Civil liberties in times of global terrorism


Here's an assignment I wrote while studying Political Science at Melbourne University. I dug it up via the internet archive, I published it in spring (southern hemisphere) 2007 on privately run website. It's basically an academic piece, with references and probably a bit hard to read. My tutor liked it and marked it favourably.

The world is changing as I speak, into some unknown territory. The old system still clings onto the magic meme '911 has changed history'. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen were justified with the 'war on terror', as well as Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, water boarding, terror watch list, phone tapping, etc.

I followed academic standards to argue that 911 hasn't changed history. No matter who did it, 911 provided a milestone for the project of world domination. The 1% hide their plans only by obscurity, if you learn to detect patterns in published opinions the matrix becomes visible. Please excuse the formatting, if you have trouble reading try the archived copy.


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 (Leffler, 2005). 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 (White House, 2001), and its western allies have enacted similar legislation since then. Canada and the UK introduced new anti-terrorism legislation at the end of 2001 (Department of Justice, Canada, 2001; House of Commons, 2001), the European Union passed similar legislation in 2003 (Council of Europe, 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 (Dunn, 2006).

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.” (Bush, 2001)

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 (George, 2005). 

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 (PNAC, 2000).

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“ (PNAC, 2000).

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 (White House, 2002). 

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 (Hersh, 2004). 

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 (Smith, 2006). 

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 (Bush, 2006). 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 (Leahey, 2005). 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 (Priest, 2005), 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.” (Lamont, 2006). 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 (Gooley, 2007). 

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 (Alomes, 2007).

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, 1989)

References

Alomes, S., Don’t play word games with terrorism, The Age, (accessed on 11 September 2007), 2007
Bush, G.W., President discusses creation of Military Commission to try suspected Terrorists, (accessed on 11 September 2007), 2006
Bush, G.W., Remarks of the President upon arrival, (accessed on 11 September 2007), 2001
Council of Europe, ‘Protocol amending the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, (accessed on 11 September 2007), 2003
Department of Justice, Canada, Bill C-36, accessed on 11 September 2007, 2001
Dunn, M., http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20925632-38200,00.html, (accessed on 11 September 2007), December 2006
George, J., ‘Leo Strauss, Neoconservatism and US foreign Policy: Esoteric Nihilism and the Bush Doctrine.’ International Politics, Vol 42, 2005
Gooley, Anne, How ASIO is eroding the rule of law, The Age, (accessed on 11 September 2007), 2007
Hersh, S. Chain of Command, (accessed on 11 September 2007), 2004
House of Commons, Home Affairs – First Report, <>, accessed on 11 September 2007, 2001
Leahey, C. R., ‘Delimiting democratic debate: the Fordham Institute's attack on democratic values.’ The Social Studies, Vol 96, No 5, 2006
Orwell, G., ‘1984. A novel’, London, England : Penguin Books in association with Martin Secker & Warburg, 1989
PNAC (Project for the new American Century), Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century., (accessed on 11 September 2007), 2000
Priest, D., CIA holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons, Washington Post, (accessed on 11 September 2007), 2005
Smith, R.. J., Many right in U.S. legal system absent in new bill., Washington Post, <,> (accessed on 11 September 2007), 2006
White House, President Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill, (accessed on 11 September 2007), 2001
White House, ‘National Security Strategy of the United States of America’, Washington, D.C, 2002

Official insanity


Intelligence agencies, or secret services, exist for much longer than any known nation on this planet. Having 'inside information' about a competitor makes business easier, but not necessarily fairer. The origin as proactive business insurance has been forgotten a bit, nowadays catch-all phrase 'national security' suggests a useful service provided by democratically uncontrollable 'intelligence agencies'.

History tells some vicious stories about how governments used their secret armies. In countries hated, or conquered in war, the status as force of evil of intelligence agencies is hardly denied: Gestapo, Stasi or KGB serve as examples how governments used secret services against their own population. Of course, only 'bad' nations have 'evil' secret services, and per definition, your own country cannot be bad.

Nobody with a sane mind derives a feeling of national pride from the knowledge that their country systematically commits crimes against humanity. When Australia got told off by the United Nations for their treatment of the native people in this nation, propaganda turned this crime into a virtue. Only Nazi Germany, and the Khmer Rouge committed genocide, the 'White Australia' policy, which survived as national attitude, and about two centuries of randomly killing indigenous people are blissfully ignored.

Australia's intelligence agencies have more legal rights than the Gestapo ever had. That doesn't mean that  their agents act like Mini-Hitlers all the time, it just means that if they do, they get away with it. Legally. The veil of 'national security' hides the systematic waste of tax-payer's money to subvert individual freedoms, millions are currently wasted on the witch hunt for terrorists.

The stupidity and paranoia in the offices of intelligence agencies becomes more obvious, as we no longer rely solely on governmental propaganda, but can gather information ourself, and 'connect the dots'. The latest fear-making meme is about China's increase in military spending, which ostensibly threatens the 'regional stability'.

Let's do the uncommon thing and have a rational look at this fear-mongering message. China has publicly announced in 2006 to spend about half of its actual expenditure. While $45 billion were mentioned, they spend about $90 billion. Will they start conquering the region now?

According to Wolfram Alpha, China spend less than $9 per head on the military, while each Australian pays in average nearly $900 per head for 'military protection'. If we consider China's numbers are manipulated, Australia still spend in relation 50 times more than China for its destructive forces. So who is threatening regional stability?

I admit, using facts in a political discussion seems utterly unfair. By putting numbers next to some of the inane rants of politicos and 'security experts' makes the propaganda visible. Let's just take the wars of the 21st century as example. Only so-called democracies dared to invade other countries, so a 'totalitarian' state like China is statistically unlikely as an aggressor.

Invasions are an economic nightmare for the nations involved, yet a gold mine for war profiteers. The cost of living exploded for the local survivors, yet survival became much more of an uncertainty through the random violence that accompanies any war. While the stocks and profits of the war-mongering industry soar, especially in the US, national debt is at an all-time high.

Of course, we can ignore the lessons from history that saw many 'great' nations crumble because of war expenses, and blame the US deficit budget on other factors. The jobs saved in the killing industry are nothing than a flimsy bandage on the pierced jugular of a nation. Profits have no national pride.

China's ambition to control Tibet and Taiwan belong to old news, yet the politicians of this planet happily rubbed shoulders with China during the Olympic Games. So complaining about China's increase in military spending could as well mean a chance for business. For one thing, this could be a call to increase advertising military equipment to China, and also a simple reminder to blow up Australia's vast military budget even more beyond any reason.

The world has changed, as well as political constellations. China cannot simply repeat the British strategy that founded Australia - conquer a continent and eradicate the local population. To arm against this possibility just shows the level of insanity that pervades the idea of 'national security'.

For any democracy it's much cheaper to have a 24/7 surveillance of all political representatives, instead of treating all citizens like potential terrorists. The 'intelligence' gathered by secret services constitutes an utter waste of money. This doesn't bother politicos too much, as they profit as well from the insanity they sprout.

Government act always in self-interest. Unfortunately, there's hardly any match between a government's self-interest and the interest of the population. As long as 'intelligence agencies' are taken for granted, democracy can't emerge.

Bullshit bingo

My disdain with the corporate world was informed by personal experiences - I worked for international corporations and governments for a long time of my life. The amount of resources wasted in places like this seems quite unbelievable. It's OPM (other people's money), and therefore well suited to be generous with.

One corporate game is bullshit bingo - selling a project by using well sounding, but meaningless phrases. Public health is in a dire state in Australia, ambulances have to be paid for by the patient, indigenous Australians have a drastically shorter life expectation, some hospitals haven't been modernised for a half a century, foreign doctors are suspected as terrorists, or face leaving the country for having a handicapped child.

'Reform' is a favorite bullshit term for politicos, similar to 'reorganisation' in the corporate world. The normal function of the units 'reorganised' or 'reformed' gets disrupted, additional levels of management replace manpower for the core tasks of operation. I heard the myth that things operate more smoothly after a 'reform' or 'reorganisation', but I have yet to see this in real life.

The need for improvement of the health system is even perceived by the politicos, hence the 'health reform'. While my health related profession is still not paid for by medicare, not on the list of skilled jobs for immigration, mental and dental health patients mostly left on on their own devices, training for the health care sector still an elitist affair, the health reform bring the patients heaven to Australia. Or maybe I just got the bullshit bingo ad wrong.

FVO: Under the new health reform, the Australian Government is delivering the most significant improvement to our health system since the introduction of Medicare.
[We open on a blue line on a piece of paper. We see more lines, they take shape, illustrating a woman’s eye.]

If medicare was the first go at public health care, this simply means making the system finally work, after it stumbled along for decades. Most significant improvement sounds more impressive. A change in myki management could be advertised in similar terms: 'With the new management, myki will deliver the most significant improvement to our ticketing system since metcard.'

The first five words already alerted my bullshit detector, a 'new reform' set the starting tone to some newspeak muzak. A bunch of nice sounding promises, spiced up with meaningless and unquantifiable comparisons followed.

FVO: By providing more hospital beds…
[We see the illustration turn into a real photo of a woman in a hospital bed, nursing her newborn.]

FVO: …training more doctors and nurses...
[We see another line drawing of a group of young doctors. The illustration turns into a real photograph.]

FVO: …and expanding the number of GP services…
[We see another illustration, of a young boy being seen by GP. This also turns into a photo.]

FVO: …it will deliver better health and better hospitals.
[We see another illustration of a young (16-20) woman talking to her doctor. This too resolves through to a real photo.]

Besides the fact that I'd like to see how a reform delivers (I hope the reform has private health insurance for a safe delivery...) it just appeals to the favorite Australian 'betta' meme. As long as something is betta than the the neighbours, it doesn't matter how crappy, useless or outright stupid something is. The desalination plant is certainly betta than dehydration, it's just a solution ignoring alternative approaches which have been best practice in other parts of the world for decades.

More of the same, however, doesn't turn an inadequate system into a well working system. It's like improving the efficiency in using fossil fuels by driving more gas guzzling four-wheel drives... wait, that is the local attitude here. Cowshit is betta than dog shit, you can use cowshit as fuel, but hey, both are shit. Yeah, my shit is betta than yours! Wait, another quite typical attitude.

FVO: For the first time the Australian Government will take dominant funding responsibility for our health system.
[Our point of view moves out so that we see an aerial view, indicating the vast network across the country.]

FVO: The reform will cut inefficiencies by streamlining many systems into a unified network, with guaranteed funding…
[The lines link and join the whole network as one.]

[Super: Cut inefficiencies.]

FVO: …it’ll be run locally, giving local senior doctors and health experts a greater say.

[Then, different points on the map light up, one by one. ]

[Super: Greater local say.]

I'm sure the phrase 'Streamlining a system into a unified network' will appear on the many available bullshit generators on the web. With 'the dominant responsibility of the Australian government' a glimpse of truth shines through this propaganda piece, yet the supers hammer another lie home. How can the government's dominant responsibility bring 'greater local say'? And what's the role of 'health experts'? Isn't there a need for people practicing health care instead of more management following expert advice how to make more money?

FVO: …and by introducing new strong national standards, it will deliver a higher quality of care in the city and country.
[All of the points and the lines light up at exactly the same time.]

[Super: Strong national standards.]

FVO: Health Reform. For better healthcare and better hospitals.

[We pull out to reveal the illustration of the network spells the words ‘Health Reform’.]

[This resolves through to the logo and super.]

[Logo/Super: Health Reform. Better healthcare and better hospitals. Government Crest.
australia.gov.au/yourhealth]

FVO: For more information about the improvements, as they happen, go to australia.gov.au/yourhealth

[Cut to a black screen with white type.]

There are many examples for propaganda in history. When governments resort to propaganda, democracy ceases to exist. Valuable money is spend to create the illusion of improvement, yet real life experiences contradict the happy world created by our 'representatives'. New strong national standards, wow. More helps more, strong standards lift the quality. New national standards imply a new level of bureaucracy, and prevent the promised greater local say.

The memes used in this waste of taxpayers money reflect the myth that more centralism will bring more efficiency. The Soviet Union provides a great example for the flaws of this approach. The US survived until now as a nation rather because of its federalistic approach although this process is reverted at the moment. Loss of local sovereignty is a trademark of global corporatism. Limiting the level of power for local communities transforms citizens into property of the corporations the government owes to.

Going into the community, and broadening the vision about health and sanity might improve the health care in this country. Health is beyond the expertise of politicians. A shift in responsibility in the health care system is needed, though. The patients need empowerment, and need to be educated about their own responsibility for the state of health they are in. Healthy people don't generate revenue for the sickness industry, that sells drugs, technology and bad advice. Healthy people might be as well immune against propaganda. Go betta, Australia. Politicians are the worst free loaders society has ever seen, if we can afford to feed them with a golden spoon, there's definitely more than enough resources to build a free and just community.

australia australian betta better bullshit care doctors fvo government health illustration improvement life local national network real reform responsibility standards strong super system

created at TagCrowd.com

Swift destruction of human rights

Scope of Application
Conduct Pertaining to Terrorism or Terrorist Financing
This Agreement applies to the obtaining and use of financial payment messaging and related data with a view to the prevention, investigation, detection, or prosecution of:
(a) Acts of a person or entity that involve violence, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or create a risk of damage to property or infrastructure, and which, given their nature and context, are reasonably believed to be committed with the aim of:
(i) intimidating or coercing a population;
(ii) intimidating, compelling, or coercing a government or international organisation to act or abstain from acting;
or
(iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic, or social structures of a country or an international organisation;
(b) A person or entity assisting, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, acts described in subparagraph (a);
or
(c) A person or entity aiding, abetting, or attempting acts described in subparagraphs (a) or (b).

Have a look at paragraph (a)(ii). Compelling the government to act or abstain from acting is now terrorism. Protesting against wars in Afghanistan or Iraq? Terrorism. Protesting to make politicians accountable for their failings? Terrorism. Asking the government to end the Intervention? Terrorism. Asking the government to abstain from internet censorship? Terrorism. Protest against environmental rape such as Tasmania deforestation? Terrorism.

Politicos from the US, EU, Japan and Australia agreed on this declaration, which makes any form of civil movement (trying to compel governments and corporations to act responsibly) an act of terrorism. Even worse, anyone involved in organising a rally, the rental services providing PA's and transport, poster printers and distributors, stage hands, caterers, etc all can be treated like terrorists according to paragraph (b).

The war on citizens is it an advanced stage, now the US, Japan, EU and Australia join their efforts in criminalizing democratic methods. You might want to invest in Serco, one of the 'public' private partners that runs many of Australia's internment camps, among other public services. Or talk to your neighbor about ways to get rid of a fascist government without military intervention. Or dream on about living in a democratic state. Or follow your orders without thinking. Or distract yourself with sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. Or hope for an alien intervention to stop global corporatism. Or taking more responsibility for your action. Or do what you want.

Rules don't need to make sense to be enforced. Welcome to the corporatist 21st century, the post-democratic era.

The State - all it has, it has stolen!
It even bites with stolen teeth!

Constitutions are utterly worthless to restrain the tyranny of governments, unless it be understood that the people will by force compel the government to remain within constitutional limits. Practically speaking, no government knows any limit to its power except the endurance of the people.

A government which takes your money by force like a common thief will use this stolen money to further enslave you and to prevent any rebellion on your part.

Gang of criminals

Once upon a time, a German politician named Wolfgang Schäuble met with an arms dealer. Only once, said Schäuble when confessing his nefarious action to the German parliament. However, he managed to forget that he received 100,000 Deutschmarks in cash during this meeting.

It was a tough time for the conservative party in Germany end of the last millenium. Dodgy ways to finance the party became public, suitcases of large amounts of cash, Swiss bank accounts and other schemes looking just like money laundry were unveiled. The social-democrats had taken over the government, and the conservatives were looking for new leadership.

Angela Merkel promised to 'sort out' the internal affairs, and bring honesty back into the party. For a while, she distanced herself of the icons of this scandal and tried to establish her position as 'leader' of the conservative party.

Angela Merkel became the first female chancellor in Germany, with high hopes that a coalition of German's two major party could overcome the indecisive inertia to tackle urging problems (like in many places, education, medical welfare, pensions and employment lack structure, commitment and resources). This hopes remained unfulfilled, the militarization of everyday life dominated politics.

Now, after she won the election and got rid of coalition with the social democrats, it was time to present her chosen ministers. A dutch journalist dared to ask Angela Merkel whether someone who meets up with arms dealers and 'forgets' about 100,000 Deutschmark in cash in his desk drawer is suitable as minister of finance for 82 million Germans. "He is someone who has got my trust, that's all I have to say."

In a way, her reply is much more honest than expected. In feudalism, trust determines how power is split up. Different laws apply for those who govern and those governed. A little bit of corruption and money laundry for the party can end up in jail with laws condemning his undemocratic and subversive behaviour as criminal. The German laws about the misdeeds of political parasites 'forget' penalties. Although the way the conservative party did their financing produced a scandal and lots of public outrage, none of the perpetrators needed to take responsibility in front of a regular court.

So, technically, even though Schäuble confessed his covert meeting with an infamous arms dealer, he's not a criminal. His status as politician prevented the jail term he would have received if he had done the same thing for an officially known organized crime gang. But being part of the gang that declares other gangs as 'bad' made it easy to continue as if nothing ever happened.

The criminal energy and inventiveness he had shown earlier to finance his partys affairs might come handy in his new role as minister of finance. Being reminded in public about her choice of team players, Merkel didn't seem amused, yet to me the name Rob Savelberg appeared on the horizon of real journalists.

Thanks, Rob.

Gay politics

The Age reports today about a young man being charged for blackmail. He had filmed himself having sex with a politician and threatened to put the video on the internet. While I do not suggest that blackmail is okay, we don't know whether he asked for money or love (most blackmailing is emotional, and never makes it to any court).

The 'victim' of the attempted blackmail attack remains unknown, we just hear that he is a 'married senior political figure', while the offenders details lie in plain sight. While Jake tried to 'out' this politician, he got outed by The Age. But maybe Jake doesn't mind if others know about his sexual identity.

So the same action, informing a wider range of people of one's preference for sex partners of the same gender, gets one person into trouble (for just trying it) while it fills happily the top of page 3 in The Age. It seems though that Jake didn't hide his sexual identity, unlike his lover for 5 month. He used a false identity during their relationship, not to mention the fact of his marriage.

A society, in which blackmailing about sexual identity still happens, deserves the label sexual repressive. This repression goes so far that representatives of the government deliberately deceive its constituents about their sexual orientation, they betray their churches by ridiculing their vow of marriage. (Of course, I imply here that the black mail victim is only one of the gay politicians playing a similar charade, not just a solitary bad apple)

Jake's career took a dent after his attempt to regain his relationship, make some extra money or what ever his motives were. The 'senior political figure' remains unknown, unharmed, protected by the secrecy of a feudalistic administration, that covers for his lies to his voters and spiritual community.

Representative democracy is based on trust, not on control. Control exists only for commoners, who are by definition potential terrorists, but not for those in control. National security, ie. the integrity of the network of parasites sucking the population dry, is the common excuse why politicians get granted privacy even for their lies and crimes, while the governments satellites can zoom into any property.

Let's call Jake's gay lover Kevin for simplicities sake. (Yes, like Kevin Rudd. No, I don't think he did it. Which doesn't mean it couldn't imagine Kevin Rudd doing something similar. I saw a photo of him snuggling one of the bushfire victims, a little boy, who looked less than comfy.) Kevin probably found out early in his life that boys made him happier in bed than girls. But in homophobic Australia career comes only with traditional family, so he got used to live different lifes.

Networking, the essential component in the existance of a political parasite, takes lots of time. This allows for plenty of excuses to do something entirely different, constructing realities/stories to meet the expectations of the environment becomes a skill. If Kevin manages to hide his sexual identity even from his spouse (which some gays manage to do) he fits into the profile of a pathological liar. If his wife is complicit, he qualifies as skilled conspiritor, willing to cooperatively deceive those around him.

I fail to find a decent explanation why someone should trust Kevin. His voters might be sufficiently homophobic not to vote for him just because of his sexual orientation (very likely imho), and he lied to them. He lied as well on his wedding ceremony, vowing monogamy. The separation between private and public life is similarly inadequate like the separation of mind and body - if a person's private life requires the regular construction of lies and deception, then we can safely assume the use of similar strategies in public life.

Kevin trusts someone, even more, Kevin networked with a lot of people exchanging 'dark secrets' to secure each other favours in time of need. Finding out the competitors bets for a tender can make building one's house cheaper, or get access to unusual areas of entertainment. Doing things outside the law for the network strengthens its bonds.

So when his little bitch came back to him, he knew that his name would not surface. The network of psychopaths would not let him fall.

No such thing as free lunch?

The corporate media excels in fear mongering (does it really have any other purpose?), the uncritical media consumer hears dreadful stories about the global economic crisis, bailouts, billions of losses and other memes with little to no relation to perceivable realities.

Money is not an issue, it's just a sort of energy storage/transformation system. All that billions of different currencies that have been 'lost' in the 'economic turmoil' have never existed, unless you grant volatile digital information a similar status like your pet or your neighbor.

Unfortunately, in our times of global dementia, the maintainers of this digital information use the advantage of having being able to redistribute real wealth like property, land and media access for centuries to disguise this simple fact.

The plan to dispossess the majority of this planets population in order to own them as cheap source of labour and entertainment continues unimpeded, the current invented crisis just speeds up the process. While mass media complains about greed and bludgers, nothing is done to stop those greedy bludgers in high places.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, even the Murdochs, Packers, Pratts, Rockefellers and so on had to corrupt politicians systematically to install systems to accumulate their wealth on the expense of an entire planet. Yet the return of investment for being allied to the global mafia that uses its muscles named IMF, World Bank, G20, etc. to prevent sucessfully freedom and democracy outperforms mold in destroying its source of food.

Representative 'democracy' is a no-win game for those forced to play along, they simply cannot affort to lobby politico-parasites into submission. The imaginary economic crisis will affect probably millions of people, but we will see no single Wall Street banker lining up for dole money - governments rather spend taxpayers money for golden dole-handshakes.

In times of corporate socialism (or corporatism, or fascism) the dole bludgers are easy to spot: They appear on TV and ask for more government, more support for failing banks, and blame individuals yet never themselves. The matrix in action.