-2 supercard lite (woohoo!!!)
- Homebrew needs to be patched with the NinjaPass
- GameSave is after reboot
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Emmanuel Goldstein is back, his beard darker than before. Just in time before the memorial of 911 yet another Osama Bin Laden video appeared somewhere in cyberspace, reminding us to be afraid.
The internets are dangerous, full of child abusers, cyber criminals and terrorists. Pedophiles, perverts and crooks hide in dark corners of the tubes that build the web, which we cannot trust. Just when the official evil mastermind of terror(tm) uses the web, it is automagically an authentic threat.
Terrorism makes stupid. Fear and rational thought are hardly compatible, and since 911 the word terror and its variations works as perfect trigger in most minds to switch off thinking.
A good example for this short-cut in reasoning is provided by Alex Doherty's "Britain's 9/11 "Truth Movement": Who's Responsible?" piece.
Doherty describes the 911 truth movement as a coherent group which agrees on a specific variant of possible explanations of the 911 events, just to assume generously that "there is no serious evidence that contradicts the standard account of what occurred on September 11."
He ignores the strongest argument of the 911 truth movement, that the official account is incomplete, contradictory and physically impossible, and simply fails to acknowledge that there is no serious evidence that supports the standard account, which is the 911 commission report.
Doherty then constructs a guilty by association argument. 911 truth is just like the JFK, Moon landing hoax or Bilderberg conspiracy theories, so just give them all a tin foil hat and get back to sleep. However, at least the Bilderberg group exists, which raises the first suspicion that Doherty's research was a bit oblique.
Doherty elegantly circumvents the cui bono question, and fails to give any rationale of Osama Bin Laden's benefit of the attacks. Instead, he gives further evidence how other governments like Russia's and China abused their fear paralysed populations.
Doherty's individual selection of topic of various theories leads then to "common sense" rebuttals, like the idea of how to keep governmental involvement secret. The easiest way to big secrets like this comes with group think. If you think that it is impossible for the earth to circle the sun, it remains the centre of the universe. If you assume that governments would never harm their populations, all related mechanism that would enable it become "impossible".
The final point of Doherty's argumentation compares then 911 and 7/7 theories to geniously concludes: 'The various 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracies are so ludicrously devoid of sense that one has to consider a "psychological explanation".' Now that's what I would call an elaborate way to construct a compelling ad hominem attack.
Well, I would call it devoid of sense to ignore that a 47 floor highriser fell neatly in about 7 seconds in its footprint. Dozens if not hundreds of cctv cameras could have seen a Boeing smashing into the Pentagon, it is devoid of sense to accept that this simple proof has not been provided yet. Of course, admitting that explosives brought down the Salomon Brothers Building, or that the object flying into the Pentagon didn't look like a passenger plane, opens an ugly can of worms.
However, a terrorist act is basically a crime with a special motivation. Killing people, blowing up things is illegal, like many other things that have nothing to do with terrorism. No kind of crime has ever been prevented by law, so what do we gain by introducing special laws for terrorism?
That depends on the "we" you count yourself to. As member of the ruling class you gain an easy way to suppress and punish dissent, and to protect your undeserved privileges. As regular citizen you gain exposure to fear-raising propaganda, and tax raises to finance the storage of your personal information.
The permanent talking point is presented with the notion "somebody's gotta do something about terrorism", which offers a perfect disguise for the abolition of civil rights, called anti-terror legislation.
The government cannot protect us from terror. It cannot protect us from drunk drivers. It cannot protect us from suicide. The government can punish drunk drivers and terrorists, and it can do so as good without special laws that turn citizens into slaves.
The internets are dangerous, full of child abusers, cyber criminals and terrorists. Pedophiles, perverts and crooks hide in dark corners of the tubes that build the web, which we cannot trust. Just when the official evil mastermind of terror(tm) uses the web, it is automagically an authentic threat.
Terrorism makes stupid. Fear and rational thought are hardly compatible, and since 911 the word terror and its variations works as perfect trigger in most minds to switch off thinking.
A good example for this short-cut in reasoning is provided by Alex Doherty's "Britain's 9/11 "Truth Movement": Who's Responsible?" piece.
Doherty describes the 911 truth movement as a coherent group which agrees on a specific variant of possible explanations of the 911 events, just to assume generously that "there is no serious evidence that contradicts the standard account of what occurred on September 11."
He ignores the strongest argument of the 911 truth movement, that the official account is incomplete, contradictory and physically impossible, and simply fails to acknowledge that there is no serious evidence that supports the standard account, which is the 911 commission report.
Doherty then constructs a guilty by association argument. 911 truth is just like the JFK, Moon landing hoax or Bilderberg conspiracy theories, so just give them all a tin foil hat and get back to sleep. However, at least the Bilderberg group exists, which raises the first suspicion that Doherty's research was a bit oblique.
Doherty elegantly circumvents the cui bono question, and fails to give any rationale of Osama Bin Laden's benefit of the attacks. Instead, he gives further evidence how other governments like Russia's and China abused their fear paralysed populations.
Doherty's individual selection of topic of various theories leads then to "common sense" rebuttals, like the idea of how to keep governmental involvement secret. The easiest way to big secrets like this comes with group think. If you think that it is impossible for the earth to circle the sun, it remains the centre of the universe. If you assume that governments would never harm their populations, all related mechanism that would enable it become "impossible".
The final point of Doherty's argumentation compares then 911 and 7/7 theories to geniously concludes: 'The various 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracies are so ludicrously devoid of sense that one has to consider a "psychological explanation".' Now that's what I would call an elaborate way to construct a compelling ad hominem attack.
Well, I would call it devoid of sense to ignore that a 47 floor highriser fell neatly in about 7 seconds in its footprint. Dozens if not hundreds of cctv cameras could have seen a Boeing smashing into the Pentagon, it is devoid of sense to accept that this simple proof has not been provided yet. Of course, admitting that explosives brought down the Salomon Brothers Building, or that the object flying into the Pentagon didn't look like a passenger plane, opens an ugly can of worms.
However, a terrorist act is basically a crime with a special motivation. Killing people, blowing up things is illegal, like many other things that have nothing to do with terrorism. No kind of crime has ever been prevented by law, so what do we gain by introducing special laws for terrorism?
That depends on the "we" you count yourself to. As member of the ruling class you gain an easy way to suppress and punish dissent, and to protect your undeserved privileges. As regular citizen you gain exposure to fear-raising propaganda, and tax raises to finance the storage of your personal information.
The permanent talking point is presented with the notion "somebody's gotta do something about terrorism", which offers a perfect disguise for the abolition of civil rights, called anti-terror legislation.
The government cannot protect us from terror. It cannot protect us from drunk drivers. It cannot protect us from suicide. The government can punish drunk drivers and terrorists, and it can do so as good without special laws that turn citizens into slaves.
account argument attack devoid doherty drunk evidence gain government group impossible laws movement osama protect raises sense special terrorism terrorists theories think truth
created at TagCrowd.com
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Will they fire me if I call in sick today?
A clearly dreary morning
My head pounds from the drink.
I'm praying for a good excuse
To lie in bed and think
I'll be right for the 12th tomorrow
If I can just sleep through today.
The september sun is burning
Labors prospect brings dismay.
But i've got work to do
That if I skip i'll get the sack.
I need a miracle
To get the suits up off my back.
So please god, a distraction.
Something big enough to set
The bosses sights upon the distance
and my tardieness forget.
The tv hurts my bloodshot eyes
The morning news I see
It seems that god granted my wish
This day belongs to me.
So thank you Eris goddess of discord
I see i'm truly blessed
I think of you as I close my eyes
And enjoy my hard earned rest.
(Thanx to Zacius)
A clearly dreary morning
My head pounds from the drink.
I'm praying for a good excuse
To lie in bed and think
I'll be right for the 12th tomorrow
If I can just sleep through today.
The september sun is burning
Labors prospect brings dismay.
But i've got work to do
That if I skip i'll get the sack.
I need a miracle
To get the suits up off my back.
So please god, a distraction.
Something big enough to set
The bosses sights upon the distance
and my tardieness forget.
The tv hurts my bloodshot eyes
The morning news I see
It seems that god granted my wish
This day belongs to me.
So thank you Eris goddess of discord
I see i'm truly blessed
I think of you as I close my eyes
And enjoy my hard earned rest.
created at TagCrowd.com
(Thanx to Zacius)
Monday, September 10, 2007
Blinded by science
Lost in the void of no-place and no-time
Crawling through trails laid of digital slime
Switching through endless connections
Weaving a random network of relations.
Diving in extended virtuality
Thriving in expanded spirituality
Swarming here, swarming there
while providing collective care.
The universe of possibilities
creates endless opportunities
Let your imagination run wild
to be the future's child.
All humans are born free -
is this so hard to see?
Lost in the void of no-place and no-time
Crawling through trails laid of digital slime
Switching through endless connections
Weaving a random network of relations.
Diving in extended virtuality
Thriving in expanded spirituality
Swarming here, swarming there
while providing collective care.
The universe of possibilities
creates endless opportunities
Let your imagination run wild
to be the future's child.
All humans are born free -
is this so hard to see?
collective connections creates diving endless future network possibilities providing relations swarming trails
created at TagCrowd.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)