The Hidden Curtain

The Immorality of the State

2013-01-16T17:48:00.000-08:00

Signers of the Constitution by Howard Chandler Christy, 1940

The question is "How can one measure the level of state immorality?".

It is always a challenge trying to reduce any complex issue into quantifiable numbers, but such an approach can be very informative as long as it isn't forgotten the large number of issues that fall outside such a domain. The goal behind this question is to try to begin to construct a comparison of modern states along a 'morality' measurement.

An implication of this is that in trying to construct a society, or bring about some kind of change, the effect along one of these morality measurements can be predicted and measured. Additionally, I hope the discussion can help to establish some common ground between different parties who aim to bring about such changes.

The discussion can be followed here.

Updates to follow.

A Blow to Internet Freedom

2013-01-02T17:03:00.000-08:00

Those counting on the internet to be the driving force behind social change may be forced to reevaluate their positions as new internet legislation out of China demonstrates that the paradigm of dominance remains as the determining factor in socio-politcal structures.

The Revolution Machine by Todd Berman (Creative Commons)

The new legislation in China requires internet service providers takes steps to ensure that users are registered using their true identities. Given the timing of the legislation, following rising online criticism of the Chinese government the motivation behind this legislation seems undeniable, and will therefore not be discussed here. Instead I would like to set this in the context of the role the Internet and social media tools play in revolution.

What this demonstrates is that the internet in itself is not a road to freedom from dominance.

Technology and social media advocates we elated with the role these played in the recent Arab Spring uprisings, and it would be difficult to argue against the notion that these were very positive tools for change in the hands of people fighting for greater freedoms there. The danger arises though with the idea that these tools are themselves the catalysts for change.

Raphael Thelen (Creative Commons)

A quote from the Revolution board on Reddit in response for a user post asking how we can go about starting a revolution:

"It is already happening. Just more slowly than you would like. Its an information revolution. No more secrets, lies get exposed very fast"

There is of course some truth to the response, however the implication is also that we only need wait out the course of events currently underway and a true cooperative society will arrive on our doorstep.

Not only does this deny the massive effort by those on the ground in those Arab countries, taking real risks for their beliefs, but it also gives and easy opt-out for non-participation in forcing through change.

The situation in China demonstrates that in better organized countries, with greater control over their internal systems and infrastructure, those tools become much less meaningful. A major difference between middle-eastern countries and China, is the former's lack of such elaborate controls. While some Arab countries were able to maintain repressive regimes, they were still in a much more chaotic state with more porous societies, leading into the uprisings. Every attempt to block internet communications, could be countered with users jumping to the systems of nearby countries, and the same efforts and investments in technologies and policies to control online information had not been made.

Compounding these factors are also China's relative geographic isolation. A look at population distribution shows the majority of the population clustered along the coast towards Russia (itself constructing a Great Firewall), North and South Korea, and the pacific ocean.

This is mirrored in the way that the internet traffic flows through to Asia in general as was demonstrated dramatically following the aftermath of the HengChun earthquake. Several major submarine communication cables connecting Asia to North America were damaged or severed causing massive disruptions in internet communications.

To what extent these policy changes will dampen criticism of the Chinese national government online is hard to predict. Access to proxy servers, and other methods of masking online activities remain readily available, and while the extent to which these will be adopted by greater numbers of people is impossible to say, it is a reasonable conclusion that the more access is limited the less people will access it.

The most subversive part of the legislation is that it places responsibility on the internet service providers for collecting and verifying identification of internet users. This places these businesses in the position of supporting would-be government critics by actions now outside the law, or supporting the government in their efforts to monitor and control internet criticism. Most likely this means that internet service providers will be co-opted into being defacto government agencies, given that they risk their ability to continue to operate should their users attract the wrong kind of government attention.

What should be taken away from these developments is that where revolution is concerned humans will remain the dominant agents for change. To claim that technology itself will be the force behind toppling dominant governments is to embrace a structuralist mentality that views individuals as the products of the systems they live within, whereas the reality is much more complex. New technologies will transform society, especially those that influence mass communication, but transformation is by itself a neutral process. For transformation to be positive will and effort on the part of human agents will always be required.

Criticism of Religion - Quick Quote

2012-12-25T23:37:00.000-08:00

The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence, relations which cannot be better described than by the cry of a Frenchman when it was planned to introduce a tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to treat you as human beings!

Bárbara Sapere

Greed is Survival, but no Longer Necessary

2012-12-22T10:24:00.000-08:00

'Greed', in the sense of the desire to accumulate material wealth, whether in resources and good, or more abstract capital measurements, is a primary factor in all socio-political system imbalances that are the cause of so many ills in the history of at least state-like systems of organizing people.

A full description of those ills is a full topic in itself, but suffice it to say the main ill is the co-opting of any instincts towards more egalitarian or compassionate behavior in individuals at large. The sickness in the system is its subversive influence on people leading them to justify their participation in a way of life that is obviously so damaging to so many.

Greed, however, is still only a proximate cause itself the result of other factors. This becomes clear when one sees that it is not the system that causes greed but greed that created the system, or at best the two are self-perpetuating.

The origins of greed as a manifest behavior can be seen when human populations first transitioned from nomadic to sedentary lifestyles. This is true for the simple fact that living a nomadic life a person is limited to what can be carried, and items that do no contribute to survival must, as a necessity, be kept to a minimum. The nomad, at his/her origins, is survival focused.

This survival focus is turned very easily in the human mind for a day-to-day subsistence existence to embracing a longer-term outlook that begins to take into account that the surplus in times of plenty can be turned to a benefit should the excess be able to be stored and retrieved at some point in the future when resources are low. Such 'rainy day' planning is displayed by a number of creatures in the animal kingdom, and to imagine this behavior in prehistoric humans is not much of a stretch of the imagination.

Thus the desire and behavior towards accumulating excess would have already been in place by the time of the first human settlements. And how easily our minds confuse wants with needs are of the same importance.

The next steps are simple, excess becomes influence in its ability to be used to shape the behavior of others, and influence becomes power. Eventually the 'Big Man' of the tribe emerges, and where powerful enough solidifies his dominance and begins to crystallize social hierarchies until we get to where we are now.

Today the behavior of accumulating and storing excess is dominant and pervasive across populations in at least all developed regions of the world. What is enough money? Enough to survive - survive at what level? The fact that these questions have no answers is the co-opting force in modern society, and from one angle it can be seen as the survival focus still at work. Who is to say to anyone there will not be some personal calamity on the horizon with the potential to tax their resources below the survival level, and to which accumulated wealth could potentially offset. Where then to tell them to stop, without the guarantee of the absence of future risk.

And therefore the drive never ends.

For me the question this all leads to is, imagining that a society could be created where survival at an accepted level can be guaranteed, could this have the effect of conditioning people over time into abandoning their 'greed' behavior? Then what would such a society look like?

The success of any revolution would be contained in its aims, and I believe that in order bring about any substantial change we would need to wipe the slate clean and start again. Tear down all existing systems and rebuild with only a simple idea in mind - creating a society where no one need ever fear the ruin of destitution. Undoubtedly the resources exist, any many imbalances can be corrected with the simple elimination of waste.

The socialists and anarchists are too busy hyphenating their divisions over orthodoxy to ever bring us there. Their beliefs are artifacts of the current system. Trust not in anyone who claims to know all the answers.

Leave nothing intact.

Credits:

Money-greed illustrationIllustration By Frits
hikingartist.com

Mongolian NomadPhoto by Tonio94

Libyan Dictator Moammaer GaddafiUsed under creative commons license

Secret History of Chemical Warfare

2012-09-22T03:27:00.001-07:00

The secret in 'The Secret History of Chemical Warfare", by N.J. McCamley, is not the story of a covert world of mad scientists conducting horrifying experiments under tacit government approval, but instead it is about of the success of special interest groups in manipulating public and government opinion to maintain support for the development of weapons programs of dubious utility.

The story unfolds throughout the narrative of early 20th century chemical weapons development, describing the ebb and flow of public opinion and political will fed by intense media speculation and determined chemical industry interests, told against the backdrop of the militarized war periods.

Most of the book is focused on developments of the Chemical Weapons industry during World War I and World War II, with a large section devoted to a country by country breakdown of the state of chemical manufacturing during the inter-war period. To be sure, there is a monotony to the details of the process of selecting factory locations, construction timelines, and production capacities of various Chemical Weapons ingredients and their precursor components. Overall, however, the author presents a compelling series of facts with a measure of neutrality, drawing together the implications of policy decisions, and swings in public opinion, and deftly cutting through political and military to reveal the web of motivations based on profit, fear, and sometimes just pride that fueled the stockpiling of countless tons of deadly chemical agents.

The narrative is infused with a strong anti-war morality, made particularly effective by reserving judgement for statements that would paint a fake gallantry over one mode of death versus another, and by dolling out a healthy degree of skepticism for the reliability of military intelligence or the honesty of unverified political statements.

The most informative sections of the book are those that outline how small groups of military or industrial interests were able to influence military or diplomatic policy as part of serving their own agendas. One of the most effective examples was the role the British dye industry played in shaping post WWI policy.

Almost non-existent before the war, at a time when Germany was the dominant exporter of chemical dyes, the allied powers found themselves scrambling to respond to German introduction of Chemical Weapons to the WWI battlefield. The chemical produced in the dye industry are responsible for many of the precursor ingredients of early chemical weapons, and the manufacturing processes are easily convertible to wartime purposes. Quickly built up during the conflict, by the end of the war Britain has a substantial domestic chemical industry by the of the armistice that feared the resumption of German companies trading in the world marketplace.

Similar developments in the USA left both countries with sizable chemical industries by the close of the war, groups that now possessed an interest in the continued investment into the development of chemical weapons. These industry groups undertook a process of shaping public and government opinion in order to preserve and increase their financial investments. That they were able to succeed is all the more remarkable given a general disdain for chemical weapons in military circles, and the inability of chemical weapons to claim any significant contributions to the war effort. What they were able to do was to use dubious scientific claims to fan a general public hysteria towards possible gas attacks, paving the way for the large military powers to amass vast stockpiles of deadly chemical agents.

In what should be a positive note, the book ends with a description of the efforts to dispose of military stockpiles taking place in recent years, but the bleak picture painted in the preceding chapters greatly overshadows what could be considered a victory for both reason and peace. Modern accounts of the use of chemical weapons are also absent from the book, including examples very familiar to the general public including the use of defoliating agents by the US in Vietnam, and allegations of chemical attacks against dissidents by the former government of Saddam Hussein.

Despite these omissions, and an at times tedious attention to obscure production details, The Secret History of Chemical Warfare offers and important lesson to attentive readers on the dangers of unchecked special interest groups, as well as a refreshingly unbiased anti-war mentality.

The Secret History of Chemical Warfare, by Nicholas J. McCamley, is published by Pen & Sword Military, and is widely available in both print and digital formats.

Why all the '-isms' fail - except the one's we got now

2012-07-09T17:17:00.000-07:00

Summary: All proposed alternatives to the current socio-economic model are failures due to the inability of these models to account for basic societal forces stemming from a general desire for the accumulation of material wealth. Often this is due to a myopic view of the present which does not succeed in tracing behavioral tendencies down to root causes.

The flaccid inefficacy of revolutionary movements in bringing about meaningful changes in public consciousness, or actual governance, is by this point in time glaring. Proponents of the alternative ‘-isms’ have become adept at pointing out superficial scapegoats, and have developed systems of classification that border on religious orthodoxy, while making no tangible progress towards their stated aims.

To give people advancing these views the benefit of the doubt, I would not suggest that their motivations are suspect. That the world contains massive inequities between the wealth of individual people is a fact without doubt, and further to say that people are not all full participatory members in the systems of governance that commands their lives is also not an exaggeration. Where the groups of people who would address these problems first err is in by not looking past their own small moments in time for what the cause of current imbalances is.

For the sake of simplicity, this argument will be contained to the western countries of classical heritage. That is, countries who all exist along a small spectrum of representative democratic governance, and mixed-capitalist economies.

It is that second part that seems to attract much of the rancor.

Without getting into definitions of capitalism, the actual feature of the current economic system that elicits strong emotions is the ability of some people to acquire more wealth than others, and the consequences that result when this happens. Inequality of wealth distribution, however, is not a feature exclusive to capitalism, and this myopic view of the causes of inequality dooms proposals for revolutionary alternatives by failing to identify root causes, and thereby not effectively addressing solutions to the problem.

Greed is the word most often bandied about, but to blame capitalism for greed is a simplistic fallacy. To tie greed together with terms such as oppression, is to fail to recognize that there is a single root cause that leads to any system of governance, and economic relationships that has so far existed in human history. And to isolate capitalism from other forms of governance

"A man does not know his own ADDRESS (in time) until he knows where his time and milieu stand in relation to other times and conditions" –Ezra Pound

Humans acquire wealth because they can. Any proposed system that seeks to upend this cultural trajectory cannot do so based on assumptions inherent human behavior that is not supported by evidence. The idea that by simply removing government individuals gain the power to treat with one another on fair terms ignores the fact that government was originally not something imposed from above, but willed into existence by people themselves.

The root of this situation is the emergence of one particular cultural trajectory that gained dominance across most of the world. It began over 11,000 years ago when ancient humans make the transition from nomadic to sedentary societies.

Jericho

In a nomadic society the acquisition of wealth is limited by a very practical factor of portability. It is upon settling in one place that the concept of property arises, and the fixed shelters that are erected there. In this situation members of a society are able to accumulate more than they can carry, whether it be livestock or other material items. Simple chance or luck will now ensure that the wealth of some will begin to outstrip that of their neighbors.

Once members of a society have acquired a level of material wealth they now have an interest in ensuring that their wealth is protected from being acquired by others. This can mean laws or arbitration to deal with simple theft, or more complex social systems where inheritance rights are introduced. Societies as a whole may now choose to take steps ensure that their communities are protected from the deprivations of others through such steps as building wall or other simple fortifications, or the raising of military.

This gives rise to a class of people who are given the right to enforce, arbitrate, and/or legislate new laws, and to the rise of the concept of positional authority quite different from that which can be demonstrated through efficacy in the hunt or on the field of battle. A situation where the individual, out of self-interest, has voluntarily surrendered a degree of will to a governing body, and the beginning of possible oppression* through non-physical means.

As populations grow, government is magnified, and the individual diminishes. Here we now are.

I do not believe, nor do I hear, calling for a return to nomadic societies is the answer to bringing greater balance to societies. What I do believe is required is an alternative system that takes into account the tendency of people to want to acquire wealth, and the need for mechanisms for personal and group protection. Until an answer for this is found all your ‘-isms’ will fail.

*Oppression through religious or spiritual belief systems is ignored here, although it is also important contributing factor in some cultural trajectory, and undoubtedly an area suitable for intense discussion.

Revolutionary Notes #4 - The Undesirables

2012-05-14T07:37:00.001-07:00

Who are the undesirables?

The efficacy of a government at its root depends on two factors, the system within which it operates, and the members who constitute it. This is true whether the governing body is a single person, group of people, or the collective society itself.

How to define governmental efficacy, or what features comprise a good system are outside the scope of this writing, and will be covered at a later date.

The aim here is to discuss who should form that government, and who are the undesirables.

This will be based on the following propositions:

A governing body, regardless of its setup, should be formed from members of the society it governs.
The nature of the members of this society will shape the governing body for good or ill.
Such a governing body will have a mandate from the society it governs and will be in a position to exercise its governing function.

Following from this it becomes of critical importance exactly which people are and are not members of this new society. Ignoring skill, experience, etc., such a society should not include any members who are not aligned with the society over which they may be in a position to govern in order to ensure the continuing alignment of the government with the aims and principles of the governed.

From this point forward the term 'morality' will be used to refer to this alignment. Morality is rooted in the society, and to be against the collective will is to be immoral.

To avoid any misunderstanding, let it be explicitly said here, that gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, wealth (or lack of it), and education (or lack of it), are not determining factors in a person's moral quality, and therefore not determinants of a person's ability to govern, or eligibility to be included in society. I firmly believe that the majority of human beings on the planet can be included.

So let's focus on who cannot.

If you accept that the current state of governance, all along its spectrum from democracy to communism, socialism to capitalism, monarchies, theocracies, juntas, and corporate states, are not worth preserving in their entirety, then it is only a small step to recognize that each are only a manifestation of root problems. Variations on a flawed theme. A theme that needs to be erased so a new system can grow in its place. A system that can be built on the knowledge we now know of what does and does not work.

In this current system people can be classified according to their orientation towards improving the collective well-being of the society of which they are a part.

They are:

Those who cannot see the problem (the ignorant)
Those who choose not to see the problem because they benefit from it (the willful)
Those who ignore the problem in order to attend to the biological imperatives of health, family, etc. (the clouded)
Those who see the problem and cannot act (the powerless)
Those who see the problem and do not know how to act (the confused)
The who know the problem and do not act (the corrupt)

Finer divisions are possible, for example of those who do not see some can be shown, and some cannot, but for our purposes today lets reduce these six even further.

Those who can't see
Those who do but cannot act
Those who can act but don't

The majority of people fall into the category of those who are aware, or are capable of being made aware, but are powerless to act. From this list, these are the only people who can be included in a society that has a governing body truly capable of representing it.

The ignorant who can not see would never be in a place where they could participate in governing. There is simply no way to ensure that their actions would be consistent with the morality of society. At best, any action they took would only randomly align, at worst, their course could be directed by false reasoning opposed to the course of revolution
.

The alternative is to allow them to be members of this society who are barred from participating it its governance. Such a course of action though would contradict the first proposition, as the government would no longer be representative of all the people it governs. Additionally, this has already been shown to be a corrosive element in a society, and as in the body, when a hormone defects, it will defect throughout the whole system.

How to determine who falls into this category is more complicated, and will not be touched on here. To eliminate one possible interpretation, however, this is not a position in support of inclusion based on 'intelligence'. Intelligence is not defined sufficiently to serve as a means of judgement, and current psychometric tests are significantly biased towards particular cultures and economic classes.

The there are the corrupt. Defined here as those with means who oppose a revolution either through inaction, or active suppression. There exclusion from society is a must. These people can be counted on to intentionally subvert the system for contrary aims.

It is a critical success factor of a future revolution to determine exactly who are the corrupt ones in such as way that will allow following generations to identify the individual characteristics that must be modified or excluded from a future society.

These people and their predecessors bear the responsibility for the current state of things, and the anarchy during the transition leading to the revolution being proposed here will likely see debts of blood called in regardless of what the agents of change do or do not advocate.

The flaying of the corrupt

For the undesirables, the means to identify and exclude them cannot be fully determined until the new society begins to take place. Such a society should not be burdened with having to make decisions against its future morality. The proper course of action against them will flow naturally from that new social framework as it develops, and it is not for me to say what course that should be.

Leave nothing intact.

For more posts in this series see:

Freemason Open House

2012-05-11T10:20:00.000-07:00

It was reported recently that the Port Lincoln Freemason lodge will be opening its doors to the public for the first time, claiming that this is an attempt to convince the public that it is not a society full of secrets.

The degree of contradictions in this statement is staggering, and while it is a somewhat bold attempt to polish the image of the often maligned group it fails to address major concerns about their organization.

The past master of the lodge explains that he only wants the public to know that:

"It's a group of men that believe in a supreme being and have a common interest in life, which is based on strict morals and a betterment of life."

He then continues, and admits that it is part of an widespread attempt to attract the next generation of Masons.

It is well known that there are many layers of belief in this ancient society and this is what casts the most disparaging light on their claims of openness. The fact that the full beliefs of the society are not revealed until a member reaches the 33 degree, means that their existing practice contains elements of deception even for their own members.

Part of the success of their behavioral modification methodology is that by placing a high price tag, at least in terms of time and effort, on reaching the deepest levels of the organization means that they create a state of mind in their initiates that will subconsciously work to justify the beliefs that are revealed to them step by step. Even if those beliefs are contrary to the ones originally held by those persons.

In previous posts about cognitive dissonance we have discussed the subtle nature of these theories as they apply to overt behavioral modification. A simple way to state it in this case is that when you make something exclusive and difficult to attain, those that do manage to achieve it are psychologically primed to more fully accept, and value the ideas that they are shown. This is a typical cult methodology.

As a closing point it is worth mentioning that while the term morality is often used as a synonym for good, it is more accurately defined as the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong) - according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, or group. This does not mean, nor is it claimed by the Freemasons, that there is one definite and consistent moral code shared by everyone. A society such as theirs, that keeps their moral code locked under multiple layers of secrecy begs the question as to what they are hiding.

Those answers will not be found by simply gazing on rooms that were previously closed. That gives no insight into the hearts and minds of these men.

Mitt Romney - A disaster in logic

2012-05-09T08:41:00.000-07:00

I will resit the temptation to accuse the republicans of relying almost solely on flawed logic.

From Mitt Romney:

"Now we have more chronic long-term unemployment than this country has ever seen before, twenty million people out of work, stopped looking for work, or in part-time jobs that need full-time jobs, we've got housing prices continuing to decline, and we have foreclosures at record levels. This president has failed."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc I say. Meaning - after this, therefore because of this.

This is a false causation argument, that is saying that because one thing happened after another there is a causal relationship.

What Romney's statement boils down to is:

Obama was elected in 2008
The economy has performed poorly since 2008
Therefore Obama is the cause of the bad economy
Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't, but simply stating that Obama caused the bad economy because it occurred after his election does not demonstrate proof that one caused the other.

A more correct form of causal argument might be:

Bush eliminated financial market regulations
Lack of regulation allowed companies to accumulate too much bad debt
When companies were unable to pay their debt many people lost their jobs due to companies going bankrupt

Too much democracy

2012-05-08T09:51:00.002-07:00

For those who haven't been here, Indonesia is a strange place. In many ways it is a great place to live, but for those of you who have never been outside of Europe or North America you have never seen pollution, traffic, or blatant corruption until travelling through some of the cities in Asia, Jakarta being no exception.

In recent surveys Indonesia scored as one of the happiest countries on earth, but it is also a place that can quickly flare into full-scale riots, as seen a few weeks ago although not widely reported in western media.

It is the largest democratic Muslim country in the world, and there is a general freedom to express political viewpoints of all kinds. But ask around and what you will often hear from people on the street is that there is too much democracy, and sometimes a longing for the old days under the dictatorship of Suharto.

It is democracy in the extreme here. There is no infrastructure development, because no elected official can look past their short elected terms. There is no progress on reforms, or laws, because every official seeks to maintain the sharp rhetoric that had them voted into off in the first place, and have no incentive to compromise.

And then there is Aceh province. Aceh is a semi-autonomous province that is extremely Muslim. In most places in Indonesia, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian, live side by side in relative accord, but Aceh has democratically voted themselves into a repressive semi-theocracy.

It is there you will find the mullahs patrolling the streets, and a strong and often hostile xenophobia towards other belief systems. Not, however, imposed on them by any religious authority, but chosen through free and open elections.

Indonesians often look to their thriving neighbors in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Shanghai, and ask themselves if a democratic system is best. In those heavily centrally directed places, things are generally cleaner, more organized, and prosperous. Leading to the conclusion that here you have too much democracy.

Obama's Speech - Cognitive Dissonance

2012-05-08T07:11:00.000-07:00

First post in a new series about logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance in the political space.
In this first post we take a look at a seemingly innocuous speech given by Obama on Feb 15, 2012 in Milwaukee, WI.

Briefly stated cognitive dissonance is when a person simultaneously holds two conflicting beliefs, ideas, feelings, or values.The theory holds that a person will sub-consciously work to reconcile the conflict by altering their inner state so that it is in alignment. Even short, cognitive dissonance leads to behavioral modification.

In the speech, Obama is addressing a blue collar crowd, and makes mention of the long running trend of US manufactures outsourcing jobs to countries with lower costs, specifically China.

He states:

"They're [companies who outsource] taking deductions for the expenses of moving out the United States. Meanwhile, companies that are doing the right thing and choosing to stay here, they get hit with the hugest tax rate in the world"

Ignoring the factual statements, this statement, that was greeted with strong applause, sets up a state of dissonance for these companies.

A companies primary responsibility is to make money, so the main incentive is to seek out the best conditions for doing so. Obama's statement frames this as a moral decision creating a dissonant state where companies have one course of action that is best for their interests, and one course that is right.

The danger in this approach is 1) that does not address the issue, where in this case the government is responsible for aligning the company's incentive to make money, and 2) the likely reaction is for companies to reject the moral argument justifying the gains of doing so against the 'rightness' of the action.

Without meaning to invoke a slippery slope argument, how easy does it become to make future immoral decisions after the first one is out of the way. I would argue that we should try to avoid forcing people onto the wrong side of the morality fence, especially when there are no gains in doing so.

The is the additional problem that this easily leads to a governmental situation where protectionist policies seems like the best remedy. Which when you look at farm subsidies as an example create situations where the American public ends up paying for people to do business. And in that example, we end up with a powerful lobby dedicated to protecting the rights of the few in charge of the massive arga-businesses that pass for 'The American Farmer'.

This is not responsible government. A responsible government proposes effective solutions for real problems, and does not rely on emotional or morality charged arguments to sway over the masses.

Revolutioinary Notes #2 - What is a revolution?

2012-05-07T07:25:00.000-07:00

Before going too far on this topic it is important to step back and clarify what this subject is about. To first ask 'What is a revolution?'

Tseu-Leu asked: If the Prince of Mei appointed you head of government. to what wd. you first set your mind?
Confucius: to call people and things by their names, that is by the correct denominations, to see that terminology was exact.
"You mean that is the first?" Said Tseu-Leu. "Aren't you dodging the question? What's the use of that?"
Confucius: You are a blank. An intelligent man hesitates to talk of what he does not understand, he feels embarrassed.
If the terminology be not exact, if it fit not the thing, the governmental instructions will not be explicit, if the instructions aren't clear and the names don't fit, you cannot conduct business properly.
If business is not properly run the rites and music will not be honored, if the rites and music be not honored, penalties and punishments will not achieve their intended effects, if penalties and punishments do not produce equity and justice, the people won't know where to out their feet or what to lay hold of or to whom they should stretch out their hands.
That is why an intelligent man cares for his terminology.

Some people in the past have recognized the importance of tending to their words. As the quote above illustrates Confucius saw definitions as an important factor in maintaining the stability and cohesion of a society. Something often lacking in his Greek counterparts. And where we see Confucian ideas taking root and going into action for 1000's of years, no one has ever set aside the smallest piece of land to try out Plato's republic.

The co-opting of words and their meaning has also long been recognized as a powerful tool in any war over the minds of humanity. In the public debate over climate change one side can be seen very successfully taking the words of the other an imbuing them with new meaning, making them terms of derision. In the ongoing conflict between the US government and inter-state Middle Eastern paramilitary groups, the latter have increasingly adopted the language of the former in an attempt to widen the definition of their words so that they apply equally to state organized, and independently organized militarized groups.

The word revolution has met with a similar treatment. Below are a few examples of the word in common usage:

This is Apple's most coherent effort yet to bind its family of screens closer together and to bring its revolution to the TV set.
NEW YORK Chevrolet's American Revolution campaign has been arevolution of sorts in the advertising world.
How to Manage and Measure the Word of Mouth Revolution...
...and so Febreze, a product originally conceived as a revolutionary ...

Revolution has clearly entered into the lexicon of product marketing. It is at this point that I must confess that my heart grows cold to society at large when I contemplate the intention behind the high-jacking of this word.

The word 'revolution' has been chosen specifically because it is a powerful word that has overwhelming connotations of drastic change. It appeals to youthful energies, and our sense of justice.

Then diluted and applied to convince people to buy computer software.

Or skateboards.

Or watch more television.

Within the context of social change, the word again has a range of meanings. From minor political change that leaves the host system intact, to the social revolution which by definition means:

the reorganization of the industrial, economic life of the country and consequently also of the entire structure of society

From here forward when the word revolution is used, this is what is meant. I would see the term mean not a revolt, but a turning of the wheel so that a completely new side is shown.

Leave nothing intact.

For more posts in this series see:

How Hypocrisy Leads to Behavioral Change - part 1 background

2012-05-05T23:31:00.000-07:00

A recent tool in the behavioral modification arsenal used by governments and other large institutions is the dissonance paradigm of hypocrisy.

This is a very subtle technique that was developed out of cognitive dissonance theories. To state it briefly, cognitive dissonance is when a person holds two mutually inconsistent cognition. What research has shown is that people will modify their beliefs or self-concept to eliminate this conflict, without being aware that any modification has taken place.

A simple example can be shown from The Fox and the Grapes parable by Aesop. In this tale a fox see some grapes high up in vine and wishes to eat them, when the fox is unable to find a way to eat the grapes it then concludes that the grapes are probably not ripe anyway, and would just taste sour. In cognitive research research this is called the "adaptive preference formation"

Another example can be seen in various doomsday cults, who are forced into some kind of adaption to resolve cognitive dissonance after their prophecies fail to come true. Here the cult members have to either accept that their beliefs were wrong, or as more often happens change their beliefs in some way such as concluding that they were spared in order to continue spreading their teachings.

Minor examples of government use of this technique are well documented. Public behavioral modification programs related to reducing litter, increasing condom use, or promoting racial tolerance. All with documented success.

Cases of less well-intiontioned use are obviously not so well documented, but with the ease in which this technique can be employed it is not without reason to suspect that it is a common tool in the arsenal of any groups with an agenda reliant on changing the behaviors of large groups of people.

Future posts on this topic will examine some speculative areas where there is some suggestion of cognitive dissonance in society, for now it will be left to the readers here to leave any suggestions they have.

More information here

Revolutionary Notes #3 - Revolutionaries are Liars

2012-05-04T08:19:00.000-07:00

Revolutionary leaders do not exist, but their spokespeople are liars.

Don't misunderstand, this is not to say that the voices associated with the heads of revolutionary movements are not sincere in their intent - that is unknowable, can only make judgement based on a person's actions. Nor does it mean that there is any deceit in the promises of a new world they have made to their followers.

What it does mean is that there is an inherent (self) lie in assuming that any vision can fully encompass a new socio-economic system, fully formed, with all of its moving interconnected parts.

So why don't revolutionary leaders exist?

A revolution as we have previously defined it is not a modification to an existing system. It is a complete erasure so that an alternative system, one that had the potential of evolving from initial conditions, can take hold.

What would such a system be? No one, except perhaps a marginal few such as my namesake [the original Frobenius - A.W.], has had the ability to fully conceptualize a complete socio-economic system, so no one can know the ultimate outcome of such a revolution.

The few actual revolutions that have occurred have either taken place over long periods of time, for example the Mesolithic shift from matriarchal to patriarchal societies, or have been the manifestation of prevailing conditioned that catalyzed whole societies into action. It is debatable, but the French revolution is a possible example.

In the first case there are no leaders, and it is very possible that no one was even aware the revolution was taking place, In the second, there are figureheads, and spokespeople who are products of their environments who could not have enacted similar changes in different prevailing conditions.

These people are still to be praised and valued where merited, but what accepting does is suggest criteria for evaluating their ultimate utility.

Does their message relate to prevailing societal conditions?
Is their vision of change abstract enough to allow for a new system to evolve unhindered in place of the old?
Are they suggesting a modification of the existing system, or any kind of phased transition that would allow followers an early out when momentum dies down?
Are they a figure that commands attention, and that other can relate to?

The root message of any serious revolution must be:

This is not ok. Even if things improve it will still not be ok, and even if we don't know what , we must find a different way of doing things.

Therefore the blueprint for revolution is:

Create or wait for the prevailing conditions to support change
Identify figureheads who can support change
Cull or exclude the undesirables who will upset the evolution of a new system
Erase all traces of the current system
Let something new evolve in its place

Next topic will be: The Undesirables

For more posts in this series see:

Anti-Mason - Oath of the Jesuits

2012-05-02T23:36:00.001-07:00

If you thought you hated the Freemasons:

(The following material contained in Congressional Record, House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, February 15, 1913

"I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex, or condition, and that will hang, bum, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants' heads against the wails in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same can not be done openly, I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus"

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesuits.htm

Revolutionary Notes #1 - An Open Letter

2012-05-02T07:47:00.000-07:00

From Frobenius:

I am not firmly convinced that a revolution is coming, or for that matter that there is any kind of trend towards growing awareness or even discontent.

Our system is one with a built in pressure valve, and like any successful social system succeeds because of the majority who have something invested in seeing it continue to be perpetuated.

When I speak of a pressure valve I am referring to periodic elections, which, by design or not, are a system of minimal renewal whereby a low-resistance path is provided for people to have an outlet for their discontent. If I am not happy, and am not sure why or what to do about it, a ready answer is there in an election I can participate in, observe, or simply complain about after the fact.

And keep in mind 20-30% is a majority in a fractured society.

The stake that is put into this system? The long hours at university, the things sacrificed for that first down payment on a car or a house. The time spent envying another's possessions, or arguments spent convincing or being convinced to being on the right side of taste or common sense. All the energy expended caring in order to succeed at some job, or the real feeling of reward at seeing paychecks come in.

Who could face all that having meant nothing? Not when there is an easier route to take.

All of this creates a state of existence where even those who can point to things they would change - the politicians - the top 1% - would do so only to see all else remain the same, or merely improve along the existing scale.

Not possible.

Society is far too interconnected to pick and choose which pieces to keep or remove, not where there is something that is fundamentally wrong.

To overcome this sodden inertia is the real barrier to revolution.

If it is you who would wish to see a new world, then to you I would say find a way to bring things to a state where the easiest thing to do is for the average person to embrace anarchy. Feed the corruption, protect the hoarders, make all of those who you'd wish to see gone so proud and so safe that they couldn't help but flaunt it. Make them secure enough to do the things they wish for now, but wouldn't dare. Raise the pitch until there is no choice but find some way to turn it off.

Transcribed by Ans Wallonia

For more posts in this series see:

ANNOUNCEMENT - Revolutionary Notes Series

2012-05-01T07:23:00.001-07:00

A new series of revolutionary notes sent to us by someone operating under the name Frobenius starts tomorrow!

Initial correspondence with this covert source indicates a person or group of people highly-knowledgeable in fringe conspiracy theories, and able to bring deep insights to bear regarding what the meaning of all this hidden activity is.

Frobenius claims to be motivated by 'disinterest in the Victorian sense', and when asked about the motivation behind this new series responded only with the Chinese proverbs:

新

日

新

and

一以贯之

No agreement on the meaning of these sayings seems to exist, so readers are invited to submit their interpretations as the series continues.

Information on Frobenius as a historical figure can be found here, and recent posting possibly relating to our new source are available via the Panawave.

Should we be telling aliens where we are?

2012-02-16T08:24:00.000-08:00

Recently from ATS:

So my question is should Scientists be sending signals announcing our presence, and should they instead be figuring out ways to hide us from detection rather advertising our world to god knows what out there!!

Full text here

Freemason White-Washing

2012-01-24T05:49:00.000-08:00

Monitoring of Freemason activity suggests a very subtle white-washing campaign. Check out the following headlines:

Fun at the fair:
Children and adults with illnesses or additional needs were treated to a memorable and heartwarming day out at a fun fair organised by Erewash Borough Council and Derbyshire Freemasons.

Air ambulances get Freemason funds

Skydive for Grand Charity:
TWO Diss freemasons joined 44 other people in raising £20,000 after skydiving 10,000 feet from an aeroplane.

Groups combine to lend a hand:
Citizens Who Care and Sir Augustus Freemasons Lodge of Queensland have both donated $1000 towards the service to buy 33 new food-grade cooler boxes.

An innocuous way of marginalizing the viewpoint you don't want others to hear is to make it the small minority by flooding the web with irrelevant or misleading content.

DuPont Bloodline

2012-01-19T04:01:00.000-08:00

History of the DuPont bloodline:

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bloodlines/dupont.htm

DuPont ties to Lockheed Martin

2012-01-18T03:56:00.000-08:00

Hiding in plain sight, DuPont and Lockheed Martin are tied together at the board of director level.

http://www2.dupont.com/Our_Company/en_US/directors/index.html

Recent reports of the development of new sub-orbital cruising planes should create new fears for anti-Chemtrail activists.

Clear Skies of Asia

2012-01-10T03:49:00.000-08:00

Although UFO sightings continue to rise over most of Asia, this seems to be the one part of the world not affected by the recent upsurge in Chemtrail suspicions.

Hardly a paragon of virtue, the Chinese government's apparently clean slate with other NWO depopulation activities can be traced back to a few root causes:

1. Air traffic over the middle kingdom is extensively restricted, reserved mostly for irregular military activities.
2. Population controls brought in over the last 50 years have created a dangerous demographic situation, and the central government is now looking for ways to BOOST population.
3. The central role of DuPont in Chemtrail initiatives has them tied tightly to Lockheed Martin, a competitor to aspiring Chinese domestic airline manufacturers.

Breathe easy.

Illuminati & Religion

2011-12-29T04:17:00.000-08:00

In a report on Illuminati and religion, the website Above Top Secret claims that a top priority on the Illuminati agenda is destroying people's belief in god.

The reason, they say, is that knowing the truth (the Christian God by their definition) makes it more likely that someone will be able to be aware of the true agenda and goals of this mysterious organization. What that agenda is, they fail to elaborate on.

For the moment I will suspend my own opinions, and instead call on anyone reading this to provide examples of how a belief in religion correlating to a reduction in ignorance.

Ultimately it is difficult to accept a website's claim of denying ignorance while at the same time advocating blind faith in any kind of archaic text where the last 'evidence' supporting its claims is lost in the mists of history.

The full text by DumbTopSecretWriters; a member of AboveTopSecret.com can be found at the link below.

The Illuminati Agenda : Religion
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread789062/pg1#pid13072218.

Misleading Resources - UK UFO Archives Released

2011-12-15T00:07:00.000-08:00

Earlier this year the UK Ministry of Defense released over 9000 pages of documents relating to to UFO reports filed over a 22 year period. As usual for a government release of UFO files the stated purpose is one of openness and full disclosure to the public, but unsurprisingly the files contain nothing of interest.

The files can be found here, and earlier releases here.

This tactic fits in will the overall strategies adopted by many major western governments in the last few years. These moves allow officials to maintain the appearance of validity which is meaningless to those of us who know the truth, and to those of them who know they are covering it up. What it does do is keep the large mass of population sitting on the fence frozen in inactivity, and dilute the efforts of the community of people pushing to expose behind UFO sightings and government collusion in keeping things hidden.

The Disclosure Project - diluted access

2011-12-08T20:09:00.000-08:00

Readers should already be familiar with the Disclosure Project. It was the coming together of government, military, and civilian organizations to build public pressure with the goal of disclosing UFO secrecy.

Mysteriously, despite a well organized approach and some initial support from mainstream media the project fizzled and nothing has come of it. Efforts since then from former members to speak out regarding what really happened have been completely buried.

This is a demonstration of the new technique of burying the truth through saturating the internet with irrelevant pages. It is a much more subtle approach than censoring or outright banning information, which in these times tends to attract a lot of media attention. Instead it ensures that the casual readers, who are the real battleground for controlling the truth, has to take extraordinary steps to locate the real information on sensitive topics.

A google search for 'The Disclosure Project" returns mainly results for the "Carbon Disclosure Project", and completely unrelated project focused on global warming.

This has the effect of ensuring that the opponents in the ongoing debate about climate change will swamp and overwhelm these links further burying any information about the real reasons the Disclosure Project failed, which we all know to be large scale collusion between secret government cabals and other unnamed powers. By doing this, the work of covering up the truth is done for them by unsuspecting special interest groups.

It isn't until 17 pages in that any information about the real Disclosure Project becomes available. When was the last time that a middle-class house wife searched that deeply for something that may have just sparked a momentary interest?