.jpg)
Feb 29, 2008
Feb 28, 2008
I've accepted....
An invitation from Felix Faustus Nothus to blog over at Carnival of Anarchy. Although I'm a little busy to write anything right now, once I'm finished with MLA's Pranks and Pranksters course, I'll certainly have the time to devote myself to writing some articles and joining in some debates. As always, anything I post there will be posted here too.
Feb 26, 2008
Headline writers make another stupid mistake
I normally like Reuters when it comes to news....but when they make silly mistakes like this in their headlines, I really have to wonder how accurate the rest of their reporting is.
Its not like the S and K keys are even anywhere near each other.
Its not like the S and K keys are even anywhere near each other.
Feb 24, 2008
Reptilian shapeshifters!
As I’m sure many of you remember, we at PD.com have had more than a couple of run-ins with people who believe in the shapeshifting reptilians that supposedly rule the world. While it’s a very amusing conspiracy theory, and was certainly hilarious back in the 90s, in these dark days of rendition, torture and war, it seems more of a distraction from some of the real problems of the world than anything else, although that is a rant for another day.
That said, it is still good for a laugh when the world is getting you down. And fortunately, Tracey Twyman has managed to link to a fair few of videos purporting to show shapeshifting famous people, on YouTube. I laughed especially hard at the David Icke one, I have to admit.
That said, it is still good for a laugh when the world is getting you down. And fortunately, Tracey Twyman has managed to link to a fair few of videos purporting to show shapeshifting famous people, on YouTube. I laughed especially hard at the David Icke one, I have to admit.
Feb 23, 2008
The common failing of all would-be political agitators
“Centurion, why do they titter so?”
“Just some...uh, Jewish joke, sir.”
- The Life of Brian
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
- Voltaire
I've noticed something of a trend when it comes to politics. And that is that people think they can use half-assed political slogans along with some pathetic emotional appeal to try and sway peoples opinions. For example, look at the common refrain from the morons at Democratic Underground: “Bush lied, people died.”
OK, it is pretty much true, as a trend. If we take the name Bush to cover his administration appointments, including those in the Office of Special Plans (who doctored evidence in the run up to the Iraq war), you have a case. But does just mindlessly shouting it across the political debating forums of the internet actually convince anyone to forego their support of the Administration? I'd be very surprised if it did. Rather, it makes the supporters of the pro-abortion War Party look almost as mindless as the supporters of the anti-abortion War Party, which puts off any freethinking individual and reduces both sides to shouting pre-made soundbites at each other. I mean, really. You could script robots to do this shit.
And its not just in America. Anywhere there is someone who is, on the face of it, is pretty much a complete and utter asshole, those who dislike them try to paint them as Satan incarnate. It doesn't matter if this is Hugo Chavez, Putin or Blair. Same reasoning applies, show them to be powerful, yet utterly evil.
Does anyone actually fall for that shit? Really?
Because to me, it looks like those on the other side are just affirming the power of the person they hate, from an opposite direction. Powerful people will always have vocal supporters, simply because being on side with those in power has many rewards. The moral character, or lack of it, is rarely questioned along the entire political spectrum, what with people being convinced their own political ideology is the only moral one.
Lets face it, if you really want to cut someone down to size, you have to make them a figure of fun.
Its the only antidote to emotionally fuelled political debate, which is 90% of all debate nowadays. Instead of affirming the object of your dislike is powerful, you portray him as a bumbling fool. You highlight the hilarious inconsistencies in their thinking, and you then convince people around you to laugh at them. Never directly engage in so-called debates on the pros and cons of any given policy, instead concentrate on using those policies as ammunition against that person.
I know what you're going to say. “But people have already tried this Cain, and it hasn't worked.” Well I disagree, they haven't tried hard enough. Look at those ridiculous Bushisms people, for example. The book turned from halfway amusing into textual analysis of policy in about 10 pages. There was no cutting edge to it, there was no satire. It was just the idiotic sayings of a man who commanded the world's most powerful military. The world has seen Caligula's before now. The only way they laughed at them is in a helpless “well, we're fucked now” way. There was no opposition, no defiance.
There is an old American proverb, “use your wit as a shield, and not as a dagger.” Its one I totally disagree with. Use your wit precisely as you would a dagger. Back in the bad old days of the Hashishin, an acolyte would be given only a dagger, to make a public execution of the cult's enemies. Almost always, they struck in the most public place possible, in the most public way possible. Friday, outside the mosque, with everyone watching.
That is exactly the attitude a competent political agitator should take. If you can't mock them to their face, perhaps you should take up a safer past time, like jogging? Cut them down to size. Make them a figure of ridicule. Try to move outside party based bullshit, make their supporters look like idiots by association.
A person who is widely considered a laughing stock is not going to command respect, regardless of how much power they have. And in an age where substance is nothing and image is everything, in such an age, humour is king.
“Just some...uh, Jewish joke, sir.”
- The Life of Brian
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
- Voltaire
I've noticed something of a trend when it comes to politics. And that is that people think they can use half-assed political slogans along with some pathetic emotional appeal to try and sway peoples opinions. For example, look at the common refrain from the morons at Democratic Underground: “Bush lied, people died.”
OK, it is pretty much true, as a trend. If we take the name Bush to cover his administration appointments, including those in the Office of Special Plans (who doctored evidence in the run up to the Iraq war), you have a case. But does just mindlessly shouting it across the political debating forums of the internet actually convince anyone to forego their support of the Administration? I'd be very surprised if it did. Rather, it makes the supporters of the pro-abortion War Party look almost as mindless as the supporters of the anti-abortion War Party, which puts off any freethinking individual and reduces both sides to shouting pre-made soundbites at each other. I mean, really. You could script robots to do this shit.
And its not just in America. Anywhere there is someone who is, on the face of it, is pretty much a complete and utter asshole, those who dislike them try to paint them as Satan incarnate. It doesn't matter if this is Hugo Chavez, Putin or Blair. Same reasoning applies, show them to be powerful, yet utterly evil.
Does anyone actually fall for that shit? Really?
Because to me, it looks like those on the other side are just affirming the power of the person they hate, from an opposite direction. Powerful people will always have vocal supporters, simply because being on side with those in power has many rewards. The moral character, or lack of it, is rarely questioned along the entire political spectrum, what with people being convinced their own political ideology is the only moral one.
Lets face it, if you really want to cut someone down to size, you have to make them a figure of fun.
Its the only antidote to emotionally fuelled political debate, which is 90% of all debate nowadays. Instead of affirming the object of your dislike is powerful, you portray him as a bumbling fool. You highlight the hilarious inconsistencies in their thinking, and you then convince people around you to laugh at them. Never directly engage in so-called debates on the pros and cons of any given policy, instead concentrate on using those policies as ammunition against that person.
I know what you're going to say. “But people have already tried this Cain, and it hasn't worked.” Well I disagree, they haven't tried hard enough. Look at those ridiculous Bushisms people, for example. The book turned from halfway amusing into textual analysis of policy in about 10 pages. There was no cutting edge to it, there was no satire. It was just the idiotic sayings of a man who commanded the world's most powerful military. The world has seen Caligula's before now. The only way they laughed at them is in a helpless “well, we're fucked now” way. There was no opposition, no defiance.
There is an old American proverb, “use your wit as a shield, and not as a dagger.” Its one I totally disagree with. Use your wit precisely as you would a dagger. Back in the bad old days of the Hashishin, an acolyte would be given only a dagger, to make a public execution of the cult's enemies. Almost always, they struck in the most public place possible, in the most public way possible. Friday, outside the mosque, with everyone watching.
That is exactly the attitude a competent political agitator should take. If you can't mock them to their face, perhaps you should take up a safer past time, like jogging? Cut them down to size. Make them a figure of ridicule. Try to move outside party based bullshit, make their supporters look like idiots by association.
A person who is widely considered a laughing stock is not going to command respect, regardless of how much power they have. And in an age where substance is nothing and image is everything, in such an age, humour is king.
Feb 22, 2008
Feb 21, 2008
Recruit Colbert into the Illuminati!
A project that was started by Professor Cramulus on PD.com which seems to be gaining a lot of interest and has the potential for a lot of fun. I'll cross-post his two posts from the Verwirrung directly here, because I'm too lazy to paraphrase:
Check out one of OMGASM’s current projects: COLBERTGASM
This is an oldskool Discordian jake which involves sending tons of snail mail.
Buzz week is going on RIGHT NOW, so get on it! Check out the website for mailing addresses and sample letters. We hope everyone will mail at least 20 letters (about eight bucks worth of stamps) - but consider mailing more!
As usual, check out the GASM mission feed under “colbertgasm” to find more links relevant to this project, and more Golden Apple Seed Missions in general.
If you don’t send letters, and they use a codeword on the air on March 5th, you’ll wish you had participated. And if you play along, you’ll be able to fondly reference that time that Discordians pranked the media and you were there at ground zero.
Now get off your ass and DO IT!
New sample letters have been uploaded to the Colbertgasm wiki.
Discord Letter 1
Discord Letter 2
AISB Letter 1
AISB Letter 2
AISB Letter 3
Mail ‘em in. And help spread the word.
Check out one of OMGASM’s current projects: COLBERTGASM
This is an oldskool Discordian jake which involves sending tons of snail mail.
Mission Statement During the week of February 17th-23rd, 2008, we will send Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as much mail as possible. Letters to Colbert will invite him into the Illuminati. Letters to Stewart will invite him into the Discordian Society. In order to gain entry, on March 5th they must explicitly use a Discordian or Illuminati “code word” (of their choosing) on the air.
Buzz week is going on RIGHT NOW, so get on it! Check out the website for mailing addresses and sample letters. We hope everyone will mail at least 20 letters (about eight bucks worth of stamps) - but consider mailing more!
As usual, check out the GASM mission feed under “colbertgasm” to find more links relevant to this project, and more Golden Apple Seed Missions in general.
If you don’t send letters, and they use a codeword on the air on March 5th, you’ll wish you had participated. And if you play along, you’ll be able to fondly reference that time that Discordians pranked the media and you were there at ground zero.
Now get off your ass and DO IT!
New sample letters have been uploaded to the Colbertgasm wiki.
Discord Letter 1
Discord Letter 2
AISB Letter 1
AISB Letter 2
AISB Letter 3
Mail ‘em in. And help spread the word.
Feb 20, 2008
The Windigokan Warriors - Discordian Saints?
The Ojibwa tribe of the North American plains contained a warrior society known as the Windigokan (No-flight contraries). Only the bravest men, who had demonstrated their courage by utter disregard for danger on the battlefield, could be admitted. In fact, because they had no fear of death, they were no longer considered among the living: they slept and ate seperately and were not held to the usual codes of behaviour. As creatures who were both alive and dead, they spoke and acted contrarily: they called a young person an old man and when one of the others told the rest to stand still, he meant charge forward. They were glum in times of prosperity, happy in the depths of winter. Although there was a clownish side to their behaviour, the Windigokan could inspire great terror. No-one ever knew what they would do next.
The Windigokan were believed to be inhabited by terrifying spirits called Thunderers, which appeared in the form of giant birds [SWEET MERCIFUL FUCK, PTERODACTYLS! - Cain]. That made them somewhat inhuman. On the battlefield they were disruptive and unpredictable, and in raiding parties downright terrifying. In one such raid, witnessed by an outsider, they gathered first in front of the Ojibwa chief's lodge and yelled "we are not going to war! We shall not kill the Sioux! We shall not scalp four of them and let the rest escape! We shall go in daytime!" They left the camp that night, wearing customes of rags and scraps, their bodies plastered with mud and painted with splotches of wierd colour, their faces covered by frightening masks with giant, beak like noses. They made their way through the darkness, stumbling over themselves - it was hard to see through the masks - until they came upon a large Sioux war party. Although outnumbered, they did not flee, but danced into the enemies centre. The grotesqueness of their dance made them seem to be possessed by demons. Some of the Sioux backed away; others drew closer, curious and confused. The leader of the Windigokan shouted "Don't shoot!" The Ojibwa warriors then pulled out guns hidden under their rags, killed four of the Sioux and scalped them. Then they danced away, the enemy too terrified by this apparition to pursue them.
After such an action, the mere appearance of the Windigokan was enough for the enemy to give them a wide berth and not risk any kind of encounter.
- Robert Greene's 33 Strategies of War
The Windigokan were believed to be inhabited by terrifying spirits called Thunderers, which appeared in the form of giant birds [SWEET MERCIFUL FUCK, PTERODACTYLS! - Cain]. That made them somewhat inhuman. On the battlefield they were disruptive and unpredictable, and in raiding parties downright terrifying. In one such raid, witnessed by an outsider, they gathered first in front of the Ojibwa chief's lodge and yelled "we are not going to war! We shall not kill the Sioux! We shall not scalp four of them and let the rest escape! We shall go in daytime!" They left the camp that night, wearing customes of rags and scraps, their bodies plastered with mud and painted with splotches of wierd colour, their faces covered by frightening masks with giant, beak like noses. They made their way through the darkness, stumbling over themselves - it was hard to see through the masks - until they came upon a large Sioux war party. Although outnumbered, they did not flee, but danced into the enemies centre. The grotesqueness of their dance made them seem to be possessed by demons. Some of the Sioux backed away; others drew closer, curious and confused. The leader of the Windigokan shouted "Don't shoot!" The Ojibwa warriors then pulled out guns hidden under their rags, killed four of the Sioux and scalped them. Then they danced away, the enemy too terrified by this apparition to pursue them.
After such an action, the mere appearance of the Windigokan was enough for the enemy to give them a wide berth and not risk any kind of encounter.
- Robert Greene's 33 Strategies of War
Feb 19, 2008
Milliband lets a secret slip
Just browsing the BBC newswire while waiting for a phone call, and I notice that the hatchet man of New Labour, David Milliband, has let a very important, unspoken rule of international relations slip.
He was, of course, talking about Kosovo, a subject that annoys me simply because 99% of it is pure crap. It equally has a tendency to show what huge hypocrites almost all our media are. I'm not just talking about the people who were against the Iraq war, but for the war in Kosovo, although that is a part of it.
No, what I am mainly talking about is the sort of people, in politics as well as the media, who talk about Kosovo having a seperate political identity and history from Serbia, necessitating their seperation, yet who don't recognize the legitimate claims of, for example, the sepratist movements in South Ossetia, or the Basque region.
Milliband is one such hypocrite.
According to him, Kosovo sets no such precedent. He would have you believe it is the presence of the UN protectorate within Kosovo that makes it special.
Yet, who runs the UN again? Is it the state based system? I believe it is. Sucks to be a person without a state then, like the Kurds, or the Basque, unless a certain superpower should take pity on you, like, say, the USA and EU. Unless this happens, the UN is a closed system to these groups, because they don't have a state, exactly the problem they are trying to address.
Milliband goes one further though, and really lets the cat out of the bag. According to the BBC:
The key words in the above passage are "clear political leadership". That's a political codeword meaning "Kosovo, as a state, exists because we, other states, recognize it as one of our own". This is furthermore backed up by a UN protectorate - in other words, the force of arms of NATO.
So there you have it. States are 'legitimate' in international terms because they have the force to make their claims stick, and are recognized by other states as one of their own. People don't like to hear that. It makes unsettling reading, to realize the state is based on force and and a gentleman's club mentality, instead of on, say, the claim to being a distinct political unit. But since the people who made the system that way were mostly soldiers and members of gentleman's clubs, that really shouldn't come as a surprise.
He was, of course, talking about Kosovo, a subject that annoys me simply because 99% of it is pure crap. It equally has a tendency to show what huge hypocrites almost all our media are. I'm not just talking about the people who were against the Iraq war, but for the war in Kosovo, although that is a part of it.
No, what I am mainly talking about is the sort of people, in politics as well as the media, who talk about Kosovo having a seperate political identity and history from Serbia, necessitating their seperation, yet who don't recognize the legitimate claims of, for example, the sepratist movements in South Ossetia, or the Basque region.
Milliband is one such hypocrite.
According to him, Kosovo sets no such precedent. He would have you believe it is the presence of the UN protectorate within Kosovo that makes it special.
Yet, who runs the UN again? Is it the state based system? I believe it is. Sucks to be a person without a state then, like the Kurds, or the Basque, unless a certain superpower should take pity on you, like, say, the USA and EU. Unless this happens, the UN is a closed system to these groups, because they don't have a state, exactly the problem they are trying to address.
Milliband goes one further though, and really lets the cat out of the bag. According to the BBC:
"What you've seen here is clear political leadership from the European Union as a whole, and from its constituent members, to be clear to all sides - Serbs as well as Kosovars - about the future for co-operation, if they're willing to take it."
The key words in the above passage are "clear political leadership". That's a political codeword meaning "Kosovo, as a state, exists because we, other states, recognize it as one of our own". This is furthermore backed up by a UN protectorate - in other words, the force of arms of NATO.
So there you have it. States are 'legitimate' in international terms because they have the force to make their claims stick, and are recognized by other states as one of their own. People don't like to hear that. It makes unsettling reading, to realize the state is based on force and and a gentleman's club mentality, instead of on, say, the claim to being a distinct political unit. But since the people who made the system that way were mostly soldiers and members of gentleman's clubs, that really shouldn't come as a surprise.
Feb 18, 2008
Bringing Discordianism to the Masses!
I am proud to unveil a new project undertaken by the Principia Discordia forums collective, that of the PD.com Blog (name undecided, as of yet).
We're still in the early days of putting it all together, trying to not blow the site apart with bad coding, crash the server etc but we're fairly functional even now. Naturally, I'll be blogging whatever I do here over there as well, and you can expect original content from many others as well.
I'm not sure precisely how we are going to approach the user thing currently, but if I already lurk at your blog, chances are we would welcome your blogging expertise as well.
So, definitly bookmark this place, because I know right now there is going to be some excellent shit on there.
Update: I've added an RSS feed for the site on the side of this blog. Also, we're on Technorati. Expect more Web 2.0 functionality to be added over the next few days, along with some old content from my blog, and newer stuff from other PD.com posters.
We're still in the early days of putting it all together, trying to not blow the site apart with bad coding, crash the server etc but we're fairly functional even now. Naturally, I'll be blogging whatever I do here over there as well, and you can expect original content from many others as well.
I'm not sure precisely how we are going to approach the user thing currently, but if I already lurk at your blog, chances are we would welcome your blogging expertise as well.
So, definitly bookmark this place, because I know right now there is going to be some excellent shit on there.
Update: I've added an RSS feed for the site on the side of this blog. Also, we're on Technorati. Expect more Web 2.0 functionality to be added over the next few days, along with some old content from my blog, and newer stuff from other PD.com posters.
Feb 17, 2008
UK police hate LOLCATS?
One has to wonder. Despite my personal opinion on lolcats being close to that of Encyclopaedia Dramatica, I still have to admit that Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads is a demented genius for using them to battle the tyranny that is UK SCOPA laws.
For those of you who want a handy reference guide as to the sort of things you cannot have on your t-shirt, according to the police themselves, I have reproduced the list from Bloggerheads below:
- I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
- I MADE YOU A COOKIE... BUT I EATED IT
- DONT CRY PLEEZ GORDON... YOU CAN HAS COOKIE
- HABEUS CORPUS. NOT URS.
- I CAN HAS FREED SPEECH? KTHNXBYE
- FLOOR IS LAVA... SO I'S CLIMBIN UR FURNITUR
- DO NOT WANT!
- ORLY?
- WMD? ORLY?
- IM IN UR DESIGNATED AREA... SUBVERTN UR LAWS
- IM IN UR DESIGNATED AREA... BEIN A LOUD SPKR
- OH, HAI!
- OH, HAI... IM DEMONSTRATIN!
- RANDOM CAT IS NOT AMUSED
- TAXPAYER CAT IS NOT AMUSED
- FEED TEH HUNGREES!
- GRARRGH! SURPRIZE GOATSE!
- A DREEM... I HAS ONE
- IM IN UR BEACHES... FIGHTN UR NAZIS
- I HAS THE TORTUR EVIDENZ... LET ME SHOW YOU DEMZ
- ZOMG!
- ZOMG! TERRIST! OH NOES!
- UR BEIN SILLY... SRSLY
- BUT I WUVS YOU
- KTHNXBYE!
For those of you who want a handy reference guide as to the sort of things you cannot have on your t-shirt, according to the police themselves, I have reproduced the list from Bloggerheads below:
- I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
- I MADE YOU A COOKIE... BUT I EATED IT
- DONT CRY PLEEZ GORDON... YOU CAN HAS COOKIE
- HABEUS CORPUS. NOT URS.
- I CAN HAS FREED SPEECH? KTHNXBYE
- FLOOR IS LAVA... SO I'S CLIMBIN UR FURNITUR
- DO NOT WANT!
- ORLY?
- WMD? ORLY?
- IM IN UR DESIGNATED AREA... SUBVERTN UR LAWS
- IM IN UR DESIGNATED AREA... BEIN A LOUD SPKR
- OH, HAI!
- OH, HAI... IM DEMONSTRATIN!
- RANDOM CAT IS NOT AMUSED
- TAXPAYER CAT IS NOT AMUSED
- FEED TEH HUNGREES!
- GRARRGH! SURPRIZE GOATSE!
- A DREEM... I HAS ONE
- IM IN UR BEACHES... FIGHTN UR NAZIS
- I HAS THE TORTUR EVIDENZ... LET ME SHOW YOU DEMZ
- ZOMG!
- ZOMG! TERRIST! OH NOES!
- UR BEIN SILLY... SRSLY
- BUT I WUVS YOU
- KTHNXBYE!
Risk, Threat and Security: The case of the whinging militarists
This is my analysis of the RUSI paper on Risk, Threat and Security in the United Kingdom, released on the 15th of February 2008. All opinions expressed within are personal and have been undertaken in a private capacity, with no gains for the writing provided.
The essay seeks to deal with the problem of the “security crisis” the UK faces, apparently made far worse by attitudes at home and disparities between military commitments and spending.
This paper would have us believe we are unsure of overseas military adventures and afraid of the security situation at home and that these two together have created a “paradox” of undeclared yet publically fought wars. Yet is this really anything new to a British public? The Cold War, with its paradoxes of spies, terrorism, the threat of superpower nuclear war, shifting alliances and ideological battle lines was fought for much longer, and with much higher stakes. Equally, British action in the years following the Napoleonic Wars, with internal issues of dissension that came from the Industrial Revolution and process of urbanization, along with external commitments both to the Empire and maintaining the balance of power within an increasingly uncertain and fragmenting Europe could also be seen as a similar time. As we can see, examined critically, the paper's first claim falls flat.
This is all supposedly in no small part a consequence of the UK having a “loss of confidence in our own identity, values, constitution and institutions”, which has presented a perfect target for terrorists. Apparently our uncertainty about our own identity and the surety of our enemies is our problem, and not theirs. Yet, as Baudrillard has noted with some irony, it seems to be that the least democratic in society seem to believe that everyone must share their values, that not sharing values becomes a threat in a country where the basic values are determined by institutions and voting. A natural consequence of democracy is divisions “about interpretations of ...history...and political identity.” Is this any more different than the mind numbingly boring divisions between Marxists, Liberals and Christians that have been staple fare of British debate for the last 2 centuries? Again, we have an old condition that has existed for a long time, dressed up as new, with barely any thought given as to the origins of their existence.
Furthermore, if we continue with Baudrillard's thought for a moment, perhaps this strength of identity is in part the problem of the fundamentalists? Aside from breeding a lack of irony, fundamentalism also breeds an absolute and concrete identity, one which easily makes the leap into paranoid delusions about enemies and solutions for problems. Some would consider it perhaps not a good idea to take our cues from Jihadists when it comes to identity politics.
Furthermore, this lack of historical knowledge of Islamic terrorism within the UK is further highlighted by a trendy attack against 'multiculturalism', an ill-defined term at the best of times. According to the paper, the government should be “laying down the line” to immigrant communities, instead of “deferring” to them. The fact that Britain helped to encourage, arm and train Islamic militants, made alliances with nations that materially supported such militants and then went on to let them establish themselves in the UK should be entirely overlooked. I refer in part to the 'Afghan Arabs' who fought the Soviet Union, but equally other, lesser known groups who were considered valuable allies because of their hatred of the 'godless Communists'. Equally, we cemented alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, giving them a shred of respect and legitimacy they never should have been allowed in the first place. By maintaining this relationship, we have allowed them to spread the virulent Wahhabist conceptions of Islam into the country virtually unchecked. The same goes for Pakistan, where we refused to make a stand against military support of Deobandi schools, which produced fighters for the disputed Kashmir region.
Apparently we should consider 7/7 as a failure of multiculturalism. Yet, why are the London pub bombings or IRA attacks not? These are seemingly raised into the arena of “political terrorism” (one presumes, given they are not mentioned at all) and thus far less dangerous. But as work from professionals in the field, such as Marc Sageman and Robert Pape show, Islamist terrorists are no less influenced by politics than the IRA. Religion, like nationalism, is just one ideological source for political dissension, no different than any other. If we insist on looking at failed “cultural” reasons for terrorism, then the public discourse will overlook political reasons, such as continued support for the US led war on terror, Israeli actions in the occupied territories, a continued policy of aiding repressive leaders within the Middle East and other policy positions, real or imagined.
Moving onto external threats, these seem to be equally misplaced. First there is the usual old worry, about Britain's reliance on sea trade and the diminishing power of the Royal Navy to police the world's waterways. Never mind that this role is more than adequately fulfilled by the USA, Britain's closest military ally, an international power capable of policing most of the world's oceans even while fighting a war (as during the first Gulf War). The reason we should be worried, of course, is that this is a military think tank and more pork for the military would not be a bad thing. Especially given most ex-military personnel move onto jobs either consulting for or providing logistics, IT services and arms to those branches of the military.
There is no naval threat to the UK. Areas where there have been naval issues are either so far removed from affecting UK trade as to be laughable (such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard snatching Royal Navy sailors in the Straits of Hormuz) or not traded with anyway and so pose no threat, such as the coastline of Somalia. Russia's navy remains the single weakest and most underfunded aspect of its military, and equally China is lagging far behind the USA, and is concentrating on regional ambitions, not picking fights with UK freight vessels.
Technology, equally, has always been an issue and is so blatantly obvious one wonders why it was included in this report at all, given how little of substance (other than: “Internet = possibly BAD”) is actually said on the subject.
The question of Chinese leadership and resource issues, while important, is approached in an equally banal way. The Chinese had their free market revolt in 1989, and it was ruthlessly crushed by the CCP. China, like Chile, like Yeltsin's Russia, can easily combine free markets with authoritarian rule and only an addled brain from reading too much Friedman or Fukuyama could make one think otherwise. China has also taken steps to break apart possible dissident groups through controlling access to information and a hugely powerful intelligence force directed against its own citizenry. The real question is that, when violence does break out, will the world's media stand by the Chinese leadership, like they did in 1989, or will they and the elected leaders of countries like the USA and EU heavyweights, come out and rightly criticize China as they should? That is what will inform China's response and thus any future security issue.
The question of global warming is actually dealt with fairly well, considering how botched this essay is so far. Of course, it is so general and such an unknown area, it is hard to make mistakes anyway, but it all seems plausible and done without a lack of hyperbole or distortion.
Equally, their position on Russia is far more tempered than many current commentators, such as the Wall Street Journal. They note that trends in Russia do also have external inputs and that collusion with the Russian robber barons of the 90s was a terrible mistake. However, it also overlooks that President Putin has often been very accommodating towards the European Union and working with it towards common goals – often against more Eurosceptic Russian politicians. His continued presence in Russian politics, though lessened, suggest this trend will continue, though the choice of the new President's foreign minister should equally be taken into account.
Alas, when the issue moves to that of collective security and multinational institutions, the fundamental dishonesty of the report's writers comes to the fore again. They would have us believe involvement in NATO, the EU and UN is because of “essentially ideological reasons.” Obviously trying to woo the foreign policy Realists, they fail miserably because they do not take into account that all three groups promote UK interests more than it costs to be a member of them. NATO, for example, includes the greatest military power in the world, the United States, in a position where it can be counted on supporting the UK (and indeed, much of the rest of Europe), militarily, not only shouldering the burden of military spending that allows the US to actively take part in the defence of Europe, but also in the event of foreign security issues in places like the Middle East and South West Asia. Naturally, the EU benefits the UK economically and in its political relations with nearby countries, and the permanent veto and seat that the UK has on the UNSC makes it a diplomatic power to be courted and wooed, as well as listened to.
Instead, the essay promotes a return to interests before 'ideology', claiming that “foul-weather friends are preferable to fair-weather ones”, not realizing the irony of much of our modern political situation is shaped by such foul-weather friends as Saddam Hussein, the Pakistani ISI, Russian crime lords etc
And of course, such a flexible policy requires a flexible military...which means of course, more military spending. The writers are aware enough to understand that the public wont support that, that it sees no need to go to such expense to defend against the problems the essay has outlined. And so apparently, we must “re-discover” ourselves, leading back to the sorry dance being done around identity and culture, replete with the failures and criticisms I noted above. Apparently uncertainty, instead of being an acceptance of the unstable condition of the world and open-mindedness to solutions, is a weakness. This is of course why the uncertain and divided Allies lost World War Two against the Fascist Axis, with its powerful shared identity. Or something.
The report then goes on to make an attack against ideological think tanks, stating that instead of grand projects, one should put experience in history and expertise (in other word, the think tank which produced this report). Overlooking for the moment this attempt to obliquely reference themselves as the last hope of a fatally politicized Britain, we should consider that what they are saying, is in fact in and of itself an ideological position. Its one that can be found easily within the writings of Edmund Burke, if one cares to look. That they try not to portray themselves as ideological conservatives, but instead as skilled persons with expertise and experience in the current political climate should rightly sound alarm bells, because it is no different to New Labour, the American Neo-Conservatives or any other Grand Theory political groups who have come to prominence recently. Also, if the world is changing as fast as they have us believe, then why should we trust in groups rooted in historicism, ideologically? This is just one of the many areas the thesis of the paper shoots itself in the foot.
Their solution is as banal as much of their analysis. Scare-mongering throughout the paper, relyinh on shoddy scholarships, distortions and arguments taken from hack tabloid commentators, they hype the problem of cultural identity, then propose...a committee to solve the problem. Two committees, actually, since two useless institutions are better than one. Such useless measures, if one accepts the premise of the essay, and one which would have little noticeable effect, except in enlarging the voice of the UK military establishment both within Parliament and within the Cabinet itself.
This is nothing more than a shameless power grab done under the guise of modern security thinking, and, to be honest, I feel dirty after reading it. Despite its use of language, it has all the intellectual credibility of a Sun editorial, and about as much coherency. It relies on trying to paint a doom and gloom situation, then propose a response which actually doesn't match up to their terrorizing statements, hoping that the former will provoke enough fear for that problem to be overlooked. In the media especially this has been the case, with the various daily papers falling over themselves to congratulate or condemn the essay, while overlooking the real meat of what is being proposed, in favour of shock headlines.
One of the problems cited in the paper is that of no coherent analysis of the security risk to the UK. This paper, with its inclusion of “latent threats” that have not emerged and may not emerge for many years yet, should be considered part of that problem, and not the solution.
The essay seeks to deal with the problem of the “security crisis” the UK faces, apparently made far worse by attitudes at home and disparities between military commitments and spending.
This paper would have us believe we are unsure of overseas military adventures and afraid of the security situation at home and that these two together have created a “paradox” of undeclared yet publically fought wars. Yet is this really anything new to a British public? The Cold War, with its paradoxes of spies, terrorism, the threat of superpower nuclear war, shifting alliances and ideological battle lines was fought for much longer, and with much higher stakes. Equally, British action in the years following the Napoleonic Wars, with internal issues of dissension that came from the Industrial Revolution and process of urbanization, along with external commitments both to the Empire and maintaining the balance of power within an increasingly uncertain and fragmenting Europe could also be seen as a similar time. As we can see, examined critically, the paper's first claim falls flat.
This is all supposedly in no small part a consequence of the UK having a “loss of confidence in our own identity, values, constitution and institutions”, which has presented a perfect target for terrorists. Apparently our uncertainty about our own identity and the surety of our enemies is our problem, and not theirs. Yet, as Baudrillard has noted with some irony, it seems to be that the least democratic in society seem to believe that everyone must share their values, that not sharing values becomes a threat in a country where the basic values are determined by institutions and voting. A natural consequence of democracy is divisions “about interpretations of ...history...and political identity.” Is this any more different than the mind numbingly boring divisions between Marxists, Liberals and Christians that have been staple fare of British debate for the last 2 centuries? Again, we have an old condition that has existed for a long time, dressed up as new, with barely any thought given as to the origins of their existence.
Furthermore, if we continue with Baudrillard's thought for a moment, perhaps this strength of identity is in part the problem of the fundamentalists? Aside from breeding a lack of irony, fundamentalism also breeds an absolute and concrete identity, one which easily makes the leap into paranoid delusions about enemies and solutions for problems. Some would consider it perhaps not a good idea to take our cues from Jihadists when it comes to identity politics.
Furthermore, this lack of historical knowledge of Islamic terrorism within the UK is further highlighted by a trendy attack against 'multiculturalism', an ill-defined term at the best of times. According to the paper, the government should be “laying down the line” to immigrant communities, instead of “deferring” to them. The fact that Britain helped to encourage, arm and train Islamic militants, made alliances with nations that materially supported such militants and then went on to let them establish themselves in the UK should be entirely overlooked. I refer in part to the 'Afghan Arabs' who fought the Soviet Union, but equally other, lesser known groups who were considered valuable allies because of their hatred of the 'godless Communists'. Equally, we cemented alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, giving them a shred of respect and legitimacy they never should have been allowed in the first place. By maintaining this relationship, we have allowed them to spread the virulent Wahhabist conceptions of Islam into the country virtually unchecked. The same goes for Pakistan, where we refused to make a stand against military support of Deobandi schools, which produced fighters for the disputed Kashmir region.
Apparently we should consider 7/7 as a failure of multiculturalism. Yet, why are the London pub bombings or IRA attacks not? These are seemingly raised into the arena of “political terrorism” (one presumes, given they are not mentioned at all) and thus far less dangerous. But as work from professionals in the field, such as Marc Sageman and Robert Pape show, Islamist terrorists are no less influenced by politics than the IRA. Religion, like nationalism, is just one ideological source for political dissension, no different than any other. If we insist on looking at failed “cultural” reasons for terrorism, then the public discourse will overlook political reasons, such as continued support for the US led war on terror, Israeli actions in the occupied territories, a continued policy of aiding repressive leaders within the Middle East and other policy positions, real or imagined.
Moving onto external threats, these seem to be equally misplaced. First there is the usual old worry, about Britain's reliance on sea trade and the diminishing power of the Royal Navy to police the world's waterways. Never mind that this role is more than adequately fulfilled by the USA, Britain's closest military ally, an international power capable of policing most of the world's oceans even while fighting a war (as during the first Gulf War). The reason we should be worried, of course, is that this is a military think tank and more pork for the military would not be a bad thing. Especially given most ex-military personnel move onto jobs either consulting for or providing logistics, IT services and arms to those branches of the military.
There is no naval threat to the UK. Areas where there have been naval issues are either so far removed from affecting UK trade as to be laughable (such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard snatching Royal Navy sailors in the Straits of Hormuz) or not traded with anyway and so pose no threat, such as the coastline of Somalia. Russia's navy remains the single weakest and most underfunded aspect of its military, and equally China is lagging far behind the USA, and is concentrating on regional ambitions, not picking fights with UK freight vessels.
Technology, equally, has always been an issue and is so blatantly obvious one wonders why it was included in this report at all, given how little of substance (other than: “Internet = possibly BAD”) is actually said on the subject.
The question of Chinese leadership and resource issues, while important, is approached in an equally banal way. The Chinese had their free market revolt in 1989, and it was ruthlessly crushed by the CCP. China, like Chile, like Yeltsin's Russia, can easily combine free markets with authoritarian rule and only an addled brain from reading too much Friedman or Fukuyama could make one think otherwise. China has also taken steps to break apart possible dissident groups through controlling access to information and a hugely powerful intelligence force directed against its own citizenry. The real question is that, when violence does break out, will the world's media stand by the Chinese leadership, like they did in 1989, or will they and the elected leaders of countries like the USA and EU heavyweights, come out and rightly criticize China as they should? That is what will inform China's response and thus any future security issue.
The question of global warming is actually dealt with fairly well, considering how botched this essay is so far. Of course, it is so general and such an unknown area, it is hard to make mistakes anyway, but it all seems plausible and done without a lack of hyperbole or distortion.
Equally, their position on Russia is far more tempered than many current commentators, such as the Wall Street Journal. They note that trends in Russia do also have external inputs and that collusion with the Russian robber barons of the 90s was a terrible mistake. However, it also overlooks that President Putin has often been very accommodating towards the European Union and working with it towards common goals – often against more Eurosceptic Russian politicians. His continued presence in Russian politics, though lessened, suggest this trend will continue, though the choice of the new President's foreign minister should equally be taken into account.
Alas, when the issue moves to that of collective security and multinational institutions, the fundamental dishonesty of the report's writers comes to the fore again. They would have us believe involvement in NATO, the EU and UN is because of “essentially ideological reasons.” Obviously trying to woo the foreign policy Realists, they fail miserably because they do not take into account that all three groups promote UK interests more than it costs to be a member of them. NATO, for example, includes the greatest military power in the world, the United States, in a position where it can be counted on supporting the UK (and indeed, much of the rest of Europe), militarily, not only shouldering the burden of military spending that allows the US to actively take part in the defence of Europe, but also in the event of foreign security issues in places like the Middle East and South West Asia. Naturally, the EU benefits the UK economically and in its political relations with nearby countries, and the permanent veto and seat that the UK has on the UNSC makes it a diplomatic power to be courted and wooed, as well as listened to.
Instead, the essay promotes a return to interests before 'ideology', claiming that “foul-weather friends are preferable to fair-weather ones”, not realizing the irony of much of our modern political situation is shaped by such foul-weather friends as Saddam Hussein, the Pakistani ISI, Russian crime lords etc
And of course, such a flexible policy requires a flexible military...which means of course, more military spending. The writers are aware enough to understand that the public wont support that, that it sees no need to go to such expense to defend against the problems the essay has outlined. And so apparently, we must “re-discover” ourselves, leading back to the sorry dance being done around identity and culture, replete with the failures and criticisms I noted above. Apparently uncertainty, instead of being an acceptance of the unstable condition of the world and open-mindedness to solutions, is a weakness. This is of course why the uncertain and divided Allies lost World War Two against the Fascist Axis, with its powerful shared identity. Or something.
The report then goes on to make an attack against ideological think tanks, stating that instead of grand projects, one should put experience in history and expertise (in other word, the think tank which produced this report). Overlooking for the moment this attempt to obliquely reference themselves as the last hope of a fatally politicized Britain, we should consider that what they are saying, is in fact in and of itself an ideological position. Its one that can be found easily within the writings of Edmund Burke, if one cares to look. That they try not to portray themselves as ideological conservatives, but instead as skilled persons with expertise and experience in the current political climate should rightly sound alarm bells, because it is no different to New Labour, the American Neo-Conservatives or any other Grand Theory political groups who have come to prominence recently. Also, if the world is changing as fast as they have us believe, then why should we trust in groups rooted in historicism, ideologically? This is just one of the many areas the thesis of the paper shoots itself in the foot.
Their solution is as banal as much of their analysis. Scare-mongering throughout the paper, relyinh on shoddy scholarships, distortions and arguments taken from hack tabloid commentators, they hype the problem of cultural identity, then propose...a committee to solve the problem. Two committees, actually, since two useless institutions are better than one. Such useless measures, if one accepts the premise of the essay, and one which would have little noticeable effect, except in enlarging the voice of the UK military establishment both within Parliament and within the Cabinet itself.
This is nothing more than a shameless power grab done under the guise of modern security thinking, and, to be honest, I feel dirty after reading it. Despite its use of language, it has all the intellectual credibility of a Sun editorial, and about as much coherency. It relies on trying to paint a doom and gloom situation, then propose a response which actually doesn't match up to their terrorizing statements, hoping that the former will provoke enough fear for that problem to be overlooked. In the media especially this has been the case, with the various daily papers falling over themselves to congratulate or condemn the essay, while overlooking the real meat of what is being proposed, in favour of shock headlines.
One of the problems cited in the paper is that of no coherent analysis of the security risk to the UK. This paper, with its inclusion of “latent threats” that have not emerged and may not emerge for many years yet, should be considered part of that problem, and not the solution.
Feb 14, 2008
Our Lady of Discord: UNDER ATTACK!
GUYS, THE INTERNETS ARE NOT ASSISTING OUR LADY OF DISCORD, HILLARY CLINTON, ACHIEVE MAXIMUM LULZ AS PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES. She is falling far behind in polls and funds. She is breaking down emotionally almost twice a month. Her mascara is running. She has been making crazy talk about getting a boob job. She has been having sex with Bill again. EVERYTHING IS FALLING APART FOR HER. This election season should be a time for America to HEAL, but nobody will let Nurse Clinton take care of our country.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, HELP HILLARY. Her campaign is accepting DONATIONS OF ALL SHAPES AND SIZES at this address:
Hillary Clinton for President
PO Box 1781
Merrifield, VA 22116-9965
She is accepting money, but it may be too late for that. DISCOFLUX.COM ENCOURAGES YOU TO SEND THE FOLLOWING ITEMS INSTEAD:
- Socks
- Canned food
- Kleenex (generic preferred)
- Tiny violins
- Paper airplanes made from Hillary Clinton campaign fliers
- Matchbox cars
- Cleaning supplies
- RAZORBLADES
- Condolence cards
THERE ISN'T MUCH TIME LEFT. ACT NOW, OR THE ESTABLISHMENT MIGHT LOSE THIS ELECTION.
STATUS QUO GO!
- Vexati0n
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, HELP HILLARY. Her campaign is accepting DONATIONS OF ALL SHAPES AND SIZES at this address:
Hillary Clinton for President
PO Box 1781
Merrifield, VA 22116-9965
She is accepting money, but it may be too late for that. DISCOFLUX.COM ENCOURAGES YOU TO SEND THE FOLLOWING ITEMS INSTEAD:
- Socks
- Canned food
- Kleenex (generic preferred)
- Tiny violins
- Paper airplanes made from Hillary Clinton campaign fliers
- Matchbox cars
- Cleaning supplies
- RAZORBLADES
- Condolence cards
THERE ISN'T MUCH TIME LEFT. ACT NOW, OR THE ESTABLISHMENT MIGHT LOSE THIS ELECTION.
STATUS QUO GO!
- Vexati0n
Feb 13, 2008
RIP Dr Hyatt
I don't technically have permission to post this, but I read it from someone who did, so I assume tacit consent of some sort.
Alan Ronald Miller, Ph.D., IX° O.T.O. (1943-2008 e.v.)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Brother Alan Miller IX° passed away on February 9, at his home in Scottsdale, Arizona, with his wife Linda and son Michael in attendance. He had been bravely waging a long struggle with cancer, but suffered several strokes in his last week.
Bro. Alan was born in Chicago on July 12, 1943, the son of a Chicago police lieutenant. After early studies at the University of Toronto he took a B.A. and M.A. (Psychology) at California State University in Los Angeles, followed by an advanced M.Ed. from University of Southern California, a Ph.D. (Psychology) from Western University, and a second Ph.D. (Leadership and Human Behavior) from United States International University (now Alliant University). He made significant contibutions to the academic psychological literature, particuarly in the fields of psychological testing and the perception of beauty; many of his innovations are still in daily use around the world.
He studied Reichian analysis with Dr. Israel Regardie, and applied his considerable business acumen to helping Dr. Regardie so arrange his affairs that he enjoyed a comfortable retirement. He had a long a distinguished private psychology practice, a varied entrepreneurial career as a businessman including many years as a successful computer industry executive, and founded Falcon Press -- now New Falcon Publications -- with his lifelong friend and business partner Nicholas Tharcher. He was the author and coauthor of several dozen books under the name Christopher Hyatt, Ph.D., including the very popular "Undoing Yourself," and in recent years had produced a series of educational DVDs, all available from New Falcon Publications. He was the chief executive of a not-for-profit religious organizations that carrried on Dr. Regardie's Golden Dawn tradition.
He had a great gift for empowering those around him -- challenging them to overcome their inhibitions and give expression to their inner potential; that paradigm is perhaps the best summation of his life's work.
He encouraged two notable O.T.O. authors, James Wassserman and Lon Milo DuQuette, to produce books, and helped them with their initial publications. His approach to helping others realize their potential, while rooted in his psychoanalytic training, was of course fully consonant with Thelema. It is fair to say that Bro. Alan did more in his unique way to advance Thelema in public perception than most Thelemites in history; the Crowley books he put before the public number in the hundreds of thousands. At the urging of his teacher, Dr. Regardie, he was a great supporter of the O.T.O., which he soon joined and to which he lent incalculable support, both through his experienced and sound practical advice, and through substantial financial contributions. He was, for example, the single top donor to the Thoth Tarot Restoration Fund, devoting tens of thousands of dollars to make possible the preservation of the original paintings for future generations. Whenever the O.T.O. was in danger or need, Bro. Alan could be counted upon to lend his support. He was also generous with important archival information, donating Israel Regardie's very large archives to the O.T.O. Archives. Later, when O.T.O. determined that the Regardie's Golden Dawn papers might be better placed with a G.D. research organization, he approved their transfer; O.T.O. Archives retained Regardie's papers dealing with his work with Crowley and Thelema.
Alan was a controversial person -- intentionally so, as part of his personal Great Work was to shock people out of their complacency and habitual mindsets. He was deliberately provocative at times; for example, he labelled some of his best reasoned and most philosophically astute writings "Toxic Magick" -- a blind for the blind, as he explained to me, for what is in reality a sort of Thelemic utilitarianism. Personally, I've never known anyone like Bro. Alan, and do not expect his like again. His work will live on, and may he rest in peace.
Love is the law, love under will.
Hymenaeus Beta
Frater Superior, OTO
Another obituary to Dr Hyatt can be found here.
Alan Ronald Miller, Ph.D., IX° O.T.O. (1943-2008 e.v.)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Brother Alan Miller IX° passed away on February 9, at his home in Scottsdale, Arizona, with his wife Linda and son Michael in attendance. He had been bravely waging a long struggle with cancer, but suffered several strokes in his last week.
Bro. Alan was born in Chicago on July 12, 1943, the son of a Chicago police lieutenant. After early studies at the University of Toronto he took a B.A. and M.A. (Psychology) at California State University in Los Angeles, followed by an advanced M.Ed. from University of Southern California, a Ph.D. (Psychology) from Western University, and a second Ph.D. (Leadership and Human Behavior) from United States International University (now Alliant University). He made significant contibutions to the academic psychological literature, particuarly in the fields of psychological testing and the perception of beauty; many of his innovations are still in daily use around the world.
He studied Reichian analysis with Dr. Israel Regardie, and applied his considerable business acumen to helping Dr. Regardie so arrange his affairs that he enjoyed a comfortable retirement. He had a long a distinguished private psychology practice, a varied entrepreneurial career as a businessman including many years as a successful computer industry executive, and founded Falcon Press -- now New Falcon Publications -- with his lifelong friend and business partner Nicholas Tharcher. He was the author and coauthor of several dozen books under the name Christopher Hyatt, Ph.D., including the very popular "Undoing Yourself," and in recent years had produced a series of educational DVDs, all available from New Falcon Publications. He was the chief executive of a not-for-profit religious organizations that carrried on Dr. Regardie's Golden Dawn tradition.
He had a great gift for empowering those around him -- challenging them to overcome their inhibitions and give expression to their inner potential; that paradigm is perhaps the best summation of his life's work.
He encouraged two notable O.T.O. authors, James Wassserman and Lon Milo DuQuette, to produce books, and helped them with their initial publications. His approach to helping others realize their potential, while rooted in his psychoanalytic training, was of course fully consonant with Thelema. It is fair to say that Bro. Alan did more in his unique way to advance Thelema in public perception than most Thelemites in history; the Crowley books he put before the public number in the hundreds of thousands. At the urging of his teacher, Dr. Regardie, he was a great supporter of the O.T.O., which he soon joined and to which he lent incalculable support, both through his experienced and sound practical advice, and through substantial financial contributions. He was, for example, the single top donor to the Thoth Tarot Restoration Fund, devoting tens of thousands of dollars to make possible the preservation of the original paintings for future generations. Whenever the O.T.O. was in danger or need, Bro. Alan could be counted upon to lend his support. He was also generous with important archival information, donating Israel Regardie's very large archives to the O.T.O. Archives. Later, when O.T.O. determined that the Regardie's Golden Dawn papers might be better placed with a G.D. research organization, he approved their transfer; O.T.O. Archives retained Regardie's papers dealing with his work with Crowley and Thelema.
Alan was a controversial person -- intentionally so, as part of his personal Great Work was to shock people out of their complacency and habitual mindsets. He was deliberately provocative at times; for example, he labelled some of his best reasoned and most philosophically astute writings "Toxic Magick" -- a blind for the blind, as he explained to me, for what is in reality a sort of Thelemic utilitarianism. Personally, I've never known anyone like Bro. Alan, and do not expect his like again. His work will live on, and may he rest in peace.
Love is the law, love under will.
Hymenaeus Beta
Frater Superior, OTO
Another obituary to Dr Hyatt can be found here.
Feb 11, 2008
UK law is SPECIAL? WTF?
The comments by Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and de facto head of the Church of England, that Sharia Law in the UK is "inevitable" have sparked waves of predictably tedious righteous indignation.
While the most fanatical members of the right wing press, such as Melanie Phillips, have seen fit to frame this in the context of "dhimmitude", "abject religious and cultural surrender to Islam" and other code words of the Eurabia conspiracy theorists, even the mainstream press have run scare stories about sharia law being used in Britain, should the Archbishop get his way.
But lets examine his comments in context.
He wanted parts of Sharia Law to be adopted by communities who already consider themselves Islamic, with the consent of all parties involved, to try and reach decisions on some court rulings, such as those covering marriage, divorce and property after death in the family. To quote him, he said "The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there."
The question is therefore not the introduction of Sharia Law into the UK, but the realization of the fact many people already try to use these laws in their everyday lives, often without any transparency, oversight or courts of appeal. By integrating it into UK law, it not only helps prevent abuses, but also helps soften the opinion of many Muslims towards the current government and UK society, who feel that there is an "us and them" dynamic at work, which forces them to chose between loyalty to the state and loyalty to their religion.
There is also the fact that Orthodox Jews already operate under this system in UK law. You'd think someone like Melanie Phillips, who proclaims her Jewishness at every opening that is offered, would realize that, and accept that this is a natural extension of the rights already afforded to some citizens.
Notably, the Times and Telegraph newspapers have tried to make arguments on the basis that the UK is a Christian nation (a claim more plausible than similar ones made in the USA) and that UK laws are based on Christianity, with its history of tolerance and respect for the individual. This second claim is not only theoretically dubious, given statements in the Bible about the role of women, but historically inaccurate and misleading as well. In the past, the state has sanctioned both the persecution of Jews and Catholics using Christian rhetoric, and the most exemplary laws of our modern society are derived from the Danes, not Christianity. There is no haebus corpus or presumption of innocence in the Bible, after all.
Finally, there is the argument that Muslims when over here should put up with "our" laws or leave. This is the most pathetic and rhetoric based of all the arguments given so far, for two reasons. Firstly, many of the Muslims who identify as such ARE British Muslims, and live here. Secondly, the idea that you cannot criticize or attempt to change the policy of the state is about the single most anti-democratic statement I have heard. I most certainly do not agree with our government aiding "extraordinary rendition", should I move to Switzerland? Most interestingly, this argument has been put forward by conservative critics who....wait for it.....mostly disagree with the Labour government's policy in many areas! Why don't they move to somewhere like America or France, where a conservative government holds power? Because they're hypocrites, that's why.
The question is not one of "dhimmitude", or "cultural surrender", its about should religion at all have a right to make and in part shape how laws are executed in this country?
People should remember the CoE is a dying religion, one that while on paper is impressive in its status as the religion on the state, has little official following or real political clout. By opening up a debate on religiously influenced execution of law, they are engaging in nothing more than a shameless power grab, while using the UK Muslim community as a "human shield" for the press to rip apart.
That is what this is really about.
I myself do not really care one way or another, so long as the law is applied consistently. I would prefer a totally secular country, in terms of law, but we don't even have that now, so all the atheists out there should turn their attentions away from frothing denunciations of the excesses of the Saudi courts and perhaps consider why we allow Bishops to still sit in the House of Lords, why our official Head of State also is the head of the State religion, and is ordained in both roles by God, without question.
Secondly, some of these people should perhaps be questioning the totally idiotic and repressive secular laws that are being passed by our government currently. For all their crying about the (very real) plight of women under fundamentalist Islamic regimes, I see little criticism from our media over the proposed reintroduction of stop and search laws, which are proven to target ethnic minorities massively, nor the use of ASBOs by police officers to punish people for being assholes (which, contrary to popular belief, is not a crime).
All of these people would have us believe that UK law is something special, a near perfect being, pure in its conception, which is being brutally mixed with a nasty, foreign, alien legal system. WAKE THE FUCK UP ASSHOLES, UK LAW AIN'T ANYTHING SPECIAL EITHER! By placing UK law on a pedastel, the media are subconsciously reinforcing culture and the state as the supreme arbiter of how we should live our lives in the UK. If there are elements of sharia law that seem more "fair" and useful in their pursuit of Justice, then by all means they should be adopted. Equally, all laws that are not useful in that respect should be disregarded, regardless of where they came from. Otherwise, the law isn't worth the paper its written on. Unjust laws don't become any more just simply because they're rooted in our own culture and history.
I mean, seriously, are some of you people pulling our legs here?
While the most fanatical members of the right wing press, such as Melanie Phillips, have seen fit to frame this in the context of "dhimmitude", "abject religious and cultural surrender to Islam" and other code words of the Eurabia conspiracy theorists, even the mainstream press have run scare stories about sharia law being used in Britain, should the Archbishop get his way.
But lets examine his comments in context.
He wanted parts of Sharia Law to be adopted by communities who already consider themselves Islamic, with the consent of all parties involved, to try and reach decisions on some court rulings, such as those covering marriage, divorce and property after death in the family. To quote him, he said "The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there."
The question is therefore not the introduction of Sharia Law into the UK, but the realization of the fact many people already try to use these laws in their everyday lives, often without any transparency, oversight or courts of appeal. By integrating it into UK law, it not only helps prevent abuses, but also helps soften the opinion of many Muslims towards the current government and UK society, who feel that there is an "us and them" dynamic at work, which forces them to chose between loyalty to the state and loyalty to their religion.
There is also the fact that Orthodox Jews already operate under this system in UK law. You'd think someone like Melanie Phillips, who proclaims her Jewishness at every opening that is offered, would realize that, and accept that this is a natural extension of the rights already afforded to some citizens.
Notably, the Times and Telegraph newspapers have tried to make arguments on the basis that the UK is a Christian nation (a claim more plausible than similar ones made in the USA) and that UK laws are based on Christianity, with its history of tolerance and respect for the individual. This second claim is not only theoretically dubious, given statements in the Bible about the role of women, but historically inaccurate and misleading as well. In the past, the state has sanctioned both the persecution of Jews and Catholics using Christian rhetoric, and the most exemplary laws of our modern society are derived from the Danes, not Christianity. There is no haebus corpus or presumption of innocence in the Bible, after all.
Finally, there is the argument that Muslims when over here should put up with "our" laws or leave. This is the most pathetic and rhetoric based of all the arguments given so far, for two reasons. Firstly, many of the Muslims who identify as such ARE British Muslims, and live here. Secondly, the idea that you cannot criticize or attempt to change the policy of the state is about the single most anti-democratic statement I have heard. I most certainly do not agree with our government aiding "extraordinary rendition", should I move to Switzerland? Most interestingly, this argument has been put forward by conservative critics who....wait for it.....mostly disagree with the Labour government's policy in many areas! Why don't they move to somewhere like America or France, where a conservative government holds power? Because they're hypocrites, that's why.
The question is not one of "dhimmitude", or "cultural surrender", its about should religion at all have a right to make and in part shape how laws are executed in this country?
People should remember the CoE is a dying religion, one that while on paper is impressive in its status as the religion on the state, has little official following or real political clout. By opening up a debate on religiously influenced execution of law, they are engaging in nothing more than a shameless power grab, while using the UK Muslim community as a "human shield" for the press to rip apart.
That is what this is really about.
I myself do not really care one way or another, so long as the law is applied consistently. I would prefer a totally secular country, in terms of law, but we don't even have that now, so all the atheists out there should turn their attentions away from frothing denunciations of the excesses of the Saudi courts and perhaps consider why we allow Bishops to still sit in the House of Lords, why our official Head of State also is the head of the State religion, and is ordained in both roles by God, without question.
Secondly, some of these people should perhaps be questioning the totally idiotic and repressive secular laws that are being passed by our government currently. For all their crying about the (very real) plight of women under fundamentalist Islamic regimes, I see little criticism from our media over the proposed reintroduction of stop and search laws, which are proven to target ethnic minorities massively, nor the use of ASBOs by police officers to punish people for being assholes (which, contrary to popular belief, is not a crime).
All of these people would have us believe that UK law is something special, a near perfect being, pure in its conception, which is being brutally mixed with a nasty, foreign, alien legal system. WAKE THE FUCK UP ASSHOLES, UK LAW AIN'T ANYTHING SPECIAL EITHER! By placing UK law on a pedastel, the media are subconsciously reinforcing culture and the state as the supreme arbiter of how we should live our lives in the UK. If there are elements of sharia law that seem more "fair" and useful in their pursuit of Justice, then by all means they should be adopted. Equally, all laws that are not useful in that respect should be disregarded, regardless of where they came from. Otherwise, the law isn't worth the paper its written on. Unjust laws don't become any more just simply because they're rooted in our own culture and history.
I mean, seriously, are some of you people pulling our legs here?
Feb 10, 2008
Anonymous protests part 2: electric boogaloo
Since the other entry was getting insanely long and bogged down with all the pictures and videos, I'm starting a second one.
First off, a little bit of misinformation spotting. It appears someone went on Indymedia and spread the rumour that the Perth protests had turned violent:
Needless to say, this is 100% FALSE and has been taken down by Indymedia soon after they were alerted to it. I don't think you even need 3 guesses to figure out who put that story up.
Secondly, the final two Boston pictures (that I have recieved, anyway...)
I'm not sure if that is a journalist or a tourist, but either is good, I suppose.
Not totally sure whats going on here...but it looks like they are having fun.
Well, anyway, I'm not hearing much in the mainstream media about New York or Clearwater, so I'm going to go lurk on a few select boards and see what information I can find.
20:07
Pictures and videos of the Edinburgh protest are available here.
Secondly, for any /i/nsurgents reading this page, you might want to look at this post from the Operation Clambake forums while considering your future strategy.
20:19
The President of the Manhatten Church gets swamped by New York Anonymous here (YouTube link).
Also, pictures from the New York protests are up on 4chan. A few are included below:
Also, the potentially most interesting protest, that in the Scientologist homeland of Clearwater, Florida, can bee seen here (Photobucket account).
20:32
Uncomfirmed news from Encyclopaedia Dramatica:
About a third of all Anon currently online who attended a protest report being followed.
One Scientologist was arrested for trying to remove the mask of an Anon.
Some CoS buildings have removed signs and paint indicating they are a CoS branch (not that it matters, since they have been marked using Google map and earth well before now, but anyway...).
20:41
Scientology has jumped into 8th place on Technorati's search rankings. About bloody time. Hopefully this will help it gain some traction with the mainstream media, who really seem to have dropped the ball on this one, so far.
20:53
Anonymous makes a statement for the public via YouTube. A transcript can be found here. Also, the Boston protest has been snowed off, according to the people attending.
21:09
Glosslip is back up....went down there for a bit. I suspect they are getting heavy traffic. Anyway, check out their entry on the Detroit protests.
21:25
News from the Toronto protests. Everything seems to be going well there, the cops seem to be in good humour about the whole thing. You can watch a short Youtube video of the protest here.
And here are some photos:
Rumours that Scientologists were arrested in London for trying to take masks off protesters, but I'm not finding anything concrete on that so far. As always, more as I get it.
Also, there are still people protesting in Boston, despite the apparently terrible weather. Its all still on, I am informed. Video of the Boston protests are also available here.
First off, a little bit of misinformation spotting. It appears someone went on Indymedia and spread the rumour that the Perth protests had turned violent:
Needless to say, this is 100% FALSE and has been taken down by Indymedia soon after they were alerted to it. I don't think you even need 3 guesses to figure out who put that story up.
Secondly, the final two Boston pictures (that I have recieved, anyway...)
I'm not sure if that is a journalist or a tourist, but either is good, I suppose.
Not totally sure whats going on here...but it looks like they are having fun.
Well, anyway, I'm not hearing much in the mainstream media about New York or Clearwater, so I'm going to go lurk on a few select boards and see what information I can find.
20:07
Pictures and videos of the Edinburgh protest are available here.
Secondly, for any /i/nsurgents reading this page, you might want to look at this post from the Operation Clambake forums while considering your future strategy.
20:19
The President of the Manhatten Church gets swamped by New York Anonymous here (YouTube link).
Also, pictures from the New York protests are up on 4chan. A few are included below:
Also, the potentially most interesting protest, that in the Scientologist homeland of Clearwater, Florida, can bee seen here (Photobucket account).
20:32
Uncomfirmed news from Encyclopaedia Dramatica:
About a third of all Anon currently online who attended a protest report being followed.
One Scientologist was arrested for trying to remove the mask of an Anon.
Some CoS buildings have removed signs and paint indicating they are a CoS branch (not that it matters, since they have been marked using Google map and earth well before now, but anyway...).
20:41
Scientology has jumped into 8th place on Technorati's search rankings. About bloody time. Hopefully this will help it gain some traction with the mainstream media, who really seem to have dropped the ball on this one, so far.
20:53
Anonymous makes a statement for the public via YouTube. A transcript can be found here. Also, the Boston protest has been snowed off, according to the people attending.
21:09
Glosslip is back up....went down there for a bit. I suspect they are getting heavy traffic. Anyway, check out their entry on the Detroit protests.
21:25
News from the Toronto protests. Everything seems to be going well there, the cops seem to be in good humour about the whole thing. You can watch a short Youtube video of the protest here.
And here are some photos:
Rumours that Scientologists were arrested in London for trying to take masks off protesters, but I'm not finding anything concrete on that so far. As always, more as I get it.
Also, there are still people protesting in Boston, despite the apparently terrible weather. Its all still on, I am informed. Video of the Boston protests are also available here.
ITS ON LIEK RED DAWN!
I'll be live-blogging reports from Boston about the Church of Scientology/Anonymous protests throughout the day, thanks to our own covert HIMEOBS agents who have decided to take part there. However I want to cover what is happening in the rest of the world too, so that is what I will do as well. All times are for the UK.
NOTICE: THIS THREAD IS INSANELY LONG, THEREFORE I HAVE STARTED A NEW ONE HERE. This entry has so many images it is massively slowing up my not very old laptop, which is not a good sign.
13:31
Reports coming in from Australian Discordians about the Anonymous protests already look promising.
According to news.com.au, over 150 people attended the Sydney protests, chanting among other things ""Church on the left, cult on the right", "Religion is free" and "We want Xenu"."
More on the Australian protests can be found at the Anonaustralia blog. Hopefully soon Pope Felix over at The Madcap Laughs will also get his own material up from the Melbourne protests, which apparently went down well.
I'm going to get lunch, then check what is happening in the rest of the world.
13:50
More pictures and video from the Australia protests:
14:02
Might be some protests happening up York way, according to the York Press. However, the BBC News website is being unusually sloppy and is not reporting on anything happening in London, and I am too lazy to get on the raid IRC channels (not to mention no-one will be there anyway). Daily papers probably wont report anything, and the protests are almost certainly ongoing, so I may have to wait until this evening to see any videos on Youtube etc
Might check out 4chan, 7chan and 711chan after lunch.
14:09
According to 4chan, there are over 50 and possibly up to 100 people attending the Edinburgh protest, and over 300 at the London one. BBC and Sky News are covering it on TV, but naturally, I don't have a television. Goddamnit. Still, it sounds like both protests are bringing the thunder.
14:23
Paris protests aren't looking too impressive, going by 4chan. Then again, its hardly like 4chan is known for its large French contingent. Maybe the French Canadians will do better. A picture from the protest.
14:34
Bad quality picture from the London protests, looks like they certainly have the numbers there however. Australian press is all over the protests as well, hopefully the UK will catch up. US protests should be starting in a couple of hours.
14:47
Video from the London protests. Might take a while to load. Go to http://www.qik.com/anonlondon if you want to see more as they come in.
15:20
More videos from London, this time on YouTube.
16:10
First images from Boston are coming in. Haven't checked the US news much yet, will do so once this is up
16:22
Several more pictures from Boston:
Protesters making their way to the venue.
Hah, excellent advertising for the Operation Clambake website.
Moving on to the CoS centre, I'm guessing...
Spelling out some Horrible Troofs
PADDLE FASTER, I HEAR THETAN TRUCKS!
Half-hearted protesting there, methinks...
16:37
Even more coverage from Boston.
Now that's a little more like it!
Directly outside the Church now
Low quality picture of the Scientologists videotaping those taking part in the protest. Good thing they're all masked up...
Scientology closed due to Thetans.
More as I get it.
17:03
More information on the London raids available from Glosslip.com (cheers for the link, D!). In particular, note the video for the NYC raid.
17:15
D-Day letter from Anonymous being circulated around the internet. As usual, click to expand:
17:21
Nick Cohen on Comment is Free makes reference to todays protests and Anonymous, in the context of freedom of speech and the UK's exceptionally unjust libel laws.
More as I find it.
17:35
Pictures from the...um, less than extraordinary Dublin raid, from 4chan:
Obviously not the strongest showing ever...
Still, its enough to warrant at least two members of the Garda, I suppose.
Not to mention this Scientologist official who wanted to know what was going on. Clearly not up on current events.
More pictures of London and Boston on their way.
17:45
Two latest pictures from Boston
A lovely rainbow there
And yet another camera from within the building, taping the protesters.
Naturally, the car was playing The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up.
18:03
Some fantastic pictures of the London raid, all taken from 4chan. As always, click to enlarge (some of these are huge).
Horse police
The signs are well worth reading.
WHERE ARE YOUR ORGS NOW?
Outside the main CoS centre in London
The dude with the 'fro certainly adds a special something to this protest.
If nothing else, Anonymous are giving the cops in London some easy duty for the day
Can't think of a good caption for this
It might be obvious murder is a crime...but apparently not. At least, for some people. The other half of the London photos will be forthingcoming in a while.
19:13
The London Pictures Part Deux
Face facts: you will never be as cool as the guy on the right.
Anonymous in London has been exemplary. This is a surprise, for anyone who has ever visited any of the *chan sites.
I admit it, I laughed.
As much as I'm sure the forced abortion/CoS issue is very important and serious, my eyes keep being drawn to the Longcat banner, whether I want to or not.
Even the cops are enjoying the protest.
(insert wry comment here)
On Tottenham Road...I think.
Also hi to all the guys and gals from the Randi forums and Glosslip who are currently visiting! I feel so special.
NOTICE: THIS THREAD IS INSANELY LONG, THEREFORE I HAVE STARTED A NEW ONE HERE. This entry has so many images it is massively slowing up my not very old laptop, which is not a good sign.
13:31
Reports coming in from Australian Discordians about the Anonymous protests already look promising.
According to news.com.au, over 150 people attended the Sydney protests, chanting among other things ""Church on the left, cult on the right", "Religion is free" and "We want Xenu"."
More on the Australian protests can be found at the Anonaustralia blog. Hopefully soon Pope Felix over at The Madcap Laughs will also get his own material up from the Melbourne protests, which apparently went down well.
I'm going to get lunch, then check what is happening in the rest of the world.
13:50
More pictures and video from the Australia protests:
14:02
Might be some protests happening up York way, according to the York Press. However, the BBC News website is being unusually sloppy and is not reporting on anything happening in London, and I am too lazy to get on the raid IRC channels (not to mention no-one will be there anyway). Daily papers probably wont report anything, and the protests are almost certainly ongoing, so I may have to wait until this evening to see any videos on Youtube etc
Might check out 4chan, 7chan and 711chan after lunch.
14:09
According to 4chan, there are over 50 and possibly up to 100 people attending the Edinburgh protest, and over 300 at the London one. BBC and Sky News are covering it on TV, but naturally, I don't have a television. Goddamnit. Still, it sounds like both protests are bringing the thunder.
14:23
Paris protests aren't looking too impressive, going by 4chan. Then again, its hardly like 4chan is known for its large French contingent. Maybe the French Canadians will do better. A picture from the protest.
14:34
Bad quality picture from the London protests, looks like they certainly have the numbers there however. Australian press is all over the protests as well, hopefully the UK will catch up. US protests should be starting in a couple of hours.
14:47
Video from the London protests. Might take a while to load. Go to http://www.qik.com/anonlondon if you want to see more as they come in.
15:20
More videos from London, this time on YouTube.
16:10
First images from Boston are coming in. Haven't checked the US news much yet, will do so once this is up
16:22
Several more pictures from Boston:
Protesters making their way to the venue.
Hah, excellent advertising for the Operation Clambake website.
Moving on to the CoS centre, I'm guessing...
Spelling out some Horrible Troofs
PADDLE FASTER, I HEAR THETAN TRUCKS!
Half-hearted protesting there, methinks...
16:37
Even more coverage from Boston.
Now that's a little more like it!
Directly outside the Church now
Low quality picture of the Scientologists videotaping those taking part in the protest. Good thing they're all masked up...
Scientology closed due to Thetans.
More as I get it.
17:03
More information on the London raids available from Glosslip.com (cheers for the link, D!). In particular, note the video for the NYC raid.
17:15
D-Day letter from Anonymous being circulated around the internet. As usual, click to expand:
17:21
Nick Cohen on Comment is Free makes reference to todays protests and Anonymous, in the context of freedom of speech and the UK's exceptionally unjust libel laws.
Publishers and every variety of American journalist from left winger to neo-con are demanding court judgments and new laws from US politicians to protect them from Eady and his kind. They have grasped that, far from promoting freedom, the net is allowing Saudi billionaires, Scientologists and soon, I imagine, Vladimir Putin's stooges and the agents of sovereign wealth funds to come to London and secure a banning order that could be enforced anywhere in the world.
Today's anti-Scientology protesters may seem obsessive. Although they promise to be non-violent, their planned raids could turn nasty. But they understand better than bowdlerising judges and appeasing archbishops that the freedom to speak, argue, examine and satirise is the best defence against all the cults that seek to indoctrinate and subjugate our fellow citizens.
More as I find it.
17:35
Pictures from the...um, less than extraordinary Dublin raid, from 4chan:
Obviously not the strongest showing ever...
Still, its enough to warrant at least two members of the Garda, I suppose.
Not to mention this Scientologist official who wanted to know what was going on. Clearly not up on current events.
More pictures of London and Boston on their way.
17:45
Two latest pictures from Boston
A lovely rainbow there
And yet another camera from within the building, taping the protesters.
Naturally, the car was playing The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up.
18:03
Some fantastic pictures of the London raid, all taken from 4chan. As always, click to enlarge (some of these are huge).
Horse police
The signs are well worth reading.
WHERE ARE YOUR ORGS NOW?
Outside the main CoS centre in London
The dude with the 'fro certainly adds a special something to this protest.
If nothing else, Anonymous are giving the cops in London some easy duty for the day
Can't think of a good caption for this
It might be obvious murder is a crime...but apparently not. At least, for some people. The other half of the London photos will be forthingcoming in a while.
19:13
The London Pictures Part Deux
Face facts: you will never be as cool as the guy on the right.
Anonymous in London has been exemplary. This is a surprise, for anyone who has ever visited any of the *chan sites.
I admit it, I laughed.
As much as I'm sure the forced abortion/CoS issue is very important and serious, my eyes keep being drawn to the Longcat banner, whether I want to or not.
Even the cops are enjoying the protest.
(insert wry comment here)
On Tottenham Road...I think.
Also hi to all the guys and gals from the Randi forums and Glosslip who are currently visiting! I feel so special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
