Global Confederacy

Finding Nimmo

2009-05-17T13:56:00.000-07:00

Pitiful conspiracy nut loses control of metaphorical bowels on hearing about global referendum.

Kurt Nimmo, an equal opportunity purveyor of paranoia (left, right and centre), was in a feverish delirium of excitement on Thursday. He'd somehow managed to get hold of the the latest plans of the Green Gay Alliance of Soul Enslaving One Worlders, GGAoSEOW for short. They have well established links to China; just try pronouncing GGAoSEOW. SEE!?

Their appalling plan? To encourage a small NGO to further its plans for a global referendum on global governance—basically, to ask everyone on the planet the following question: Do you support the creation of a directly-elected, representative and democratic world government?

Oh the humanity! GGAoSEOW will stop at NOTHING.

The piece is unselfconsciously titled: Minor League NGO Calls for Globalist Imposed “Democracy.” This from an absolute (as opposed to merely relative) nonentity like Nimmo. Not even the legendary ”total perspective vortex” can crack this kind of self reflection fail.

No doubt, dear reader, your naivete and general air of unknowing innocence will cause you to wonder ... WTF? How is this a problem? I mean we’re just asking the question, right? But you can’t pull the wool over Kurt’s eyes. He KNOWS what the real agenda is. How he knows this isn’t explained exactly ... but surely it has something to do with extended exposure to comic sans, poor formatting and psychadelic HTML.

For your entertainment, here is a brief sample of the lunacy. Don’t forget your safety gear!

Stark and the 45 authors enumerated in the press release are suckers for the real honest to pete globalists who have anything but democracy in mind. On the contrary, the real one-worlders desire nothing less than to strip every last human on the planet of any sort of god-given or natural right and turn what might have been paradise into a slave labor gulag with a high-tech control grid overlay. As for what they ultimately have in mind for us, it is carved on the Georgia Guidestones — a eugenics-inspired reduction in world population to a mere 500 million souls who will be automatons serving at the beck and call of the elite.

Nimmo explores the known continuum of wingnuttery, and perhaps a little beyond, dispensing with a coherent article in favour of wild-eyed paranoia, coupled with weak-kneed bleating. The unholy progeny of this union are an army of straw men; miserable exemplars, all drooping barn scrapings, reeking of bullshit, and drenched in horse piss. Nonetheless, Nimmo knows his audience and hits them with both barrels of teh blazing, undiluted stupid. The kind of concentrated stupid that burns, the white phosphorus of the intertubes.

The depressing truth of course, is that this kind of rancid nonsense detracts from actual atrocities being perpetrated in plain sight; murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing occurring right now in Dafur, Zimbabwe and Chechnya to name but a few of the more familiar trouble spots. You’d think Nimmo’s attention would gravitate to the steaming piles of dung on our collective plate, but no, Nimmo is on all fours studying the dining room floor with a magnifying glass, hunting for the tiny unicorns that live in the carpet.

The real danger to our future doesn’t come from the shadowy bogey men lurking in the dusty corners of Nimmo’s mind, but in our well documented, relentlessly human impulse to demonise, dehumanise and destroy ”the other.” Indeed, Nimmo’s ”article” is a textbook example of the genre; rich with nefarious and scheming ”elites.”

In all of human history the only way we have found to control the impulse to tribalism is through agreed laws fairly applied. It’s time to take that global.

Election 08

2008-07-24T13:28:00.001-07:00

web polls and surveys

	Who would you vote for (if you could) in the 2008 US Presidential Election?
	Barack Obama
	John McCain

casino galax online

China, Opponent, Opportunity or both?

2008-07-18T14:19:00.000-07:00

Free surveys online - easy-poll.com

	China is set to become the worlds largest economy by 2035. What should the US do?
	Nuke those commie bastards back to the stone age, while they still can?
	Get American mothers to crank out more babies and try to catch up?
	While the US still has influence, reform global institutions & make them truly democratic?
	Enter into a political union with the EU?
	None of the above?

dka casino en ligne

Host Desecration and Atheism - Scroll down for Poll

2008-07-13T14:34:00.001-07:00

online surveys at easy-poll

	Does host desecration help the spread of atheism?
	Yes, because it exposes the flawed priorities of Catholicism.
	No, because it makes Atheists look like intolerant jerks.
	Yes, because it exposes transubstantiation to public scrutiny, and inevitable ridicule.
	No, because it has the potential to generate religious violence

dka casino en ligne

The burden of Proof

2008-01-02T13:12:00.001-08:00

I was reading the comments on this blog, and came across this ping pong about the burden of proof. Theists seem to either struggle to get it, or to disingenously obfuscate.

Hume established a fairly important point in this regard which perhaps can help to cut through the noise. In summary "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.".

The theist claims that not only is there an invisible being everywhere and everywhen, but that it is all powerful, good and knowing, despite the world we see. To explain this glaring disconnect, the theist must resort to convoluted, but ultimately futile feats of logic, resorting to platitudes such as "God is God", "It's a mystery etc.", to fill the void the application of logic inevitabley leaves.

Furthermore we are to understand that this being desires a very specific body of behaviours from humans, but theists cannot actually agree on what this body of behaviour is, how it has been communicated, or wether it may change, often disagreeing violently with each other on the specifics.

Yet those that reject all of these absurd, mutually contradictory and frequently objectionable bodies of belief, must "prove" to the satisfaction of any given religious adherent
a) The non-existence, of a being noted for it's desire not to be found. We know this of course, only because its acolytes have told us. It is not entirely clear how they know, and although they don't agree on much, they do seem to agree on this.
b) That a particular body of religious claims, is untrue.

This seems to me to be stacking the deck. The burden of proof clearly rests with those making the extraordinary claim. Humes simple idea dismisses all religions (presented to date) at a single stroke, because they have all uniformly failed to present compelling evidence despite having had several thousand years to do so. By comparison the germ theory of disease, took about 50 years to become standard practice across the entire planet.

To hamfistedly demand that the sceptic prove a negative, is to dismiss the most powerful tool of investigation the human race has ever developed, or perhaps merely to fail to understand it.

Whatever the reason for doing so, the outcome will always be muddle, tautology and occasional violence, which of course is exactly what we see on the religious front.

Proof that the Bible is both immoral and inaccurate

2007-03-23T18:07:00.000-07:00

You may have heard this before, but I have really cracked it. No really. Lets start with some wholly writ.

2 Kings
2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Wow!!! Mr. Grumpy, sensitive or what?

First, immoral. How can this possibly square with a loving God? Would God really imbue bears to kill kids, for calling some bald guy names? Does this strike you as remotely likely, OK, or moral? Maybe if you're Fred Phelps.

So on to inaccurate. Would 40 children really have hung about while the bears ate the first 2 kids? I mean ... would you?

Logistically how would this work? Imagine the scene. Two bears lumber out of the forest growling and snarling. The kids scatter in all directions as the bears approach. Now, If it takes each bear 30 seconds to kill one child, and each running child can cover 100 metres in 30 seconds (and given the motivation, I consider this a modest underestimate of their likely speed), then 90 seconds in we have 6 dead kids, with the bears in the middle of a rapidly expanding circle of screaming children at least 600 metres in diameter, and growing by 200 metres every 30 seconds.

After 5 minutes, some of the surviving kids (at least 30) will be 2 kilometres away from the bears, and their buddies of fleeter foot will be closing in on 3 klicks. Add to this that the bears will be sure to stop and sample some of the juicier kids more .... comprehensively. Which brings me on to my next question, how many 40 kilogram children can a bear actually eat?

Lets assume each bear weighs 500 kilos. This means that 24 kids in, each bear has munched their own body weight in kids, still chasing children, some of whom are now 5 kilometres or more away ... likely?

Maybe, but it'd take divine intervention, and probably flying bears.

Nationalism is Fascism

2006-09-23T04:28:00.000-07:00

Or, at the very least a dormant form of Fascism, with all the key elements smouldering in place, ready to flare into full-blown flame should a sustained and powerful gust of wind come along.

Nationalists will tell you that they respect the rights of other nations, but this is a polite, but threadbare fiction. Nationalist ideology promotes the "ethical" principles that:
i. The moral duties of individuals to fellow members of the nation override those to non-members (the rest of the world).
ii. The national loyalty, in case of conflict, overrides local loyalties, and all other loyalties to family, friends, profession, religion, or class.

There in a nutshell is the problem. Within the nation state, I cannot violate the laws of the state to protect, defend or otherwise promote the interests of my family, or those who live next door, or those in the same city. So why stop at the nation state? If armed gangs rampage through the street it's considered criminal in almost all societies everywhere and everywhen, yet bizarrely, this arrangement does not extend past the completely arbitrary borders of the nation state.

Once it's a military engagement, we are free to kill each other in enormous numbers, within a broad and very flexible framework, a framework I might add, largely ignored by all parties once hostilities are in train.

WHAT THE FUCK? Seems hardly adequate to articulate the lunacy of this arrangement. Yet it is accepted as perfectly sensible, and those who propose binding global laws to eliminate the problem, are considered naive, or worse.

Nationalism (after dogmatic religion) is possibly the most toxic idea ever introduced into the human blood stream. It at once harnesses all the most laudable impulses of our kind, while directing them to nefarious ends. Like religion, the momentary inhumanity of the nationalist at full extension, is excused in the context of some nebulous, future "greater" good, or "superior" morality.

The horrors of the French Revolution, the long dark decades of terrorism in Ireland and the current "fight them over there" meme prevalent in the US all have their roots sunk deep into the bloody soil of nationalism. They are all nourished by the same insidious greater good, ends justify the means thinking, that short circuits rational debate, because the "good" or the "ends" are an unknown quantity which must be taken on "faith".

The idea that "we" are intrinsically better then "them", is a keystone of this philosophy. The water is often muddied by claiming that "we" are objectively better!!! For example, we might have better education systems, less people in prison, lower crime rates, lower unemployment, longer life spans, healthier children, greater freedoms or any of a hundred objective metrics that indicate "we" are better than "them". This is an insidious thought process, because it allows us to indulge in a kind of superiority, apparently bolstered by objective reality.

It is of course an illusion. All of the above simply condense to "we were born here" and in no way tell us anything about the relative value of people. It is my contention, and the contention of the founders of the United States, that people are of equal worth everywhere. If that idea strikes you as peculiar, try and put yourself in the position of an 18th century nobleman contemplating the American Revolution.

Today, those of us in the developed world are, like the nobility of the past, absurdly proud of our education, cleanliness and overall superiority to the "lower classes", when our "station" is simply a product of the lottery of birth. We might just as well consider the random colouring of our eyes, our hair or our skin as indicating our intrinsic greater value. This thinking is just a subtle form of racism, lets call it .... regionalism.

This thinking quietly paves the way for "we" are better than "them", to become, "we" are better than "them", and therefore must kill them in large numbers if we feel remotely threatened by anyone of the miserable "other". Or anyone in the region, or with the same skin colour, language or religion. This is how killing 50,000+ Iraqis to protect the "homeland" of the US could be considered perfectly reasonable behaviour by Americans. After all, American lives are of far greater value, and must be protected regardless of the cost in foreign blood.

At its root, nationalism, even the less virulent versions, can never be compatible with the values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. For the simple reason that those rights all stop at some arbitrary, imaginary line in the sand, and that dear reader, is total bullshit.

Out of the Closet

2006-09-21T10:25:00.000-07:00

I have decided to bite the bullet, and write about something that has been gestating for quite some considerable time. Easily 5 years or more.

I have finally renounced my Christian faith, rejected the homicidal, murderous God of the old testament, as well as the fictional, ephemeral construct of the new. I'm not an atheist ... exactly. More like an agnostic, but I'm convinced that all the current religions, and the hodge podge of Gods on offer are all constructs. The big three, Allah, Christ and Whatisname the jews worship included.

It's been a long road, but damn I feel good!!!! I feel FREE.

The incredible irony of course, is that I have Bush, his hideous cabal, any number of "Christian" American bloggers, as well as the Falwells and Swaggerts of the world to thank. After 25 years as a Christian, 4 of them in active service, I had clocked up a comprehensive list things "not to think about". The last 5 years of US Christian sponsored torture, crime and state sanctioned murder have shattered the hermetic seals between my faith and the "real world".

Let me give you some examples.

1) A God who allows even the idea of Hell to gain traction in human culture is a sick sadistic bastard. A God who would create it should be resisted, fought, torn down and destroyed.

2) Every major element of Christian dogma has been lifted from prior religions. Every damn thing. There is nothing original in it. Check it out.

3) The idea of taking as "gospel" a book riddled with multiple, outrageous and self evident errors, on it's own recommendation , is so absurd, as to actually defy articulation. What was I thinking?!!?

4) Christianity is the ultimate virus. It infects a host, and then actively uses it to infect hundreds of others, and it works. Just look at the staggering variety of mutations that have evolved from that first, humble pathogen.

I could go on, but I'd just be repeating (badly) the conclusions of thousands before me. It's a scam, a pyramid scheme, and a con trick of monumental and staggering proportions, but I've seen through it, and I'm OUT.

I'm not bitter though. OK, I'm a bit bitter:-) Mind you I don't regret the years spent in Covenant Players. I grew as a person, I learnt German and I met Magdalena. The Christians of Covenant Players, with some notable exceptions, are largely good guys. Lets face it, it could have been much, much worse. There are some virulent variations of Christianity out there. Take a look at these guys.

I guess I resent all the times I worried about Hell, it raises a primordial twinge of subdued terror even now. Those Catholics sure know how to bed it down deep:-) I object to the hundreds of hours I spent in pointless prayer. SHIT, I could have been playing Dungeon's and Dragons, or reading, or having a quiet reflective wank. In fact, basically any damn thing.

To think I partially squandered the precious lightning flash of awareness that is my life, to worship some jumped up tribal deity. It makes me very, very angry.

Never again:-)

What is wrong with the world?

2006-07-23T06:55:00.000-07:00

Recently I have been considering this in some detail. My conclusions are depressingly predictable, but hear me out!!! The case is compelling.

What is wrong with the world? The short answer? The Republican Party of the United States. They represent the core of what is currently our most pressing collective problem. Sure there are subsidiary causes, but at the heart of it all, are an elite core of the republican party. Possibly the most evil group of morons ever foisted on an unsuspecting world.

Let me give you some examples.
There is almost zero “debate” on the validity of global warming and evolution in the rest of the developed world, and precious little about that human caviar the blastocyst.

Yet these are hot topics in the US, why? Why is this the only developed country in the world confused and divided? The answer is crystal clear, the Bush regime in particular, and Republicans in general are propped up by a 10% base of religious fanatics that lap all this nonsense up, and they pander shamelessly to this constituency.

I mean politicians actually articulating a belief in utter unabridged mythology like the Rapture!!!!! Sheeese ….. nowhere else in the developed world could you get away with that, you’d be rightly dismissed as a lunatic.

This is not to say the religious people are evil, stupid or poorly educated. Many quite intelligent people are "believers" of one stripe or another. I present myself as exhibit A:-). Although I hasten to add comprehensivley lapsed.

The effect of constantly trying to reconcile the belief against reality is corrosive to cognition generally. One slips easily into the practice of ignoring reality where it conflicts with a cherished belief, and when something else comes along that does the same thing, the circuits to ignore the contradicting reality are all in place.

For example the US government is largely made up of incompetent, amoral assholes, the supporting evidence for this contention is overwhelming. Yet 30-40% of the population persist in providing their support to these people. The cognitive disconnect that allows this, in otherwise normal people, is amplified and nourished by fervent religious belief.

I say this as a person who had a “personal faith” for decades, and finally snapped out of it. Courtesy ironically enough of GWB. His actions and their results, shoved the inconsistencies of faith into my face with such vigour and frequency, that I finally gave up trying to reconcile them.

It is intriuging to note that a 30-40% theme is emerging in the US. That number :
Support Bush.
Believe they are “winning” in Iraq.
Believe it makes sense to “tag” muslims in the US.
Don’t want a timetable for withdrawal.

The 10% of Christian Fundamentalists that shore up the Republican Party, are a critical subset of this group. It is clear they want a genocidal WWII class war that will kill millions in the middle east, that provides "moral clarity" or perhaps Armageddon. These people are not dismayed and horrified by terrorist attacks and efforts but excited by them, because it has the potential to herd a critical mass of bleating, frightened sheeple into their "KILL THEM, KILL THEM ALL" camp.

The bottom line? The Republicans would rather govern based on a pack of lies, than not govern. They would rather undermine and hinder the science that keeps us healthy, warm and well fed, to garner that critical 10% of the vote, than campaign on real issues like healthcare, not blowing stuff up and the environment.

Their selfish and foolish short term strategy gives these people a platform and "hey presto!!!!" suddenly half the country is questioning established science, making poor choices across the spectrum, and worst of all, electing people like GWB. When this applies to the most powerful country the world has ever seen, it affects us all.

Same old Same old?

2006-06-11T06:14:00.000-07:00

Recently I've felt my ability to engage wane. I have nothing new to say on the rightwing blogs where I traditionally post. They've heard it all before, dismissed it, dissed it and frequently pissed on it. There is nothing left to say. The Haditha Massacre has also impaired my ability to remain calm when faced with the dismissive inhumanity of some Americans. Listening to people who are articulate, clever, witty and apparently loving parents, ferociously defending and justifying the indefensible, has left me feeling physically sick in recent weeks.

So I find myself wondering is this the way it is? Is it naive to assume that humans can find a different way, behave differently? Should I simply throw up my hands, thank God for the good luck of my birth and leave it at that? Its tempting.

Hope though, can come from some strange quarters, and you may find this odd, but here goes:-)

One of the frequent comments from the pro war side concerns the relative humaneness of the current war effort, and this observation is not entirely without merit. If we objectively consider the invasion and occupation, the efforts made to avoid civilian casualties and the almost neligible deaths on the side of the coalition, this has been a fairly bloodless enterprise. Certainly when compared to empires and conflicts of the past.

I guess this meme can be articulated as "what other kind of global hegemony would you prefer?". I know that I prefer an American hegemony to a Soviet, Nazi German or Chinese hegemony. Imagine extrapolating those internal casualties onto the world stage? We'd be talking billions of deaths.

This does not mean that I think we live in the cliched "best of all possible worlds", but it could certainly be worse. So why all the hue and cry? Why the relentless yelling and beration? If US hegemony ain't so bad, why not accept it? The answer to that question is basic, humans yearn to be free and that desire has finally gone global. Globalisation has created global capital, and that has in turn generated an inevitable counter balance, global civil society.

Lets face it humans are upitty creatures, that frequently revolt against even benign tyrrany. The US qualifies as at least that, and in recent years has been drifting in altogether the wrong direction on the good/bad hegemony continuum.

Herein lies the hope ... our tolerance for war as a solution has been drastically reduced. We see the effects and are appalled, we insist there must be a better way, and can find an endless stream of historical examples to substantiate this view. We consider the ordered, law abiding segments of the world and we know there is a better way, we are living it. If laws work in villages, towns, cities, counties, regions, nation states and supr-national regions like the EU, why can't they work globally? The answer to this question is of course, that they can.

Basically when the apologists whine "it ain't that bad", they are, in a limited sense, right. What has changed is the global perception of such events. We see them, in record time and are appalled and rightly so. We count the cost of war, imagine what could have been created with those resources and inevitably reject the logic of violence. This same calculation is what marks the passage from child to adult. We know that there should be laws that prevent Saddam Hussein and Bush.

Now we need to take it to the next level. The facilitators of the Iraq war must to be held to account. They day we drag Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney before an international tribunal (an American one would also be welcome) and they have to account for their actions, that is day that signals the death knell for war as a mainstream and acceptable solution. It is the day that humanity finally grows up and creates a planetary society governed by law. It may be 5,10 or 20 years down the road, but it's going to happen and I'm looking forward to it, are you?

Why the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq is despised

2006-05-29T07:04:00.000-07:00

Why indeed? Well for a start, it was clear from the outset that the war was considered unjustified by a majority of the human race. See here, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-02-14-eu-survey.htm and here, http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20030224_trends_s28/. There has hardly been an event in history so universally condemnded before being perpetrated.

Nontheless, consider for a moment, that annual American casualties in Iraq War 2.0 barely drift above annual accidental deaths for the 90's. Thats right, almost as many service people (volume wise) were being killed by accidents in the US military each year, as are currently being killed by enemy action.

That is a sobering thought, and a tribute to the professional lethality (and improved internal safety) of the US armed forces. They certainly get the job done, and while doing it they ensure that all the casualties are on the other side.

In a conventional war this of course makes good sense. We want to kill the enemy while ensuring our guys don't get killed. However, in the "we've come to save you from yourselves" scenario that Iraq and Iran are alleged to represent, it is patently less palatable. It is especially less palatable in the context of slogans such as "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

This is in effect, an exhortation to sanction the sacrifice of Iraqi lives to save American lives. I find that idea pretty abhorrent in isolation, but the cowardly, brutal, calculation of it pales into insignificance when coupled with the fact that the basic premise was and continues to be, simply wrong. As can be seen every day as the next lot of 20, or 30 step into the grinder.

That in a nutshell is why the war is despised, both at home and abroad. We told you not to do it, we said it would be bad, any fool could see that. Now, the lives of foreigners are poured out like water, ostensibly to increase American security and economic power. It isn't the first time either, but it is the first time it has provoked such a sustained and rapid international backlash.

It hardly has to be said that some will read this and be non-plussed, because this equation makes sense to them. American lives are more valuable. That a sizeable minority of Americans are genuinely unmoved by the killing of thousands of innocent people a half a world away in their name is pretty sickening, but it's not hyperbole, read the blogs.

One wonders, do they consider none of these faceless "others" innocent? Do Americans consider their own personal safety so important to them, that to eliminate any possible risk, any price in foreign blood is acceptable? How much is offsetting the risk of an American death worth in the currency of the lives of unknown foreigners? Ten, a hundred, a million? Even if one accepts the basic flawed premise, the ratio is already grimly disproportional.

During the 2nd World War, it was common for German troops to kill local villagers in reprisal for resistance attacks. This has been rightly condemned as a war crime. Tell me, how is the GWOT, “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here” any different in terms of outcomes, for the villagers?

Then, there is this : http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/28.html#a8479

Tony Blair, the UN and Global Governance

2006-05-26T12:05:00.000-07:00

I found myself in a funny position today. Listening to none other than Tony Blair, and agreeing with every single thing he said. I was a genuine fan when he first arrived on the scene. He was pro EU, relativley young, and he didn't look like someone had forgotten to plug him in. Such an improvement on Thatcher, Major and the Tories generally that it quite took your breath away.

Then along came Iraq war 2.0 and his slavish, even bizarre willingness to support Bush, even when he didn't need too. It was creepy and disturbing, what could have been more peculiar than Bush and Blair? The failed Texan Oil Man and the wunderkind of the British Left.

Good times, eh "boys"? http://www.devilducky.com/media/6143/

Now, we hear this, just to rattle our cage a little further : Http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5020358.stm

Mind you, it is good to hear isn't it? In the words of the Great Colbert, Blair "gets it". The current structures that pass for Global Governance have been groaning and creaking in an alarming manner for quite some time, something had to give, and it looks like it finally has.

The pivotal question now of course, is will Bush "get it"? Or will he continue on his way with the next Cola-ition of the borderline deranged, and basically bewildered.

On practically every front, Bush is out of step with not just US opinion, but global opinion. Time to flip flop Meester Jorge Bush.

I'm not the bad guy!

2006-05-14T23:08:00.000-07:00

It is fascinating to see how much power and coherence americans and sometimes even European commentators attribute to the wave of anti-americanisim that, in fairness, does appear to be sweeping the world.

For example, the idea that a coherent and organised EU elite is consistently on message beating up the US is laughable. Maybe in France. Co-ordination is the very thing the EU is worst at, largely because the bulk of sovereignty still sits with the individual states of the union. The US does a far better job of tarring the poor ol’ surrender monkeys.

The caricature painted of EU sentiments as regards the US is often over the top. Often bolted onto a scaffolding of truth as regards US crime and social injustice for example, but then exaggerated it out of all recognition. Very few people believe these extreme pictures of the US, yet time and again this is held up as the genuine view of Europeans.

Nonetheless, decades of statistics bear out the basic principles. The US does have higher violent crime, it does have greater disparity of wealth, it does have more of it’s citizens living in poverty. These realities are indisputable, but no one believes that the US is some kind of urban wasteland ala mad max.

In my modest lifetime, I have never experienced and most especially, never shared, the scale, depth and intensity of Anti American feeling that we see today.

Five years ago, I was largely pro US, had recently spent a lovely weekend in New York, visited the Air and Space Museum in Washington and had explained on my return, how when my daughter was old enough we had to take her to see the place, it was fantastic.

I have always been pro the EU and a few years earlier had been very excited by my discovery of the federalist papers, and US constitutional documents online, and realised what a brilliant blue print they were for the direction the EU should take. I still think that.

I remember explaining to my Dad in 1990, shortly after the fall of the Berlin wall, that I finally got why capitalism worked better than command economies. How the process of millions of people making hundreds of daily, selfish personal decisions was vastly more efficient than some bureaucrat tucked away in an office sucking it out of this thumb. I still believe that too.

Now? Why now, I have to constantly keep reflecting on how anti American I’ve become. I regularly interrupt TV shows to note to my daughter how these (fictional characters!) are good Americans, and to note the positive values they espouse, that they are not bad people. This in order to counteract the stream of anger and frustration she hears when myself and my wife (or indeed anyone these days) talk about the most recent US outrage.

However there is no "conspiracy" no co-ordinated effort to demonise the US. I’m not the bad guy in this scenario and the EU doesn’t have the coherence to be the bad guy. Grow up America and put the bad where it belongs, GWB, and I’m willing to expand that now to include the entire Republican party, who despite some of the best checks and balances in the world, have been criminally asleep at the wheel for at least the last 3 years. Blame them and kick them out of office when next you get the chance.

Global Governance ... DUH!

2006-05-14T07:06:00.000-07:00

Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States.

It is evident that there is no process of a court by which the observance of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the communities, that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit his happiness to it.

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

Yet that is the state of Global Governance today. The point that Hamilton is making is that laws must impinge directly on the individual, if they do not, then whatever sanctions are to be brought to bear, must be brought to bear on entire polities, or states. In the case of Iraq, because of the actions of one man, an entire nation continues to endure horrific daily punishment. Life, without parole.

Hamilton knocks it out of the park with this summary. Of course, he was talking about the United States in the period shortly after the revolution, not the world today, the point though is just as relevant.

In my fractious discussions with Americans, I frequently refer to the Federalist Papers, because that good old-fashioned Yankee common sense sometimes does get through. Hamilton was right of course, as evidenced by the relentless procession of minor wars we have endured despite the creation of the UN in 1946. The UN has failure in it's genes, because it punishes the state and not the individual.

Americans will frequently argue, that the world is too disparate culturally to endure a system of overarching law, and this is a compelling point. In a world with liberal democracies and sharia law living side by side, it is clear that significant conflicts could develop. So what to do?

Luckily we have some examples to draw on, specifically the EU. Subsidiarity is a term you hear used a lot in Brussels, it basically means that local matters should be handled ... well ... locally. This is clearly the way that this needs to be dealt with. In fact, we have made a start already. The International Criminal Court at The Hague deals with serious war crimes and genocide, the really bad stuff.

In these cases individuals can be accused and tried for these very serious crimes. However, that should just be the beginning. War clearly represents the most radical sundering of the fabric of society that can be imagined, as such, it's undertaking has to be considered very seriously, and those that choose this route, must be held accountable by an independent authority. Basically in my book, every act of war should be answered for in court.

The perceived, and frequently misguided national interest of a fraction of the global population can no longer be allowed to trump the survival of the entire human species. For that is what is at stake. For example, an attack on Iran by the US, even if sanctioned by the UN security council, could go wrong so horribly, and in so many dreadful ways, that the hawkish UK foreign minister Jack Straw considered the idea .... "nuts". A pithy, information packed sound bite, even for a politician.

It is clear from history, that there are a few scattered examples of "just" or unavoidable wars. The 2nd World War is perhaps the most deadly example. Therefore, and perhaps as a stepping-stone to an eventual peaceful world, the option for war must be left on the table. Those who take that route however, must come without their armies, and stand trial when summoned by the court.

So forget the idea of a monolithic global government reaching into the lives of ordinary citizens and tinkering with the machinery of their day-to-day existence. That too is "nuts". This is not what is needed, and it is likely that such an edifice would cause more violence than it prevented. What are required are clear-cut laws and penalties with regard to war, which impinge directly on the individuals engaged in declaring, conducting and leading the war effort, not the nation state, or the general citizenry.

So for example, Saddam Hussein and George Bush should both be tried for the Iraq War. Clinton should be tried for the war in Serbia, and practically everyone with any significant position of leadership in Dafur should be tried for what is currently transpiring there.

The question of course arises, who will bell this cat? Who will sign up to such a restrictive arrangement? How will it be policed? I'm guessing the small countries will be lining up to sign it. Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium ... the list is large. Small countries are at much greater risk in a lawless world than large countries, and a critical mass could emerge that way.

How will it be policed? Peacefully of course. If a country has signed up to the treaty/law/global codex, if their leadership then engages in war, a summons will be issued to the relevant individuals, and they are bound to appear at the court. If they do not, a global arrest warrant will be issued, and all the police forces of all the signatory nations will be obliged to detain the parties referenced in the warrants. These are all very familiar law enforcement methodologies, and we have already seen some minor examples play out. Pinochet's near miss in the UK is perhaps the most obvious one. Also the various Balkans ICC defendants who have been in hiding for years, and can no longer safely move beyond the borders of their home states for fear of arrest.

As countries sign up, and as those around them sign up, military budgets may fall. If you live in a good neighbourhood with excellent policing and low crime, why would you spend good money on bars, gates, bodyguards and complex alarm systems that will never be required? The money would be much better spent on building that extension, or replacing those single glazed windows, or installing that expensive, but energy efficient heat exchange system for the hot water tank.

Humanity collectively spends $1 Trillion (this figure, incredibly excludes the cost of the invasion of Iraq) a year on weapons. This represents not just an initial theft from the global purse, but these same weapons when used, frequently destroy capital items that are valuable, expensive and time consuming to rebuild. Power stations, dams, water treatment plants, schools and hospitals. The initial cost of weapons production is merely the tip of the iceberg, the military globally represents the most dramatic example of the "multiple whammy", more bang for your buck indeed. The human cost is of course incalculable.

War will be hard to stop, certainly in the short term. However we must continue to make the effort. At the end of each cataclysmic conflict, we seem to take a few more steps forward, the survivors crying "never again". Yet eventually the lesson is unlearned, that generation dies, and the willingness to resort to war begins to build. That could be the conveyor we are currently on, and we may once again be reaching the peak of the cycle. So what now?

The choice is simple. We can either wait for the impetus to be a war that slaughters millions, hope we survive, and pick up the pieces. Or we can take action now. Agree the laws now. Enforce the laws now. The choice is ours, lets hope there will be a future humanity to judge our actions.

Slaveholders

2006-05-11T12:30:00.000-07:00

The blunting effects of slavery upon the slaveholder's moral perceptions are known and conceded, the world over; and a privileged class, an aristocracy, is but a band of slaveholders under another name. This has a harsh sound, and yet should not be offensive to any -- even to the noble himself -- unless the fact itself be an offense: for the statement simply formulates a fact. The repulsive feature of slavery is the THING, not its name. One needs but to hear an aristocrat speak of the classes that are below him to recognize -- and in but indifferently modified measure -- the very air and tone of the actual slaveholder; and behind these are the slaveholder's spirit, the slaveholder's blunted feeling. They are the result of the same cause in both cases: the possessor's old and inbred custom of regarding himself as a superior being.

Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

I am currently listening to the book quoted above, courtesy of librivox (http://www.librivox.org/), and I was struck by the truth in Mark Twain’s words.

Americans are at once both the cause and the solution to the world’s ills. Like a knot holding fast the gates to paradise, once unpicked, they no longer impede the pilgrims eager to get in.

The nub of the problem is that Americans genuinely believe they are better people. A better country, the best in fact. The relentless wall-to-wall American media feed and reinforce this delusion from every side.

Yet it is unquestionably a delusion. American healthcare is among the worst in the minority world; average life spans are lower, infant deaths on par with some majority world countries and one of the largest and fastest growing wealth gaps on the planet.

Of course there are a minority of Americans that are happy with that status quo, but the vast majority are simply ignorant of their situation. They are quite literally living the life of the "coppertop" of matrix fame. They supply the system with power, and although they are largely unaware of its existence, the have at least the vague smug sense that they are better than "the rest" whomever that might be.

I have been trying to grasp and articulate for years what that indefinable sense is, and I think I have it. It is the attitude of the slaveholder. Kill Iraqis for ephemeral minority world interests? Sure. Threaten Iran because they make us nervous? No brainer. Drop a nuke on those uppity sons of bitches if they get out of hand? You betcha. Need evidence? To lynch some nigger? Not likely.

There it is in a nutshell, and it's ugly. The good news is that it's not a majority opinion, not even in the US. Most Americans and Europeans are decent, and genuinely good people, as were many slaveholders. Once they understand how awful the system is, how it works to oppress the weakest in society, they will work alongside the rest of us it to tear it down.

And the system is awful. Roughly 6.6 Billion people live on Earth. Of those about 1.5 billion, mostly Americans and Europeans, live lives of relative ease and comfort. The other 5 billion or so live stunted, truncated lives in varying levels of discomfort, desperation and poverty.

Yet, Collectively the nations of the world spend over $1 trillion a year on the military, weapons systems, tanks, guns and all the assorted paraphernalia of war.

The notable difference between the Irish Famine of the 19th century and other humanitarian crises, was that it occurred within the imperial homeland, at a time well into the modern prosperity of the Victorian and Industrial age. In our connected world, were every happening is instantly visible, the details known and the horror exposed, where food to feed and armies to protect exist in vast numbers, every new outrage is an Irish Famine.

Visible, preventable and genocide by stealth. The world needs to change, and it has to start with the slaveholders first. Start untying that knot ….

We the People ....

2006-05-03T00:02:00.000-07:00

Talking to Americans about Iran often leads to the basic claim "But we are the good guys! We are on the side of Justice!" etc. etc. It is often very difficult to break through this mind set so that Americans, a mere 3% of the global population, see themselves in a global context and can get beyond this fear bolstered, messianic mindset.

By this logic, any group of 3%, in any polity could take whatever action they like to achieve whatever aims they think are "right". That is in fact a partial definition of terrorism itself. A small minority that has a beef with the rest of (or a particular) segment of society, that cannot make a convincing case, will often resort to violence.

Claiming "we are right" does nothing to advance the discussion. The problem remains. Billions of others, and even millions within the US, do not agree that the small risk posed by a minority of Muslims in Iran justifies the risk of a pre-emptive attack, which will kill hundreds and has the potential to kill millions.

Because the US government presses on regardless, shouting at the top it's voice "WE ARE RIGHT, you don't get it, we will SAVE YOU!" does not make it right. It makes them the muttering guy at the bus stop with the hand painted sign claiming the end of the world.

At it's most basic, actual people are being killed to prevent potential deaths, but many, certainly a majority, of the rest of us think that calculation is horribly flawed. What if no one was at risk? Actual innocent people would be killed for nothing.

For example, what if the leadership of China decided something was "right"? Reintegration of Taiwan for example? Most Mainland Chinese think this is an excellent idea, and many support force to achieve it. On balance, it seems more justifiable to use force to reintegrate Taiwan, historically part of China for thousands of years, and detached for only a few decades, than for the US to use force in Vietnam, Iran or Iraq.

Of course to condone, accept or encourage that would be lunacy, and I'm guessing most Americans would agree with me on that. However it exposes the root issue of legitimacy, and hopefully puts it in a context where Americans suddenly find themselves on my side of the fence.

The issues of legitimacy, are addressed in the UN Security Council. At the end of WWII, global society came up with the Security Council on the UN to prevent war, and that is at least a partial "success" in that we have avoided a major war on the scale of WWI or WWII since it's creation.
However, the Security Council is a flawed instrument because it allows the 5 victors of WWII vetoes to strike down any decision made by the council, and it also only includes a very narrow group in decision-making.

It's what we have, for the moment, but it is demonstrably a deeply undemocratic institution.

War is the most serious and deadly undertaking that humans engage in. In fact, any given war now has the potential to spiral out of control to the point where the destruction of the entire planet is a possibility. I would therefore be as adamant in insisting that the Chinese listen to the rest of the world as I am in insisting that the Americans do.

Decisions like this should not be left in the hands of an institution with 15 people at the table, and structural paralysis practically guaranteed. War, if it is to undertaken at all, needs to be sanctioned by a global majority in a much broader and vastly more democratic forum. No vetoes, no "but we are the good guys!!", no "but they might be planning something!".

Just we the people, insisting that our voice be heard.

We are all White South Africans now

2006-04-30T07:18:00.000-07:00

I’ve been puzzling over what it is in my life that makes me so convinced that a peaceful global confederacy will eventually emerge on our sad little planet, and I suspect I’ve got it. I hope it clarifies it for the rest of you as well. One can only hope:-)Lots of personal history here, so bear with me or tune out, now.

I was born in ireland in the 60’s, and grew up there in the 70’s when the "troubles" in the North threatened to spill over into the South (there were bombings in Dublin in the 70’s). The British reacted badly to the initial civil rights demonstrations. There was a seminal event called "Bloody Sunday" in which 13 or so unarmed civilians where killed by British security forces. This unleashed a wave of attacks in Britain, and there was the possibility of irrational action on both sides. In the late 60’s Ireland nearly invaded the North, because of abuse of the catholic minority!!

However, cooler heads prevailed in the both the republic and the UK, and these doomsday scenarios never materialised. The UK eventually recognised the grievances of the catholic minority in the north, and has made moderate efforts to address them in the intervening 30 years. That experience gave me an idea of what it feels like to live in a small, weak country menaced by a large, powerful country.

Happily the large country did the right thing for (almost) everybody, despite extreme national provocation, and both the UK and Ireland are doing well, and even the North is finally finding it’s feet too.

Then when I was about 12, I moved to South Africa. I was pitched from being a minority on the receiving end of bad behaviour, to a minority dishing it out. Of course I had no idea about this stuff at the time, and was blissfully unaware of a problem until my late teens. Nonetheless, I was conscripted (willingly) into the South African Defense Force to fight communism, and the henchmen of the convicted terrorist guy, Nelson Mandela.

I spent an uneventful two years in the SADF, and was pretty relieved to get out. After a year in the private sector, I left South Africa in 1987.So I had two weird alternate experiences, first as the "oppressed" class, and later as the "oppressor" class. So I have (I think) a unique ability to see the situation from both sides.

In both cases, cooler heads prevailed, and what could have been dreadful bloodbaths, have with occasional faltering missteps, progressed forward. Lets face it, the white minority in South Africa had very little compelling reasons to share power. It was a courageous, moral and radical move, and at a time when there was hardly a single example of a successful democracy in the whole of Africa. However, it would have come to bloodshed in the long term if they had not, because 20% of the population cannot keep 80% suppressed indefinitely.

So when Al-Quaida (or Osama) says america is the great Satan, and the epitome of evil, I know it’s bull. I’m inoculated by my Irish experience. When Bush talks about the evildoers and how they hate freedom. I know that is bull too, because I’m inoculated by my South African experience. When people claim that the idea of a fairer world, where disputes are negotiated, is a utopian pipe dream, I can point to both the South African and the Irish experience. Neither is perfect, but both are demonstrably fairer societies against all the odds.

Not to the mention the process that every nation state in the world has been through on the road to national unity. Plus, finally, we have the example of the EU. Vilified from within, and without, and yet no one has ever left, and many countries are actively implementing EU legislation, for a shot at joining!

While the US is blowing up stuff in Iraq, and threatening to blow stuff up in Iran, what has the EU been doing? Mediating the Cyprus dispute, reintegrating the Balkans into a stable political framework, resolving terrorists disputes like the IRA and Basque in Spain. Forcing Turkey to threat their kurds with dignity and ensure freedom of speech and an independent judiciary. Convincing the Germans and the French to accelerate the deadline for letting the Poles and other eastern europeans work in the rest of the EU. Arguing with the Austrians, and winning the argument, to ensure they would not spike the accession talks with Turkey. This stuff takes time and it’s very, very hard, but it beats the hell out of war.

So I feel I kind of dejavu about this situation. On the one side, the forces of "good" protecting us from an insidious and evil conspiracy. On the other an oppressed underclass of 5 billion or so. Living on 1 dollar a day, and suffering significant daily injustice.

A society where such radical disparity exists is out of whack, however unlike South Africa, I can’t simply bail this time because I don’t like it. Unless I move to mars:-) So I come down on the moderate side, negotiate, with risk, until negotation is completely exhausted. The underlying reasons for injustice must be addressed to eliminate terrorism.

Bush is embarking on an Israeli solution, as opposed to a British solution, and we are all getting sucked along in his wake. Ireland could have become another Palestine, but it didn’t because the extremists where not allowed to monopolise the dialogue.There are extremists, moderates and could-care-less’s on both sides, the trick is not to let the extremists monopolise the dialogue. This is exactly what Bush (himself an extremist) has done. Only this time it’s global, and the current meme has the potential to become horribly self fulfilling.