.jpg)
Roses are black,
Violets are dark and doom-ridden,
Sugar is a conformist thing,
And so are you.
Mar 3, 2006
Who to really blame for the Iraq War
Louise Mylroie of the American Enterprise Institute is the woman to blame for the invasion of Iraq. Since the mid-90s she has spun a fanciful tale involving Iraq as the arch-nemesis of the world, controlling a shadowy set of terrorist networks and unleashing them against America.
Her claims were ludicrous and without any foundation, claiming that Iraq was the hidden hand behind Khobar, the African embassy bombings of 98 and the first WTC attack, where she made the extraordinary charge that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi intelligence agent.
The FBI and CIA have repeatedly investigated her claims and accurately branded her as an ideologue. However, this has not stopped other American Enterprise Institute members to believe her. She had the backing of Dick Cheny, Richard Perle and that thug James Woolsey, one time CIA Director.
So, now you know who was planting the idea that Iraq = terrorists while Clinton was still in power.
Her claims were ludicrous and without any foundation, claiming that Iraq was the hidden hand behind Khobar, the African embassy bombings of 98 and the first WTC attack, where she made the extraordinary charge that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi intelligence agent.
The FBI and CIA have repeatedly investigated her claims and accurately branded her as an ideologue. However, this has not stopped other American Enterprise Institute members to believe her. She had the backing of Dick Cheny, Richard Perle and that thug James Woolsey, one time CIA Director.
So, now you know who was planting the idea that Iraq = terrorists while Clinton was still in power.
Why Do Terrorists Attack the USA?
Reason 1:
Terrorism at the start of the second 20th century coincided with the growth of the USA as a world power. Terrorists at the time were mostly left-wing/anarchist/anti-imperialist. The start of the Vietnam War, which was viewed as a war of national liberation against France and later capitalist neo-imperial policies controlling South Vietnam equated national liberation movements with hostility to the USA.
Reason 2:
Revolutionary movements felt that if they could show the US complicity in the military dictatorships that were propped up in the 60s and 70s in South America that they would gain popular support. This was based on the Cuban Revolution and led to the bloody uprisings, kidnappings and assassinations during the period in South America.
Reason 3:
Israel. After the Arab defeat in 1967, the seizure of the West Bank and Gaza strip led to the foundation of the PLO. The PFLP faction imitated South American revolutionaries, first against Israel then against any nation that dealt with it, including the USA which was becoming Israel's chief ally and weapons supplier. Of course, this was a two edged sword as many of the Palestinian groups were Marxist and so attacked Arab dictatorships with equal fervour.
Reason 4
NATO membership. This was used as an excuse by leftist groups in Europe for attacks on US targets, as the USA was the cheif power in NATO. Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigades were the two most obvious for this, though there were others. There was also overspill from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though most of this was not directed at explicitly US targets.
Reason 5:
State sponsored terror. Terrorism after the Iranian Revolution came to be used as a tool of foreign policy. Iran sought to export the Revolution all along the Shia crescent, which the USA opposed, not at least because of Reagan's election and "proactive" stance on terrorism (as the hostage crisis propelled him to office). When the USA intervened in the Lebanon, part of the Shia Crescent, Iran's proxies in the Hezbollah attacked the military forces there to stop them backing Israel and the conservative Christian factions in the country.
They also attacked embassies in neutrals, such as Kuwait, as an extension of the policy to push America from the crescent. Kidnappings were also instigated by Iran to gain the release of its personnel from US custody, as well as stop interference in Iraq (the reasoning behind Buckley's death) and to release Shiite prisoners from Israeli jails. All calculated to further Iranian interests, with a religious overtone. As the Hezbollah had success with its methods, it inspired others, such as Palestinian groups to also kidnap Americans to obtain the release of their people in jail.
Reason 6:
Religious terrorism, the Gulf War and Afghanistan. Postwar sanctions against Iraq perpetuated that conflict, mobilising anti-American sentiment. Iraq did try a limited terrorist campaign against the USA and Britain, but this mostly fell apart with the capture of Carlos the Jackal by the French. Saddam did not trust Islamic terrorists and so sought out ideological leftists like Carlos and his contacts for attacks. Iran continued to use terrorism as a tool of foreign policy openly, until the Khobar tower attacks implicated them. Along with a newer, less radical leadership, their guilt in the matter caused them to lessen greately their use of this strategy in the future, though they still maintain links to such groups.
The neglect of Afghanistan after the fighting allowed for the most vicious groups, notably the Taliban, to take control of the country. Many Arab fighters returned home, radicalised, extremly experienced in fighting and with a grudge against their despotic, apostate leaders at home. They came to similar conclusions as the South Americans in the 60s, that the USA was supporting corrupt regimes in the Middle East (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc) that were not of the True Faith.
Links between groups also proliferated. Because of the immense wealth of Bin Laden, many groups signed alliances and merged with his, such as Islamic Jihad in Egypt. Needless to say, the increased manpower was indoctrinated in Bin Laden's ideology, which included his fatwa against American interests and America. His strategy was based on attacking the USA to cause the dictatorships in the Middle East crumble and bring about Islamic states.
Conclusion: US global interventionism and poor choice of allies has been the main reason for terrorist attacks on the USA and its interests. The precedents of the Lebanon and Somalia lead terrorists of the present to believe they can force a US withdrawl from the Middle East. Attacks do not happen unless there is a belief they will have an effect on policy, the raison d'etre of terrorism.
Terrorism at the start of the second 20th century coincided with the growth of the USA as a world power. Terrorists at the time were mostly left-wing/anarchist/anti-imperialist. The start of the Vietnam War, which was viewed as a war of national liberation against France and later capitalist neo-imperial policies controlling South Vietnam equated national liberation movements with hostility to the USA.
Reason 2:
Revolutionary movements felt that if they could show the US complicity in the military dictatorships that were propped up in the 60s and 70s in South America that they would gain popular support. This was based on the Cuban Revolution and led to the bloody uprisings, kidnappings and assassinations during the period in South America.
Reason 3:
Israel. After the Arab defeat in 1967, the seizure of the West Bank and Gaza strip led to the foundation of the PLO. The PFLP faction imitated South American revolutionaries, first against Israel then against any nation that dealt with it, including the USA which was becoming Israel's chief ally and weapons supplier. Of course, this was a two edged sword as many of the Palestinian groups were Marxist and so attacked Arab dictatorships with equal fervour.
Reason 4
NATO membership. This was used as an excuse by leftist groups in Europe for attacks on US targets, as the USA was the cheif power in NATO. Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigades were the two most obvious for this, though there were others. There was also overspill from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though most of this was not directed at explicitly US targets.
Reason 5:
State sponsored terror. Terrorism after the Iranian Revolution came to be used as a tool of foreign policy. Iran sought to export the Revolution all along the Shia crescent, which the USA opposed, not at least because of Reagan's election and "proactive" stance on terrorism (as the hostage crisis propelled him to office). When the USA intervened in the Lebanon, part of the Shia Crescent, Iran's proxies in the Hezbollah attacked the military forces there to stop them backing Israel and the conservative Christian factions in the country.
They also attacked embassies in neutrals, such as Kuwait, as an extension of the policy to push America from the crescent. Kidnappings were also instigated by Iran to gain the release of its personnel from US custody, as well as stop interference in Iraq (the reasoning behind Buckley's death) and to release Shiite prisoners from Israeli jails. All calculated to further Iranian interests, with a religious overtone. As the Hezbollah had success with its methods, it inspired others, such as Palestinian groups to also kidnap Americans to obtain the release of their people in jail.
Reason 6:
Religious terrorism, the Gulf War and Afghanistan. Postwar sanctions against Iraq perpetuated that conflict, mobilising anti-American sentiment. Iraq did try a limited terrorist campaign against the USA and Britain, but this mostly fell apart with the capture of Carlos the Jackal by the French. Saddam did not trust Islamic terrorists and so sought out ideological leftists like Carlos and his contacts for attacks. Iran continued to use terrorism as a tool of foreign policy openly, until the Khobar tower attacks implicated them. Along with a newer, less radical leadership, their guilt in the matter caused them to lessen greately their use of this strategy in the future, though they still maintain links to such groups.
The neglect of Afghanistan after the fighting allowed for the most vicious groups, notably the Taliban, to take control of the country. Many Arab fighters returned home, radicalised, extremly experienced in fighting and with a grudge against their despotic, apostate leaders at home. They came to similar conclusions as the South Americans in the 60s, that the USA was supporting corrupt regimes in the Middle East (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc) that were not of the True Faith.
Links between groups also proliferated. Because of the immense wealth of Bin Laden, many groups signed alliances and merged with his, such as Islamic Jihad in Egypt. Needless to say, the increased manpower was indoctrinated in Bin Laden's ideology, which included his fatwa against American interests and America. His strategy was based on attacking the USA to cause the dictatorships in the Middle East crumble and bring about Islamic states.
Conclusion: US global interventionism and poor choice of allies has been the main reason for terrorist attacks on the USA and its interests. The precedents of the Lebanon and Somalia lead terrorists of the present to believe they can force a US withdrawl from the Middle East. Attacks do not happen unless there is a belief they will have an effect on policy, the raison d'etre of terrorism.
Basic International Relations Theory
Realism, Liberalism, Marxism and some others in international relations.
Realism
The term realism comes from the German compound word "Realpolitik", from the words "real" (meaning "realistic", "practical", or "actual") and "politik" (meaning "politics"). It focuses on the balance of power among nation-states. Realpolitik is foreign policy based on practical concerns (political expediency) rather than ideals or ethics.
Bismarck coined the term after following Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of European empires. Balancing power meant keeping the peace, and careful realpolitik practioners tried to avoid arms races. However, during the early-20th Century, arms races (and alliances) occurred anyway, culminating in World War I.
Various political science schools of thought rely on an analysis of political actions as realpolitik, most notably the Realist and Marxian schools. In the "realist school" of Anglo-Saxon Political Science of the late 20th century this term is mostly used as a synonym for power politics. The policy of Realpolitik was formally introduced to the Nixon White House by Henry Kissinger. In this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics — for instance, Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China, despite the U.S.'s purported opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment. Another example is Kissinger's 'green lighting' of dictator Suharto's invasion of East Timor.
In Germany, the term Realpolitik is more often used to distinguish modest (realistic) politics from overzealeous (unrealistic) politics. That Prussia didn't demand territory from defeated Austria-Hungary provided the impetus for coining this term, as was the sometimes very slow or indirect steps towards German unification under Prussia. Realistic compromises are reached instead of clinging to values like justice or nationalism.
Basic theory
Fundamental principles common to realist theories:
1.The international system is anarchical.
2.Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system.
1.Dismissal of the independent influence of international organizations, sub-state, or trans-state actors.
2.Focus on the primary importance of nationalism, as opposed to sub-national groupings, or transnational ideological of cultural groupings.
3.States are rational actors, acting in their national interest.
1.Distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
4.The overriding goal of each state is its own security and survival.
1.Fundamental nature of the security dilemma.
5.State survival is guaranteed best by power, principally military in character.
1.Focus on relative power (i.e. "zero sum") versus absolute power.
Realism makes several key assumptions. Primarily, it assumes that mankind is not inherently benevolent and kind but self centered and competitive, in contrast to other theories of international relations such as Liberalism. It also fundamentally assumes that the international system is anarchic, in the sense that there is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity (that is, no true authoritative world government exists). It also assumes that sovereign states, rather than international institutions, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. According to realism, each state is a rational actor that always acts towards its own self-interest, and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its own security. Realism holds that in pursuit of that security, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative level of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's capabilities, both military and economic.
Moreover, Realists believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms. Thus, security is a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.
There are two sub-schools of realism: maximal realism and minimal realism:
The theory of maximal realism holds that the world order centers on the hegemon, the most powerful entity in the world, and that smaller entities will align themselves with the hegemon out of political self-interests. Under maximal realism, the position where there are simultaneously two equally powerful co-hegemons (such as was the case during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union) is an inherently unstable one and that situation will inevitably collapse into a more stable state where one nation is more powerful and one is less powerful.
The theory of minimal realism holds that non-hegemonic states will ally against the hegemon in order to prevent their own interests from being subsumed by the hegemon's interests. Under the minimal-realism theory it is possible to have two equally powerful co-hegemons with whom a smaller entity may ally in turn depending on which hegemon better fits with the smaller entity's policies at the moment (playing both sides against the middle).
Thus, maximal realism predicts that the most common state of world politics is a hegemonic order, and minimal realism predicts a carefully maintained balance of power. The difference in application can be seen, for instance, in the post-Cold War period. Many minimal realists predicted that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Europe and Japan would move away from the remaining superpower, the United States. Maximal realists tended to predict that most countries would seek stronger ties with the U.S.
There is also a distinction between structural realism and liberal realism:
The former emphasize the permanent condition of conflict. Thus, to ensure state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.
The latter holds that while the system is anarchical, through diplomacy, international law and society, order can be promoted. (English School) This gives credence to establish IGOs such as the United Nations.
History of realism
Thucydides
The ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War, is also cited as an intellectual forebearer of realpolitik.
Machiavelli
One of the most famous proponents was Niccolò Machiavelli, best known for his Il Principe (The Prince) (pb.1532). Machiavelli held that the sole aim of a prince was to seek power, regardless of religious or ethical considerations.
Richelieu
Machiavelli's ideas were further expanded and implemented by Cardinal Richelieu and his raison d'etat in the Thirty Years War.
Bismarck
Otto von Bismarck coined the term 'balance of power' after following Prince Klemens von Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of European empires. Balancing power meant keeping the peace, and careful realpolitik practitioners tried to avoid arms races. However, during the early 20th century, realpolitik was abandoned for the doctrine of "Weltpolitik" and arms races and alliances increased, culminating in World War I.
Structural or Neo-realism
Neo-Realism resembles Classical Realism on most accounts. However, Neo-Realism predominantly focuses on the international system rather than human nature. While states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states through a Levels of Analysis or Structure-Agency debate - with the international system as a structure acting on the state and individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as a whole
Criticisms of realism
Several critiques were raised against the realist school. One problem is that there are in fact authorities above states capable of regulating inter-state relations. There are organizations like the U.N., WTO, ISO as well as multitudes of multinational organizations and companies. While none of these organization has the powers of a full government, they do have a considerable influence over the actions of states. According to this view, American efforts to receive U.N. support for the invasion of Iraq illustrate the power of the U.N. Had the U.N. no power, as realists would claim, it would have never played any role in the run-up to the war. Further criticism of political realism says that realism has an incorrect concept of a state. States are not actors but rather large organizations. It is impossible, say the critics, to understand international relations without making this distinction. An illustration of this phenomenon can be found in the difficulties involving signing the CAFTA. In particular, the agreement was ratified by United States Senate only after a considerable delay and uncertainty about the outcome.
With increased globalization, some argue that the statist nature of realism has proven wrong, as states cannot be considered as unitary actors in pursuit of rational self-interest. Examples include the reality that many states have an economy smaller than many multinational corporations (MNCs) and some MNCs even employ their own quasi-military forces to protect their own installations and thus are more powerful than the state. Realists maintain that MNCs are legitimized by other states and thus cannot be considered as independent entities. Yet, this places doubt on the state as a unitary actor - as surely interaction between non-state actors (for example, between MNCs) is becoming increasingly commonplace.
Critics also argue that the success of the European Union (EU) shows that states are capable of cooperation and indeed the European Union is an example of a supranational government - above the level of the state. Realists respond that as the divisions within the EU on everything from agreeing on a constitution to agricultural policies, states may just be joining in pursuit of their own rational self-interest. Yet, laws of the European Parliament and court decisions of European Courts are applicable across all EU nations - suggesting that the EU is indeed a supranational government rather than an IGO.
Liberalism
Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike realism where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government type. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political (high politics), but also economic (low politics) whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example, the influence of American films leading to the popularity of American culture and creating a market for American exports worldwide). Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made through co-operation and interdependence - thus peace can be achieved.
Many different strands of liberalism have emerged; some include commercial liberalism, liberal institutionalism, idealism, and regime theory. Two forms of liberalism predominate, liberal internationalism and idealism:
The former suggests that with the right factors, the international system provides opportunities for cooperation and interaction. Examples include the successful integration of Europe through the European Union or regional blocs and economic agreements such as ASEAN or NAFTA. Ramifications of this view is that if states cannot cooperate, they ought to be curbed; whether through economic sanctions or military action. For example, before the invasion of Iraq by the United States and United Kingdom in 2003, the governments' claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction could be seen as claims that Iraq is a bad state that needs to be curbed rather than an outright danger to American or European security. Thus, the invasion could be seen as curbing a bad state under liberal internationalism. A variant is Neo-liberal institutionalism (USA) which shifts back to a state-centric approach, but allows for pluralism through identifying and recognizing different actors, processes and structures.
The latter holds a view to promote a more peaceful world order through international organizations or IGOs; for example, through the United Nations (UN).
Neoliberalism
In the study of international relations (IR), neoliberalism refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains (economic, strategic, etc.), rather than relative gains to other nation-states. The notion is often connected with neoliberal economic theory. Neoliberal IR thinkers often employ game theory to explain why states do or do not cooperate.
When initially conceived, Neoliberalism was considered as a response to Neorealism and shares its most important assumptions; that the state is the most important actor in world politics and that the international system is anarchic which shapes the behaviour of states. Essentially where the two theories differ is the determination of what sort of behaviour international anarchy force states to engage in. The debate between the practitioners of both Neoliberalism and Neorealism in the 1980's is considered one of the great debates that have helped defined the discipline.
In terms of the scope of international theory, the debate between Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an inter paradigm one, as both theories are positivist and focus mainly on state as the primary unit of analysis. However, this should not detract from the importance of the debate between these two poles in the dominant paradigm that is Realism, as both Neoliberalism and Neorealism have contributed most literature to the discipline of international relations in the last 20 years.
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye are considered the founders of this school of thought; their joint book After Hegemony is a classic of the genre. Another major influence is the hegemonic stability theory of Stephen Krasner, Charles Kindelberger, and others.
A prominent strain of neoliberalism, known as neoliberal institutionalism or "regime theory," seeks to explain how NGOs and other international organizations can facilitate interstate cooperation, as well as how they can reinforce the existing balance of power.
Marxism
Marxist and Neo-Marxist international relations theories are positivist paradigms which reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects. It makes the assumption that the economic trumps other concerns; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus of study. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. Thus, the period of colonialism brought in sources for raw materials and captive markets for exports, while decolonialization brought new opportunities in the form of dependence.
Marxist theories receive scant attention in the United States where no significant socialist party ever existed. They are more common in parts of Europe and elsewhere.
Dependency theory
Linked in with Marxist theories is dependency theory which argues that developed countries, in their pursuit of power, penetrate developing states through political advisors, missionaries, experts and MNCs to integrate them into the integrated capitalist system in order to appropriate natural resources and foster dependence by developing countries on developed countries.
Leninism
In his book "What is to be Done?" (1903), Lenin argued that the proletariat can only achieve a successful revolution consciousness through the efforts of a Communist party that assumes the role of "revolutionary vanguard." Lenin further believed that such a party could only achieve its aims through a form of disciplined organization known as "democratic centralism," where Communist Party officials elected democratically, but once they are elected and other decisions are made through voting, all party members must follow the decisions that have been made.
Lenin expanded on Marx's initial theories, taking into account the fact that increasing class polarization and Communist revolution had failed to occur in the developed world. Lenin liked Marx's basic definition of communism and believed it would lead to the spread of Marxism. He attempted to explain this by stating that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, and that developed countries had created a labor aristocracy content with capitalism by exploiting the developing world. He maintained that capitalism could only be overthrown by revolutionary means, but added that due to imperialism such a revolution would have to occur in a lesser-developed country first, (the 'weakest link in the system of imperialism' in his terminology), such as Russia. Lenin also supported the Marxist concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" following revolution. Lenin's dictatorship of proletariat was based on predominant representation of industrial workers in government institutions, although the country was mostly agrarian. According to Lenin's ideas, the working class is democratically represented through local workers', soliders' and peasants' councils known as soviets. Because the soviets are elected, they are referred to as soviet democracy.
Knowing that according to Marx's theories, a socialist system would be unable to develop independently in an underdeveloped country such as Russia, Lenin proposed two possible solutions:
1.The revolution in the underdeveloped country sparks off a revolution in a developed capitalist country (for example, Lenin hoped the Russian Revolution would spark a revolution in Germany.) The developed country establishes socialism and helps the underdeveloped country do the same.
2.The revolution happens in a large number of underdeveloped countries at the same time or in quick succession; the underdeveloped countries then join together into a federal state capable of overcoming the opposition of capitalist countries and establishing socialism. This was the original idea behind the foundation of Lenin's Russia later renamed the Soviet Union to demonstrate to the rest of the world the validity of his control.
Either way, according to Marxism, socialism cannot survive in one poor underdeveloped country alone. Thus, Lenin called for world revolution in one form or another. His theoretical successors had to fit to his theory the fact that the world revolution never happened.
Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory are controversial; some have criticized them as revisionist. Some philosophers explain the theories of Marx's ideological successors, such as Lenin, as an attempt to modify the theory because it had made predictions that had never came true. Still, Lenin's theories had a dramatic impact on Communist movements worldwide. It is especially significant, that Lenin was the most successful practitioner of Marxism. The influence of Leninist ideology has waned since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but there are still Leninists today who have focused their criticism on globalization, claiming it is a modern-day form of imperialism.
Idealism
Idealism in international relations usually refers to the school of thought personified in American diplomatic history by Woodrow Wilson, such that it is sometimes referred to as Wilsonianism. Idealism holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its foreign policy. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would arise amongst the "institution-builders" after World War II.
Idealism is also marked by the prominent role played by international law and international organizations in its conception of policy formation. One of the most well-known tenets of modern idealist thinking is Democratic Peace Theory, which holds that states with similar modes of democratic governance do not fight one another. Wilson's idealistic thought was embodied in his Fourteen points speech, and in the creation of the ill-fated League of Nations.
Idealism transcends the left-right political spectrum. Idealists can include both human rights campaigners (traditionally, but not always, associated with the left) and American neoconservatism which is usually associated with the right.
Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism drew from Liberalism its intense focus on the promotion of "universal values", in this case democracy, human rights, free trade, women's rights, and minority protections. However, it differs in that instead of building institutions or negotiating treaties, neoconservatism eschews international institutions and treaties while pursuing assertive or aggressive stances, and is willing to use force or the threat of force, unilaterally if necessary, to push for its goals.
Realism
The term realism comes from the German compound word "Realpolitik", from the words "real" (meaning "realistic", "practical", or "actual") and "politik" (meaning "politics"). It focuses on the balance of power among nation-states. Realpolitik is foreign policy based on practical concerns (political expediency) rather than ideals or ethics.
Bismarck coined the term after following Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of European empires. Balancing power meant keeping the peace, and careful realpolitik practioners tried to avoid arms races. However, during the early-20th Century, arms races (and alliances) occurred anyway, culminating in World War I.
Various political science schools of thought rely on an analysis of political actions as realpolitik, most notably the Realist and Marxian schools. In the "realist school" of Anglo-Saxon Political Science of the late 20th century this term is mostly used as a synonym for power politics. The policy of Realpolitik was formally introduced to the Nixon White House by Henry Kissinger. In this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics — for instance, Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China, despite the U.S.'s purported opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment. Another example is Kissinger's 'green lighting' of dictator Suharto's invasion of East Timor.
In Germany, the term Realpolitik is more often used to distinguish modest (realistic) politics from overzealeous (unrealistic) politics. That Prussia didn't demand territory from defeated Austria-Hungary provided the impetus for coining this term, as was the sometimes very slow or indirect steps towards German unification under Prussia. Realistic compromises are reached instead of clinging to values like justice or nationalism.
Basic theory
Fundamental principles common to realist theories:
1.The international system is anarchical.
2.Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system.
1.Dismissal of the independent influence of international organizations, sub-state, or trans-state actors.
2.Focus on the primary importance of nationalism, as opposed to sub-national groupings, or transnational ideological of cultural groupings.
3.States are rational actors, acting in their national interest.
1.Distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
4.The overriding goal of each state is its own security and survival.
1.Fundamental nature of the security dilemma.
5.State survival is guaranteed best by power, principally military in character.
1.Focus on relative power (i.e. "zero sum") versus absolute power.
Realism makes several key assumptions. Primarily, it assumes that mankind is not inherently benevolent and kind but self centered and competitive, in contrast to other theories of international relations such as Liberalism. It also fundamentally assumes that the international system is anarchic, in the sense that there is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity (that is, no true authoritative world government exists). It also assumes that sovereign states, rather than international institutions, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. According to realism, each state is a rational actor that always acts towards its own self-interest, and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its own security. Realism holds that in pursuit of that security, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative level of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's capabilities, both military and economic.
Moreover, Realists believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms. Thus, security is a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.
There are two sub-schools of realism: maximal realism and minimal realism:
The theory of maximal realism holds that the world order centers on the hegemon, the most powerful entity in the world, and that smaller entities will align themselves with the hegemon out of political self-interests. Under maximal realism, the position where there are simultaneously two equally powerful co-hegemons (such as was the case during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union) is an inherently unstable one and that situation will inevitably collapse into a more stable state where one nation is more powerful and one is less powerful.
The theory of minimal realism holds that non-hegemonic states will ally against the hegemon in order to prevent their own interests from being subsumed by the hegemon's interests. Under the minimal-realism theory it is possible to have two equally powerful co-hegemons with whom a smaller entity may ally in turn depending on which hegemon better fits with the smaller entity's policies at the moment (playing both sides against the middle).
Thus, maximal realism predicts that the most common state of world politics is a hegemonic order, and minimal realism predicts a carefully maintained balance of power. The difference in application can be seen, for instance, in the post-Cold War period. Many minimal realists predicted that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Europe and Japan would move away from the remaining superpower, the United States. Maximal realists tended to predict that most countries would seek stronger ties with the U.S.
There is also a distinction between structural realism and liberal realism:
The former emphasize the permanent condition of conflict. Thus, to ensure state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.
The latter holds that while the system is anarchical, through diplomacy, international law and society, order can be promoted. (English School) This gives credence to establish IGOs such as the United Nations.
History of realism
Thucydides
The ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War, is also cited as an intellectual forebearer of realpolitik.
Machiavelli
One of the most famous proponents was Niccolò Machiavelli, best known for his Il Principe (The Prince) (pb.1532). Machiavelli held that the sole aim of a prince was to seek power, regardless of religious or ethical considerations.
Richelieu
Machiavelli's ideas were further expanded and implemented by Cardinal Richelieu and his raison d'etat in the Thirty Years War.
Bismarck
Otto von Bismarck coined the term 'balance of power' after following Prince Klemens von Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of European empires. Balancing power meant keeping the peace, and careful realpolitik practitioners tried to avoid arms races. However, during the early 20th century, realpolitik was abandoned for the doctrine of "Weltpolitik" and arms races and alliances increased, culminating in World War I.
Structural or Neo-realism
Neo-Realism resembles Classical Realism on most accounts. However, Neo-Realism predominantly focuses on the international system rather than human nature. While states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states through a Levels of Analysis or Structure-Agency debate - with the international system as a structure acting on the state and individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as a whole
Criticisms of realism
Several critiques were raised against the realist school. One problem is that there are in fact authorities above states capable of regulating inter-state relations. There are organizations like the U.N., WTO, ISO as well as multitudes of multinational organizations and companies. While none of these organization has the powers of a full government, they do have a considerable influence over the actions of states. According to this view, American efforts to receive U.N. support for the invasion of Iraq illustrate the power of the U.N. Had the U.N. no power, as realists would claim, it would have never played any role in the run-up to the war. Further criticism of political realism says that realism has an incorrect concept of a state. States are not actors but rather large organizations. It is impossible, say the critics, to understand international relations without making this distinction. An illustration of this phenomenon can be found in the difficulties involving signing the CAFTA. In particular, the agreement was ratified by United States Senate only after a considerable delay and uncertainty about the outcome.
With increased globalization, some argue that the statist nature of realism has proven wrong, as states cannot be considered as unitary actors in pursuit of rational self-interest. Examples include the reality that many states have an economy smaller than many multinational corporations (MNCs) and some MNCs even employ their own quasi-military forces to protect their own installations and thus are more powerful than the state. Realists maintain that MNCs are legitimized by other states and thus cannot be considered as independent entities. Yet, this places doubt on the state as a unitary actor - as surely interaction between non-state actors (for example, between MNCs) is becoming increasingly commonplace.
Critics also argue that the success of the European Union (EU) shows that states are capable of cooperation and indeed the European Union is an example of a supranational government - above the level of the state. Realists respond that as the divisions within the EU on everything from agreeing on a constitution to agricultural policies, states may just be joining in pursuit of their own rational self-interest. Yet, laws of the European Parliament and court decisions of European Courts are applicable across all EU nations - suggesting that the EU is indeed a supranational government rather than an IGO.
Liberalism
Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike realism where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government type. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political (high politics), but also economic (low politics) whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example, the influence of American films leading to the popularity of American culture and creating a market for American exports worldwide). Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made through co-operation and interdependence - thus peace can be achieved.
Many different strands of liberalism have emerged; some include commercial liberalism, liberal institutionalism, idealism, and regime theory. Two forms of liberalism predominate, liberal internationalism and idealism:
The former suggests that with the right factors, the international system provides opportunities for cooperation and interaction. Examples include the successful integration of Europe through the European Union or regional blocs and economic agreements such as ASEAN or NAFTA. Ramifications of this view is that if states cannot cooperate, they ought to be curbed; whether through economic sanctions or military action. For example, before the invasion of Iraq by the United States and United Kingdom in 2003, the governments' claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction could be seen as claims that Iraq is a bad state that needs to be curbed rather than an outright danger to American or European security. Thus, the invasion could be seen as curbing a bad state under liberal internationalism. A variant is Neo-liberal institutionalism (USA) which shifts back to a state-centric approach, but allows for pluralism through identifying and recognizing different actors, processes and structures.
The latter holds a view to promote a more peaceful world order through international organizations or IGOs; for example, through the United Nations (UN).
Neoliberalism
In the study of international relations (IR), neoliberalism refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains (economic, strategic, etc.), rather than relative gains to other nation-states. The notion is often connected with neoliberal economic theory. Neoliberal IR thinkers often employ game theory to explain why states do or do not cooperate.
When initially conceived, Neoliberalism was considered as a response to Neorealism and shares its most important assumptions; that the state is the most important actor in world politics and that the international system is anarchic which shapes the behaviour of states. Essentially where the two theories differ is the determination of what sort of behaviour international anarchy force states to engage in. The debate between the practitioners of both Neoliberalism and Neorealism in the 1980's is considered one of the great debates that have helped defined the discipline.
In terms of the scope of international theory, the debate between Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an inter paradigm one, as both theories are positivist and focus mainly on state as the primary unit of analysis. However, this should not detract from the importance of the debate between these two poles in the dominant paradigm that is Realism, as both Neoliberalism and Neorealism have contributed most literature to the discipline of international relations in the last 20 years.
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye are considered the founders of this school of thought; their joint book After Hegemony is a classic of the genre. Another major influence is the hegemonic stability theory of Stephen Krasner, Charles Kindelberger, and others.
A prominent strain of neoliberalism, known as neoliberal institutionalism or "regime theory," seeks to explain how NGOs and other international organizations can facilitate interstate cooperation, as well as how they can reinforce the existing balance of power.
Marxism
Marxist and Neo-Marxist international relations theories are positivist paradigms which reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects. It makes the assumption that the economic trumps other concerns; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus of study. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. Thus, the period of colonialism brought in sources for raw materials and captive markets for exports, while decolonialization brought new opportunities in the form of dependence.
Marxist theories receive scant attention in the United States where no significant socialist party ever existed. They are more common in parts of Europe and elsewhere.
Dependency theory
Linked in with Marxist theories is dependency theory which argues that developed countries, in their pursuit of power, penetrate developing states through political advisors, missionaries, experts and MNCs to integrate them into the integrated capitalist system in order to appropriate natural resources and foster dependence by developing countries on developed countries.
Leninism
In his book "What is to be Done?" (1903), Lenin argued that the proletariat can only achieve a successful revolution consciousness through the efforts of a Communist party that assumes the role of "revolutionary vanguard." Lenin further believed that such a party could only achieve its aims through a form of disciplined organization known as "democratic centralism," where Communist Party officials elected democratically, but once they are elected and other decisions are made through voting, all party members must follow the decisions that have been made.
Lenin expanded on Marx's initial theories, taking into account the fact that increasing class polarization and Communist revolution had failed to occur in the developed world. Lenin liked Marx's basic definition of communism and believed it would lead to the spread of Marxism. He attempted to explain this by stating that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, and that developed countries had created a labor aristocracy content with capitalism by exploiting the developing world. He maintained that capitalism could only be overthrown by revolutionary means, but added that due to imperialism such a revolution would have to occur in a lesser-developed country first, (the 'weakest link in the system of imperialism' in his terminology), such as Russia. Lenin also supported the Marxist concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" following revolution. Lenin's dictatorship of proletariat was based on predominant representation of industrial workers in government institutions, although the country was mostly agrarian. According to Lenin's ideas, the working class is democratically represented through local workers', soliders' and peasants' councils known as soviets. Because the soviets are elected, they are referred to as soviet democracy.
Knowing that according to Marx's theories, a socialist system would be unable to develop independently in an underdeveloped country such as Russia, Lenin proposed two possible solutions:
1.The revolution in the underdeveloped country sparks off a revolution in a developed capitalist country (for example, Lenin hoped the Russian Revolution would spark a revolution in Germany.) The developed country establishes socialism and helps the underdeveloped country do the same.
2.The revolution happens in a large number of underdeveloped countries at the same time or in quick succession; the underdeveloped countries then join together into a federal state capable of overcoming the opposition of capitalist countries and establishing socialism. This was the original idea behind the foundation of Lenin's Russia later renamed the Soviet Union to demonstrate to the rest of the world the validity of his control.
Either way, according to Marxism, socialism cannot survive in one poor underdeveloped country alone. Thus, Lenin called for world revolution in one form or another. His theoretical successors had to fit to his theory the fact that the world revolution never happened.
Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory are controversial; some have criticized them as revisionist. Some philosophers explain the theories of Marx's ideological successors, such as Lenin, as an attempt to modify the theory because it had made predictions that had never came true. Still, Lenin's theories had a dramatic impact on Communist movements worldwide. It is especially significant, that Lenin was the most successful practitioner of Marxism. The influence of Leninist ideology has waned since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but there are still Leninists today who have focused their criticism on globalization, claiming it is a modern-day form of imperialism.
Idealism
Idealism in international relations usually refers to the school of thought personified in American diplomatic history by Woodrow Wilson, such that it is sometimes referred to as Wilsonianism. Idealism holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its foreign policy. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would arise amongst the "institution-builders" after World War II.
Idealism is also marked by the prominent role played by international law and international organizations in its conception of policy formation. One of the most well-known tenets of modern idealist thinking is Democratic Peace Theory, which holds that states with similar modes of democratic governance do not fight one another. Wilson's idealistic thought was embodied in his Fourteen points speech, and in the creation of the ill-fated League of Nations.
Idealism transcends the left-right political spectrum. Idealists can include both human rights campaigners (traditionally, but not always, associated with the left) and American neoconservatism which is usually associated with the right.
Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism drew from Liberalism its intense focus on the promotion of "universal values", in this case democracy, human rights, free trade, women's rights, and minority protections. However, it differs in that instead of building institutions or negotiating treaties, neoconservatism eschews international institutions and treaties while pursuing assertive or aggressive stances, and is willing to use force or the threat of force, unilaterally if necessary, to push for its goals.
Who runs British Foreign Policy?
Power of the legislative in Britain, while in theory this should be the most powerful branch of Government, it is fact one of the weakest in terms of foreign affairs. There are a number of reasons for this.
Firstly, the parliament only has retroactive power. It cannot oversee foreign treaties and dictate policy to the executive. Also, many of its members are not well versed or have little interest in foreign affairs. They have the concerns of their constituents to put first. Furthermore, since the executive is in part formed from the party with the most members in the House of Commons, it would seem common sense that the majority would follow their party line and leader on such matters, for the most part. The Commons can put questions to the Prime Minister (for 30 minutes a week however, not very long), put questions to the Foreign Secretary and hold debates on some issues.
The House of Lords has even less power. Because of the Parliament Act of 1911, the House of Commons was established as the most powerful of the dual chambers, able to bypass the House of Lords if a motion was passed in the Commons 3 times with a majority. Also, since the executive gives the right of peerage and therefore the right to hold a seat in the House of Lords, its own position is further undermined. However, in spite of that it has many experts who may have specialist knowledge in areas such as foreign policy and such expertise may well have a bearing on the foreign policy course taken.
Public Opinion is usually expressed through the House of Commons, for obvious reasons. However, foreign policy generally has little impact on voting and therefore how the legislative and executive acts, for instance Margaret Thatcher informing the House of Commons that Britain was at war with Argentina over the Falklands, rather than ask for its consent.
Sometimes though a particular piece of foreign policy can capture the public imagination enough to put pressure on the executive and legislature. Such an example would be the recent Iraq War (2003). Because of the large public opposition to the proposed military action, Tony Blair went to the House of Commons and had a vote to decide it, in order to gain legitimacy. Of course, with the largest party in the Commons and the outspoken support of the Leader of the Opposition for military action, it was a near certain thing that it would pass, but under certain circumstances it would change the direction of foreign policy.
Beaurucracy
The main power and driving force behind foreign policy would seem to be the executive. This seems intuitive, after all it is the executive that is responsible for the day to day running of the state. The main area of power would appear to be the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Here information is compiled about various countries and used to make informed options to be given to the executive. As this shows they make the options which are given t the executive they have a lot of control and initiative over the process. However, this information is not always followed, for instance when Margaret Thatcher declared war on Argentina. She refused to listen to FCO advice to negotiate with Galtieri about it.
The power of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Minister itself is often subject to the personalities involved. A particularly outspoken Foreign Minister (for instance, Robin Cook) may have a far greater role in deciding foreign policy then a more laid back personality (an example being Jack Straw).
Another area of power is the Treasury. As this has control over the budget and economy for the UK, this decides how much can be spent on foreign activities, such as aid, deploying troops or funding foreign embassies. Funds available will always be a limiting factor in what any state can do.
The Defence ministry will also have a say in such affairs, however, this is lesser as there is more to Foreign Policy than war and aid missions, so the role is lesser than the FCO or the Treasury.
The Beaurucracy also often acts as the agent for gathering information which can then be disregarded or taken up by others. A good example is the lead up to the Iraq war, where the Butler report stated “there was no recent intelligence that would itself have given rise to a conclusion that Iraq was of more immediate concern than the activities of some other countries.”1 Another is of course Margaret Thatcher ignoring FCO advice as to what to do over the Falklands crisis.
The Executive
The Executive is essentially responsible for the day to day running of the state. The main elective branch of this is the Cabinet, however, it also extends to permanent Undersecretaries (top civil servants) and advisors.
The main power lies with the Prime Minister in the British system, as he is the Chief Executive. He appoints the Cabinet and has a series of powers, known more commonly as the “Royal Prerogatives”. This come from the original powers of the Sovereign when the monarchs had much more power in the UK. The power to appoint the Cabinet cannot be overlooked, as this means the Prime Minister can pick a Foreign Minister who is sympathetic to their world view, or someone who will even take the back seat of foreign policy (as exhibited by the relationship between Tony Blair and Jack Straw).
Also the Royal prerogatives give the British PM almost more power than any other western leader. In effect, the Prime Minister can dissolve Parliament if it disagrees with him and call elections (although this is an extreme measure), create peers for the House of Lords, appoint Government ministers, make treaties, command the military, declare war and make peace. All of these have a direct impact on Foreign policy. The PM can also accept or refuse a resignation from any Minister, which can overrule what Parliament can do concerning Foreign Policy.
The effect of NGOs.
These tend to have a limited effect on decision making. For instance, the Stop the War Coalition had a (claimed) 2 million members organize a mass protest in London, the largest London has seen, and all it did was force the PM to seek a Parliamentary mandate to legitimise the attack. Also, there is very little of a “lobby culture” among UK politics, as votes more often go to party loyalties than individuals running in them.
That said, the funding for the central party for an election may have an effect on foreign policy. More often this is actually directed at domestic policy, but not always. An example would be the sales of UK arms to Indonesia. After the 1997 election, the Labour Government declared it was to have an “ethical foreign policy”, which seemed to include the sales of arms to a military dictatorship who was having a particularly brutal civil war in one of its provinces (Aceh) and trying to stop another one (East Timor) from breaking away. This was due in no small part to the British arms industry, which is the second largest in the world after the USA, and has several large companies, such as BAE, who are the biggest defence contractor in Europe.2
Despite the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and The Joint Commons Committee on Defence Exports both putting pressure on the Government, sales to Indonesia continue and "We have seen no evidence that the government has taken any action (other than talking to the Indonesian authorities) to investigate claims that British built military equipment has been used in violation of human rights or offensively in Aceh,"3 a report said.
However even these NGOs that are big business have limited power. For instance, both British Petroleum and Shell opposed the Iraq war because Shell and have made huge investments in natural gas in Saudi Arabia, which could be at risk in a confrontation with the Saudi government. All oil companies in the Middle East would face a more dangerous political climate, caught between the American-Israeli intervention and nationalists fearing reversion to a neo-colonial system. 4 Yet this was ignored by the Executive, even though the CEO of BP is a peer.
In conclusion, it would seem that power is definitely vested mainly with the executive when it comes to foreign policy. Because of the lack of a UK constitution, the first post the post system for selecting the legislature (which determines the executive for the large part) and the wide ranging powers that devolved from the Monarch to the Chief Executive it is at the heart of all decision making. Any other influences are based on proximity and access to the executive, as the case with the controversial head of Strategic Communications, Alistair Campbell was an excellent example of. Because of the limited hold of the legislature over the executive, there is little influence there. And NGOs can only really lobby effectively through Parliament too.
Bibliography and Sources
1 http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/index.asp
2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3741979.stm
#3 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3723085.stm
4 http://www.dawn.com/2002/12/24/int11.htm
http://www.fco.gov.uk/
Christopher Hill - The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills Basingstoke (2003)
Baylis and Smith - The Gobalization of World Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)
Kegley and Wittkopf -World Politics, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont CA, USA (2004)
Anthony Sampson - Who Runs This Place: The Anatomy of Britain in the 21st century, John Murray publishers, London, (2005 edition)
Firstly, the parliament only has retroactive power. It cannot oversee foreign treaties and dictate policy to the executive. Also, many of its members are not well versed or have little interest in foreign affairs. They have the concerns of their constituents to put first. Furthermore, since the executive is in part formed from the party with the most members in the House of Commons, it would seem common sense that the majority would follow their party line and leader on such matters, for the most part. The Commons can put questions to the Prime Minister (for 30 minutes a week however, not very long), put questions to the Foreign Secretary and hold debates on some issues.
The House of Lords has even less power. Because of the Parliament Act of 1911, the House of Commons was established as the most powerful of the dual chambers, able to bypass the House of Lords if a motion was passed in the Commons 3 times with a majority. Also, since the executive gives the right of peerage and therefore the right to hold a seat in the House of Lords, its own position is further undermined. However, in spite of that it has many experts who may have specialist knowledge in areas such as foreign policy and such expertise may well have a bearing on the foreign policy course taken.
Public Opinion is usually expressed through the House of Commons, for obvious reasons. However, foreign policy generally has little impact on voting and therefore how the legislative and executive acts, for instance Margaret Thatcher informing the House of Commons that Britain was at war with Argentina over the Falklands, rather than ask for its consent.
Sometimes though a particular piece of foreign policy can capture the public imagination enough to put pressure on the executive and legislature. Such an example would be the recent Iraq War (2003). Because of the large public opposition to the proposed military action, Tony Blair went to the House of Commons and had a vote to decide it, in order to gain legitimacy. Of course, with the largest party in the Commons and the outspoken support of the Leader of the Opposition for military action, it was a near certain thing that it would pass, but under certain circumstances it would change the direction of foreign policy.
Beaurucracy
The main power and driving force behind foreign policy would seem to be the executive. This seems intuitive, after all it is the executive that is responsible for the day to day running of the state. The main area of power would appear to be the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Here information is compiled about various countries and used to make informed options to be given to the executive. As this shows they make the options which are given t the executive they have a lot of control and initiative over the process. However, this information is not always followed, for instance when Margaret Thatcher declared war on Argentina. She refused to listen to FCO advice to negotiate with Galtieri about it.
The power of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Minister itself is often subject to the personalities involved. A particularly outspoken Foreign Minister (for instance, Robin Cook) may have a far greater role in deciding foreign policy then a more laid back personality (an example being Jack Straw).
Another area of power is the Treasury. As this has control over the budget and economy for the UK, this decides how much can be spent on foreign activities, such as aid, deploying troops or funding foreign embassies. Funds available will always be a limiting factor in what any state can do.
The Defence ministry will also have a say in such affairs, however, this is lesser as there is more to Foreign Policy than war and aid missions, so the role is lesser than the FCO or the Treasury.
The Beaurucracy also often acts as the agent for gathering information which can then be disregarded or taken up by others. A good example is the lead up to the Iraq war, where the Butler report stated “there was no recent intelligence that would itself have given rise to a conclusion that Iraq was of more immediate concern than the activities of some other countries.”1 Another is of course Margaret Thatcher ignoring FCO advice as to what to do over the Falklands crisis.
The Executive
The Executive is essentially responsible for the day to day running of the state. The main elective branch of this is the Cabinet, however, it also extends to permanent Undersecretaries (top civil servants) and advisors.
The main power lies with the Prime Minister in the British system, as he is the Chief Executive. He appoints the Cabinet and has a series of powers, known more commonly as the “Royal Prerogatives”. This come from the original powers of the Sovereign when the monarchs had much more power in the UK. The power to appoint the Cabinet cannot be overlooked, as this means the Prime Minister can pick a Foreign Minister who is sympathetic to their world view, or someone who will even take the back seat of foreign policy (as exhibited by the relationship between Tony Blair and Jack Straw).
Also the Royal prerogatives give the British PM almost more power than any other western leader. In effect, the Prime Minister can dissolve Parliament if it disagrees with him and call elections (although this is an extreme measure), create peers for the House of Lords, appoint Government ministers, make treaties, command the military, declare war and make peace. All of these have a direct impact on Foreign policy. The PM can also accept or refuse a resignation from any Minister, which can overrule what Parliament can do concerning Foreign Policy.
The effect of NGOs.
These tend to have a limited effect on decision making. For instance, the Stop the War Coalition had a (claimed) 2 million members organize a mass protest in London, the largest London has seen, and all it did was force the PM to seek a Parliamentary mandate to legitimise the attack. Also, there is very little of a “lobby culture” among UK politics, as votes more often go to party loyalties than individuals running in them.
That said, the funding for the central party for an election may have an effect on foreign policy. More often this is actually directed at domestic policy, but not always. An example would be the sales of UK arms to Indonesia. After the 1997 election, the Labour Government declared it was to have an “ethical foreign policy”, which seemed to include the sales of arms to a military dictatorship who was having a particularly brutal civil war in one of its provinces (Aceh) and trying to stop another one (East Timor) from breaking away. This was due in no small part to the British arms industry, which is the second largest in the world after the USA, and has several large companies, such as BAE, who are the biggest defence contractor in Europe.2
Despite the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and The Joint Commons Committee on Defence Exports both putting pressure on the Government, sales to Indonesia continue and "We have seen no evidence that the government has taken any action (other than talking to the Indonesian authorities) to investigate claims that British built military equipment has been used in violation of human rights or offensively in Aceh,"3 a report said.
However even these NGOs that are big business have limited power. For instance, both British Petroleum and Shell opposed the Iraq war because Shell and have made huge investments in natural gas in Saudi Arabia, which could be at risk in a confrontation with the Saudi government. All oil companies in the Middle East would face a more dangerous political climate, caught between the American-Israeli intervention and nationalists fearing reversion to a neo-colonial system. 4 Yet this was ignored by the Executive, even though the CEO of BP is a peer.
In conclusion, it would seem that power is definitely vested mainly with the executive when it comes to foreign policy. Because of the lack of a UK constitution, the first post the post system for selecting the legislature (which determines the executive for the large part) and the wide ranging powers that devolved from the Monarch to the Chief Executive it is at the heart of all decision making. Any other influences are based on proximity and access to the executive, as the case with the controversial head of Strategic Communications, Alistair Campbell was an excellent example of. Because of the limited hold of the legislature over the executive, there is little influence there. And NGOs can only really lobby effectively through Parliament too.
Bibliography and Sources
1 http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/index.asp
2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3741979.stm
#3 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3723085.stm
4 http://www.dawn.com/2002/12/24/int11.htm
http://www.fco.gov.uk/
Christopher Hill - The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills Basingstoke (2003)
Baylis and Smith - The Gobalization of World Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)
Kegley and Wittkopf -World Politics, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont CA, USA (2004)
Anthony Sampson - Who Runs This Place: The Anatomy of Britain in the 21st century, John Murray publishers, London, (2005 edition)
Boyd on Destruction and Creation
I'd like to say from the start this is not my work. This was written by Col. John R. Boyd, who you may or may not know as one of the finest strategists and thinkers the US military produced in the last 80 years. This is taken from his paper, Destruction and Creation. Note, it is long, so if you have something you need to do soon, I suggest doing that first.
DESTRUCTION AND CREATION
John R. Boyd
September 3, 1976
To comprehend and cope with our environment we develop mental patterns or concepts of meaning. The purpose of this paper is to sketch out how we destroy and create these patterns to permit us to both shape and be shaped by a changing environment. In this sense, the discussion also literally shows why we cannot avoid this kind of activity if we intend to survive on our own terms. The activity is dialectic in nature generating both disorder and order that emerges as a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and expanding universe of observed reality.
Goal
Studies of human behavior reveal that the actions we undertake as individuals are closely related to survival, more importantly, survival on our own terms. Naturally, such a notion implies that we should be able to act relatively free or independent of any debilitating external influences—otherwise that very survival might be in jeopardy. In viewing the instinct for survival in this manner we imply that a basic aim or goal, as individuals, is to improve our capacity for independent action. The degree to which we cooperate, or compete, with others is driven by the need to satisfy this basic goal. If we believe that it is not possible to satisfy it alone, without help from others, history shows us that we will agree to constraints upon our independent action—in order to collectively pool skills and talents in the form of nations, corporations, labor unions, mafias, etc.—so that obstacles standing in the way of the basic goal can either be removed or overcome. On the other hand, if the group cannot or does not attempt to overcome obstacles deemed important to many (or possibly any) of its individual members, the group must risk losing these alienated members. Under these circumstances, the alienated members may dissolve their relationship and remain independent, form a group of their own, or join another collective body in order to improve their capacity for independent action.
Environment
In a real world of limited resources and skills, individuals and groups form, dissolve and reform their cooperative or competitive postures in a continuous struggle to remove or overcome physical and social environmental obstacles. In a cooperative sense, where skills and talents are pooled, the removal or overcoming of obstacles represents an improved capacity for independent action for all concerned. In a competitive sense, where individuals and groups compete for scarce resources and skills, an improved capacity for independent action achieved by some individuals or groups constrains that capacity for other individuals or groups. Naturally, such a combination of real world scarcity and goal striving to overcome this scarcity intensifies the struggle of individuals and groups to cope with both their physical and social environments (11,13).
Need for Decisions
Against such a background, actions and decisions become critically important. Actions must be taken over and over again and in many different ways. Decisions must be rendered to monitor and determine the precise nature of the actions needed that will be compatible with the goal. To make these timely decisions implies that we must be able to form mental concepts of observed reality, as we perceive it, and be able to change these concepts as reality itself appears to change. The concepts can then be used as decision-models for improving our capacity for independent action. Such a demand for decisions that literally impact our survival causes one to wonder: How do we generate or create the mental concepts to support this decision-making activity?
Creating Concepts
There are two ways in which we can develop and manipulate mental concepts to represent observed reality: We can start from a comprehensive whole and break it down to its particulars or we can start with the particulars and build towards a comprehensive whole. (28/24) Saying it another way, but in a related sense, we can go from the general-to-specific or from the specific-to- general. A little reflection here reveals that deduction is related to proceeding from the general-to-specific while induction is related to proceeding from the specific-to-general. In following this line of thought can we think of other activities that are related to these two opposing ideas? Is not analysis related to proceeding from the general-to-specific? Is not synthesis, the opposite of analysis related to proceeding from the specific-to-general? Putting all this together: Can we not say that general-to-specific is related to both deduction and analysis, while specific-to-general is related to induction and synthesis? Now, can we think of some examples to fit with these two opposing ideas? We need not look far. The differential calculus proceeds from the general-to-specific—from a function to its derivative. Hence is not the use or application of the differential Calculus related to deduction and analysis? The integral calculus, on the other hand, proceeds in the opposite direction—from a derivative to a general function. Hence, is not the use or application of the integral calculus related to induction and synthesis? Summing up, we can see that: general- to-specific is related to deduction, analysis, and differentiation, while, specific-to-general is related to induction, synthesis, and integration.
Now keeping these two opposing idea chains in mind let us move on a somewhat different tack. Imagine, if you will, a domain (a comprehensive whole) and its constituent elements or parts. Now, imagine another domain and its constituent parts. Once again, imagine even another domain and its constituent parts. Repeating this idea over and over again we can imagine any number of domains and the parts corresponding to each. Naturally, as we go through life we develop concepts of meaning (with included constituents) to represent observed reality. Can we not liken these concepts and their related constituents to the domains and constituents that we have formed in our imagination? Naturally, we can. Keeping this relationship in mind, suppose we shatter the correspondence of each domain or concept with its constituent elements. In other words, we imagine the existence of the parts but pretend that the domains or concepts they were previously associated with do not exist. Result: We have many constituents, or particulars, swimming around in a sea of anarchy. We have uncertainty and disorder in place of meaning and order. Further, we can see that such an unstructuring or destruction of many domains—to break the correspondence of each with its respective constituents—is related to deduction, analysis, and differentiation. We call this kind of unstructuring a destructive deduction.
Faced with such disorder or chaos, how can we reconstruct order and meaning? Going back to the idea chain of specific-to-general, induction, synthesis, and integration the thought occurs that a new domain or concept can be formed if we can find some common qualities, attributes, or operations among some or many of these constituents swimming in this sea of anarchy. Through such connecting threads (that produce meaning) we synthesize constituents from, hence across, the domains we have just shattered.(24) Linking particulars together in this manner we can form a new domain or concept—providing, of course, we do not inadvertently use only those "bits and pieces" in the same arrangement that we associated with one of the domains purged from our imagination. Clearly, such a synthesis would indicate we have generated something new and different from what previously existed. Going back to our idea chain, it follows that creativity is related to induction, synthesis, and integration since we proceeded from unstructured bits and pieces to a new general pattern or concept. We call such action a creative or constructive induction. It is important to note that the crucial or key step that permits this creative induction is the separation of the particulars from their previous domains by the destructive deduction. Without this unstructuring the creation of a new structure cannot proceed—since the bits and pieces are still tied together as meaning within unchallenged domains or concepts.
Recalling that we use concepts or mental patterns to represent reality, it follows that the unstructuring and restructuring just shown reveals a way of changing our perception of reality.(2
Naturally, such a notion implies that the emerging pattern of ideas and interactions must be internally consistent and match-up with reality.(14, 25) To check or verify internal consistency we try to see if we can trace our way back to the original constituents that were used in the creative or constructive induction. If we cannot reverse directions, the ideas and interactions do not go together in this way without contradiction. Hence, they are not internally consistent. However, this does not necessarily mean we reject and throw away the entire structure. Instead, we should attempt to identify those ideas (particulars) and interactions that seem to hold together in a coherent pattern of activity as distinguished from those ideas that do not seem to fit in. In performing this task we check for reversibility as well as check to see which ideas and interactions match-up with our observations of reality. (27,14,15) Using those ideas and interactions that pass this test together with any new ideas (from new destructive deductions) or other promising ideas that popped out of the original destructive deduction we again attempt to find some common qualities, attributes or operations to re-create the concept—or create a new concept. Also, once again, we perform the check for reversibility and match-up with reality. Over and over again this cycle of Destruction and Creation is repeated until we demonstrate internal consistency and match-up with reality. (19,14,15)
Suspicion
When this orderly (and pleasant) state is reached the concept becomes a coherent pattern of ideas and interactions that can be used to describe some aspect of observed reality. As a consequence, there is little, or no, further appeal to alternative ideas and interactions in an effort to either expand, complete, or modify the concept.(19) Instead, the effort is turned inward towards fine tuning the ideas and interactions in order to improve generality and produce a more precise match of the conceptual pattern with reality. (19) Toward this end, the concept—and its internal workings—is tested and compared against observed phenomena over and over again in many different and subtle ways.(19) Such a repeated and inward-oriented effort to explain increasingly more subtle aspects of reality suggests the disturbing idea that perhaps, at some point, ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies may emerge to stifle a more general and precise match-up of concept with observed reality.(19) Why do we suspect this?
On one hand, we realize that facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, etc. separated from previous observations and thought patterns have been linked together to create a new conceptual pattern. On the other hand, we suspect that refined observations now underway will eventually exhibit either more or a different kind of precision and subtlety than the previous observations and thought patterns. Clearly, any anticipated difference, or differences, suggests we should expect a mismatch between the new observations and the anticipated concept description of these observations. To assume otherwise would be tantamount to admitting that previous constituents and interactions would produce the same synthesis as any newer constituents and interactions that exhibit either more or a different kind of precision and subtlety. This would be like admitting one equals two. To avoid such a discomforting position implies that we should anticipate a mismatch between phenomena observation and concept description of that observation. Such a notion is not new and is indicated by the discoveries of Kurt Gödel and Werner Heisenberg.
Incompleteness and Consistency
In 1931 Kurt Gödel created a stir in the World of Mathematics and Logic when he revealed that it was impossible to embrace mathematics within a single system of logic. (12,23) He accomplished this by proving, first, that any consistent system that includes the arithmetic of whole numbers is incomplete. In other words, there are true statements or concepts within the system that cannot be deduced from the postulates that make-up the system. Next, he proved even though such a system is consistent, its consistency cannot be demonstrated within the system.
Such a result does not imply that it is impossible to prove the consistency of a system. It only means that such a proof cannot be accomplished inside the system. As a matter of fact since Gödel, Gerhard Gentzen and others have shown that a consistency proof of arithmetic can be found by appealing to systems outside that arithmetic. Thus, Gödel's Proof indirectly shows that in order to determine the consistency of any new system we must construct or uncover another system beyond it (29,27). Over and over this cycle must be repeated to determine the consistency of more and more elaborate systems.(29,27)
Keeping this process in mind, let us see how Gödel's results impact the effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality. To do this we will consider two kinds of consistency: The consistency of the concept and the consistency of the match-up between observed reality and concept description of reality. In this sense, if we assume—as a result of previous destructive deduction and creative induction efforts—that we have a consistent concept and consistent match-up, we should see no differences between observation and concept description. Yet, as we have seen, on one hand, we use observations to shape or formulate a concept; while on the other hand, we use a concept to shape the nature of future inquiries or observations of reality. Back and forth, over and over again, we use observations to sharpen a concept and a concept to sharpen observations. Under these circumstances, a concept must be incomplete since we depend upon an ever-changing array of observations to shape or formulate it. Likewise, our observations of reality must be incomplete since we depend upon a changing concept to shape or formulate the nature of new inquiries and observations. Therefore, when we probe back and forth with more precision and subtlety, we must admit that we can have differences between observation and concept description; hence, we cannot determine the consistency of the system—in terms of its concept, and match-up with observed reality—within itself.
Furthermore, the consistency cannot be determined even when the precision and subtlety of observed phenomena approaches the precision and subtlety of the observer—who is employing the ideas and interactions that play together in the conceptual pattern. This aspect of consistency is accounted for not only by Gödel 's Proof but also by the Heisenberg Uncertainty or Indeterminacy Principle.
Indeterminacy and Uncertainty
The Indeterminacy Principle uncovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927 showed that one could not simultaneously fix or determine precisely the velocity and position of a particle or body.(14,9) Specifically he showed, due to the presence and influence of an observer, that the product of the velocity and position uncertainties is equal to or greater than a small number (Planck's Constant) divided by the mass of the particle or body being investigated. In other words, where
is velocity uncertainty
is position uncertainty and
is Planck's constant (h) divided by observed mass (m).
Examination of Heisenberg's Principle reveals that as mass becomes exceedingly small the uncertainty or indeterminacy, becomes exceedingly large. Now—in accordance with this relation—when the precision, or mass, of phenomena being observed is little, or no different than the precision, or mass, of the observing phenomena the uncertainty values become as large as, or larger than, the velocity and size frame-of-reference associated with the bodies being observed.(9) In other words, when the intended distinction between observer and observed begins to disappear (3), the uncertainty values hide or mask phenomena behavior; or put another way, the observer perceives uncertain or erratic behavior that bounces all over in accordance with the indeterminacy relation. Under these circumstances, the uncertainty values represent the inability to determine the character or nature (consistency) of a system within itself. On the other hand, if the precision and subtlety of the observed phenomena is much less than the precision and subtlety of the observing phenomena, the uncertainty values become much smaller than the velocity and size values of the bodies being observed.(9) Under these circumstances, the character or nature of a system can be determined—although not exactly—since the uncertainty values do not hide or mask observed phenomena behavior nor indicate significant erratic behavior.
Keeping in mind that the Heisenberg Principle implicitly depends upon the indeterminate presence and influence of an observer,(14) we can now see—as revealed by the two examples just cited—that the magnitude of the uncertainty values represent the degree of intrusion by the observer upon the observed. When intrusion is total (that is, when the intended distinction between observer and observed essentially disappears,(3) the uncertainty values indicate erratic behavior. When intrusion is low the uncertainty values do not hide or mask observed phenomena behavior, nor indicate significant erratic behavior. In other words, the uncertainty values not only represent the degree of intrusion by the observer upon the observed but also the degree of confusion and disorder perceived by that observer.
Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Confusion and disorder are also related to the notion of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (11,20) Entropy is a concept that represents the potential for doing work, the capacity for taking action, or the degree of confusion and disorder associated with any physical or information activity. High entropy implies a low potential for doing work, a low capacity for taking action or a high degree of confusion an disorder. Low entropy implies just the opposite. Viewed in this context, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all observed natural processes generate entropy.(20) From this law it follows that entropy must increase in any closed system—or, for that matter, in any system that cannot communicate in an ordered fashion with other systems or environments external to itself.(20) Accordingly, whenever we attempt to do work or take action inside such a system—a concept and its match-up with reality—we should anticipate an increase in entropy hence an increase in confusion and disorder. Naturally, this means we cannot determine the character or nature (consistency) of such a system within itself, since the system is moving irreversibly toward a higher, yet unknown, state of confusion and disorder.
Destruction and Creation
What an interesting outcome! According to Gödel we cannot— in general—determine the consistency, hence the character or nature, of an abstract system within itself. According to Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics any attempt to do so in the real world will expose uncertainty and generate disorder. Taken together, these three notions support the idea that any inward-oriented and continued effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality will only increase the degree of mismatch. Naturally, in this environment, uncertainty and disorder will increase as previously indicated by the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, respectively. Put another way, we can expect unexplained and disturbing ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies to emerge more and more often. Furthermore, unless some kind of relief is available, we can expect confusion to increase until disorder approaches chaos— death
Fortunately, there is a way out. Remember, as previously shown, we can forge a new concept by applying the destructive deduction and creative induction mental operations. Also, remember, in order to perform these dialectic mental operations we must first shatter the rigid conceptual pattern, or patterns, firmly established in our mind. (This should not be too difficult since the rising confusion and disorder is already helping us to undermine any patterns). Next, we must find some common qualities, attributes, or operations to link isolated facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, observations, etc. together as possible concepts to represent the real world. Finally, we must repeat this unstructuring and restructuring until we develop a concept that begins to match-up with reality. By doing this—in accordance with Gödel, Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics—we find that the uncertainty and disorder generated by an inward-oriented system talking to itself can be offset by going outside and creating a new system. Simply stated, uncertainty and related disorder can be diminished by the direct artifice of creating a higher and broader more general concept to represent reality.
However, once again, when we begin to turn inward and use the new concept—within its own pattern of ideas and interactions—to produce a finer grain match with observed reality we note that the new concept and its match-up with observed reality begins to self-destruct just as before. Accordingly, the dialectic cycle of destruction and creation begins to repeat itself once again. In other words, as suggested by Gödel's Proof of
Incompleteness, we imply that the process of Structure, Unstructure, Restructure, Unstructure, Restructure is repeated endlessly in moving to higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this unfolding drama, the alternating cycle of entropy increase toward more and more disorder and the entropy decrease toward more and more order appears to be one part of a control mechanism that literally seems to drive and regulate this alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. Now, in relating this deductive/inductive activity to the basic goal discussed in the beginning, I believe we have uncovered a Dialectic Engine that permits the construction of decision models needed by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions in an effort to improve their capacity for independent action.
Furthermore, since this engine is directed toward satisfying this basic aim or goal, it follows that the goal seeking effort itself appears to be the other side of a control mechanism that seems also to drive and regulate the alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this context, when acting within a rigid or essentially a closed system, the goal seeking effort of individuals and societies to improve their capacity for independent action tends to produce disorder towards randomness and death. On the other hand, as already shown, the increasing disorder generated by the increasing mismatch of the system concept with observed reality opens or unstructures the system. As the unstructuring or, as we'll call it, the destructive deduction unfolds it shifts toward a creative induction to stop the trend toward disorder and chaos to satisfy a goal-oriented need for increased order.
Paradoxically, then, an entropy increase permits both the destruction or unstructuring of a closed system and the creation of a new system to nullify the march toward randomness and death. Taken together, the entropy notion associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the basic goal of individuals and societies seem to work in dialectic harmony driving and regulating the destructive/creative, or deductive/inductive, action—that we have described herein as a dialectic engine. The result is a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and expanding universe of observed reality.(28,27) As indicated earlier, these mental concepts are employed as decision models by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions needed to cope with their environment—or to improve their capacity for independent action.
DESTRUCTION AND CREATION
John R. Boyd
September 3, 1976
To comprehend and cope with our environment we develop mental patterns or concepts of meaning. The purpose of this paper is to sketch out how we destroy and create these patterns to permit us to both shape and be shaped by a changing environment. In this sense, the discussion also literally shows why we cannot avoid this kind of activity if we intend to survive on our own terms. The activity is dialectic in nature generating both disorder and order that emerges as a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and expanding universe of observed reality.
Goal
Studies of human behavior reveal that the actions we undertake as individuals are closely related to survival, more importantly, survival on our own terms. Naturally, such a notion implies that we should be able to act relatively free or independent of any debilitating external influences—otherwise that very survival might be in jeopardy. In viewing the instinct for survival in this manner we imply that a basic aim or goal, as individuals, is to improve our capacity for independent action. The degree to which we cooperate, or compete, with others is driven by the need to satisfy this basic goal. If we believe that it is not possible to satisfy it alone, without help from others, history shows us that we will agree to constraints upon our independent action—in order to collectively pool skills and talents in the form of nations, corporations, labor unions, mafias, etc.—so that obstacles standing in the way of the basic goal can either be removed or overcome. On the other hand, if the group cannot or does not attempt to overcome obstacles deemed important to many (or possibly any) of its individual members, the group must risk losing these alienated members. Under these circumstances, the alienated members may dissolve their relationship and remain independent, form a group of their own, or join another collective body in order to improve their capacity for independent action.
Environment
In a real world of limited resources and skills, individuals and groups form, dissolve and reform their cooperative or competitive postures in a continuous struggle to remove or overcome physical and social environmental obstacles. In a cooperative sense, where skills and talents are pooled, the removal or overcoming of obstacles represents an improved capacity for independent action for all concerned. In a competitive sense, where individuals and groups compete for scarce resources and skills, an improved capacity for independent action achieved by some individuals or groups constrains that capacity for other individuals or groups. Naturally, such a combination of real world scarcity and goal striving to overcome this scarcity intensifies the struggle of individuals and groups to cope with both their physical and social environments (11,13).
Need for Decisions
Against such a background, actions and decisions become critically important. Actions must be taken over and over again and in many different ways. Decisions must be rendered to monitor and determine the precise nature of the actions needed that will be compatible with the goal. To make these timely decisions implies that we must be able to form mental concepts of observed reality, as we perceive it, and be able to change these concepts as reality itself appears to change. The concepts can then be used as decision-models for improving our capacity for independent action. Such a demand for decisions that literally impact our survival causes one to wonder: How do we generate or create the mental concepts to support this decision-making activity?
Creating Concepts
There are two ways in which we can develop and manipulate mental concepts to represent observed reality: We can start from a comprehensive whole and break it down to its particulars or we can start with the particulars and build towards a comprehensive whole. (28/24) Saying it another way, but in a related sense, we can go from the general-to-specific or from the specific-to- general. A little reflection here reveals that deduction is related to proceeding from the general-to-specific while induction is related to proceeding from the specific-to-general. In following this line of thought can we think of other activities that are related to these two opposing ideas? Is not analysis related to proceeding from the general-to-specific? Is not synthesis, the opposite of analysis related to proceeding from the specific-to-general? Putting all this together: Can we not say that general-to-specific is related to both deduction and analysis, while specific-to-general is related to induction and synthesis? Now, can we think of some examples to fit with these two opposing ideas? We need not look far. The differential calculus proceeds from the general-to-specific—from a function to its derivative. Hence is not the use or application of the differential Calculus related to deduction and analysis? The integral calculus, on the other hand, proceeds in the opposite direction—from a derivative to a general function. Hence, is not the use or application of the integral calculus related to induction and synthesis? Summing up, we can see that: general- to-specific is related to deduction, analysis, and differentiation, while, specific-to-general is related to induction, synthesis, and integration.
Now keeping these two opposing idea chains in mind let us move on a somewhat different tack. Imagine, if you will, a domain (a comprehensive whole) and its constituent elements or parts. Now, imagine another domain and its constituent parts. Once again, imagine even another domain and its constituent parts. Repeating this idea over and over again we can imagine any number of domains and the parts corresponding to each. Naturally, as we go through life we develop concepts of meaning (with included constituents) to represent observed reality. Can we not liken these concepts and their related constituents to the domains and constituents that we have formed in our imagination? Naturally, we can. Keeping this relationship in mind, suppose we shatter the correspondence of each domain or concept with its constituent elements. In other words, we imagine the existence of the parts but pretend that the domains or concepts they were previously associated with do not exist. Result: We have many constituents, or particulars, swimming around in a sea of anarchy. We have uncertainty and disorder in place of meaning and order. Further, we can see that such an unstructuring or destruction of many domains—to break the correspondence of each with its respective constituents—is related to deduction, analysis, and differentiation. We call this kind of unstructuring a destructive deduction.
Faced with such disorder or chaos, how can we reconstruct order and meaning? Going back to the idea chain of specific-to-general, induction, synthesis, and integration the thought occurs that a new domain or concept can be formed if we can find some common qualities, attributes, or operations among some or many of these constituents swimming in this sea of anarchy. Through such connecting threads (that produce meaning) we synthesize constituents from, hence across, the domains we have just shattered.(24) Linking particulars together in this manner we can form a new domain or concept—providing, of course, we do not inadvertently use only those "bits and pieces" in the same arrangement that we associated with one of the domains purged from our imagination. Clearly, such a synthesis would indicate we have generated something new and different from what previously existed. Going back to our idea chain, it follows that creativity is related to induction, synthesis, and integration since we proceeded from unstructured bits and pieces to a new general pattern or concept. We call such action a creative or constructive induction. It is important to note that the crucial or key step that permits this creative induction is the separation of the particulars from their previous domains by the destructive deduction. Without this unstructuring the creation of a new structure cannot proceed—since the bits and pieces are still tied together as meaning within unchallenged domains or concepts.
Recalling that we use concepts or mental patterns to represent reality, it follows that the unstructuring and restructuring just shown reveals a way of changing our perception of reality.(2
Naturally, such a notion implies that the emerging pattern of ideas and interactions must be internally consistent and match-up with reality.(14, 25) To check or verify internal consistency we try to see if we can trace our way back to the original constituents that were used in the creative or constructive induction. If we cannot reverse directions, the ideas and interactions do not go together in this way without contradiction. Hence, they are not internally consistent. However, this does not necessarily mean we reject and throw away the entire structure. Instead, we should attempt to identify those ideas (particulars) and interactions that seem to hold together in a coherent pattern of activity as distinguished from those ideas that do not seem to fit in. In performing this task we check for reversibility as well as check to see which ideas and interactions match-up with our observations of reality. (27,14,15) Using those ideas and interactions that pass this test together with any new ideas (from new destructive deductions) or other promising ideas that popped out of the original destructive deduction we again attempt to find some common qualities, attributes or operations to re-create the concept—or create a new concept. Also, once again, we perform the check for reversibility and match-up with reality. Over and over again this cycle of Destruction and Creation is repeated until we demonstrate internal consistency and match-up with reality. (19,14,15)Suspicion
When this orderly (and pleasant) state is reached the concept becomes a coherent pattern of ideas and interactions that can be used to describe some aspect of observed reality. As a consequence, there is little, or no, further appeal to alternative ideas and interactions in an effort to either expand, complete, or modify the concept.(19) Instead, the effort is turned inward towards fine tuning the ideas and interactions in order to improve generality and produce a more precise match of the conceptual pattern with reality. (19) Toward this end, the concept—and its internal workings—is tested and compared against observed phenomena over and over again in many different and subtle ways.(19) Such a repeated and inward-oriented effort to explain increasingly more subtle aspects of reality suggests the disturbing idea that perhaps, at some point, ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies may emerge to stifle a more general and precise match-up of concept with observed reality.(19) Why do we suspect this?
On one hand, we realize that facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, etc. separated from previous observations and thought patterns have been linked together to create a new conceptual pattern. On the other hand, we suspect that refined observations now underway will eventually exhibit either more or a different kind of precision and subtlety than the previous observations and thought patterns. Clearly, any anticipated difference, or differences, suggests we should expect a mismatch between the new observations and the anticipated concept description of these observations. To assume otherwise would be tantamount to admitting that previous constituents and interactions would produce the same synthesis as any newer constituents and interactions that exhibit either more or a different kind of precision and subtlety. This would be like admitting one equals two. To avoid such a discomforting position implies that we should anticipate a mismatch between phenomena observation and concept description of that observation. Such a notion is not new and is indicated by the discoveries of Kurt Gödel and Werner Heisenberg.
Incompleteness and Consistency
In 1931 Kurt Gödel created a stir in the World of Mathematics and Logic when he revealed that it was impossible to embrace mathematics within a single system of logic. (12,23) He accomplished this by proving, first, that any consistent system that includes the arithmetic of whole numbers is incomplete. In other words, there are true statements or concepts within the system that cannot be deduced from the postulates that make-up the system. Next, he proved even though such a system is consistent, its consistency cannot be demonstrated within the system.
Such a result does not imply that it is impossible to prove the consistency of a system. It only means that such a proof cannot be accomplished inside the system. As a matter of fact since Gödel, Gerhard Gentzen and others have shown that a consistency proof of arithmetic can be found by appealing to systems outside that arithmetic. Thus, Gödel's Proof indirectly shows that in order to determine the consistency of any new system we must construct or uncover another system beyond it (29,27). Over and over this cycle must be repeated to determine the consistency of more and more elaborate systems.(29,27)
Keeping this process in mind, let us see how Gödel's results impact the effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality. To do this we will consider two kinds of consistency: The consistency of the concept and the consistency of the match-up between observed reality and concept description of reality. In this sense, if we assume—as a result of previous destructive deduction and creative induction efforts—that we have a consistent concept and consistent match-up, we should see no differences between observation and concept description. Yet, as we have seen, on one hand, we use observations to shape or formulate a concept; while on the other hand, we use a concept to shape the nature of future inquiries or observations of reality. Back and forth, over and over again, we use observations to sharpen a concept and a concept to sharpen observations. Under these circumstances, a concept must be incomplete since we depend upon an ever-changing array of observations to shape or formulate it. Likewise, our observations of reality must be incomplete since we depend upon a changing concept to shape or formulate the nature of new inquiries and observations. Therefore, when we probe back and forth with more precision and subtlety, we must admit that we can have differences between observation and concept description; hence, we cannot determine the consistency of the system—in terms of its concept, and match-up with observed reality—within itself.
Furthermore, the consistency cannot be determined even when the precision and subtlety of observed phenomena approaches the precision and subtlety of the observer—who is employing the ideas and interactions that play together in the conceptual pattern. This aspect of consistency is accounted for not only by Gödel 's Proof but also by the Heisenberg Uncertainty or Indeterminacy Principle.
Indeterminacy and Uncertainty
The Indeterminacy Principle uncovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927 showed that one could not simultaneously fix or determine precisely the velocity and position of a particle or body.(14,9) Specifically he showed, due to the presence and influence of an observer, that the product of the velocity and position uncertainties is equal to or greater than a small number (Planck's Constant) divided by the mass of the particle or body being investigated. In other words, where
is velocity uncertainty
is position uncertainty and
is Planck's constant (h) divided by observed mass (m).
Examination of Heisenberg's Principle reveals that as mass becomes exceedingly small the uncertainty or indeterminacy, becomes exceedingly large. Now—in accordance with this relation—when the precision, or mass, of phenomena being observed is little, or no different than the precision, or mass, of the observing phenomena the uncertainty values become as large as, or larger than, the velocity and size frame-of-reference associated with the bodies being observed.(9) In other words, when the intended distinction between observer and observed begins to disappear (3), the uncertainty values hide or mask phenomena behavior; or put another way, the observer perceives uncertain or erratic behavior that bounces all over in accordance with the indeterminacy relation. Under these circumstances, the uncertainty values represent the inability to determine the character or nature (consistency) of a system within itself. On the other hand, if the precision and subtlety of the observed phenomena is much less than the precision and subtlety of the observing phenomena, the uncertainty values become much smaller than the velocity and size values of the bodies being observed.(9) Under these circumstances, the character or nature of a system can be determined—although not exactly—since the uncertainty values do not hide or mask observed phenomena behavior nor indicate significant erratic behavior.
Keeping in mind that the Heisenberg Principle implicitly depends upon the indeterminate presence and influence of an observer,(14) we can now see—as revealed by the two examples just cited—that the magnitude of the uncertainty values represent the degree of intrusion by the observer upon the observed. When intrusion is total (that is, when the intended distinction between observer and observed essentially disappears,(3) the uncertainty values indicate erratic behavior. When intrusion is low the uncertainty values do not hide or mask observed phenomena behavior, nor indicate significant erratic behavior. In other words, the uncertainty values not only represent the degree of intrusion by the observer upon the observed but also the degree of confusion and disorder perceived by that observer.
Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Confusion and disorder are also related to the notion of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (11,20) Entropy is a concept that represents the potential for doing work, the capacity for taking action, or the degree of confusion and disorder associated with any physical or information activity. High entropy implies a low potential for doing work, a low capacity for taking action or a high degree of confusion an disorder. Low entropy implies just the opposite. Viewed in this context, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all observed natural processes generate entropy.(20) From this law it follows that entropy must increase in any closed system—or, for that matter, in any system that cannot communicate in an ordered fashion with other systems or environments external to itself.(20) Accordingly, whenever we attempt to do work or take action inside such a system—a concept and its match-up with reality—we should anticipate an increase in entropy hence an increase in confusion and disorder. Naturally, this means we cannot determine the character or nature (consistency) of such a system within itself, since the system is moving irreversibly toward a higher, yet unknown, state of confusion and disorder.
Destruction and Creation
What an interesting outcome! According to Gödel we cannot— in general—determine the consistency, hence the character or nature, of an abstract system within itself. According to Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics any attempt to do so in the real world will expose uncertainty and generate disorder. Taken together, these three notions support the idea that any inward-oriented and continued effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality will only increase the degree of mismatch. Naturally, in this environment, uncertainty and disorder will increase as previously indicated by the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, respectively. Put another way, we can expect unexplained and disturbing ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies to emerge more and more often. Furthermore, unless some kind of relief is available, we can expect confusion to increase until disorder approaches chaos— death
Fortunately, there is a way out. Remember, as previously shown, we can forge a new concept by applying the destructive deduction and creative induction mental operations. Also, remember, in order to perform these dialectic mental operations we must first shatter the rigid conceptual pattern, or patterns, firmly established in our mind. (This should not be too difficult since the rising confusion and disorder is already helping us to undermine any patterns). Next, we must find some common qualities, attributes, or operations to link isolated facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, observations, etc. together as possible concepts to represent the real world. Finally, we must repeat this unstructuring and restructuring until we develop a concept that begins to match-up with reality. By doing this—in accordance with Gödel, Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics—we find that the uncertainty and disorder generated by an inward-oriented system talking to itself can be offset by going outside and creating a new system. Simply stated, uncertainty and related disorder can be diminished by the direct artifice of creating a higher and broader more general concept to represent reality.
However, once again, when we begin to turn inward and use the new concept—within its own pattern of ideas and interactions—to produce a finer grain match with observed reality we note that the new concept and its match-up with observed reality begins to self-destruct just as before. Accordingly, the dialectic cycle of destruction and creation begins to repeat itself once again. In other words, as suggested by Gödel's Proof of
Incompleteness, we imply that the process of Structure, Unstructure, Restructure, Unstructure, Restructure is repeated endlessly in moving to higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this unfolding drama, the alternating cycle of entropy increase toward more and more disorder and the entropy decrease toward more and more order appears to be one part of a control mechanism that literally seems to drive and regulate this alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. Now, in relating this deductive/inductive activity to the basic goal discussed in the beginning, I believe we have uncovered a Dialectic Engine that permits the construction of decision models needed by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions in an effort to improve their capacity for independent action.
Furthermore, since this engine is directed toward satisfying this basic aim or goal, it follows that the goal seeking effort itself appears to be the other side of a control mechanism that seems also to drive and regulate the alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this context, when acting within a rigid or essentially a closed system, the goal seeking effort of individuals and societies to improve their capacity for independent action tends to produce disorder towards randomness and death. On the other hand, as already shown, the increasing disorder generated by the increasing mismatch of the system concept with observed reality opens or unstructures the system. As the unstructuring or, as we'll call it, the destructive deduction unfolds it shifts toward a creative induction to stop the trend toward disorder and chaos to satisfy a goal-oriented need for increased order.
Paradoxically, then, an entropy increase permits both the destruction or unstructuring of a closed system and the creation of a new system to nullify the march toward randomness and death. Taken together, the entropy notion associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the basic goal of individuals and societies seem to work in dialectic harmony driving and regulating the destructive/creative, or deductive/inductive, action—that we have described herein as a dialectic engine. The result is a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and expanding universe of observed reality.(28,27) As indicated earlier, these mental concepts are employed as decision models by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions needed to cope with their environment—or to improve their capacity for independent action.
Mar 2, 2006
Ad
Michael Peppe's astounding rant:
Got a problem? Bring it to the Friendly People. People touching people. People rubbing against people. People developing the nuclear first-strike capability to incinerate people. Sound like a flash in the pan? It's gotta be: you don't settle for less. You don't have to. You're you. And you've got needs bigger and more earth-shaking than your grandfather could've dreamed. How do we keep bringing them to you, year after year, bigger and better?
By using the technology of tomorrow on the consumers of today. The Now People. People on the go. Going from Smart Shopper to New Low Value in the time it takes to dial our number. And you know which one that is! Call now won't you? For more of what you've come to expect from us. Style. Mood. A certain dependable kind of image. An image of the way you'd like people to be. Passive. Pretty. White. As white as the complexion of our finest women, grown right here by our special process. As white as the hair of God, white as it was in life! As white as the blank sheet on which we write your mind. Who are we?
We're the Happy People. Happy to live in a world of images. Images of war. Family. Crime. Fun images, that help rinse away unsightly self-images, so you can get away from the privacy of your own home. After all, aren't you what everything's here for? You're what we're here for. That's why we made everything! That's why everything made you. And that's why you made us. Who are we?
|
You know, when we first got into this business we didn't know much more than you. Like you, we thought there was a world out there: a world of value. A world that needed meaning. Love. Beauty. A world that needed a better product. Uh-uh. There's just you. And you want to know something. You want to know just exactly what it is you're supposed to do. You don't care why, just so long as it's the right thing. It's natural. Everyone wants to do the right thing. But sometimes it's hard to 'know just what the right thing is. Let's say you're black. And you've just lost your arms and legs defending U.S. interests in Afghanistan. You come home, and get thrown in jail for life for beating up four white cops. You want to know: just exactly what is it I'm supposed to feel?, We can't give you all the answers. But we can help flesh out your fantasy that there are some. At our labs, we use only the finest homemade ingredients. Love. Children. God. And the purest blend of money your needs can buy, grown right here by our special process! A process in use since our first Mom and Pop operation. Who are we? |
We're the Normal People. The most normal. people in the world. But not quite as normal as you. Why? You're unique. It's natural: everyone's unique. But you stand apart from the crowd: you're normal. Normal as a typical herd of Sea Cow. Normal as an exploding stellar nebula. Normal as the world in which we live. And what could be more normal than that? Certainly not the competition! How do we stay so far out in front of the pack? By building a racetrack-decoy ideology with the pick-up of a domestic, and the maneuverability of an import! Who are we?
We're the Information People. The people who provide you with the information you need, to help you through your busy day. Information about divorce. Inflation. Drug abuse. Information vital to your survival, because information is the most important part of our world. In fact, it's the only part. Information like light. Living things. Information between neurons. Fast-breaking genetic information, information you'd be hard pressed to do without! Information you simply can't get anywhere else, at a value no one can underprice.
Let's try this little test. Compare. A glass of the, leading competitor's product. Our product. You can see the difference. Now some people would say, "This glass is empty." But other people would say, "This glass hasn't been filled yet, but when it has, I'll like what's in it!" Those are the people we're looking for. The people who look on the bright side. The people who want to like things. And that's what life's all about, isn't it: liking?
You want to like as many things as you can. You want to have as many things as you can. It's natural. Everyone does. But not everyone feels that way. Some people don't want to like things. The people who aren't good enough to have them! People from unfurnished countries. People who have smudged skin. People who have sex with males. The people who want to ruin everything. They want the things you like, but they're not willing to do the work you need to have done to get them! When they do your work, and they get them. They just use them for their own purposes. But you don't. You don't say "my purposes." You say "our purposes." And who are we?
We're the Big People. The people who wear three-piece suits. The people with important eyebrows. The people with sticky voices like this, voices which soothe worried minds in a world in which everyone thinks their own thoughts. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone thought your thoughts? Because let's be honest. Sure you want to be unique. It's natural. Everyone does. But you also want to be right. Until now, that meant a lot of time-consuming prayer and back-breaking contemplation; put away that neocortical washboard: no more working your neurons to the bone! Thanks to us, what was once a reality can become a dream.
You see, we're old-fashioned. We want to go back to the old days, the days of white people, before women. The days of owning, and building, and having. Having things clean, and big, and smooth, and fast! Return with us now, won't you? To a world where people did whatever they wanted, and minded their own business. A world where everything had a purpose: yours. The world you meant to make, before the Negative People took over. The people who say no, and bad, and stop, and different, and small. The people who are negatives of you, and you know what color that is! The. people who want to start by tearing down, instead of starting like us, by building up! Who are we?
We're the Communication People. The people whose talk is strictly state-of-the-art technology. It's disposable. Reversable. Reusable with almost any brand of idea, including our deluxe line. Yours. Sound costly? Put away that semantic checkbook! Now communication can be yours for a fraction of what it cost Grandpa. Why clutter up your world with a lot of hard-to-percieve subtleties? You either like a thing or you don't. And in your case, it's the former. That's why we like you. And that's why we're always looking for quicker; easier ways to tell you so. Slogans. Jingles. Logos. Ways of reaching out and touching you, the way you want to be touched. Slightly. Who are we? |
We're the Real People. The people who make you real. So real you can almost see yourself! More real than you've ever been before. But then, you've never been at all, before us. In fact, nothing has. And not even very much of that. Not even this sentence. Because when we say disposable, we could mean Just about anything! Who are we?
We're the Other People. The people other than you. People so other we're opposite, yet so people you'd never guess we weren't the real thing! People who are almost you, but couldn't quite make the pre-season cut. People who are a little more than you, because we make the things you know you ought to be making. Things like money. Revolution. Art. Love. Things the Negative People told you were more important than what you're making now. Us. People so other we're even other than each other. So other we're even other than ourselves: you. Because you're one of us. How do we know? Nowadays there's a little more involved than just counting the arms and legs, as Grandpa did in his day! Nowadays we're a little more scientific than that. But the original formula still remains the same: you see them; they make you; you join us.
Still skeptical? Try this simple test. Look at me now. Notice anything? Now you know how we feel. Separate. Gone. Repeated. Like you, only over again. We can't help noticing. In fact, we have an old saying: "Hi." Why do we say it? It's a tradition. Like I said, we're old fashioned. We don't much care why we do the things we do, just so long as they're the right things. Because even though the newer the better, deep down inside you know the new is wrong. It's different, so it could be a mistake. If it wasn't a mistake, then why didn't it happen before? You see, we don't really want to know what we're doing: we want to know what we're supposed to do.
That's why you're here. You take all the crazy things we do we can't even explain ourselves, and put a good, solid reason behind each and every one of them! Because you don't really care what happens: you want to know what's supposed to happen. And that's why we're here. Who are we?
We're you. You don't settle for less. You don't have to. You're you. We're nothing without you. And within you. And someday, you'll be nothing too. Don't you think it's time you said "hi"? Call now. You remember our number! Void where prohibited: everywhere! Hurry while the customer lasts. Supply is limited. In fact, we have an old saying: bye-bye.
Fighting Back Against "Feel Good" Chain emails
Every night, someone thinks about you before they go to sleep (hoping you'll choke on your spit as you lie in bed).
At least 15 people in this world love you in some way (leaving only 6 billion who are indifferent or hate your guts).
The only reason someone would ever hate you is because they want to be just like you (or just because you suck. One or the other).
There are at least 2 people in this world that would die for you (and several thousand who want you to die for them).
You mean the world to someone (but only that one).
Someone that you don't even know exists loves you (and those who you do know exist hate your guts).
When you make the biggest mistake ever, something good comes from it (if it involves sharp objects near your throat).
When you think the world has turned its back on you, take a look again (its closer to the Universe).
Always remember the compliments you received. Forget the rude
remarks (because you'll always have faaaar more of them).
So if you are a bitter twisted but true friend, send this to everyone on your list including the person that sent it to you. Tonight at midnight your true love will realize they hate people who send out bullshit emails like this. Something indifferent and inconsequential we want to take credit for will happen to you at 1:00-4:00 PM tomorrow, it could be anywhere.Get ready for the biggest diappointment in your life since Friends ended. If you break this chain U will be cursed with relationship problems for the next 10 yrs (that or spelling problems).
Send this to 15 people in 15 min!!!!!!
--------------------------------
I think this should be the new email we have to put up with recieving once every other week. At least its more amusing. Go on, send it out to those who have had to suffer with those awful emails. You'll be doing the world a favour.
At least 15 people in this world love you in some way (leaving only 6 billion who are indifferent or hate your guts).
The only reason someone would ever hate you is because they want to be just like you (or just because you suck. One or the other).
There are at least 2 people in this world that would die for you (and several thousand who want you to die for them).
You mean the world to someone (but only that one).
Someone that you don't even know exists loves you (and those who you do know exist hate your guts).
When you make the biggest mistake ever, something good comes from it (if it involves sharp objects near your throat).
When you think the world has turned its back on you, take a look again (its closer to the Universe).
Always remember the compliments you received. Forget the rude
remarks (because you'll always have faaaar more of them).
So if you are a bitter twisted but true friend, send this to everyone on your list including the person that sent it to you. Tonight at midnight your true love will realize they hate people who send out bullshit emails like this. Something indifferent and inconsequential we want to take credit for will happen to you at 1:00-4:00 PM tomorrow, it could be anywhere.Get ready for the biggest diappointment in your life since Friends ended. If you break this chain U will be cursed with relationship problems for the next 10 yrs (that or spelling problems).
Send this to 15 people in 15 min!!!!!!
--------------------------------
I think this should be the new email we have to put up with recieving once every other week. At least its more amusing. Go on, send it out to those who have had to suffer with those awful emails. You'll be doing the world a favour.
Want to know a secret?
It so happened that during his travels, the Sacred Flame of Tajikistan came upon a temple where the master was instructing his pupils in Kung Fu fighting techniques. Inquiring, he asked if it was possible to join the lesson and the master agreed, seeing the possibility for another pupil. However, as he called on them to spar, he watched with amazement and worry as the Sacred Flame defeated several of his best pupils, one after the other and without apparent effort.
Deciding he had seen enough, he called the Sacred Flame before him for a fight. At first, he tested gently, but his attacks became stronger and more deadly as the sparring progressed, until he was throwing full blows and strikes with intent to cut down the stranger before him. Yet even as he tried, he was unable to land his blows and was eventually struck a powerful blow to the head which left him on the ground. Getting up, he dismissed the class. Except for the Sacred Flame. “You”, he said, “are to come with me so we can have a little chat.”
He agreed and followed him to a quieter part of the temple. “How did you defeat us all?” the master demanded harshly. “I am the greatest Temple Master in this region! Never since I achieved my black sash have I been defeated!”
“Perhaps I am aware of secrets you are not,” he replied neutrally.
“There is NOTHING I am not aware of! I have mastered the Nine Crippling Strikes, the ancient techniques where I could leave you pleading for death!”
“Yet you couldn't land a blow on me. Perhaps there are other secrets you are not aware of?”
“There are none! I have mastered Qi Gong and can use the Wheel of Law to smash your body. I know the secrets of Dim Mak, the Death Blows where you could be dead with a single touch!”
“And still you failed to hit me. Do you know why?”
“No”, admitted the master, captivated by whatever this hidden power could be.
“Precisely. You know many lesser secrets that have been hidden. You may even know of the unknown secrets that are hidden in the open. Yet you do not know anything of the Greater Secrets. Without that knowledge, the rest is as if it was nothing.”
“Tell me...please, what is the secret?”
“You are not worthy of the knowledge. Besides, my time here is short, and I will be gone soon anyway.” With that he left.
Later that night, the Temple Master managed to track the Sacred Flame down to his current lodgings. Opening the door, he sighed as the master came in. His first words were “please, teach me the Great Secret. I will do whatever you want to prove I am worthy.”
And so the master became pupil once again. He cooked meals, cleaned clothes and aided the Sacred Flame in any way he could, carrying and fetching items for him, serving his every whim so that he could be considered worthy enough to know the Great Secret.
After a week of this, a friend of the Sacred Flame came to where he was staying. The previous temple master was told to leave so that he could speak in private to his old friend. Noting the look on his friend's face, he waited until the door was closed, then told him the whole story.
As he finished, his friend let out a great laugh. “You old bullshitter” he managed between the tears. “When are you going to tell him the truth?”
“To be honest, I don't know. You'd think someone who knows so much would have got it by now. Besides, he seems to be enjoying himself. Who knows what he would do if he knew the real secret was there was no secret at all, only the power that comes from not telling somebody something?”
Deciding he had seen enough, he called the Sacred Flame before him for a fight. At first, he tested gently, but his attacks became stronger and more deadly as the sparring progressed, until he was throwing full blows and strikes with intent to cut down the stranger before him. Yet even as he tried, he was unable to land his blows and was eventually struck a powerful blow to the head which left him on the ground. Getting up, he dismissed the class. Except for the Sacred Flame. “You”, he said, “are to come with me so we can have a little chat.”
He agreed and followed him to a quieter part of the temple. “How did you defeat us all?” the master demanded harshly. “I am the greatest Temple Master in this region! Never since I achieved my black sash have I been defeated!”
“Perhaps I am aware of secrets you are not,” he replied neutrally.
“There is NOTHING I am not aware of! I have mastered the Nine Crippling Strikes, the ancient techniques where I could leave you pleading for death!”
“Yet you couldn't land a blow on me. Perhaps there are other secrets you are not aware of?”
“There are none! I have mastered Qi Gong and can use the Wheel of Law to smash your body. I know the secrets of Dim Mak, the Death Blows where you could be dead with a single touch!”
“And still you failed to hit me. Do you know why?”
“No”, admitted the master, captivated by whatever this hidden power could be.
“Precisely. You know many lesser secrets that have been hidden. You may even know of the unknown secrets that are hidden in the open. Yet you do not know anything of the Greater Secrets. Without that knowledge, the rest is as if it was nothing.”
“Tell me...please, what is the secret?”
“You are not worthy of the knowledge. Besides, my time here is short, and I will be gone soon anyway.” With that he left.
Later that night, the Temple Master managed to track the Sacred Flame down to his current lodgings. Opening the door, he sighed as the master came in. His first words were “please, teach me the Great Secret. I will do whatever you want to prove I am worthy.”
And so the master became pupil once again. He cooked meals, cleaned clothes and aided the Sacred Flame in any way he could, carrying and fetching items for him, serving his every whim so that he could be considered worthy enough to know the Great Secret.
After a week of this, a friend of the Sacred Flame came to where he was staying. The previous temple master was told to leave so that he could speak in private to his old friend. Noting the look on his friend's face, he waited until the door was closed, then told him the whole story.
As he finished, his friend let out a great laugh. “You old bullshitter” he managed between the tears. “When are you going to tell him the truth?”
“To be honest, I don't know. You'd think someone who knows so much would have got it by now. Besides, he seems to be enjoying himself. Who knows what he would do if he knew the real secret was there was no secret at all, only the power that comes from not telling somebody something?”
Hymn to Eris
How Eris' deadly spear does shake!
How the whole temple shakes! Away, away with the fearful!
It must be Strife kicking at the door with her fair foot.
Do you not see? The Delian palm nods gently,
All of a sudden; the lance sweeps beautifully in the air.
Bolts of the doors, thrust yourselves back.
Keys--open the doors! For the god is no longer far away.
So, young men, prepare yourselves for fighting and death.
Eris appears not to all, only to the worthy.
He who sees her is great; who does not is lowly.
We will see you, hard-hearted Eris, and we will never be lowly.
Let the cithara not be silent.
Nor your step noiseless with Strife approaching, you children,
If you intend to complete the vows and to ward off Horkos,
And if the wall is to stand on its aging foundations.
Well done the youths; the strings are no longer at rest.
Be silent and hear the song of Eris's glory.
Even the sea is silent, for bards celebrate
The two edged blade or spear, weapons of immortal Strife.
Neither does mother Thetis dare to lament for her Achilles
If she hears, the Lady of Sorrow walk.
Even the weeping rock forgets its griefs--
The sobbing stone forever fixed in Phrygia,
Marble where once a woman gaped sorrowfully.
Cry, "Hie, Hie" it is a poor thing to contest the blessed.
May he who fights with the blessed fight my king,
And may he who fights my king also fight with Eris.
The chorus which sings to Eris with its heart
She will honor. She has the power; even Zeus will not challenge her.
Neither will the chorus sing of Eris for only one day;
She is worthy of many hymns. The brave readily sing of Strife.
Golden is Eris' apple and yet she threw its gold away,
As are her eyes and two bladed sword and sheath of gold;
Golden is her hair, for Eris is rich in gold.
Rich in possessions; for competition brings it own reward.
Always fair, always terrible! Never does
the blood of slain touch her weapons of choice.
Her hair drips the sweat of toil to the ground,
But streaming from the locks of Eris is not fat.
But victory. In the city where these dew drops
Fall to earth all things are secure.
None is so versatile in battle as Eris.
She watches over the cunning; she watches over the bard;
Eris' are both the dagger and song.
Hers are the prophets and prophetesses; from Enyo
Soldiers learn the skill of hastening death.
We call her the goddess of apples since that time
When by the fault of Kheiron she was not invited to honour Peleus
And with burning anger did take the golden apples of the Hesperides.
With ease she did carve the words “to the Prettiest”
And then rolled it into the wedding hall
Where the three goddesses fought for
Their own vanity and so bought about the,
destruction of the fairest city of Troy.
Men who take cities are followers of
Enyo, for she rejoices in the
art of war and cunning, and Eris herself lays the plans of attack.
At the start of creation Eris fought the Olympians
Acting as escort for the infernal dragon
Strife was Typhon’s escort in the mellay
While the thunderbolts with booming shots reveled
like dancers in the sky, she took no side
Seeking to stop the rulership of either side
Thus did Eris find wisdom inbetween opposing forces
Eris also showed Medea how to aid Jason,
And so defeat the harvested men of Drakon,
Blessing the crested helm with death-bringing hand.
To grant them the fleece. Eris' favour is forever valued.
Oh Eris! Many call you Discordia,
Many Strife. Everywhere he has many a name
But I call her Enyo, as did my ancestors.
Sparta, was among your most loyal.
Scythia second, and third the towns of Thrace.
From the sacking of fairest Ilium by the Achaens
Travelled you to the strife of Thebes. And from Thebes
the battles of Dionysos brought you to the Indian fight,
And he made you there a fine fight. In the city
He prescribed a continuing ritual, Enyo, in which
Many bulls fall to their haunches and die.
Hie, hie, Strife, rarely invoked! Your altars
flow in the blood of all the tyrants and defilers
who would nurture our foes and do us harm,
As well as the destroyers of good. For you the eternal fire,
And never does the ash feed on the coals of yesterday.
Enyo rejoiced greatly when the girded men of Athens
Danced with death and slew the Persians
When the awaited war season came round.
But the Hellens were not yet able to reach
Xerxes' might. They still lived in divided and fractured cities.
The Lady saw these herself and showed them how to fight
As she stood on the jagged hills of Thermopylae, where
Leonidas' men slew the lions of Persia, the Immortals in battle.
Eris has seen no other dance more divine,
Nor, mindful of the previous crimes, had she granted such benefits
To any people as to the doomed. Nor have the children of freedom
Honored any god more than Strife.
"Hie hie Discordia" resounds because her people
Of Thrace first established this refrain
When with your two-edged blade you gave proof of your skill.
A fantastic beast faced you as you descended to nether pits,
A horrible beast. You slew him with one swift blow,
One swift strike after another. The people cried
"Hie hie Enyo! Slew the beast!" Your mother surely
Begat you as a helper, and since then you live in song.
Envy spoke secretly into the ear of Eris,
"I do not honor the singer who does not sing so great as is the sea."
Eris kicked Envy with her foot and spoke thus:
"The stream of the Assyrian river is great, but it bears
In its water much waste from the earth and much refuse.
The bees do not carry to Deo just any water
But what was pure and unsullied, a small, trickling stream
From a sacred spring, its finest product."
Hail, Lord. Ridicule and Envy away!
----------------------------------
My own minor homage to the master poet Callimachus. Admittedly, this is more the old Eris than the modern one the Discordians like (all the events bar one can be found in Greek myth, if you're willing to spend the time searching) and a vast amount of Callimachus' Hymn to Apollo was stolen for the structure of this, but I still like it. So there.
How the whole temple shakes! Away, away with the fearful!
It must be Strife kicking at the door with her fair foot.
Do you not see? The Delian palm nods gently,
All of a sudden; the lance sweeps beautifully in the air.
Bolts of the doors, thrust yourselves back.
Keys--open the doors! For the god is no longer far away.
So, young men, prepare yourselves for fighting and death.
Eris appears not to all, only to the worthy.
He who sees her is great; who does not is lowly.
We will see you, hard-hearted Eris, and we will never be lowly.
Let the cithara not be silent.
Nor your step noiseless with Strife approaching, you children,
If you intend to complete the vows and to ward off Horkos,
And if the wall is to stand on its aging foundations.
Well done the youths; the strings are no longer at rest.
Be silent and hear the song of Eris's glory.
Even the sea is silent, for bards celebrate
The two edged blade or spear, weapons of immortal Strife.
Neither does mother Thetis dare to lament for her Achilles
If she hears, the Lady of Sorrow walk.
Even the weeping rock forgets its griefs--
The sobbing stone forever fixed in Phrygia,
Marble where once a woman gaped sorrowfully.
Cry, "Hie, Hie" it is a poor thing to contest the blessed.
May he who fights with the blessed fight my king,
And may he who fights my king also fight with Eris.
The chorus which sings to Eris with its heart
She will honor. She has the power; even Zeus will not challenge her.
Neither will the chorus sing of Eris for only one day;
She is worthy of many hymns. The brave readily sing of Strife.
Golden is Eris' apple and yet she threw its gold away,
As are her eyes and two bladed sword and sheath of gold;
Golden is her hair, for Eris is rich in gold.
Rich in possessions; for competition brings it own reward.
Always fair, always terrible! Never does
the blood of slain touch her weapons of choice.
Her hair drips the sweat of toil to the ground,
But streaming from the locks of Eris is not fat.
But victory. In the city where these dew drops
Fall to earth all things are secure.
None is so versatile in battle as Eris.
She watches over the cunning; she watches over the bard;
Eris' are both the dagger and song.
Hers are the prophets and prophetesses; from Enyo
Soldiers learn the skill of hastening death.
We call her the goddess of apples since that time
When by the fault of Kheiron she was not invited to honour Peleus
And with burning anger did take the golden apples of the Hesperides.
With ease she did carve the words “to the Prettiest”
And then rolled it into the wedding hall
Where the three goddesses fought for
Their own vanity and so bought about the,
destruction of the fairest city of Troy.
Men who take cities are followers of
Enyo, for she rejoices in the
art of war and cunning, and Eris herself lays the plans of attack.
At the start of creation Eris fought the Olympians
Acting as escort for the infernal dragon
Strife was Typhon’s escort in the mellay
While the thunderbolts with booming shots reveled
like dancers in the sky, she took no side
Seeking to stop the rulership of either side
Thus did Eris find wisdom inbetween opposing forces
Eris also showed Medea how to aid Jason,
And so defeat the harvested men of Drakon,
Blessing the crested helm with death-bringing hand.
To grant them the fleece. Eris' favour is forever valued.
Oh Eris! Many call you Discordia,
Many Strife. Everywhere he has many a name
But I call her Enyo, as did my ancestors.
Sparta, was among your most loyal.
Scythia second, and third the towns of Thrace.
From the sacking of fairest Ilium by the Achaens
Travelled you to the strife of Thebes. And from Thebes
the battles of Dionysos brought you to the Indian fight,
And he made you there a fine fight. In the city
He prescribed a continuing ritual, Enyo, in which
Many bulls fall to their haunches and die.
Hie, hie, Strife, rarely invoked! Your altars
flow in the blood of all the tyrants and defilers
who would nurture our foes and do us harm,
As well as the destroyers of good. For you the eternal fire,
And never does the ash feed on the coals of yesterday.
Enyo rejoiced greatly when the girded men of Athens
Danced with death and slew the Persians
When the awaited war season came round.
But the Hellens were not yet able to reach
Xerxes' might. They still lived in divided and fractured cities.
The Lady saw these herself and showed them how to fight
As she stood on the jagged hills of Thermopylae, where
Leonidas' men slew the lions of Persia, the Immortals in battle.
Eris has seen no other dance more divine,
Nor, mindful of the previous crimes, had she granted such benefits
To any people as to the doomed. Nor have the children of freedom
Honored any god more than Strife.
"Hie hie Discordia" resounds because her people
Of Thrace first established this refrain
When with your two-edged blade you gave proof of your skill.
A fantastic beast faced you as you descended to nether pits,
A horrible beast. You slew him with one swift blow,
One swift strike after another. The people cried
"Hie hie Enyo! Slew the beast!" Your mother surely
Begat you as a helper, and since then you live in song.
Envy spoke secretly into the ear of Eris,
"I do not honor the singer who does not sing so great as is the sea."
Eris kicked Envy with her foot and spoke thus:
"The stream of the Assyrian river is great, but it bears
In its water much waste from the earth and much refuse.
The bees do not carry to Deo just any water
But what was pure and unsullied, a small, trickling stream
From a sacred spring, its finest product."
Hail, Lord. Ridicule and Envy away!
----------------------------------
My own minor homage to the master poet Callimachus. Admittedly, this is more the old Eris than the modern one the Discordians like (all the events bar one can be found in Greek myth, if you're willing to spend the time searching) and a vast amount of Callimachus' Hymn to Apollo was stolen for the structure of this, but I still like it. So there.
Popular Front for the Liberation of Discordia statement #1
AUTHORIZED FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO ALL MEDIA.
I have been authorized by the leader of the PFLD to make a statement concerning the state of entertainment in America.
We, the PFLD, claim responsibility for unleashing the Eurovision Song Contest of the Americas. Two years ago, we infiltrated NBC's Development Department and Reveille series producers. Our highly placed agents managed to pass the idea that such a contest could match American Idol and thus the station became our willing dupes.
With the release of this information today, we can use this act of terrorism to full advantage.
We will unleash Eurovision based song competitions on every continent in the globe and ensure Prime Time viewing will be made for it, unless our demands are met.
Each member of the PFLD must receive a plasma TV screen within 3 weeks of this statement. Furthermore, we demand the release of Prime Minister Harold Edward Holt of Australia, who has been held as a political prisoner in Guantanamo Bay since his “disappearance” in 1967. Finally, the BBC must agree to show re-runs of Eldorado.
Thank you for your time. Do as we demand and no more ears have to hurt.
I have been authorized by the leader of the PFLD to make a statement concerning the state of entertainment in America.
We, the PFLD, claim responsibility for unleashing the Eurovision Song Contest of the Americas. Two years ago, we infiltrated NBC's Development Department and Reveille series producers. Our highly placed agents managed to pass the idea that such a contest could match American Idol and thus the station became our willing dupes.
With the release of this information today, we can use this act of terrorism to full advantage.
We will unleash Eurovision based song competitions on every continent in the globe and ensure Prime Time viewing will be made for it, unless our demands are met.
Each member of the PFLD must receive a plasma TV screen within 3 weeks of this statement. Furthermore, we demand the release of Prime Minister Harold Edward Holt of Australia, who has been held as a political prisoner in Guantanamo Bay since his “disappearance” in 1967. Finally, the BBC must agree to show re-runs of Eldorado.
Thank you for your time. Do as we demand and no more ears have to hurt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
