An Exchange of Gifts With a Beloved Friend

Hiya! This is an exchange I've had in the past few days with a good friend of mine and sometime debate partner Matt Harder. I hope he doesn't mind that I use his words.

It began with one of the quotations that shows up on screen when you die in a video game I'm playing right now called Call of Duty. I wrote this e-mail to Matt, whose opinion I always value, but who I know to be an avid liberal and pacifist, whose opinions are usually opposed to mine, though from an excess (as I would see it) of progressive ideology, not because we're that different in our moral beliefs:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

Not an accusation. Simply an appeal for response or comment.

Peace (the state of being where nothing CURRENTLY HAPPENING is worth war),
George


Matt replied with the following:

There is no way to peace; peace is the way.

Gandhi

What is disgusting about Mill's quote is the assertion that fighting is only done trough war. Ghandi and Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Muslim) achieved the independence of their entire countries through peaceful protest. Through soul power. They fought and stayed morally unfractured through PEACEFUL means and were successful. Something is manipulating you into defending aggressive, corrupt, destabilizing, and barbaric actions and for your own mental and spiritual stability you should identify it and attempt to listen instead to truth. Pray and listen to truth and it will tell you a different story I promise you that. I believe that you know that war is counter-productive. Allow yourself to acknowledge that you already know it.

And I replied this morning, this holiday morning, with the following tidings of comfort and joy:

Matt

No sir.

Ghandi could not have done what he did without the British press. I don't know anything about Abdul Ghaffar Khan so I'll wikipedia him. Ok, so the thing about Ghandi and Ghaffar Khan in this situation is that John Stuart Mill's words "the exertions of better men than themselves" apply to them in the positive way. They are the better men. Better men than the British soldiers who beat them. Better men than the British Parliament who enslaved them. You're absolutely correct that fighting does not have to mean war. Ghandi did indeed fight, but you need to remember that Ghandi was a man of his time. He could not have existed two hundred years before he did, that is, could not have existed before the democratic age or at the least before the enlightenment. A printing press was absolutely critical to the work that Ghandi did. He used this weapon masterfully, and anyone who says that he achieved what he did through non-violent means is fooling himself. HE HIMSELF was not violent, and neither were his followers, but he absolutely USED the violence of the British against themselves. Absolutely, his weapon was his righteousness, but he also manipulated the British with actions where he knew what the outcome would be. Think of the episode where he caused thousands of his followers (and himself, I don't mean to suggest that he was not above suffering what his followers suffered) to be systematically beaten when they approached (and I don't know the story well enough) whatever place that had been deemed off limits to natives. He knew in advance what the outcome would be, just as you know what the outcome would be if thirty-five thousand people were to march systematically up to the front entrance of Los Alamos.

But the important point is that under a monarchy or god forbid a despot, where the media is either censored or non-existent, Ghandi's methods WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE. In fact, Abdul Ghaffar Khan is an incredibly ironic example, because if ten thousand people were to gather for a non-violent protest march in Northwest Frontier Province today, thirty or forty of them would be blown to bits by another "Khan" who holds court there now. Two hundred miles south and east, tens of thousands of people have been protesting their government non-violently for a year and a half now. The result? An entirely symbolic victory, and a step backward in terms of everyday freedoms and press freedoms. What is different about today than sixty years ago? Simple. The region that was once ruled by a democratically elected (though not local) government, in now ruled by a local (though not democratic) dictator. Which one if preferable? Admittedly, probably the native dictator. But even better would be an uncorrupted local democratic government, which, and you mark my words, will only happen in one of two ways, either A) the press regains its freedoms and is able to rally the population to action once again, or B) la revolucion! (most likely in the form of a coup d'etat, which uses violence or the threat of violence to take over the government).

War is only one manifestation of the willingness to fight. I am not deluded. Mill does not claim that the only "better men" are the warriors, he only claims that sometimes there are no other means of effective manifestation than war. At such times, fighters must be warriors or must support the warriors or they are not fighting, they are only masturbating and making themselves feel better that they have resisted even though the resistance was ineffective. We can dispute the times that do call for war, what the prerequisites are. We cannot dispute the need, sometimes, for war. Peace, I said, is the times when nothing currently happening is worth going to war to solve. Peace was the circumstance of India. Peace is not the circumstance of Sudan today. Or Chechnya. Or Burma. Or Northwest Frontier Province, Pakistan. What would Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin have done to a peaceful protester? They would have laughed and called him a statistic.

Peace and Love. Merry Midwinter Reaffirmation of Human Connection with Lots of Lights and Thoughtful Gifts and Family Gatherings.
George

I Got My First Comment!

So that's cool. It's good to see that at least someone has looked at this page.

Anyways, right now I'm thinking about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Did you know? The Arab representative to the Paris Peace Conference that was part of the negotiations to settle World War I AGREED to the cession of Palestine to Britain FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of settlement by Zionist Jews? The concession was repayment for British assistance in throwing off the rule of the Ottoman Empire (the affair that made "Lawrence of Arabia" famous) during the war.

It's called the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, and it seems to me that it ought to be the basis for lasting peace agreements in the Middle East. Instead it is the first of a ridiculously long line of agreements made between Arab leaders which they later break with seeming impunity.

Now, I'm not saying that the United States doesn't have a history of broken treaties in its own history. But pointing fingers at each other solves nothing. American leaders should abide by both past and future agreements themselves, I don't argue with that. But that still doesn't change the fact that Arab leaders should abide by past agreements.

So basically what happened is this. In signing the agreement, Faisal, who was the son of the King of Hejaz, the region that contains the holy cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina, wrote a signing statement. Notice that I don't say two of the holiest cities, or any absurdities like that. THE holy cities of Islam are Mecca and Medina, just as THE holy cities of Christianity are Jerusalem, Rome and Istanbul and THE holy city of Judaism is Jerusalem. Just as THE holy city of Buddhism is Lhasa. Jerusalem has NOTHING to do with Muslim-ism just as Tyre and Sidon have NOTHING to do with Christianity even though Jesus fed people there and it is the place where Peter proclaims Jesus the son of God. The fact that Mohammed dreams of a trip to Jerusalem is no more consequential to the chronology of Mohammed's life than the fact that Jesus walked on water at Bethsaida. You don't see monumental wars being fought over Bethsaida, do you? Fuck, no! They're fought over Jerusalem, and not because it's a holy city. They're fought over Jerusalem because Jerusalem is the strategic military strongpoint of the most important regional hub of transportation and commerce in the entire world. In plain English, Jerusalem is home to the most important Army/Airforce base ON THE PLANET.

So, having ceded rights to this crucial position because he was the representative of the resident dominant powers to a summit of the Global Dominant Powers, i.e. Democratic England, France and the U.S.A., Faisal sought to make sure that he would get what he had been assured he would be given. His signing statement reads; "Provided the Arabs obtain their independence..."

Now, granted the rest of the statement says things like "If the slightest modification or departure should be made...not be then bound...void and of no account or validity...I shall not be answerable...", which is the basis for his abdicating the agreement eventually, since the independence of 'the Arabs' as Faisal saw them, was not effectively done until Syrian independence in 1936, not completely done until 1946 when Britain and France relinquished their claims to Jordan and Syria respectively (and even so, Aden in Yemen remained under British rule until 1967). This is why I say it should be the BASIS of Middle East peace. It can't be returned to, although all of the conditions have now been met. But the basic principle, that Britain get control of what is now Israel in order to give it to Zionist Jews, and that France have similar influence over Lebanon, should be respected. Each of Israel's neighbors should sack up and give citizenship to the Palestinian refugees they've been isolating and exploiting for sixty years, the borders should be established on the banks of the Jordan (perhaps with federated autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza, that seems fair to me, though it would probably have to be in two states, not one combined), and Arab, Persian and Pashtun countries should stop fomenting revolt in Israeli territory. The west will have it's guaranteed access to the Indian Ocean, the Arab World will have it's autonomy and complete self-determinism, and peace can happen. Of course, that's only going to happen over decades, because despotic rulers always seek to expand their borders and spheres of influence, and Syria, Iran and to a lesser extent Egypt will be slow to acknowledge the rationality of this settlement, but I personally think it's what's going to happen.

A lot of people think that Israel is being uncompromising and unreasonable. I think that's not on. It would be like two partners agreeing that a four acre plot they own together should be split into two acre plots until all of a sudden once the agreement is made, one of them says, "wait no, I think I should get three acres and you should have one." Who's being unreasonable? The partner who won't compromise on a 1.5, 2.5 acre split, or the partner who won't accept the original 2/2 agreement? In short, I'm in favor of Israel settling every inch of land West Bank residents can't defend. It sounds brutal, and people will probably think I'm a monster, but in my opinion, it's the leaders of the Muslim world who are being monsters and the Palestinians are the victims of their territorial grasping. Obviously they're innocent, the Palestinians, but Israel, although I don't have to LIKE their methods, is well within their rights to do exactly what they're doing.  It's the Muslim leaders who have put the Arab Palestinians in the line of fire, just the way its Muslim terrorists who put civilians in the line of fire by shooting at troops from someone else's house.

The Experiencial Wisdom of Richard Nixon

I just heard this on Keith Olbermann, it's a quotation from Richard Nixon.

"It's not the crime that brings you down. It's the cover-up."

Thought it seemed like good advice. Cheers!

The Way It's Supposed To

I'm so incredibly proud to tell you all that our country still works the way its supposed to.

It's a bit of a relief really. I was afraid the doomsday forecasters might be self-fulfilling their prophesies by convincing my comaraden that Hillary Clinton was insurmountably ahead in the party polls and that she could actually compete with a Republican in a general election.

Thank GODS liberals are smarter than the average American, freer, and more independent thinkers. They cannot be told how to vote no matter how much idiotic corporate lobbyists and evangelist preachers wish they could.

But the truth is that no matter how much Democrats want to win the White House next year, above all, they want a DEMOCRAT to represent the Democratic Party, not another Vampire dressed up like a Bald Eagle. More than anything else, we must see a DIFFERENCE between the two candidates next year if we are going to win the election. The greater the difference, the better. The nominee for the Democratic party doesn't even really need to show up to a debate with the Republican nominee next year. All he has to do, if he is sufficiently different from them, is run against the Republican Party and George W. Bush. Enough said. He'll win.

The era is ended when the only Democrat who can get elected is the one who looks like a Republican to the untrained eye. Bill Clinton won the Presidency in an era dominated by the Republican information machine. Republicans dictated the debate, Republicans chose the issues that got attention.

No longer is that the case. This very medium, that I am writing and apparently no one else is reading, is part of that. The very nature of corporatized media is skewed to the right. The fucked up part is that most journalists, like most Americans, are liberals. That's right. I said it. I'm the only one who has the balls to say it. Most Americans are Liberals. And there absolutely IS a "liberal media bias". How? Why? It's simple. The vast majority of journalists are college educated, they understand the principles of journalism, like checking your facts, confirming sources, getting comments from both sides of a controversy. The dirty secret of life is that the more you know, the more you want to know. Republicans, as with conservatives all over the world, thrive on silence, on disinformation, misinformation and apathy. That is why the first thing George W. Bush torpedoed when he got into office was the education system. So educated, fair journalists are biased against Republicans. Truth and reality is biased against Republicans. And most of all, the very nature of information distribution is biased against Republicans.

On the other hand. Hillary Clinton was also right when she claimed that "vast right-wing conspiracy" had undermined her husband's presidency. Whiny, but right. What is this, you say? If the media is biased for liberality, how can a Right-wing conspiracy be in operation. Well, that would be because newspapers, television networks and national radio corporations are owned and operated by RICH PEOPLE. So despite the fact that the actual people collecting and writing the stories are by and large liberal, the stories that end up getting covered by their outlets are chosen by conservatives. Editors are hired by owners whose interest is in selling as much media as possible with as little informational content as necessary. Editors choose topics and issues that make conservatives looks good, edit out as much content as possible that makes conservatives look bad, and voila, your morning newspaper.

Unfortunately, information is gaseous. More than that it is wave matter, not particulate. It cannot be contained, it gets out. "Truth will out!" said a better poet than me, and its true. Galileo's truth could not be contained half a millennia ago, and Al Gore's truth could be imprisoned no better in our time.

Our country is designed to react to the waves of information. Pressed back for a time it may be, but as any one who played with their bathwater as a child will know, it always comes out around the side, stronger than it was before, mounding higher than it had before, reaching further up the side of the tub than it really can sustain before receding toward the equilibrium where it belongs. It is absolutely true that liberalism has its own drawbacks. Bolshevism did not work, it resulted in Soviet dictation. Jacobinism failed as well, it resulted in Napoleonic dictation. But a measured, balanced, calm and rational dealing with life, the way the United States Constitution proposes; results in a clean, relaxed, refreshed and hygenic body politic, just as a calm, quiet soak in the bathtub results in the same for a human body.

I still support John Edwards, I think he is the best balanced, best overall candidate for the Democratic nomination. But I would not be overly distressed if Obama were to win. After all, who could have trouble getting excited over the first black president? But GODS I can't wait to see Hillary Clinton get her wrinkly, starched white ass kicked in the Iowa caucuses and her entire candidacy go down in flames as it deserves. The Junior senator from New York will remain the Junior senator from New York, the post she is most suited for, and the American people will have a leader they can trust. Finally. As they deserve.

The Teddy Bear's Courage

Hi guys, I'm back.

I've kind of been lagging on making posts lately, but now is definitely the time for me to get back to it. Yesterday, Friday 30 November, 2007, the Muslim sabbath, thousands of Sudanese persons in the capital Khartoum rallied to demand the execution of a British teacher whose students named a class mascot Muhammad.

Keep in mind that Muhammad and all its various derivatives and spellings is the most popular name in the Muslim world. It is on the top 50 list of most popular names in ENGLAND AND WALES. The basic truth is that if a black or Muslim teacher had allowed their class to name a teddy bear Muhammad, it would not have been remarked upon. Don't give me some shit that a Muslim teacher wouldn't name a Teddy bear Muhammad, that's bullshit.

The Sudanese government, known war criminals, although no evidence solid enough to indict has yet been documented, is scapegoating this woman in the hopes that enough popular resistance to so-called "western interference" and "insensitivity" can marshal enough UN doubt and/or sympathy to rationalize their refusal to approve UN peacekeeping engineers from Norway, Sweden and Denmark, units critical to the safety of the mission and therefore possible deal-breakers for the entire viability of the mission.

I remind you that the Sudanese government is not only a state sponsor of terrorism, it also condones, supports, and most likely engages in slaving, slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and
intimidation. These are crimes they repeat on a daily basis in Darfur, evidence of which could not possibly be concealed if the UN mission is ever allowed to deploy. The motivation for the government of Sudan to whip its subjects into a frenzy against non-Muslims is clear. What is NOT clear is why the British government, and the American government as well, has still not responded, and why the populations of said countries are not demanding intervention.

No matter how staunch a neo-conservative you are, no matter how Machiavellian a politician, you cannot possibly justify the strategic interest in non-intervention. The marginally useful anti-terrorism intelligence they provide, the (admittedly) substantial oil resources, which are mainly in the South of the country anyways, cannot possibly be of substantial value to excuse inaction. The south of the country would welcome a US sponsored, railroaded UN declaration of independence for the region anyways, given that the majority population is non-Arab, and even for the most part non-Muslim. The Arab-Muslim government which rules from the north, has oppressed the south for decades, fighting a rebellion that only grew over time until forced to grant the region semi-autonomy. Before Darfur, the mujahedeen militias the government arms were raiding south instead of west, and because southerners are "infidels", they enslaved the civilians of the villages they raided in massive numbers most westerners never imagined. The only reason the south was included in the borders of Sudan in the first place was because the modus operandi of evacuating colonizers was to leave a minority ethnic group in control of an impoverished majority, on the assumption that this would keep the governments dependent on western support for the future. With the coalescence of pan-Arab identity, and the rise of an autonomous China, this strategy is no longer operative in Sudan anyway, so there is NO REASON to sustain the regime in Khartoum for another second.

I understand that western governments are fearful of a repeat of the Moghadishu incident more commonly known as "Black Hawk Down." But that's a completely unjustified fear. Mogadishu was planned as a surgical surprise assault, where tactical superiority required only enough firepower to secure a palace compound for an hour-long mission. It is only because the element of surprise was compromised that a chopper was brought down and the mission became a pitched battle in the streets with militiamen and armed civilians mobilizing and operating.

In this case there was no need for surgical force, even if surprise were used. Overwhelming firepower was called for in assaulting the prison and securing a perimeter in Khartoum (too late now that she's been moved to a secret location though) for as long as the extraction might have taken.

At any rate, it's not really the lack of military or substantial governmental response that bothers me, its the lack of self respect shown by westerners in not objecting on this woman's behalf. We have forgotten WHY we believe in democracy. Most of us think that we believe in it only because we were born into it, but that is not the case. Democracy is the result of trial and error over the course of 5000 years, and more, of cultural and social development. It is the greatest, fairest and most just system of government the world has ever known, and if that is sad to some of you, its because you've never lived under any other system and never had the decency to look into where we came from or how others must live even to this day. I'm not saying its spectacular, anywhere close to perfect nor absolving it of its responsibility for the evils it commits. I'm simply telling you, and I'm right, that it commits fewer than any other system ever. EVER. Fewer than nomadic, than tribal, than Iroquois, than Tibetan, fewer than Athenian or Republican Roman, than Solomon's Israel, and a damn sight fewer than Mohammed's Arabia. So get off your damn high horse with your "we're a better culture than to respond to such insults."

Look another group of humans in the eye, have the confidence to recognize the inferiority of their system, the decency to credit their innate ability to learn and the compassion to demonstrate our better way. Most of all, have the courage to believe that there is a truth and there is a falsehood in this world, in this life, and that defending it is not justified, but mandated.