While cruising through Brunswick, I noticed this signs of resistance. Life is not like on TV. Thinking for yourself doesn't (yet) harm. Art heals.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Saturday, September 08, 2007
The media landscape, especially TV and Hollywood, reinforce the idea of benevolent government. V for Vendetta dares to suggest that the government enacted terrorism on its people, the classic exemption from the rule. Brazil, Terry Gilliams modernized take on Orwell's 1984 shows us the madness of institutionalised data collection and terrorist hunting. The majority of stories, however, doesn't leave the magic framework of benevolent government.
In Hollywood, the bad guy could never win. On this planet, the bad guys still make the rules, disguised as infallibly good and sheltered by myths glorifying them. One of these rules forbids challenging the legitimacy of government and the extend of its powers.
The challenge happens nevertheless, especially if governments act very arbitrarily and obviously not in the interest of their populace. And governments, especially those which call themselves democratic, embrace this opposition to a certain degree.
Rebellion morphs into a consumerist stream, and feeds the democratic myth of the diversity of allowed opinions. This trend, among many others, can be observed, used, controlled and follows the patterns of a fashion trend more than those of direct action.
Even the Matrix or V for Vendetta offer nothing but a new messiah, the single bringer of hail who liberates us all. Although these movies help understanding the virtual nature of consensus reality, both retell the story of the mystical saviour.
I don't think that another Jesus will come and heal our blood-thirsty society. A single guy (or gal) would pose no threat to the clique of bad guys that run the planet. Unless he or she has some cool super powers, of course.
I don't think there is a 'red pill', either. Going through the rabbit hole, seeing through the matrix, does not happen instantly, it just starts a different way in which we perceive information. Insight takes time and requires experience, yet avoiding the matrix even temporarily proofs very difficult.
This explains partly the fascination and the success of cults. Anyone can show examples for the distorted media representation of reality, and provide an alternative reality. Well, it certainly requires some work to construct a convincing alternative reality, but Ron Hubbard did very successfully so not too long ago.
Most cults take good care of the influences from the rest of society and maintaining an alternate reality. The global dictators appear as meta-player in this game, providing the elements of the myth of normality. Instead of focussing on a singular explanation of reality the puppet masters use the diversity of opinion as main distraction from the search for inner truth.
The ideal slave creates its ever growing economic dependency by avid consumption, excused as attempt to express its identity. Taxes and inflation help consolidating common wealth in the pockets of a few bankers and their collaborators.
The bankers, or more specifically, those who maintain monetary policy and issue printed money, play a game in which they can only win. Meanwhile, they determine how much money circulates through the hand of those who created their parasitic wealth.
Most people keep themselves sufficiently busy with running after money or planning how to spend it. They consider money as something natural, and not as a tool in the grip of few people who use it shamelessly for their own good.
Money and its quasi god like status would suffer immensely when the nefarious character of its primary keepers becomes more obvious. Nobody can afford a better PR machinery than the global banking elite, and they easily make it into the editorial part as well. Not too mention their legal departments that could sue me to eternity for defamation as soon as I get specific.
A great deal of federal and international legislation protects the monopoly to print money and to lend it to the governments of this world. Creating and living a new currency system can demonstrate the validity of alternative approaches to deal with money. Once the current systematic redistribution of economic energy lost its flair of inevitability, the parasites can be held accountable, and largely disowned.
The appeal of the the mass illusion for the Western societies vanishes, yet the three pillars of suppression, government, corporation and banking system, remain for many holy cows. I still every now and then devour a tasty steak.
In Hollywood, the bad guy could never win. On this planet, the bad guys still make the rules, disguised as infallibly good and sheltered by myths glorifying them. One of these rules forbids challenging the legitimacy of government and the extend of its powers.
The challenge happens nevertheless, especially if governments act very arbitrarily and obviously not in the interest of their populace. And governments, especially those which call themselves democratic, embrace this opposition to a certain degree.
Rebellion morphs into a consumerist stream, and feeds the democratic myth of the diversity of allowed opinions. This trend, among many others, can be observed, used, controlled and follows the patterns of a fashion trend more than those of direct action.
Even the Matrix or V for Vendetta offer nothing but a new messiah, the single bringer of hail who liberates us all. Although these movies help understanding the virtual nature of consensus reality, both retell the story of the mystical saviour.
I don't think that another Jesus will come and heal our blood-thirsty society. A single guy (or gal) would pose no threat to the clique of bad guys that run the planet. Unless he or she has some cool super powers, of course.
I don't think there is a 'red pill', either. Going through the rabbit hole, seeing through the matrix, does not happen instantly, it just starts a different way in which we perceive information. Insight takes time and requires experience, yet avoiding the matrix even temporarily proofs very difficult.
This explains partly the fascination and the success of cults. Anyone can show examples for the distorted media representation of reality, and provide an alternative reality. Well, it certainly requires some work to construct a convincing alternative reality, but Ron Hubbard did very successfully so not too long ago.
Most cults take good care of the influences from the rest of society and maintaining an alternate reality. The global dictators appear as meta-player in this game, providing the elements of the myth of normality. Instead of focussing on a singular explanation of reality the puppet masters use the diversity of opinion as main distraction from the search for inner truth.
The ideal slave creates its ever growing economic dependency by avid consumption, excused as attempt to express its identity. Taxes and inflation help consolidating common wealth in the pockets of a few bankers and their collaborators.
The bankers, or more specifically, those who maintain monetary policy and issue printed money, play a game in which they can only win. Meanwhile, they determine how much money circulates through the hand of those who created their parasitic wealth.
Most people keep themselves sufficiently busy with running after money or planning how to spend it. They consider money as something natural, and not as a tool in the grip of few people who use it shamelessly for their own good.
Money and its quasi god like status would suffer immensely when the nefarious character of its primary keepers becomes more obvious. Nobody can afford a better PR machinery than the global banking elite, and they easily make it into the editorial part as well. Not too mention their legal departments that could sue me to eternity for defamation as soon as I get specific.
A great deal of federal and international legislation protects the monopoly to print money and to lend it to the governments of this world. Creating and living a new currency system can demonstrate the validity of alternative approaches to deal with money. Once the current systematic redistribution of economic energy lost its flair of inevitability, the parasites can be held accountable, and largely disowned.
The appeal of the the mass illusion for the Western societies vanishes, yet the three pillars of suppression, government, corporation and banking system, remain for many holy cows. I still every now and then devour a tasty steak.
alternative bad benevolent challenge created economic government guy happen maintain matrix money myth people print provide reality rules society story system vendetta wealth
created at TagCrowd.com
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Two powerful, interconnected myths prevent societies from justice and equal rights.
The myth of benevolent governments survives throughout history, mainly because the writers of history rarely tried to create an objective account of the past.
Most areas of history simply perpetuate the myth of the necessity of government. Historians rarely care about common people, and the various ways they suffered from the introduction of individual property and government.
This perspective fits perfectly to the attitude of the ruling class, which doesn't care about common people either. Commoners deserve no better than to finance their oppressors, and gain their handicapped position in society rightfully by birth.
Nobody would seriously doubt that most citizens were used and abused by their feudal governments, but that has changed the French Revolution, hasn't it? And the Western World consists exclusively of nations that call themselves democratic, doesn't it mean that now power belongs to the people?
No. To exercise and demonstrate power, you need money, and that belongs still to the same families that owned most of the planet 500 years ago. The names and borders of nations, and the way governments are organised have changed, but the European Aristocracy, the catholic church and some old banking families have still unrivaled financial resources and real estates.
Most revolutionaries were simply deluded by the demonstration of overt power by governments, and underestimated the influence of the banking system on power structures. Revolutions just replaced people in positions of powers, but didn't reform the structures itself or abolish/reduce the dependency on monopolistic currency outlets.
The monetary system used on this planet is not designed for the most efficient use of the tool money, but to concentrate material power in the hands of a few. All money is issued as a debt (from the privately owned Reserve and Central Banks) which systematically prevents a balanced system. Debt grows exponentially, just like cancer, and affects individuals and nations similarly bad.
Although money occupies the mind of modern people a lot, the mechanics and origins of the monetary system remain to most a bigger mystery than the Big Bang. Unfortunately. Ownership, one central aspect in the life of many people, does not exist in nature.
Nature has no equivalent to a title register, and knows nothing about a human right to property. In contrast, each livable spot on this planet teems with interdependent and interacting species. And although some animals claim a territory, they can't use their lower classes to go to war or hide behind lawyers, struggles are fought directly and not vicariously like man does.
Although we might have problems imagining a world without land titles and money, mankind easily survived some hundred thousand years without these ideas. That should not imply that mankind would do better without money and the idea of ownership, but that property has its origin in theft, and nothing else, and is in no way something natural.
Nobody owned planet Earth before some regents used bureaucracy and military to rob it from their people. Nowadays about 75% of all registered land is owned by a handful private persons and organisations, which happily use the force of law (and force in general) to get rid of the people who used to live on their newly acquired property.
Instead of despised for the crimes of their ancestors, wealthy people receive heaps of undeserved respect. Mainly due to some massive PR that tries to hide that governments care more about power preservation than its people.
Let's take Bill Gates for example. The legend tells that he build his economic empire from the scratch, in a shabby garage. The fact, that he belonged to a wealthy bankers family, is mostly omitted when his success story is told. It simply doesn't fit into the myth of a dishwasher that became rich, but then, did this really ever happen?
The distribution of wealth, and why it got distributed the way we know it, lacks any convincing explanation. Individual wealth finds its origin in injustice and coercion, nothing else.
However, a lot of people simply don't care about the monetary system and rather believe in benevolent governments. This believe is fostered by the media, and immigration regulations. While you might easily change your internet provider, changing your nationality turns out to be no viable option to get value for tax money.
Democracy thrives on participation, and this means more than just electing a representative who agrees to 90% with their opponent.
Although I firmly believe in the good of mankind, I appreciate accountability for those in power. I can only trust those I know personally, if you want me to hand over responsibilities to government, I want to see checks and balances.
Unfortunatly, politicians claim their moral impeccability as excuse to prevent thorough democratic control. Without control, power belongs to those who exercise it, and not the people, no matter what Unspeak expression you'll find to name it.
The myth of benevolent governments survives throughout history, mainly because the writers of history rarely tried to create an objective account of the past.
Most areas of history simply perpetuate the myth of the necessity of government. Historians rarely care about common people, and the various ways they suffered from the introduction of individual property and government.
This perspective fits perfectly to the attitude of the ruling class, which doesn't care about common people either. Commoners deserve no better than to finance their oppressors, and gain their handicapped position in society rightfully by birth.
Nobody would seriously doubt that most citizens were used and abused by their feudal governments, but that has changed the French Revolution, hasn't it? And the Western World consists exclusively of nations that call themselves democratic, doesn't it mean that now power belongs to the people?
No. To exercise and demonstrate power, you need money, and that belongs still to the same families that owned most of the planet 500 years ago. The names and borders of nations, and the way governments are organised have changed, but the European Aristocracy, the catholic church and some old banking families have still unrivaled financial resources and real estates.
Most revolutionaries were simply deluded by the demonstration of overt power by governments, and underestimated the influence of the banking system on power structures. Revolutions just replaced people in positions of powers, but didn't reform the structures itself or abolish/reduce the dependency on monopolistic currency outlets.
The monetary system used on this planet is not designed for the most efficient use of the tool money, but to concentrate material power in the hands of a few. All money is issued as a debt (from the privately owned Reserve and Central Banks) which systematically prevents a balanced system. Debt grows exponentially, just like cancer, and affects individuals and nations similarly bad.
Although money occupies the mind of modern people a lot, the mechanics and origins of the monetary system remain to most a bigger mystery than the Big Bang. Unfortunately. Ownership, one central aspect in the life of many people, does not exist in nature.
Nature has no equivalent to a title register, and knows nothing about a human right to property. In contrast, each livable spot on this planet teems with interdependent and interacting species. And although some animals claim a territory, they can't use their lower classes to go to war or hide behind lawyers, struggles are fought directly and not vicariously like man does.
Although we might have problems imagining a world without land titles and money, mankind easily survived some hundred thousand years without these ideas. That should not imply that mankind would do better without money and the idea of ownership, but that property has its origin in theft, and nothing else, and is in no way something natural.
Nobody owned planet Earth before some regents used bureaucracy and military to rob it from their people. Nowadays about 75% of all registered land is owned by a handful private persons and organisations, which happily use the force of law (and force in general) to get rid of the people who used to live on their newly acquired property.
Instead of despised for the crimes of their ancestors, wealthy people receive heaps of undeserved respect. Mainly due to some massive PR that tries to hide that governments care more about power preservation than its people.
Let's take Bill Gates for example. The legend tells that he build his economic empire from the scratch, in a shabby garage. The fact, that he belonged to a wealthy bankers family, is mostly omitted when his success story is told. It simply doesn't fit into the myth of a dishwasher that became rich, but then, did this really ever happen?
The distribution of wealth, and why it got distributed the way we know it, lacks any convincing explanation. Individual wealth finds its origin in injustice and coercion, nothing else.
However, a lot of people simply don't care about the monetary system and rather believe in benevolent governments. This believe is fostered by the media, and immigration regulations. While you might easily change your internet provider, changing your nationality turns out to be no viable option to get value for tax money.
Democracy thrives on participation, and this means more than just electing a representative who agrees to 90% with their opponent.
Although I firmly believe in the good of mankind, I appreciate accountability for those in power. I can only trust those I know personally, if you want me to hand over responsibilities to government, I want to see checks and balances.
Unfortunatly, politicians claim their moral impeccability as excuse to prevent thorough democratic control. Without control, power belongs to those who exercise it, and not the people, no matter what Unspeak expression you'll find to name it.
although believe belongs care changed doesn't governments history mankind monetary money myth nations nothing origin owned people planet power property simply system used
created at TagCrowd.com
Monday, September 03, 2007
Digital Noise
Surrounded by realms of digital noise,
permanently forced to immediate choice,
all life is just stored away
in an endless binary array.
The multiplicity of opinion
from utopia to oblivion
with dubious intention
craves for attention.
Exposed to and by Big Brother
we have long stopped to bother.
With our short attention span
we forgot how this once began.
Has this world full of sex and violence
still the space for some sweet silence?
Surrounded by realms of digital noise,
permanently forced to immediate choice,
all life is just stored away
in an endless binary array.
The multiplicity of opinion
from utopia to oblivion
with dubious intention
craves for attention.
Exposed to and by Big Brother
we have long stopped to bother.
With our short attention span
we forgot how this once began.
Has this world full of sex and violence
still the space for some sweet silence?
created at TagCrowd.com
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Fear of reason
This month, we will commemorate nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks of September 11th 2001. We will not commemorate the million civilian victims killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the 25,000 humans that starve daily, unspectacular, far away from the prying eyes of a sensationalist media.
From a psychological point of view, the unfortunate victims in New York belong to our in-group. We know little to nothing about the cultures of Iraq and Afghanistan, which easily qualifies them as out-group. We know even less about the people living in the heart of Africa, the common origin of all tribes of Homo Sapiens that populate this planet.
As humans most care about their perceived ingroup, they can be blatantly ignorant to the faith of their outgroups, even if our genetic heritage does not justify the popular idea of different human races.
The anti-terror laws, that have been introduced in most parts of the world in the aftermath of 911, the Madrid, Bali and London bombings, have already achieved their goals. No terrorist will be able to attack the free world anymore, after the Magna Charta and the rule of law have been suspended to fight the war on terror in most parts of the world, including Australia.
Civil liberties end now where national security starts, and national security is so important that it can’t be defined precisely but falls into the discretion of our wise politicians. Democratic tenets like the decision of independent juries or the separation of judiciary and executive powers were sacrificed, even in countries that have not experienced any terror attack themselves.
The images of the destruction of inner-city skyscrapers makes it easy to transfer the fear into the hearts and minds of anyone who lives in a country that displays the wealth of corporations in the midst of their cities. Fear, however, incapacitates reason, and reduces most decisions to fight of flight. This certainly increases the attraction for someone offering to go to war, even it will last generations.
The war on terror will certainly be perpetual, unless the people of the planet, who have to pay for this war with their taxes and even their life, step back from their fear and start using reason again. Because the war on terror can never be won, no matter how hard you try.
Terrorism lacks a commonly accepted definition, but it’s a fairly save bet that historical figures like Jesus Christ, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Ghandi would end up in an American torture camp like David Hicks, or be kept in solitary confinement like Dr. Haneef, or at least suffer from a constraint order like Jack Thomas.
Don’t get me wrong; I just used David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef as example to illustrate the loss of the rule of law and civil liberties in Australia, not to sanctify them. However, unlike traditional wars against a well-defined enemy, the war on terror fights a method. Addition is a method to relate two numbers in a specific way, frying eggs is a method to prepare them as food.
Do you really believe the war on frying eggs could ever be won? Considering the well-educated audience of the blogosphere, I would be surprised to hear a single yes to this question, but you’ll never know. People develop all sorts of anxieties, and fried eggs might be one of them, but it seems less suited to spread a common fear amongst the majority of the population than the terrifying expression “terror”.
Nevertheless, the Australian government spend already billions of taxpayers money on this war on frying eggs, and will not stop doing so whether Howard remains PM or not.
Western governments fell into a hole after the end of the cold war. The threat of mutual nuclear destruction justified maintaining civil liberties, as those did not exist in the communist world. The tangible enemy allowed direct comparisons, so the Western World carefully refrained from arbitrary jurisdiction, secret prisons, restrictions to the right to strike or have a rally wherever you wanted.
As communism faded away as archenemy of the Western World, the necessity to keep up the illusion of a free society vanished with it. Yet, without fear as motivator for the abolition of rights and freedoms achieved mainly by social movements and direct action, reason might have caused an outrage about the introduction of anti-terror laws.
We are constantly reminded that the terrorists are out there to get us, terror suspects are arrested en masse, foiled terror plots and the memory of 911 keep the fear alive. The constant reinforcement of terror paranoia is designed to stop anyone to use reason to assess the size of the risk.
While we read often enough about the arrest of terror suspect (They are coming to get us, and they will use fried eggs if we don’t stop them!), we hardly hear about convictions. In the US, the two convictions that have been achieved for homegrown terrorists are as convincing as the case of Dr. Haneef.
Although the latest terror attack in Britain luckily didn’t kill anyone, and the perpetrators fit into the terrifying scheme of “home-grown terrorists”, biometrical visa will make the UK safer. However, passports cannot be the problem. Although the contents of the World Trade Centre were mysteriously blown to smithereens on 911, the passports of some of hijackers, which were used to officially cross the American border while being on terror watch lists, were found.
Reason cannot really explain why biometrical identification of every citizen helps defeating terrorism. And reason cannot explain why the WTC 7 collapsed on the afternoon of September 11 2001, although it was not hit by plane. The building closer to the World Trade Centre building 1 and 2 were severely damaged, but did not collapse. Unfortunately, the complete account of everything that led to 911, the 911 commission report, fails to explain why WTC 7 collapsed as well.
But thinking that they will come to get us might stop you from wondering why three massive steel-framed high-risers crumble in freefall speed to bits and pieces, although this never happened before and since then. And it might stop you from wondering whether less than 100 Australian victims, who were killed in the Bali attacks in 2002 and 2005, justify spending far more taxpayers’ money than about 2,500 people that commit suicide each year in Australia.
If they Australian government makes “securing Australian life” its priority, shouldn’t it use statistics to assess the size of the problem? It takes two weeks of suicide to have the same amount of life lost as in all terror attacks, which killed Australians in this century, and about three weeks in road accidents.
As long as you drown in fear, my comparison of the war on terror to a war on fried eggs might appear extremely inappropriate. Once you start using reason again, the advertising campaigns to suspect your neighbour seem like an outrageous waste of taxpayer’s money.
The US went to one war, along with Australia, before it even started an investigation of the events of 911, and to another one, before the results of the dubious 911 commission were known. Yet, both wars were sold to the public as a reaction to the events of 911.
Let me put this in other words for you. Without knowing the results of a forensic analysis (which didn’t really take place in the 911 commission) of the biggest crime case in the 21st century two wars, that killed about a million innocent people by now, were started. Not only did Australia participate in this unjustifiable wars, the cases of David Hicks, the Barwon 13, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef demonstrate that human rights and the rule of law are disregarded in this country, due to the (myth of the) global threat of terror.
When I use reason to analyse this situation, I think there is something utterly wrong with this picture. About one hundred people starved to death while you were reading this. They will not be out there to get you. Enjoy your fear.
This month, we will commemorate nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks of September 11th 2001. We will not commemorate the million civilian victims killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the 25,000 humans that starve daily, unspectacular, far away from the prying eyes of a sensationalist media.
From a psychological point of view, the unfortunate victims in New York belong to our in-group. We know little to nothing about the cultures of Iraq and Afghanistan, which easily qualifies them as out-group. We know even less about the people living in the heart of Africa, the common origin of all tribes of Homo Sapiens that populate this planet.
As humans most care about their perceived ingroup, they can be blatantly ignorant to the faith of their outgroups, even if our genetic heritage does not justify the popular idea of different human races.
The anti-terror laws, that have been introduced in most parts of the world in the aftermath of 911, the Madrid, Bali and London bombings, have already achieved their goals. No terrorist will be able to attack the free world anymore, after the Magna Charta and the rule of law have been suspended to fight the war on terror in most parts of the world, including Australia.
Civil liberties end now where national security starts, and national security is so important that it can’t be defined precisely but falls into the discretion of our wise politicians. Democratic tenets like the decision of independent juries or the separation of judiciary and executive powers were sacrificed, even in countries that have not experienced any terror attack themselves.
The images of the destruction of inner-city skyscrapers makes it easy to transfer the fear into the hearts and minds of anyone who lives in a country that displays the wealth of corporations in the midst of their cities. Fear, however, incapacitates reason, and reduces most decisions to fight of flight. This certainly increases the attraction for someone offering to go to war, even it will last generations.
The war on terror will certainly be perpetual, unless the people of the planet, who have to pay for this war with their taxes and even their life, step back from their fear and start using reason again. Because the war on terror can never be won, no matter how hard you try.
Terrorism lacks a commonly accepted definition, but it’s a fairly save bet that historical figures like Jesus Christ, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Ghandi would end up in an American torture camp like David Hicks, or be kept in solitary confinement like Dr. Haneef, or at least suffer from a constraint order like Jack Thomas.
Don’t get me wrong; I just used David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef as example to illustrate the loss of the rule of law and civil liberties in Australia, not to sanctify them. However, unlike traditional wars against a well-defined enemy, the war on terror fights a method. Addition is a method to relate two numbers in a specific way, frying eggs is a method to prepare them as food.
Do you really believe the war on frying eggs could ever be won? Considering the well-educated audience of the blogosphere, I would be surprised to hear a single yes to this question, but you’ll never know. People develop all sorts of anxieties, and fried eggs might be one of them, but it seems less suited to spread a common fear amongst the majority of the population than the terrifying expression “terror”.
Nevertheless, the Australian government spend already billions of taxpayers money on this war on frying eggs, and will not stop doing so whether Howard remains PM or not.
Western governments fell into a hole after the end of the cold war. The threat of mutual nuclear destruction justified maintaining civil liberties, as those did not exist in the communist world. The tangible enemy allowed direct comparisons, so the Western World carefully refrained from arbitrary jurisdiction, secret prisons, restrictions to the right to strike or have a rally wherever you wanted.
As communism faded away as archenemy of the Western World, the necessity to keep up the illusion of a free society vanished with it. Yet, without fear as motivator for the abolition of rights and freedoms achieved mainly by social movements and direct action, reason might have caused an outrage about the introduction of anti-terror laws.
We are constantly reminded that the terrorists are out there to get us, terror suspects are arrested en masse, foiled terror plots and the memory of 911 keep the fear alive. The constant reinforcement of terror paranoia is designed to stop anyone to use reason to assess the size of the risk.
While we read often enough about the arrest of terror suspect (They are coming to get us, and they will use fried eggs if we don’t stop them!), we hardly hear about convictions. In the US, the two convictions that have been achieved for homegrown terrorists are as convincing as the case of Dr. Haneef.
Although the latest terror attack in Britain luckily didn’t kill anyone, and the perpetrators fit into the terrifying scheme of “home-grown terrorists”, biometrical visa will make the UK safer. However, passports cannot be the problem. Although the contents of the World Trade Centre were mysteriously blown to smithereens on 911, the passports of some of hijackers, which were used to officially cross the American border while being on terror watch lists, were found.
Reason cannot really explain why biometrical identification of every citizen helps defeating terrorism. And reason cannot explain why the WTC 7 collapsed on the afternoon of September 11 2001, although it was not hit by plane. The building closer to the World Trade Centre building 1 and 2 were severely damaged, but did not collapse. Unfortunately, the complete account of everything that led to 911, the 911 commission report, fails to explain why WTC 7 collapsed as well.
But thinking that they will come to get us might stop you from wondering why three massive steel-framed high-risers crumble in freefall speed to bits and pieces, although this never happened before and since then. And it might stop you from wondering whether less than 100 Australian victims, who were killed in the Bali attacks in 2002 and 2005, justify spending far more taxpayers’ money than about 2,500 people that commit suicide each year in Australia.
If they Australian government makes “securing Australian life” its priority, shouldn’t it use statistics to assess the size of the problem? It takes two weeks of suicide to have the same amount of life lost as in all terror attacks, which killed Australians in this century, and about three weeks in road accidents.
As long as you drown in fear, my comparison of the war on terror to a war on fried eggs might appear extremely inappropriate. Once you start using reason again, the advertising campaigns to suspect your neighbour seem like an outrageous waste of taxpayer’s money.
The US went to one war, along with Australia, before it even started an investigation of the events of 911, and to another one, before the results of the dubious 911 commission were known. Yet, both wars were sold to the public as a reaction to the events of 911.
Let me put this in other words for you. Without knowing the results of a forensic analysis (which didn’t really take place in the 911 commission) of the biggest crime case in the 21st century two wars, that killed about a million innocent people by now, were started. Not only did Australia participate in this unjustifiable wars, the cases of David Hicks, the Barwon 13, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef demonstrate that human rights and the rule of law are disregarded in this country, due to the (myth of the) global threat of terror.
When I use reason to analyse this situation, I think there is something utterly wrong with this picture. About one hundred people starved to death while you were reading this. They will not be out there to get you. Enjoy your fear.
although attack australia australian commission dr eggs fear haneef human killed liberties life people reason rule start stop terror terrorists victims war world
created at TagCrowd.com
Friday, August 31, 2007
Human beings acquire most of their knowledge second hand, especially in the socalled civilised part of the world. Parents, teachers and lectorers transfer bits of cultural standards and habits to the growing up, bosses and experts appearing in the media dominate in shaping the opinion of adults about the rest of the world.
Most education institution focus on nourishing crystallized intelligence, and neglect fluid intelligence. Students become living databases for an endless pool of factual information. The lack of encouragement of acquiring problem solving skills leads to an intellectual dependency on persons of authority.
But who knows how to distinguish a person of authority from an impostor? Does authority exists in an Einsteinian universe of relativity, where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics render certainty into mere probability?
Advances in technology seem to indicate the existence of some experts, which have sufficient authority in their field to evolve it further. Although technology contributed to the raise of the living standard, it endangers and destroys the environment and human lives when deployed in wars.
Persons of authority exist, but not all work on the side of good vs the evil of the week. And unless they received media training or qualify as media whore, experts rather spend their time with more important things than sound biting the hungry press.
Identifying an impostor requires common sense, background research and time. If you assume a 50% chance that a person of authority follows his own or his interest groups agenda, you can exercise to filter inputs to your mind instead of committing media hearsay as fact to memory.
However, chasing disinformation does not lead to find useful information. Everyone got stuck in the same trap: righteous experts, those who just claim expertise, those who dont give a damn and the information recipients.
Some aspects of our society hardly ever get questioned or thoroughly analysed. Most citizens assume that the government (at least in a democracy) will not harm, hurt or even kill their people. But hardly anyone discusses whether government is necessary at all.
The links between government and the global monetary systems miss the spot light as well. Consider money as a way of trading energy, and you might understand that the current system is designed to accumulate most of this energy in the hands of the chosen few that run the central banks.
The global monetary system acts as backbone for a parasitic caste of bureaucrats, who can survive drastic changes in national leadership with ease. Bureausites care primarily about the maintenance of their unjustified privileged position and establish therefore a variety of networks.
The next posting will continue to unveil the bad habits of trusting governments and the global monetary system.
Most education institution focus on nourishing crystallized intelligence, and neglect fluid intelligence. Students become living databases for an endless pool of factual information. The lack of encouragement of acquiring problem solving skills leads to an intellectual dependency on persons of authority.
But who knows how to distinguish a person of authority from an impostor? Does authority exists in an Einsteinian universe of relativity, where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics render certainty into mere probability?
Advances in technology seem to indicate the existence of some experts, which have sufficient authority in their field to evolve it further. Although technology contributed to the raise of the living standard, it endangers and destroys the environment and human lives when deployed in wars.
Persons of authority exist, but not all work on the side of good vs the evil of the week. And unless they received media training or qualify as media whore, experts rather spend their time with more important things than sound biting the hungry press.
Identifying an impostor requires common sense, background research and time. If you assume a 50% chance that a person of authority follows his own or his interest groups agenda, you can exercise to filter inputs to your mind instead of committing media hearsay as fact to memory.
However, chasing disinformation does not lead to find useful information. Everyone got stuck in the same trap: righteous experts, those who just claim expertise, those who dont give a damn and the information recipients.
Some aspects of our society hardly ever get questioned or thoroughly analysed. Most citizens assume that the government (at least in a democracy) will not harm, hurt or even kill their people. But hardly anyone discusses whether government is necessary at all.
The links between government and the global monetary systems miss the spot light as well. Consider money as a way of trading energy, and you might understand that the current system is designed to accumulate most of this energy in the hands of the chosen few that run the central banks.
The global monetary system acts as backbone for a parasitic caste of bureaucrats, who can survive drastic changes in national leadership with ease. Bureausites care primarily about the maintenance of their unjustified privileged position and establish therefore a variety of networks.
The next posting will continue to unveil the bad habits of trusting governments and the global monetary system.
acquire assume authority energy exist experts global government habits hardly human impostor information intelligence lead living media monetary person standard system technology world
created at TagCrowd.com
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Most, if not all people live in the Matrix, their self-constructed version of reality. Everyone choses some of the abundantly available building blocks and uses them to model the physical reality.
According to core-knowledge theories, human brains have the innate capability to learn about physics, numbers and language. Even before children can speak, they display surprise when shown impossible events.
Experiments help children to find out about basic rules of physics, such as gravity and motion. Pushing an object over the edge on a table lets it drop down, and depending on the material of the object it produces specific sounds when it hits the ground.
Just like scientists, children use repetition to validate their ideas about the physical world. When a child has understood a principle, using and applying this principle can become a habit.
The majority of behavioural patterns of adults consists of habits, after a reconditioning in school that transformed the experimental character of spontaneous learning into a monotonous repetition of abstract concepts and factoids.
Most education systems neglect creative and constructive aspects of learning in favour of analytical and logical skills. Social and emotional competence do not belong to the curriculum, the chemical industry fills the void with a variety of drugs to suppress the resulting symptoms.
The indigenous people of Australia provide a good example for a culture without written language. They used stories to perpetuate their culture, and iconic images as densely coded representation of the involved characters.
Stories distinguish human beings from other animals. Stories explained history, skills, social conventions and the metaphysical realm, and helped defining in- and out-groups. Stories provide the glue for any society.
Old people served for a long time as primary story teller. Written language reduced the variation of story elements, bereaving the story teller of the opportunity to adapt the story to his audience while allowing more interpretation.
Media has taken over as primary provider of public myths. Movies, news, documentaries, soaps, talk shows and advertising offer a plethora of stories to weave a common consumer reality.
The immediacy, intimacy and interactivity of storytelling turns into the passive consumption of ideas and concepts. The world seen through the eyes of the media appears inconsistent and contradictory.
The contradictions serve several purposes. They reflect the diversity of opinions and offer easy points of identification. Validation of facts does not belong to the skill set or attitude of average media consumers, who happily trust any presented expert.
The internet increases the number of experts, and the amount of contradictory information. The process of finding a place within society morphs from picking a story line to assembling a range of individually chosen life style options and opinions, depending on the socio economic status.
Constructing and maintaining their life style keeps some but not all people busy, distracted and polarised. This allows myths to enter the public mind, pure repetition does the job. Plausibility checks of presented stories rarely happens, what we hear often enough remains as fact in our minds.
Intellectual laziness leads to a world view that reflects more the virtual world of the media than the physical world surrounding us. Integrating incoherent pieces of knowledge into the mind becomes a habit, repetition wins against reason.
Some but not all people imagine to possess factual knowledge about the world while they have just acquired a random collection of story elements derived from not necessarily trustworthy sources.
Meanwhile, experts try to maintain the myth of the trustworthiness of experts.
According to core-knowledge theories, human brains have the innate capability to learn about physics, numbers and language. Even before children can speak, they display surprise when shown impossible events.
Experiments help children to find out about basic rules of physics, such as gravity and motion. Pushing an object over the edge on a table lets it drop down, and depending on the material of the object it produces specific sounds when it hits the ground.
Just like scientists, children use repetition to validate their ideas about the physical world. When a child has understood a principle, using and applying this principle can become a habit.
The majority of behavioural patterns of adults consists of habits, after a reconditioning in school that transformed the experimental character of spontaneous learning into a monotonous repetition of abstract concepts and factoids.
Most education systems neglect creative and constructive aspects of learning in favour of analytical and logical skills. Social and emotional competence do not belong to the curriculum, the chemical industry fills the void with a variety of drugs to suppress the resulting symptoms.
The indigenous people of Australia provide a good example for a culture without written language. They used stories to perpetuate their culture, and iconic images as densely coded representation of the involved characters.
Stories distinguish human beings from other animals. Stories explained history, skills, social conventions and the metaphysical realm, and helped defining in- and out-groups. Stories provide the glue for any society.
Old people served for a long time as primary story teller. Written language reduced the variation of story elements, bereaving the story teller of the opportunity to adapt the story to his audience while allowing more interpretation.
Media has taken over as primary provider of public myths. Movies, news, documentaries, soaps, talk shows and advertising offer a plethora of stories to weave a common consumer reality.
The immediacy, intimacy and interactivity of storytelling turns into the passive consumption of ideas and concepts. The world seen through the eyes of the media appears inconsistent and contradictory.
The contradictions serve several purposes. They reflect the diversity of opinions and offer easy points of identification. Validation of facts does not belong to the skill set or attitude of average media consumers, who happily trust any presented expert.
The internet increases the number of experts, and the amount of contradictory information. The process of finding a place within society morphs from picking a story line to assembling a range of individually chosen life style options and opinions, depending on the socio economic status.
Constructing and maintaining their life style keeps some but not all people busy, distracted and polarised. This allows myths to enter the public mind, pure repetition does the job. Plausibility checks of presented stories rarely happens, what we hear often enough remains as fact in our minds.
Intellectual laziness leads to a world view that reflects more the virtual world of the media than the physical world surrounding us. Integrating incoherent pieces of knowledge into the mind becomes a habit, repetition wins against reason.
Some but not all people imagine to possess factual knowledge about the world while they have just acquired a random collection of story elements derived from not necessarily trustworthy sources.
Meanwhile, experts try to maintain the myth of the trustworthiness of experts.
children constructing contradictory depending elements experts habit language learning life media people physical provide reality repetition serve skills story style used world written
created at TagCrowd.com
In 1946, when the memory of the horrors of fascism was still fresh, the British Encyclopedia produced this informative film explain the slippery path from democracy to despotism. To find signs of despotism, one has to go beyond noble words and phrases, ie. propaganda.
The film suggests using specific scales to identify sign of despotism: The respect, power, economic distribution and information scales. The respect scale measures how equally different strata of society are respected, the power scale measures the effective distribution of power within society.
Imbalanced economic distribution (quite typical in western democracies) is a stepping stone towards despotism. The chances for despotism increase as well with a concentration of media and the freedom of speech. Certainly, the concentration of media ownership has increased dramatically since 1946, and parts of anti-terror legislation (eg Australia Sedition laws) directly attack freedom of speech.
The chosen examples seem a bit old-fashioned, the mechanism have adapted over time. The general ideas using this scales seems good, though. See for yourself how you would rate your country.
The film suggests using specific scales to identify sign of despotism: The respect, power, economic distribution and information scales. The respect scale measures how equally different strata of society are respected, the power scale measures the effective distribution of power within society.
Imbalanced economic distribution (quite typical in western democracies) is a stepping stone towards despotism. The chances for despotism increase as well with a concentration of media and the freedom of speech. Certainly, the concentration of media ownership has increased dramatically since 1946, and parts of anti-terror legislation (eg Australia Sedition laws) directly attack freedom of speech.
The chosen examples seem a bit old-fashioned, the mechanism have adapted over time. The general ideas using this scales seems good, though. See for yourself how you would rate your country.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The simple truth about the totalitarian character of all form of government hides behind the veil of complication. Governments that call themselves democratic have devised simple and efficient methods to preselect potential actors in their arena. Ostensibly, bureaucracy runs the country while politicians decide about the framework for economy and the citizens.
Legislation became so detailed that hardly anyone interested could grasp all of it, no matter how much one has to oblige to these written laws. This allows an easy way to prosecute dissenters or other unwanted persons. More importantly, it limits the public's attention on politics, which happily trusts politicians instead of questioning their legitimacy.
Democracy means for many just the ability for free and independent voting. Citizens don't bring up topics into the public sphere, they merely need to choose sides on the talking points brought up in the media, just like in a game of sport, pick your team.
Sex and violence remain the focus of attention more than politics, and the media supplies the required weapons of mass distraction aplenty. Trivia captures minds, keeps them busy and engaged to prevent explorations of the mind itself.
Music works more efficient in providing tidbits of stories to create individual identity and to understand the rules of the surrounding society. Themes in popular music often focuses on relationships, and perpetuates prevailing gender stereotypes. Meanwhile, music and the related fashion industry cater for the identity shoppers.
Music does not only supplement the consumerist identity, it also provides a group identity. Singing as a choir in a church or sport arena unites people, and the herd instincts get reinforced. The domesticated human sings in tune, walks in line, accepts the majority opinions provided by experts, votes and cares mostly about panem et circenses.
The combination of the suggested easy access to sexuality by consumption of the right kind of products, fashion stressing sexual attributes and a repressive sex moral within the society produce feelings of guilt, confusion and desire. Boobs or a tight bum turn into carrots on a stick that lead susceptible individuals on a windy path of personal dramas.
These personal dramas follow the schemata of song lyrics, soap operas, books and movies. The embedded memes provide a variety of templates, suited for the local or even for the global community.
Of course, this doesn't affect all people, yet I wouldn't give numeric estimates unless I tried to sample this phenomemon scientifically. However, the weapons of mass distraction weave the matrix which in turn molds the reality of malleable masses.
The meme of the happy coexistence of diverging ideas, a prerequisite for any democratic system, needs to knock loudly on the door to our society.
Legislation became so detailed that hardly anyone interested could grasp all of it, no matter how much one has to oblige to these written laws. This allows an easy way to prosecute dissenters or other unwanted persons. More importantly, it limits the public's attention on politics, which happily trusts politicians instead of questioning their legitimacy.
Democracy means for many just the ability for free and independent voting. Citizens don't bring up topics into the public sphere, they merely need to choose sides on the talking points brought up in the media, just like in a game of sport, pick your team.
Sex and violence remain the focus of attention more than politics, and the media supplies the required weapons of mass distraction aplenty. Trivia captures minds, keeps them busy and engaged to prevent explorations of the mind itself.
Music works more efficient in providing tidbits of stories to create individual identity and to understand the rules of the surrounding society. Themes in popular music often focuses on relationships, and perpetuates prevailing gender stereotypes. Meanwhile, music and the related fashion industry cater for the identity shoppers.
Music does not only supplement the consumerist identity, it also provides a group identity. Singing as a choir in a church or sport arena unites people, and the herd instincts get reinforced. The domesticated human sings in tune, walks in line, accepts the majority opinions provided by experts, votes and cares mostly about panem et circenses.
The combination of the suggested easy access to sexuality by consumption of the right kind of products, fashion stressing sexual attributes and a repressive sex moral within the society produce feelings of guilt, confusion and desire. Boobs or a tight bum turn into carrots on a stick that lead susceptible individuals on a windy path of personal dramas.
These personal dramas follow the schemata of song lyrics, soap operas, books and movies. The embedded memes provide a variety of templates, suited for the local or even for the global community.
Of course, this doesn't affect all people, yet I wouldn't give numeric estimates unless I tried to sample this phenomemon scientifically. However, the weapons of mass distraction weave the matrix which in turn molds the reality of malleable masses.
The meme of the happy coexistence of diverging ideas, a prerequisite for any democratic system, needs to knock loudly on the door to our society.
arena attention citizens democratic distraction easy efficient fashion identity individual mind music people personal politics provide public sex simple sings society sport weapons
created at TagCrowd.com
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
“I think a lot of people would be really disturbed by what’s happening. People have this rose-coloured view of Australia as a democratic country. But we are seeing measures which have more in common with the Stasi or a police state. University is a time when people traditionally question things and open up and learn about the world. That spirit of inquiry is now under threat.”
These are the words of the President of Sydney University's Student Representive Council (SRC), Angus McFarland. His SRC fellow David Jones was approached by the police to spy on his socialist activists comrades.
There's quite some socialism activism in Melbourne as well, and many are annoyed hearing and reading about the socialist world revolution. However, a closer look unveils a very non-threatening crowd. It is hard to imagine that Sydney's socialists pose more of a threat than our own.
This raises some questions. Why does the government want to prevent activism? Who is the spy among the Melbourne socialists, or is there none? Is it illegal in this country to be against consumerism, conformism and neo-liberalism?
Who much freedom is left in a country that puts you in jail for dissent?
Monday, August 27, 2007
New York, 9/11/01: 2974 casualties
Bali, 10/12/02: 202 casualties
Madrid, 3/11/04: 191 casualties
London, 7/7/05: 52 casualties
Mumbai, 7/11/06: 209 casualties
Glasgow, 6/30/07: 0 casualties
Total: 3628 victims of terror, less than 4,000 people were killed by terror in the western world in this century.
According to the Food and Agriculture Administration of the UN, more than 25,000 people starve daily. The daily loss of life due to our economic system is five times higher than the death toll due to terror in the last six years.
About 2,000 to 2,500 people annually committed suicide in Australia in this millenium.
According to the Lancet study, 655,000 people were killed in Iraq from March 2003 to June 2006. Assuming a similar rate of killing for the period from July 2006 until now brings the number up to 850,000 (conservatively). The estimate of about 150,000 to 250,000 during six years of war in a country with more than 30 million population seems very conservative, however, as both areas are still war zones just estimates are possible.
The use of Depleted Uranium and daisy cutters bombs increases civilian casualties even without actual fights, intoxicates former arable land and turns farming into a deadly adventure. The website Afghanistan after Democracy gives you an idea of the mutations caused by DU (warning: very graphic images).
Although the US rulez "war on terror" killing game is far from over, it is virtually impossible to catch up for the terrorists.
Terrorists: 4,000 Governments: 1,100,000
Corporatism (death by starvation): 60,000,000
(all estimates for 21st century)
I consider myself in first place as an Earthian. The winner in this cruel game are corporative interests fostered by governments, the loser is humanity.
And all of that because of the myth of scarcity. In the height of the cold war, 1983, Richard Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century stated:
Bucky Fuller, Grunch of Giants (emphasis not in the original)
Bali, 10/12/02: 202 casualties
Madrid, 3/11/04: 191 casualties
London, 7/7/05: 52 casualties
Mumbai, 7/11/06: 209 casualties
Glasgow, 6/30/07: 0 casualties
Total: 3628 victims of terror, less than 4,000 people were killed by terror in the western world in this century.
According to the Food and Agriculture Administration of the UN, more than 25,000 people starve daily. The daily loss of life due to our economic system is five times higher than the death toll due to terror in the last six years.
About 2,000 to 2,500 people annually committed suicide in Australia in this millenium.
According to the Lancet study, 655,000 people were killed in Iraq from March 2003 to June 2006. Assuming a similar rate of killing for the period from July 2006 until now brings the number up to 850,000 (conservatively). The estimate of about 150,000 to 250,000 during six years of war in a country with more than 30 million population seems very conservative, however, as both areas are still war zones just estimates are possible.
The use of Depleted Uranium and daisy cutters bombs increases civilian casualties even without actual fights, intoxicates former arable land and turns farming into a deadly adventure. The website Afghanistan after Democracy gives you an idea of the mutations caused by DU (warning: very graphic images).
Although the US rulez "war on terror" killing game is far from over, it is virtually impossible to catch up for the terrorists.
Terrorists: 4,000 Governments: 1,100,000
Corporatism (death by starvation): 60,000,000
(all estimates for 21st century)
I consider myself in first place as an Earthian. The winner in this cruel game are corporative interests fostered by governments, the loser is humanity.
And all of that because of the myth of scarcity. In the height of the cold war, 1983, Richard Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century stated:
In 1970 it could, for the first time, be engineeringly demonstrated that, applying the most advanced know-how to the conservation and use of the world's resources, we can, within ten years of from-killigry-to-livingry reoriented world production, have all humanity enjoying a sustainably higher standard of living than any humans have ever heretofore experienced. It could be further demonstrated that we can do this while simultaneously phasing out all further Earthians' use of fossil fuels and atomic energy.
Bucky Fuller, Grunch of Giants (emphasis not in the original)
Sunday, August 26, 2007
A decent tyranny needs an evil family, willing keep the power in their hands, no matter what happens. Fidel gave his power to his brother Raoul Castro, Saddam Husseyn would have made one of his sons the next leader, and feudalism used inherited leadership systematically.
It comes as a bit of a surprise that in the US a single family got hold of the presidency twice. Yet, this will for power stems from the grandfather of the current US president, Prescott Bush.
Prescott Bush married into a wealthy family, which provided him with the job to organise financial support for Nazi Germany. At the end of the second world war he was found guilty of supporting the enemy, but was not penalised. The money earned in this nefarious activities built the basis for the wealth of the Bush family.
Prescott Bush's support for the Nazis was just consequential. A BBC documentary followed the traces of an attempt to assassinate Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. There are very familiar names among the conspirators that planned to turn the US into a fascist country like Germany.
GWB has created enough Presidential Orders and Directives to declare himself as a dictator (in case of a national emergency, which is anything the president defines as such). He cannot be reelected, but he might simply cancel the elections.
The reason could be a terror attack, this time certainly done by terrorists from Iran, maybe even nuclear or chemical, in a place like LA or San Francisco. While the inevitable nuclear retaliation annihilates Iran, going to vote is uncertainly impossible. I hope I'm wrong.
I just wonder whether you still think democracy is healthy in the US when the next elections get cancelled, or another country gets attacked.
Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law
It comes as a bit of a surprise that in the US a single family got hold of the presidency twice. Yet, this will for power stems from the grandfather of the current US president, Prescott Bush.
Prescott Bush married into a wealthy family, which provided him with the job to organise financial support for Nazi Germany. At the end of the second world war he was found guilty of supporting the enemy, but was not penalised. The money earned in this nefarious activities built the basis for the wealth of the Bush family.
Prescott Bush's support for the Nazis was just consequential. A BBC documentary followed the traces of an attempt to assassinate Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. There are very familiar names among the conspirators that planned to turn the US into a fascist country like Germany.
GWB has created enough Presidential Orders and Directives to declare himself as a dictator (in case of a national emergency, which is anything the president defines as such). He cannot be reelected, but he might simply cancel the elections.
The reason could be a terror attack, this time certainly done by terrorists from Iran, maybe even nuclear or chemical, in a place like LA or San Francisco. While the inevitable nuclear retaliation annihilates Iran, going to vote is uncertainly impossible. I hope I'm wrong.
I just wonder whether you still think democracy is healthy in the US when the next elections get cancelled, or another country gets attacked.
Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law
Saturday, August 25, 2007
I realised that quite a lot of the Australian people are caught in a kind of hypnosis - with the keyword "terror" used to sell the abolition of civil rights. Yet, once you forget your fear for a short while and dare dealing with the topic "terror" in depth, with analysis instead of the fear-mongering offered by main stream media, you might be able change your attitude, and your habitual reaction the next time somebody tries to sell you fear.
The video is a snippet of the (imho) excellent BBC documentary The power of nightmares, which was shown earlier this year on SBS. With a broadband connection you might watch this on Google video, if you missed it on SBS, and not scared about the brainwashing a BBC documentary might give you.
Nobody told the Germans that they were living in a fascist state while it happened. I encountered while travelling the globe that this 12 dark years of German history still dominate the opinion about Germany and Germans. Hitler is better known than Goethe, Beethoven, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger or Heine. I met more admirers of the Gröfaz (Grösster Führer aller Zeiten / Greatest leader of all times) outside Germany than inside. (That doesn't mean that there's no Nazis in Germany, just that people don't share there racist opinion as easily as elsewhere.)
Nobody told the Germans in East Germany that they were living in a totalitarian state (which was called "German Democratic Republic" (GDR) and had compulsory voting). However, in Nazi Germany there were people like Schindler, who didn't need historians to tell them that something is utterly wrong with the proceedings of their government, but hadn't lost their empathy for other human beings and endangered their life by acting against the "law", and weren't brainwashed by governmental propaganda.
No government ever spread the word that they wanted to screw their population as good as they could, though historians have no problem digging up examples when this happened. Nowadays, we are conditioned to believe in "experts", and unless experts have more airtime to state that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, we dare not to compare the current situation with what we could have learned in history.
Nazi Germany and the GDR used their secret services to suppress democracy, dissent and governmental criticism. Secrecy due to "national security" was the cornerstone of their tyranny, and empowered the Gestapo and Stasi to arbitrarily detain people. Probably that causes me to get suspicious when I hear Philip Ruddock talking, who thinks it's okay that people don't get presented any evidence when they are charged for major offenses. Or to keep them in prison without charges. Or to accept the jurisdiction of fascist courts under the Military Commissions Act.
Another cornerstone was surveillance. Without the support of IBM, the census required to determine the arian or jewish origin, would have been hardly sufficient to kill millions of innocent people. Providing unique identification, which is nowadays done by fingerprinting, DNA sampling or similar biometric means, helped the Nazis to identify their targets.
East Germany, however, wasn't as rampant as Nazi Germany to kill opposition. "Just" those who wanted to leave the country were killed by automatic killing machines or vigilant guards. East Germany didn't have the technology to trace anyone by their DNA, that's why their secret service collected sweat samples of each and every citizen to chase dogs on them when necessary.
My parents fled East Germany, when my dad rejected to pay the union fees. Flyers were distributed in the area they were living, claiming my dad was a traitor to the working class for asking what the unions did for him.
I'm happy that my parents didn't wait 30 years for the Berlin Wall to come down, but fled before this dreadful thing was build. Fighting the system in East Germany was virtually impossible. It didn't kill you (unless you encountered vigilant border patrols or killing machines), but it thoroughly destroyed your chances to participate in society.
My dad (may his soul have a pleasant life after death) didn't wait until historians analysed the mechanisms that created the unjust society that emerged in East Germany after the war, but interpreted the disparity between government propaganda and everyday experience in a rational way.
However, fleeing your home country is no longer an option. Even people from Iraq and Afghanistan are send home, no matter what dreadful fate is waiting for them. What has changed is the opportunity to access information and to organise resistance against ostensibly "democratic" governments.
I think that democracy is something worth trying. I might know what makes me happy, but I'm simply not sufficiently arrogant to state I would know what makes "everyone" happy. Unfortunately, I haven't encountered too many politicians in socalled "democratic" societies that share this point of view. In Australia the politician know exactly what makes indigenous people happy, they just couldn't get their message through sufficiently.
Democracy needs participation, and most advances for the life of "common people", like universal suffrage (for non-property owners, women, native people) has been achieved by direct action. The greek model of democracy just allowed property owning males to vote, females are just allowed to vote since New Zealand introduced it about 120 years ago, less than half a century ago Aborigines were allowed to vote in Australia.
(West) Germany has a longer history of universal suffrage than the US or Australia, yet the legalized feudalism in the US is used as an impeccable example for "democracy". (Does anyone remember Rosa Parks?)
We, the people, have been withdrawn from power or influence for most of the time in history. Germany was happy to have exchanged monarchy for democracy after WW I, yet it just took 15 years, less than a generation, to convert democracy into fascism.
We, the people, have been subdued to unjust governments for most of history, yet my fellow students take democracy for granted, and ridicule those who engage in activism.
We, the people, are now asked to give away the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the rule of law and the right to strike. All of this for the phony "war on terror", which poses a lesser threat than to be killed by lightning.
Enjoy your unsubstantiated fear, or choose to think for yourself.
I took my pick. And I don't mind if you shout out loud: "Godwin's law!". History has repeated itself over and over again, and if you think "political correctness" prevents this, dream on. It is so comforting to forget that a nominal democracy (like in Germany after WW I) smoothly slid into fascism, and to assume that a nominal democracy is inherently safe from fascism.
(In Australia, Faheem Lodhi is imprisoned for a "thought crime" for 20 years. Lodhi was convicted on the basis of alleged future intentions. No actual plans for a terrorist act were uncovered.)
I don't want to convert you into any political camp, as I'm not adhering to anything that deserves this name. I'm more than happy to meet anyone who dares to think for themselves. Dissent is the essence of democracy, which prevents proselytizing. I'd just like to encourage you, if you have more than two brain cells, to assess for yourself whether "terrorism" is a big enough problem to give away the basis for any democratic system.
The video is a snippet of the (imho) excellent BBC documentary The power of nightmares, which was shown earlier this year on SBS. With a broadband connection you might watch this on Google video, if you missed it on SBS, and not scared about the brainwashing a BBC documentary might give you.
Nobody told the Germans that they were living in a fascist state while it happened. I encountered while travelling the globe that this 12 dark years of German history still dominate the opinion about Germany and Germans. Hitler is better known than Goethe, Beethoven, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger or Heine. I met more admirers of the Gröfaz (Grösster Führer aller Zeiten / Greatest leader of all times) outside Germany than inside. (That doesn't mean that there's no Nazis in Germany, just that people don't share there racist opinion as easily as elsewhere.)
Nobody told the Germans in East Germany that they were living in a totalitarian state (which was called "German Democratic Republic" (GDR) and had compulsory voting). However, in Nazi Germany there were people like Schindler, who didn't need historians to tell them that something is utterly wrong with the proceedings of their government, but hadn't lost their empathy for other human beings and endangered their life by acting against the "law", and weren't brainwashed by governmental propaganda.
No government ever spread the word that they wanted to screw their population as good as they could, though historians have no problem digging up examples when this happened. Nowadays, we are conditioned to believe in "experts", and unless experts have more airtime to state that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, we dare not to compare the current situation with what we could have learned in history.
Nazi Germany and the GDR used their secret services to suppress democracy, dissent and governmental criticism. Secrecy due to "national security" was the cornerstone of their tyranny, and empowered the Gestapo and Stasi to arbitrarily detain people. Probably that causes me to get suspicious when I hear Philip Ruddock talking, who thinks it's okay that people don't get presented any evidence when they are charged for major offenses. Or to keep them in prison without charges. Or to accept the jurisdiction of fascist courts under the Military Commissions Act.
Another cornerstone was surveillance. Without the support of IBM, the census required to determine the arian or jewish origin, would have been hardly sufficient to kill millions of innocent people. Providing unique identification, which is nowadays done by fingerprinting, DNA sampling or similar biometric means, helped the Nazis to identify their targets.
East Germany, however, wasn't as rampant as Nazi Germany to kill opposition. "Just" those who wanted to leave the country were killed by automatic killing machines or vigilant guards. East Germany didn't have the technology to trace anyone by their DNA, that's why their secret service collected sweat samples of each and every citizen to chase dogs on them when necessary.
My parents fled East Germany, when my dad rejected to pay the union fees. Flyers were distributed in the area they were living, claiming my dad was a traitor to the working class for asking what the unions did for him.
I'm happy that my parents didn't wait 30 years for the Berlin Wall to come down, but fled before this dreadful thing was build. Fighting the system in East Germany was virtually impossible. It didn't kill you (unless you encountered vigilant border patrols or killing machines), but it thoroughly destroyed your chances to participate in society.
My dad (may his soul have a pleasant life after death) didn't wait until historians analysed the mechanisms that created the unjust society that emerged in East Germany after the war, but interpreted the disparity between government propaganda and everyday experience in a rational way.
However, fleeing your home country is no longer an option. Even people from Iraq and Afghanistan are send home, no matter what dreadful fate is waiting for them. What has changed is the opportunity to access information and to organise resistance against ostensibly "democratic" governments.
I think that democracy is something worth trying. I might know what makes me happy, but I'm simply not sufficiently arrogant to state I would know what makes "everyone" happy. Unfortunately, I haven't encountered too many politicians in socalled "democratic" societies that share this point of view. In Australia the politician know exactly what makes indigenous people happy, they just couldn't get their message through sufficiently.
Democracy needs participation, and most advances for the life of "common people", like universal suffrage (for non-property owners, women, native people) has been achieved by direct action. The greek model of democracy just allowed property owning males to vote, females are just allowed to vote since New Zealand introduced it about 120 years ago, less than half a century ago Aborigines were allowed to vote in Australia.
(West) Germany has a longer history of universal suffrage than the US or Australia, yet the legalized feudalism in the US is used as an impeccable example for "democracy". (Does anyone remember Rosa Parks?)
We, the people, have been withdrawn from power or influence for most of the time in history. Germany was happy to have exchanged monarchy for democracy after WW I, yet it just took 15 years, less than a generation, to convert democracy into fascism.
We, the people, have been subdued to unjust governments for most of history, yet my fellow students take democracy for granted, and ridicule those who engage in activism.
We, the people, are now asked to give away the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the rule of law and the right to strike. All of this for the phony "war on terror", which poses a lesser threat than to be killed by lightning.
Enjoy your unsubstantiated fear, or choose to think for yourself.
I took my pick. And I don't mind if you shout out loud: "Godwin's law!". History has repeated itself over and over again, and if you think "political correctness" prevents this, dream on. It is so comforting to forget that a nominal democracy (like in Germany after WW I) smoothly slid into fascism, and to assume that a nominal democracy is inherently safe from fascism.
(In Australia, Faheem Lodhi is imprisoned for a "thought crime" for 20 years. Lodhi was convicted on the basis of alleged future intentions. No actual plans for a terrorist act were uncovered.)
I don't want to convert you into any political camp, as I'm not adhering to anything that deserves this name. I'm more than happy to meet anyone who dares to think for themselves. Dissent is the essence of democracy, which prevents proselytizing. I'd just like to encourage you, if you have more than two brain cells, to assess for yourself whether "terrorism" is a big enough problem to give away the basis for any democratic system.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
How would a world without the US look like? Some British people set up an interesting 'We love the US' movie, full of bold assumptions about a world without America.
Starting off with the second world war, the authors come up with surprising insights of their lack of historical education. The nuclear bomb (wasn't it the US you first build it and deployed two of them to kill hundred thousands of civilians?) proliferates through the islamic world, with Saddam Hussein (neither known as religious person nor capable of becoming Iraqs leader without substantial support of the US).
If I try to 'Imagine a world without America', it certainly looks different. For instance, large areas in South America and Africa would not be owned by American individuals and companies, South American torturers would not have certificates of the 'School of Americas', where they learned how to torture and terrorise citizens.
Over a hundred countries would not have American military bases, and Afghani and Iraqi kids wouldn't suffer from the remainders of DU ammunition and daisy-cutter bombs. We wouldn't mind to remember September 11th 1973, the day that the democratically elected Chilean President Allende was replaced by CIA backed Pinochet in a bloody coup.
We still would have cars, though. I wonder how many anti-German resentments have survived in the UK to forget about Gottfried Daimler (inventor of the car), Karl Benz (inventor of the combustion engine in cars) and Rudolf Christian Karl Diesel (inventor of the Diesel engine).
Speculations like 'What if there was no America', 'What if Hitler had won the war', 'What if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction' are in my humble opinion quite useless. They seem to me like a desperate approach mostly from conservative thinkers to justify an unjust world, and distract from the unjust methods that founded national and individual wealth in the Western World.
I'd rather want to know why the US doesn't have to repay the damages it caused in Iraq. Though the American President forgot to declare the war, it was a clear act of unprovoked aggression. But while protesters against American foreign policy are treated like criminals, war criminals like Dick Cheney receive a reception worthy of a king. How much did this visit cost the Australian tax payer, and will they ever be asked if they want to be linked with politicians that are responsible for the killing of hundred thousands of innocent lifes?
Starting off with the second world war, the authors come up with surprising insights of their lack of historical education. The nuclear bomb (wasn't it the US you first build it and deployed two of them to kill hundred thousands of civilians?) proliferates through the islamic world, with Saddam Hussein (neither known as religious person nor capable of becoming Iraqs leader without substantial support of the US).
If I try to 'Imagine a world without America', it certainly looks different. For instance, large areas in South America and Africa would not be owned by American individuals and companies, South American torturers would not have certificates of the 'School of Americas', where they learned how to torture and terrorise citizens.
Over a hundred countries would not have American military bases, and Afghani and Iraqi kids wouldn't suffer from the remainders of DU ammunition and daisy-cutter bombs. We wouldn't mind to remember September 11th 1973, the day that the democratically elected Chilean President Allende was replaced by CIA backed Pinochet in a bloody coup.
We still would have cars, though. I wonder how many anti-German resentments have survived in the UK to forget about Gottfried Daimler (inventor of the car), Karl Benz (inventor of the combustion engine in cars) and Rudolf Christian Karl Diesel (inventor of the Diesel engine).
Speculations like 'What if there was no America', 'What if Hitler had won the war', 'What if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction' are in my humble opinion quite useless. They seem to me like a desperate approach mostly from conservative thinkers to justify an unjust world, and distract from the unjust methods that founded national and individual wealth in the Western World.
I'd rather want to know why the US doesn't have to repay the damages it caused in Iraq. Though the American President forgot to declare the war, it was a clear act of unprovoked aggression. But while protesters against American foreign policy are treated like criminals, war criminals like Dick Cheney receive a reception worthy of a king. How much did this visit cost the Australian tax payer, and will they ever be asked if they want to be linked with politicians that are responsible for the killing of hundred thousands of innocent lifes?
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation became one of the wealthiest foundation after Warren Buffet injected a major part of his fortune into it. However rich and noble the foundation is now, it still spends just about the earned interest of its capital for its causes.
Reading must be a healthy thing, as the Gates Foundation now helped the MediaNewsGroup by providing a loan to acquire some newspapers.
I'm sure, something will be able to explain why this helps curing diseases.
Reading must be a healthy thing, as the Gates Foundation now helped the MediaNewsGroup by providing a loan to acquire some newspapers.
I'm sure, something will be able to explain why this helps curing diseases.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Iran's nuclear threat
It seems so incredibly obvious that Iran's current struggles with the IAEA means that Iran dearly wants to develop nuclear weapons to destroy some of its archenemies like Israel or possibly even the US. What else would you expect from a head of a state that openly airs his desire to attack his neighbor Israel?
For me it seems suicidal to even plan attacks on Israel, one of the nations not caring about the NPT, because they officially not own nuclear weapons, even though they most likely do. Nevertheless, taking a strong stance against Israel is incredibly popular amongst the islamic oriented nations surrounding this country, and thus might be nothing more than a rhetoric figure to get acceptance for the Iranian government, no matter how determined and evil it might sound to foreign ears.
The current media coverage of Irans nuclear facilities, and the correlated spin of the threat imposed to World Peace(as if it ever existed in modern times) reminded me of the situation just before the invasion of Iraq. I got inspired to compare these two events by an essay of Georg Meggle, professor for philosophy at the university of Dresden, Germany.
Furthermore, I read an article about potential economic reasons for the US to start the 'Iran belongs to the axes of evil and needs to be incapacitated' spin, and to coerce international organisations into activity. The article I'm referring to is written by Krassimir Petrov and was published on 18. January 2006 on Energy Bulletin. Krassimir Petrov has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria.
To cut a long story short, what we think to 'know' about the 'evil intentions' and the 'belligerence' of Iran is certainly more related to assertive propaganda than on hard facts. Irans society is so unwestern that we cannot easily rely on polls and media reports like we could with for example European countries. So I hesitate to simply assume than Irans plans focus on and intend nothing else than 'having the bomb'.
As yet, there is as much evidence of the development of nuclear weapons in Iran as there was evidence for the development and existance of WMDs in Iraq three years ago. Surely, I would appreciate some facts indicating that I'm (and more important, and Meggle and Petrov are) entirely wrong, and that the most belligerent nation since the 2nd world war, the USA, is right in assuming that the Iran (like the Iraq some short time ago) poses an unacceptable threat to the rest of the world.
It seems so incredibly obvious that Iran's current struggles with the IAEA means that Iran dearly wants to develop nuclear weapons to destroy some of its archenemies like Israel or possibly even the US. What else would you expect from a head of a state that openly airs his desire to attack his neighbor Israel?
For me it seems suicidal to even plan attacks on Israel, one of the nations not caring about the NPT, because they officially not own nuclear weapons, even though they most likely do. Nevertheless, taking a strong stance against Israel is incredibly popular amongst the islamic oriented nations surrounding this country, and thus might be nothing more than a rhetoric figure to get acceptance for the Iranian government, no matter how determined and evil it might sound to foreign ears.
The current media coverage of Irans nuclear facilities, and the correlated spin of the threat imposed to World Peace(as if it ever existed in modern times) reminded me of the situation just before the invasion of Iraq. I got inspired to compare these two events by an essay of Georg Meggle, professor for philosophy at the university of Dresden, Germany.
Furthermore, I read an article about potential economic reasons for the US to start the 'Iran belongs to the axes of evil and needs to be incapacitated' spin, and to coerce international organisations into activity. The article I'm referring to is written by Krassimir Petrov and was published on 18. January 2006 on Energy Bulletin. Krassimir Petrov has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria.
To cut a long story short, what we think to 'know' about the 'evil intentions' and the 'belligerence' of Iran is certainly more related to assertive propaganda than on hard facts. Irans society is so unwestern that we cannot easily rely on polls and media reports like we could with for example European countries. So I hesitate to simply assume than Irans plans focus on and intend nothing else than 'having the bomb'.
As yet, there is as much evidence of the development of nuclear weapons in Iran as there was evidence for the development and existance of WMDs in Iraq three years ago. Surely, I would appreciate some facts indicating that I'm (and more important, and Meggle and Petrov are) entirely wrong, and that the most belligerent nation since the 2nd world war, the USA, is right in assuming that the Iran (like the Iraq some short time ago) poses an unacceptable threat to the rest of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)