The Solution to the Hatred of Identity Politics Is Psychological Knowledge

posted in: Inner Journeys, The Bigger Picture | 0
[Note – This was originally published at Sott.net – reposted here with permission.]

Identity politics quote - "To say that someone cannot be sexist or racist because of their gender and the colour of their skin is by definition sexist and racist."

© Brentcherry

Identity politics is stupid. It divides humans into various arbitrary “identity groups” and then stops there. All analysis and understanding go no further than the level of the group. But what is identity? It comes from the Latin idem, meaning “the same, in the sense of repeating over and over”. In other words, identity implies something about you that carries over from one instant to the next, making you you. Of course, things like your sex, skin color, and orientation do that. Contrary to popular opinion, you can’t just decide you’re a lesbian Mexican grandmother. But the idea that any or all of those things define you completely is absurd. Identity politics makes all members of a group, Blacks for example, identical. If that sounds racist, it’s because it is.

No, identity is more than what biological category you happen to have been born in. It’s who you are – singular. The only true identity politics would have to go down to the level of the individual, because no matter how similar two people are, they are never identical. Another definition for identity comes from information technology: “an object that represents a user”.[1] This is a good analogy – at least it approaches the level of the individual. But even individuals can change. Given sufficient stress, a person’s personality can become warped. Identity should be something more permanent.

Most of the time, we operate in the world based on ‘rules’ or habits accumulated throughout our lives, shaped from conception by our genes and socialization. Our gift of higher reasoning allows us some measure of control over these habits – to monitor, and if necessary, inhibit the aggressive or fearful knee-jerk responses in order to provide for conscious control during situations to which our personalities may be unadapted – for instance, a severe change in the conditions of our external environment.

Group identity is absurd. Identity as personality is lazy – a cosmic accident. Identity as self-knowledge and self-made character is where it’s at. Only that is solid enough to withstand pressure and truly be called one’s own. Human beings are an interesting species. We weep, fight, laugh, love, and a great deal of this all happens automatically and repetitively. However, some types of human experience cannot happen automatically. For growth to occur, effort must be made. Truth, understanding, and free will must be applied in order to ensure harmonious, creative outcomes. Mozart’s Requiem was not written without copious amounts of ‘blood, sweat, and tears’, nor did Pythagoras discover that a2 + b2 = c2 without a prodigious amount of study and search. Not all songs are beautiful though, and not all ideas nourish the soul.

Attachment to ideas that are wrong – incorporating lies into our identity – causes chaos. Just as some give their lives to ideas of beauty, harmony, creativity and truth, so do some give their lives to ideas of ugliness, discord, entropy and lies. And most of the time, people are somewhere in-between, drifting one way, then pulled the other. Identity politics has all the stupidity of making an ideal of group identity, and all the chaos of an untrained personality pushed and pulled by emotions over which they have no control.

A video on Twitter provides a visceral example of all this. It shows a young woman in the US at an Antifa protest. She is screaming, not at the ‘opposition’, but at a fellow protester. The reason? Because he was white, and not being an ‘ally’ by acting violently enough towards the ‘Nazis’. In the video, she yelled:

“You’re white, you’re inherently racist, it’s in your blood, it’s in your DNA.”


That what she said was immensely racist – indeed, it conveyed the very essence of racism – didn’t seem to occur to her at all. All she cared about, in that moment, was her idea that white people were the cause of all problems in the US, therefore they were the enemy, and the enemy needed to be fought. She was unable to even countenance the idea that a white person could be an ally unless they were willing to perpetrate violence against other whites.

This mentality is, obviously, no different to the Nazis she claims to be against. No self-knowledge, no ability to reason, no self-control – all in the service of the basest emotions.

What we have been seeing over the past few years in the United States is an unprecedented polarisation of ideas the like of which we have not seen in the world since the Second World War. And it is not the “far right” that is the problem, as it was during Germany’s Weimar Republic. This time it is the “far left”. The idea that the same dynamics as played out in 1930s Germany could play out in 21st-century America but on the other side of the ‘political spectrum’ is something that just doesn’t seem to occur to most people. The ‘left’ are supposed to be the “bleeding-heart good guys”.

The minds of the ‘left’ in the United States (and other majority-anglophone countries) have been progressively radicalized by an education system that champions and celebrates identity politics, in particular minority identity politics. For a long time a person’s political affiliation was to a political party, like ‘Democrat’, ‘Republican’ or some other moniker that broadly defined a world view. Today however, minority identity politics means that a small group of people look to their own racial, ethnic, genetic or sexual nature and define that as their ‘politics’. It’s the ‘century of the self’ on steroids, and moving to Capitol Hill.

Much of the source of modern identity politics is found in the 60s-70s, postmodern philosophical ideas, Trotskyite political theories, behaviourist psychology, and New Age ‘spirituality’ that have been broadcast from university lecterns (and into the minds of students) across the western world by professors who were and are psychologically more akin to psychotics in a sanitarium than responsible pedagogues.

Whether or not the young people attending these universities became politically active, they no doubt absorbed a great deal of pathological ideology. As the “Baby Boomers” gave birth to “Generation X”, who then gave birth to the “Millennials”, an ideological battle began to take place in universities, with dissenting or disobedient voices sacked, suspended, or bullied into silence, with once-venerable institutions now little more than ‘brainwashing factories’ tasked with ensuring the most intelligent of our youth cannot receive the skills that make them suitable for or capable of securing the high-paying productive employment that they ostensibly attended university to secure.

Consider this list of courses that are taught at Universities across the USA today:

  • MCL 135: Vampires: Evolution of a Sexy Monster (University of Kentucky)
  • HIST 336: Saints, Witches, and Madwomen (University of Nebraska)
  • WOMGEN 1225: Leaning In, Hooking Up (Harvard University)
  • SOAN 261: Campus Sex in the Digital Age (Washington & Lee University)
  • GSWS 434: The Politics of Ugly (University of Pennsylvania)
  • AMS 398: FAT: The F-Word and the Public Body (Princeton University)
  • GWS 462: Hip Hop Feminism (University of Illinois)
  • GWS 255: Queer Lives, Queer Politics (University of Illinois)
  • SOC 388: Marriage in the Age of Trump (Davidson College)
  • HISTORY 330-0: Medieval Sexuality (Northwestern University)
  • AI 318: Zombies: Modern Myths, Race, and Capitalism (DePaul University)
  • SOCI 332: Alternative Genders (Texas A&M University)
  • AMCULT 103: Drag in America (University of Michigan)
  • AMCULT 334: Race, Gender, Sexuality and U.S. Culture in Video Games (University of Michigan)
  • AMCULT 411: Rednecks, Queers, and Country Music (University of Michigan)
  • WGS 255: Deconstructing the Diva (DePaul University)
  • GLBT 3404: Transnational Sexualities (University of Minnesota)
  • GSFS 0208: Unruly Bodies: Black Womanhood in Popular Culture(Middlebury College)
  • MC 2002: Media, Sport and Culture: Amplifying the Sporting-Ism(Louisiana State University)
  • THEO 025: The Bible and Horror (Georgetown University)
  • SOAS 3500: Queerness in South Asian Literature and Cinema(University of Iowa)
  • AADS 2204: Black Women and the Politics of Blackness and Beauty (Vanderbilt University)
  • AFR 334: Radical Theories of Political Struggle: Anti-Black Racism and the Obama Administration (Williams College)
  • COLT 0510F: Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, The Men and the Myths (Brown University)
  • HIST 379: Queering Colonialism (Washington & Lee University)
  • AMST 274: Rainbow Cowboys (and Girls): Gender, Race, Class, and Sexuality in Westerns (Wellesley College)
  • AFA 4430: Black Lives Matter (University of Florida)
  • RELI GU 4355: The African American Prophetic Political Tradition from David Walker to Barack Obama (Columbia University)
  • RELG 032: Queering God: Feminist and Queer Theology(Swarthmore College)
  • RELG 033: Queering the Bible (Swarthmore College)
  • ENVS 042: Ecofeminism (Swarthmore College)
  • FRSEMR 61D: Trying Socrates in the Age of Trump (Harvard University)
  • GSWS 2219: Deconstructing Masculinities (Bowdoin College)
  • GSFS 0325: American Misogyny (Middlebury College)
  • BLSTU 3850: Gender, Hip Hop, and the Politics of Representation(University of Missouri)
  • AAS 301: Black to the Future: Science, Fiction, and Society(Princeton University)
  • SOC 105: Race, Religion, & Donald Trump (Davidson College)

As Andrew Lobaczewski describes in his book Political Ponerology, the consequences of all this attempted social engineering by the talentless and/or character-disturbed ‘elite’ – which is taking place alongside an imperial agenda of foreign colonization and conquest – is the production of a hysterical population where polarisation of opinions and intolerance toward opposition is a symptom of that social hystericisation. If left unremedied, such conditions are suitable for some form of violent revolution in the United States that will inevitably lead to totalitarianism, i.e. pathocracy.

One of the key reasons that such social hystericisation occurs, as Lobaczewski describes, is the lack of psychological knowledge among the majority of the population. During years of ‘good times’ – people seem to lose the ability to discern evil from good; they start to treat everyone the same, when the biological reality of this planet is this: not all human beings are born the same, nor do they all have the same ‘basically good’ intentions. To treat a psychopath as if they were a normal human being is a mistake that the psychopath will take advantage of, to the misfortune of the non-psychopath.

Interactions with psychopaths need to be considered in the same way as an interaction with a dangerous, wild, predatory animal, i.e. avoidance if possible, but absolute commitment to self-defence if required. And they most certainly shouldn’t be put into positions of responsibility over others – especially representative political office! If, for some reason, circumstances place you in confrontation with a psychopath, ultimately the only thing that will protect you is psychological knowledge – understanding how they act and think, and how you act and think. Sharing your observations with others and getting their feedback also helps. There are many good books available on the subject of psychopaths.[2]

Identity politics isn’t just stupid; it’s dangerous. By only seeing people in terms of their identity groups, all individual differences get wiped out. That means the people under the spell of identity politics are blind to the variations within their own group: the highs and lows, the good and the evil. More importantly, they can’t see it in themselves. If all that matters is “my group”, and the enemy of my group is your group, the problem is obviously not any individuals in my group or your group, it is your group. Full stop. And if your group is my group’s enemy, the only solution is to neutralize or destroy your group. That’s what the Nazis did to their “identity-group” enemies. That’s what the Bolsheviks did to their class enemies. The results were not “social justice”; they were blood, gore, and mass murder.

“My group good, your group evil” is the political equivalent of mental retardation. All it does is make it open season for the psychopaths in the “good group” to run the show while the naive SJWs let out the worst aspects of their personalities without any insight or self-control. If that sounds like your ideal vision of the future, by all means, go full SJW.

References:

  1. Curry & Laws (2016), From IT Pro to Cloud Pro, p. 62.
  2. Cleckley (1988), The Mask Of Sanity; Hare (1999), Without Conscience; Salter (2004), Predators, Pedophiles & Rapists; Stout (2006), The Sociopath Next Door; Babiak & Hare (2007), Snakes In Suits.

Australia – Goodbye Internet Privacy, Hello Police State

posted in: The Bigger Picture | 0
[Note – This was originally published at Sott.net – reposted here with permission.]

The "Five Eyes" governments.

It hasn’t been a Good News Week over the last seven days in Australia. You all remember us, right? We may be on the other side of the world, way down under, and not very significant politically, but as a vassal of the American empire, what happens down here is usually pretty indicative of what’s happening in the rest of the “international community”. So let’s see what this latest week had in store for us.

On Friday morning, the 14th of July, the prime minister of the ‘Lucky Country’ informed the multiverse that math was no longer relevant in Australia. Here’s the quote:

Malcolm Turnbull: “Well the laws of Australia prevail in Australia I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.

Apparently, laws written by politicians and enforced by judges and juries, can somehow overrule basic mathematical concepts such as “1+1=2”, proven in the early 20th century and documented in the Principia Mathematica by Whitehead & Russell, and intuitively known by humans for millennia if not longer. Clearly, Malcolm Turnbull has joined the neocon “reality creator” club, where a person can just “act” and the rest of us can then “judiciously” study the ‘reality’ they just supposedly created. The laws of government trump those that govern reality. Obviously.

The larger agenda behind this bizarrely stupid comment concerns the security agencies of the “Five Eyes” governments and their desire to remove the last vestiges of privacy from the Internet, and thus hopefully achieve “full spectrum dominance” in the face of an empowered Eurasia.

On Friday, the government unveiled plans to introduce legislation this year that would force internet companies to assist law enforcement in decrypting messages sent with end-to-end encryption.The package will also contain authority for the Australian Federal Police to “remotely monitor computer networks and devices”, a power currently possessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and force handset makers to help authorities break into devices they sell.

End-to-end encryption is exactly what the name suggests – encryption that secures the communication from the point of transmission from one participant to the point of reception for all others, and vice versa. If the communication is facilitated by intermediaries, all those intermediaries will see will be encrypted data, with no way for any of them to obtain the information in the communication. Popular software such as “Signal”, “Telegram”, and even Apple’s proprietary iMessage software use end-to-end encryption to preserve the integrity and privacy of the information their users receive and transmit.

The complex mathematics that encryption is based upon make it very difficult to ‘unscramble’ a ‘scrambled’ message via automated, sequential calculation in a reasonable amount of time – unless you have the ‘password’ (or ‘key’) that simplifies the ‘unscrambling’ (decryption) process. As the computation capabilities of modern computers have rapidly increased over the last few decades, encryption methods have needed to change in order to prevent unauthorised decryption from becoming something that could be accomplished quickly. There are also ways to analyse cryptographic methods (algorithms) in order to ?nd ‘short-cuts’ through the mathematics that don’t require massive repetitions of calculations in order to decrypt encrypted messages. This is commonly referred to as ‘breaking’ or ‘cracking’ the algorithm. MD5 and SHA-1 are examples of two common, long-standing cryptographic functions that have been made insecure by advances in mathematical knowledge. The debate over whether ‘uncrackable’ cryptography is a fantasy is a long-standing one, and beyond the scope of this article.

Regardless of what Australian PM “Trumble”, as he was famously called by Sean Spicer (or “Tru?es” as he’s also known in Australia) may think, what they are attempting to achieve is insanely difficult. Australian Attorney­ General (and apparent ?aming psychopath) George Brandis stated to the prime minister that he was informed by the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) intelligence agency that the government’s plan to bust encrypted messages is possible:

“Last Wednesday, I met with the chief cryptographer at GCHQ … and he assured me this was feasible. What the government is proposing to do is to impose upon the companies an obligation conditioned by reasonableness and proportionality.” Brandis said that if the companies that are compelled by these laws disagree, then he will see them in court.

Clearly, the tech giants aren’t impressed, because only a few hours after this statement, Facebook issued a response saying“Weakening encrypted systems for them [police] would mean weakening it for everyone” and “[there is] a protocol in place to respond to [law enforcement] requests where we can.” Apple declined to even comment on the matter. Having stood up to the FBI over national-security-related bullying in the San Bernardino false-?ag terror case, it’s unlikely that Apple (or any other major tech company) will even pause stride at the Trumble government’s announcement.

That being said, is there any truth to the GCHQ chief cryptographer’s advice to Brandis? It would be stupid to assume that Brandis did not ?rst check with Australian security agencies (ASIO, and possibly the ASD) to verify the claims made by GCHQ before the government potentially opened themselves to a public ?ght that could make them look like clueless retards and put the ?nal nail into the co?n of their government. This means we can reasonably conclude that the Aussie ‘deep state’ is in accord with its UK kindred, and most likely the rest of the “Five Eyes” group as well. And who invented these near-ubiquitous encryption algorithms? The NSA of course – part of the infamous US ‘deep state’!

What it all boils down to is this: if the government and tech companies can bypass encryption, that essentially means the encryption is not really encryption. And when one person or organization can bypass it, someone else can too. And that defeats the purpose of encryption entirely, which is to protect the privacy of the average citizen. If you think privacy isn’t important, next time you’re talking to a friend or family member on the phone, imagine if the conversation was being automatically listened to by a government official. How does that make you feel?

So, if the Masters of Encryption need to show the Tech Giants who the real ‘boss’ is by publicly humiliating them through triggering their ‘secret weapon’ of ?awed encryption of their own creation, surely they risk a) causing massive disruption to the infrastructure of the Internet (and any commerce that depends on it) and b) losing a key strategic advantage in surveillance technology – after all, the “190 Eyes” of the rest of the world will immediately shift to a different technology to secure their systems, and may become opaque to the “Five”.

Thus, if they intend to do so, they must see a benefit to be had after emerging from such chaos. And if such a bene?t exists, why have they not put this strategy into motion already? There are several converging factors to consider here:

  1. The US Petrodollar is collapsing, and as a result, so is the US economy.
  2. The US is being militarily stymied in its quest for resource dominance in the Middle East.
  3. Russian and Chinese high-tech industries are beginning to catch up to (and even exceed) those in the US.
  4. Years of cyber attacks against Russian infrastructure have been yielding no results, and Russian cyber security may actually be superior to US cyber warfare capabilities.
  5. The current US Trump Administration is openly defiant of attempts to have democratic processes and leadership roles in the US manipulated in the customary way.
  6. Solar Systemic Changes producing a global climate shift have been underway for decades, and the e?ects of drastic climate rebalancing may soon become more palpable to all across the world, potentially causing mass social upheaval in the most inequitable countries.

Another data point is what the Australian PM did next. On Monday morning, the 17th, he announced:

changes to the “call out” powers which will empower the military to join local police in confronting terror threats and grant special forces the ability to shoot-to-kill. […] Australian barrister and spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance Greg Barns likened the new military powers legislation to “martial law”, when military control is imposed over civilian government during war. “Martial law, from Malcolm Turnbull, who last week said the Liberal Party stood for freedom”. Former Department of Defence secretary Paul Barrett also took to social media to warn Australians of his concerns over what he interpreted as “very dangerous legislation”.

Malcolm Turnbull fronting a press conference in Australia to announce fascist new legislation.

© The Sydney Morning Herald

Announced in front of heavily-armed, gas mask-clad Special Forces troops (the photos speak for themselves), not even two days after the shooting death of an Australian woman by trigger-happy police in the US, the new laws take all the worst aspects of militarized policing directly from France & the US, e?ectively giving Australian troops legal immunity if they were ever ordered to kill Australian citizens.

Picture of Justine Damond from Australia shot by US police on Daily Telegraph front page.

Not surprisingly, the Australian mainstream media responded with… nothing. Or rather, just brief reports of the main facts before pointedly moving on to other stories. Even most of the alt-media was fairly quiet. Of course, they didn’t have much time to re?ect upon it, because with a “one-two” that would have made Muhammad Ali proud, Trumble was back in front of the cameras the next day to announce the formation of Australia’s new Gestap… err… “Department of Home A?airs”. It seems “Home O?ce” and “Homeland Security” were already taken.

Paramilitary force in Australia

Actually, “Home A?airs” is an appropriate name, because it re?ects the kind of adulterous relationship the Australian government has with its ex (the UK government) and legal partner (the US government). Australia will happily bend over whenever the US asks, but it seems like it just has to run back to the UK every so often for a bit of that “sti? upper lovin’ “, as former avowed Republican Turnbull did just the previous week. I guess he and his compadres needed some advice.

The new ministerial portfolio of ‘Home Affairs’ is a merger of oversight responsibilities for no less than six existing agencies – the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, and the Office of Transport Security.

The entity placed in charge of this new behemoth security apparatus was none other than former Minister for Immigration, Peter Dutton. Overseas readers may be familiar with his name – he has been responsible (in recent years) for destroying Australia’s international reputation and overseeing the crushing of all hope of refugees in the Australian deterrence… sorry… ‘detention’ centres of Manus Island & Nauru, a role where he committed such devoted acts of service as:

As David Donovan at Independent Australia writes:

“…there simply couldn’t be a better person for the role of running Australia’s new Austasi. As a former Queensland drug cop who quite unsuspiciously became extremely wealthy soon after leaving the force, there is no reason whatsoever to fear he may use his position for his own benefit. Perish the thought! His incorruptibility is, as we all know, legendary. And, of course, he will be ?rm but fair – as shown by his sensitive and not at all human rights abusing tenure overlooking Australia’s overseas refugee holiday camps.”


Sarah Smith, also at Independent Australia, writes:

Refugee advocates have long-warned that what the Government sees ?t to do to refugees, they are capable of doing to Australians. Still, we were not joined in the streets by millions protesting the detention and deportation of people who – just like them – called Australia home. The protests numbered only in the thousands and, when this was seen to be insufficient to sway the government to end their inhumane policies, the numbers did not grow. So perhaps it is ?tting that on this, the four year anniversary of a decision that has caused suicides, deaths from medical negligence, physical and psychological impairment, and has been described as “inhuman” by the United Nations, we are now party to a new decision. A decision that will a?ect all of us and, if it doesn’t personally cost us our liberty or our lives, has the potential to do so for our families, our friends, our teachers, our students, our neighbours and our colleagues.”

Ominously, these rapid-?re blitzkriegs on freedom in Australia were marked by another set of seemingly unrelated events. Two sitting senators for the Green party, widely recognised as excellent, intelligent individuals and each unique among their peers in the Upper House of the Australian Parliament, were forced to resign suddenly when it was discovered that they held dual citizenship of Australia and a second country.

Section 44 of the Australian Constitution forbids dual-national citizens from taking up a post as an elected Member of Parliament in Australia, so there was no legal uncertainty about the situation. Normally such details are checked by multiple people (assistants, lawyers, etc.) in major political parties, but the oversight has cost them and their country dearly. Both were the co-deputy leaders of their party. Richard Di Natale, leader of the Greens, the party that represents the environment in Australian politics, temporarily stands alone while new deputies are appointed and replacement Senators found for the vacated seats.

Significantly, one of the former senators, Scott Ludlam, was considered to be one of the most knowledgeable politicians in Parliament regarding the Internet and Information Technology – he announced his retirement the same day that Malcolm Turnbull (widely viewed as one of the primary saboteurs of the Labor-party­-designed National Broadband Network) announced that the Laws of mathematics were irrelevant when it came to law in Australia.

The other former senator, Larissa Waters, made headlines not long ago by becoming the ?rst Australian MP to breastfeed her baby daughter, Alia Joy Waters, while delivering an address to the Senate. She was generally applauded for this courageous act.


Malcom Turnbull’s placing of Peter Dutton in a position of such power is an egregious mistake that he will live to regret. Andrew Lobaczewski, in his seminal work Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes made the following observation about leaders of totalitarian regimes, but the main point applies just as well to the government of Australia:

“An observer watching such a union’s [the current Australian LNP government] activities from the outside and using the natural psychological world view will always tend to overestimate the role of the leader and his allegedly autocratic function. The spellbinders and the propaganda apparatus are mobilized to maintain this erroneous outside opinion.”

Many Australians fervently believe that their Prime Minister holds absolute power as the head of government, and to a certain extent, the mainstream media support this current delusion. Since 2009 though, awareness is creeping in that political parties in Australia have the power to ‘chop and change’ their leader at will, and this has been observed numerous times since Kevin Rudd was deposed as PM in 2010 – he ousted Julia Gillard a few years later, then Tony Abbott was dispatched similarly after winning government for the LNP. Media (even mainstream media) speculation has been rife that Turnbull’s current grip on power is shaky at best, but no obvious usurper has been identified yet.

“The leader, however, is dependent upon the interests of the union, especially the elite initiates, to an extent greater than he himself knows. He wages a constant position-jockeying battle; he is an actor with a director. In macrosocial unions, this position is generally occupied by a more representative individual not deprived of certain critical faculties; initiating him into all those plans and criminal calculations would be counterproductive.”

One of the reasons Turnbull was able to seize power from Abbott was that he was able to convince the majority of the LNP that he represented a ‘moderate’, ‘rational’, and ‘sensible’ approach compared with the idiotic extremism of Tony Abbott, a man who humiliated his country and even more so himself, by threatening to “shirtfront” Vladimir Putin at the G20 meeting of 2015 when it was held in Brisbane. Arguably, that was the foolhardy move that ?nished Abbott’s short-lived career as Australian PM.

Turnbull has always been considered a ‘leftist among conservatives’ in the LNP, based on his Republican movement background, ‘scientific’ approach to climate change (according to the mainstream perspective), and super?cial grasp of technology issues. Although this gave him (and the government) a large popularity boost when he took over from Abbott, he has repeatedly been manipulated into making bad decisions that have possibly eroded his ability to truly assert himself as a leader strong enough to control the extremist elements in his ponerized party. With this latest series of announcements, he seems to have crossed a certain threshold of delusion, and appears to be embracing (and publicly expounding) pathological ideas.

“In conjunction with part of the elite, a group of psychopathic individuals hiding behind the scenes steers the leader, the way Bormann and his clique steered Hitler. If the leader does not fulfill his assigned role, he generally knows that the clique representing the elite of the union is in a position to kill or otherwise remove him.”

Turnbull appears to be quite aware of this now. His pronouncements and press conferences have taken on the tone of someone who is saying what he believes he should say, rather than what he thinks. Unfortunately, his delusions and lack of knowledge are blinding him to the fact that only those with bonafide psychopathy are considered to be candidates for the ‘elite’ within a pathocracy, and so he will never be told the full story. He will be used as a puppet, and discarded once he is no longer of value to them. Perhaps he has been held hostage to the nutjobs within his party for so long now that he has developed some sort of political ‘Stockholm Syndrome’. In any case, his critical thinking abilities seem to have atrophied to the point where it is unlikely he will ever achieve what he had hoped to by becoming prime minister.

And the spider, Peter Dutton, appears to have received the ‘nod’ from the elites within the party to proceed with the hidden agenda of ‘reforming’ Australia’s security apparatus and bending it to their will, so that Australian citizens will soon wake up to ?nd themselves in a similar sort of situation as their UK siblings – spied upon at every turn, intimidated into self-censorship, blasted continually with propaganda, and manipulated into proceeding down the path that is planned for them: focusing their attention on the goals and outcomes that the so-called ‘elites’ desire, one of which is to continue to turn public opinion against both Russia and China.

But Russia has already called the empire’s blu? militarily. The likelihood of an all-out ‘scorched earth’ nuclear war has come and gone with Hillary Clinton. Faced with the failure of their keystone ‘regime change’ foreign policy in Syria, Iran, and North Korea (by which they attempted to contain, isolate, besiege, and dominate Russia & China), the Project for a New American Century, and the neoconservatives behind it, are ?nished. With the recent death of Zbigniew Brezinski, one of the masterminds of anti-Russian geopolitical strategy is gone. Is it simply coincidence that John McCain, one of the chief neocon warmongers in the US government, was just diagnosed with brain cancer? There have been renewed calls for Tony Blair to be held accountable for war crimes in Iraq, and John Howard receives criticism every time he makes a public appearance in Australia.

So what is the empire’s ‘Plan B’?

Thus we return to the subject of encryption, and the converging factors that point to a reaction by the “Five Eyes” into making ?nal preparations to ‘pull the trigger’ on their Information ‘secret weapon’: to remove e?ective encryption capabilities for private citizens while simultaneously creating vulnerabilities in systems all around the world that could be quickly exploited to further a coordinated agenda. What comprises such an agenda might be highly speculative, but consider that with the moves in the West toward cashless economies, an automated workforce, and militarised police states, a situation noted by many alt-­media commentators and writers may be plausible: that a ‘global economic reset’ is in the works. And consider that without encryption, or more specifically, the commercial con?dence that encryption enables, blockchain-based virtual currencies such as BitCoin will become useless.

Given the sudden development of an economic collapse, the U.S. ‘deep state’ would only need to activate such a plan, and not only would it disrupt global encrypted communications using the trojan protocols, but the ?nancial consequences would be magni?ed many times over, and it could all be blamed upon ‘cybercrime activity by mysterious hacker groups’ with ridiculous names and unlikely origins. Note how many sets of military-grade cyber-weaponry have made it into the public domain over the last few years via ‘leaks’.

While such a ‘bigger picture’ is highly speculative, the prognosis for Australia is, sadly, less speculative. Rather than embracing the opportunities o?ered by an empowered Eurasia, the Turnbull government, in thrall to its security agencies (and those of the UK and the USA), has once again doubled-down on the failed policies of a dying empire. Rather than foreswearing the “Five Eyes” and charting their own course, it seems Australian politicians are too addicted to power and cheap spy novels to make sensible and rational decisions.

Perhaps, after a little more time, experience and of course suffering, the Australian people will understand the nature of the creatures that currently occupy their Parliament, and choose to do something about it.

The United States vs Angela Merkel: Deutsche Bank Crisis a Lunatic Game of ‘Chicken’?

posted in: The Bigger Picture | 0

German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Over the last week, media analysts and commentators have been sounding the alarm over the financial position of Deutsche Bank, the third-largest bank in the EU economy and 11th largest bank in the world.

Deutsche Bank’s shares plunged to record lows this week, sparking talk of a government bailout to avert a new financial crash. The turmoil surrounding Germany’s biggest bank demonstrates that all of the contradictions of the global financial system that led to the meltdown of 2008 are once again erupting. Now, however, these contradictions are fuelling and intersecting with economic and political tensions between the major powers. These geo-political conflicts are, in turn, intensifying the financial crisis.

The financial position of Deutsche Bank has been of concern for a number of years, with the International Monetary Fund saying last June that it appeared to be “the most important net contributor to systemic risks in the global financial system.”

It appears for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, that ‘what goes around comes around’ after the German crushing of the Greek economy last year. Now, it appears, the boot is on the US’ foot, and they are lining up a significant kick in the pants for Ms Merkel and the German government. The point of contention? Allegedly, corrupt trading practises by Deutsche Bank (DB) regarding the sub-prime mortgage market that contributed to significant problems with the US economy during the 2008/09 global financial crisis. The US Department of Justice announced a $14 billion fine of DB as punitive measures for the company’s criminal behaviour, but the bank claims that they should be able to settle, like other banks have previously, for much less than the declared amount.

Seemingly conf[i]rming the rumor, Agence France Press reports that Deutsche Bank is nearing a $5.4 billion settlement with the US Justice Department. This has catalyzed another leg higher in Deutsche Bank stock and lifted the whole market [this occurred on Friday, last stock-trading day for the week]

Anyone who has been paying any kind of serious attention to what has been happening in world financial markets over the last twenty years knows that the entire system is a complete cesspit of corruption, graft, and outright theft, with regulatory bodies like the US DOJ issuing only token fines and punishments in their role as PR managers for the banks’ outright looting of the population’s wealth & assets. As the real economy has continued to decline however, less and less profits are being extracted from the public despite the greed of the psychopathic banking cabals growing ever-more expansive.

That greed has resulted in large-scale treaty frameworks such as the TPP and TTIP – treaties designed to strip away sovereign rights of member countries and translate that reduced sovereignty into increased profits for transnational corporations (primarily US ones) for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, despite their psychopathic Trojan-horse members of various governments, the implementation of these two treaties appears to have stalled – most notably the TTIP in Europe, where the German Deputy Chancellor recently publicly stated:

“Negotiations with the United States have de facto failed, because we, as Europeans, must not bow to American demands,” Gabriel said according to an excerpt of an interview with the German public broadcaster ZDF.

The French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, expressed similar sentiments back in late June:

France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls has dismissed the possibility of an agreement on the US-EU transatlantic trade deal, since it goes against the interests of the European Union.
“No free trade agreement should be concluded if it does not respect EU interests. Europe should be firm. France will be vigilant about this,” Valls said addressing members of the governing Socialist Party on Sunday, AFP reported.

“I can tell you frankly, there cannot be a transatlantic treaty agreement. This agreement is not on track,” Valls added.

So now, with the TTIP looking virtually dead & cremated, and the anglo-American empire’s conquest projects faltering in Syria & the rest of the Middle East, the political and economic ‘elite’ of the US appears to have decided that it was time to send a message to German government to ‘get onboard’ with the imperial treaty arrangements, lest they get any ideas about ‘pivoting’ towards any of their more regional economic trading partners, let’s say, Russia.

The US DOJ declared fine for DB, $14 billion, is actually more than the bank’s capital assets – meaning that DB might literally not be able to pay such a fine without going bankrupt.

Media and market actors immediately began speculation about a ‘bailout’ of the bank by the German government, but Angela Merkel has allegedly denied any such possibility. Since then, DB shares have taken a massive slide over the last week, with good analysis by market-watchers Tyler Durden, Michael Snyder and Max Keiser:

The biggest confidence-shaker in the bank appears to be recent moves by several hedge funds to both withdraw assets from, and place ‘short bets’ against, the beleaguered bank.

Meanwhile, several large hedge funds have pulled billions of dollars in assets from the bank. A number also are betting the stock will fall, known as short bets. Those that have disclosed short positions include Marshall Wace LLP, Discovery Capital Management LLC and Highfields Capital Management LP, according to filings.

Marshall Wace first declared a short position in Deutsche Bank in February. By Tuesday, it had doubled its bet, although this was cut back Thursday. Discovery first disclosed a position at the start of August and increased it late that month, while Highfields first disclosed a position in July, which it quickly increased.

AQR Capital Management LLC, which has $159 billion in assets, disclosed that it had a short position in Deutsche Bank on Wednesday, according to a filing made public by the German regulator on Thursday. AQR also was among a number of funds that have recently taken steps to withdraw securities or cash from the bank, or dial back their trading activities, the Journal reported Thursday.

Hedge funds’ bets against the troubled German lender have been cranked up in recent days, according to the filings, although they are still below levels hit earlier this summer.

Commentary on social media platform Twitter regarding the bank has been trending upwards, with the hashtag #DeutscheBank getting significant discussion.  With some of that discussion revolving around a possible “bail-in” of the bank (a bail-in is where a bank unilaterally seizes some of its depositors’ funds in order to remain viable), and public interest in the issue building, the bank now risks a serious run on its depositors’ assets – those providing the underlying capital for the bank to be able to function at all.

DB will be protected to some extent by the fact that Monday is a bank holiday in Germany, so depositors will be unable to make significant withdrawals of assets, but this could work against it also, in that more time is available for the information about the parlous state of the bank to become public – heightening the ability of DB customers to become aware enough to do what they should have already done some time ago – get their assets out.

With rumours and false rumours of a potential settlement with the US DOJ going around (AFP reported a false story that claimed the settlement would actually be around $5.4 billion), new information has just emerged detailing six current and former DB managers charged in Italy over falsifying the accounts of Italy’s third-largest bank, Monte Paschi.

Just as importantly, the firms are also named as defendants in the indictment, as the Italian law provides for a direct liability of legal entities for certain crimes committed by their representatives. Which means even more legal charges, fines and settlements are looking likely in DB’s future.

Although it is unlikely that this latest criminal prosecution was coordinated with Washington, it seems that the US pathocracy is sending a message to the German government, daring them to a ‘game of chicken’ where the US can potentially bankrupt DB, or not, depending on whether Germany signals it will move forward with implementing the TTIP, or not. Such a signal would likely consist of the Germans providing a state-sponsored bailout for DB, in direct contradiction to their stated principles and past positions on bailouts – most notably and visibly with regard to the Greek government last year.

Presumably, if the German govt ‘eats sufficient crow’ and shows the US empire that they are willing to go against the overwhelming public support they have on the issue and do their bidding, the US DOJ will then magnanimously provide a light ‘tap on the wrist’ (not even a ‘slap’) to DB by massively reducing the amount of their fine. This will no doubt preserve DB (and the European markets) in the immediate short term, but cause increased financial hardship to Europe by further delaying and worsening the eventually-inevitable results of decades-(even centuries-) long financial mismanagement.

With other world markets open for business as usual on Monday, the pressure will no doubt continue to increase on DB until either the German govt caves in to the US, or DB fails, causing what could become a systemic crash of the Western (read: anglo-American) financial system. The ‘Greek Chorus’ of the Western financial media is already beginning to display a unanimous narrative in recommending that Germany must bail out DB.

The question is: Does Ms Merkel have the leadership capability and strength of will to do what she has overwhelming public support to do – face down the terrorist anglo-US empire threatening to bring down the majority of Europe’s economy if it does not get its way regarding the undemocratic and freedom-gutting TTIP?

We can only hope so. The next week promises to be extremely enlightening.

The Multicultural Roots of Australia

posted in: The Bigger Picture | 0

multicultural_oz

Once again it is Australia Day, and once again, various commentators are extolling the virtues of flags and barbecues while ignoring Australia’s criminal treatment of refugees on Christmas Island, Manus Island and Nauru. A particularly heart-wrenching video was recently published showing young children begging for release from captivity, describing the abuse and neglect they have been suffering for years while a pusillanimous bureaucracy has mostly ignored their plight and a pathological government has used them as a political weapon to divide the public and bolster support from racist authoritarian followers and naive idiots. The right-wing mainstream media has been following in lockstep with the government, catapulting propaganda at the domestic population and attempting to marginalise voices of compassion and empathy that dare to dissent against unjust and illegal policies.

 

If we peel back the layers of ideology though, we can ask the question: are these maneuvers doomed to fail in the long-term? A recently released video by BuzzFeed Australia highlights some interesting demographics of the Australian population, and shows that the racist governing tactics of an outdated, crumbling elitist structure are becoming increasingly less relevant to this outpost colony on the fringes of the anglo-American empire the more time passes.

 

 

As we can see, the notion of ‘white Australia’ is a pathetic anachronism that should be discarded by any clear-thinking individual. Geographically, and geo-strategically, Australia sits an ocean away from the centre of the empire, and economically, her major trading partners are located on the Eurasian continent, which is taking its rightful place in the 21st century as the continent that will steer the course of the future of the new multi-polar world order. China, for all the media fanfare about its economic ‘downfall’ since the beginning of 2016, is still expected to grow its economy by a ‘mere’ 6%, in contrast to the outlooks for the economies of the major imperial nations that present at ‘~2%’ (and that’s notwithstanding the potential for a complete collapse of the western economic system). India has not yet even begun to tap its economic potential (and is projected to grow by 5.2% in 2016), and the Russian economy will rebound strongly once the price of oil rises as predicted later this year.

The Eurasian Economic Union is moving from strength to strength, with even pathological nations like Israel seeking to sign free-trade zone agreements with it. And let’s not forget that Iran, having just disposed of sanctions that have artificially suppressed its economic growth for years, will be part of the ‘New Silk Road’ initiative that China is promoting as a potential economic juggernaut across Eurasia. Oh, and did I mention that the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank just opened for business this month?

Yes ladies & gentlemen, Eurasian integration is proceeding at a pace now that may soon go exponential.

Australia, for all its faults, has good relations with many of these countries. The recent entry into force of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (or ChAFTA, for short) has seen a massive groundswell of interest from all sectors of the economy, China being Australia’s major trading partner by a significant margin. Chinese tourism to Australia has also become a noteworthy economic earner for the country, and is expected to become even more so into the second-half of this decade.

Australia’s treatment of refugees and aboriginals are the major ‘black spots’ (no pun intended) on Australia’s international political reputation, although the various Middle-East wars we entered into at the orders of the empire have no doubt tarnished us somewhat as well. We need to address these.

Much is made of Australia’s multiculturalism by the nation’s ‘left’, with good reason. According to Wikipedia, Australia and Switzerland are the two countries with the highest proportion of immigrants in the western world. In Australia, 28.1% of the population was born outside of the country according to 2014 figures. Out of the top-ten countries for immigration, only 10% of that 28% can be considered to be from traditionally ethnically ‘white’ countries.

Of course, this doesn’t take into account multi-generational immigrant ethnicities. Nor does it take into account those of native aboriginal ancestry, who make up approximately 3-4% of the Australian population.

Sorry, ‘white’ Australians: we’re in the minority.

Of course, when ethnically ‘white’ people run most of the corporations and hold most of the political power, and have done since the colonisation of the continent, you can understand why some white people might have the perception that they ‘own’ the country. But possessive, greedy arseholes aren’t uniquely white. They’re found in all ethnicities around the world. As are psychopaths, who are attracted to money & power like moths to a flame.

It is an interesting question as to whether ‘white’ ethnicities contain a higher percentage of psychopaths in their populations than other ethnic groups. Most evidence to support this idea (such as the vast majority of serial killers being white) is circumstantial and anecdotal. More research needs to be done. Many of history’s greatest scientists and humanitarians have also been white, so this is clearly a complex issue that relates more to human biology and genetics than skin colour.

The various historical, biological and psychological reasons for ‘white privilege’ in Australia aside, the reality of our current demographic, economic and geostrategic status shows that Australia has many ethnic and cultural ties to many regional and global countries that could translate into a bonanza of economic and diplomatic benefits that would substantially grow the nation’s ‘soft power’.

For instance, did you know that many Chinese gold miners fought alongside Australians (and others) at the Eureka stockade? That martial arts legend Jackie Chan got his first name from the nickname “Little Jack” that he was given working as a construction worker in Canberra? Or that an Indian migrant named Pankaj Oswal became one of Australia’s billionaires? That at least a thousand Russian migrants were part of the ‘Diggers’ that fought in WWI (at least 150 fought at Gallipoli), and that there were more Russians in the army at that time than any other nationality except for Irish, British, and Australian?

Interesting, huh!

The rich, shared cultural heritage of this nation makes us potentially one of the best mediators in international affairs and diplomacy – just look at the reputation Switzerland built up by maintaining a policy of strict neutrality in conflicts (mostly). Sure, we might not have the biggest military or nuclear weapons, but we don’t need either if we make cooperation the keystone of our foreign policy.

On the subject of the armed forces, despite the Australian military’s historical reputation, the size of other regional military forces compared to ours makes conventional warfare a non sequitur in any large-scale conflict. The pursuit of ‘hard power’ is simply not a viable strategic option for Australia – and we have neither the population nor the economy to support it.

Of course, the nature of a pathocracy overrules such rational considerations. Military alliances are forged as an instrument of politics, and when politics is corrupted by psychopaths acting in the interests of themselves and their kind, the pragmatic pursuit of national interests tends to become a secondary concern. The agents of the empire have dictated the course of Australia’s foreign policy since at least the end of the Whitlam era. While a ‘pivot to Eurasia’ might be the most logical course, we should not expect the current power structure in Canberra to act decisively, or even reasonably.

Our current immigration policy is proof of this. Locking refugees (including women and children) up on island prisons for years while enriching private security corporations (whose employees rape and abuse the people they are supposed to be helping) at taxpayers’ expense really does point to a terminally-corrupt system that will only change when it is made to change.

As psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski wrote, about psychopaths in positions of power:

The following questions thus suggest themselves: what happens if the network of understanding among psychopaths achieves power in leadership positions with international exposure? This can happen, especially during the later phases of the phenomenon. Goaded by their character, such deviant people thirst for just that even though it ultimately conflicts with their own life interest, and so they are removed by the less pathological, more logical wing of the ruling apparatus. Such deviants do not understand that a catastrophe would otherwise ensue. Germs are not aware that they will be burned alive or buried deep in the ground along with the human body whose death they are causing.

Australia, we need to speak up en-masse about the inhuman and illegal policies of this government, or the likelihood is that events will follow the trajectory of the United States, the UK, and Europe: towards increasingly racist and xenophobic rhetoric by public figures and politicians, false-flags attacks that induce public compliance, the further legislative removal of what remaining freedoms we have, and ultimately, a fascist dictatorship run by a shadow government full of psychopathic perverts.

All done in the name of “keeping us safe”.

If, for some reason, that doesn’t sound bad enough, then consider what happened to the outposts of the Roman empire as the empire fell. Consider what happened to Nazi Germany in 1945 and their leaders at the Nuremberg trials. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

So, spend some time to think today about the plight of those refugees waiting on Christmas Island, Manus Island, and Nauru, and consider that their best interests may also be in Australia’s best interests. What kind of country would you like them to come to?

Happy Australia Day.

Doubletalk

posted in: The Bigger Picture | 0

bizarroworld

Earlier this year, acclaimed author, historian, and general all-around polymath Laura Knight-Jadczyk wrote an extremely interesting article entitled “Bizzaro World“. In it, she discusses the concept of doublespeak and doubletalk, described with those names by George Orwell and Andrew Lobaczewski respectively in their writings:

Doublethink leads us to ‘Doublespeak’ which does not actually appear in Orwell’s book [1984] though he did talk about it in his essays “Politics and the English Language“, where he says “unscrupulous politicians, advertisers, religionists, and other doublespeakers of whatever stripe continue to abuse language for manipulative purposes”. 5

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms”. 6

“Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., “downsizing” for layoffs, “servicing the target” for bombing[Pentagon Is Given an Award, but It’s No Prize”. The New York Times. November 24, 1991.]), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war “peace”). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language.” 7

Edward S. Herman, political economist and media analyst, describes in his book, Beyond Hypocrisy the principal characteristics of doublespeak:

“What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.” 8

In his seminal work, Political Ponerology,14 psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski discusses the issue of what he terms “Doubletalk” at various points in his text. The first mention of the term comes in the section on Ideology where he notes that a group – any group and that includes national governments, international organizations, religions, etc – that has been infiltrated by pathological individuals, begins by gradually adapting the primary ideology and goals from the original formative ones, to what usually are completely opposite purposes. In other words, it can be a transformation of Earth to ‘Htrea’ – Bizarro World. This process leads to a sort of layering, or schizophrenia of ideology. The outer layer, or circle, still adheres to the original content that was advertised at the beginning as the group’s purposes; this layer is aimed at the lower-echelon members and the public. But within the inner circles, the core of the group, it is completely understood that the words have different meanings; that identical names signify different content. Lobaczewski notes that this very duality of language is a symptom of the transformation of the group into a Bizarro World. Lobaczewski notes:

“Doubletalk is only one of many symptoms. Others are the specific facility for producing new names which have suggestive effects and are accepted virtually uncritically…” [p. 191]

He then notes that there are certain characteristics that are additional symptoms of the pathological nature of such a group:

“We must thus point out the paramoralistic character and paranoidal qualities frequently contained within these names. The action of paralogisms and paramoralisms in this deformed ideology… Anything which threatens pathocratic rule becomes deeply immoral.” [p. 191]

Doubletalk can take many forms, ranging from the more benign, like puns and double entendres, to the more sinister, such as equivocation and insinuation. Anyone with any kind of observant mind these days will have assuredly noticed the verbal torrents of doubletalk that spew forth from the mouths of Western politicians. But it’s not just politicians. Deviant ‘humans’ of all stripe occupy positions in fields of science, media, industry, healthcare, academia… and they all operate under a shared assumption – the assumption that those ‘others’ (i.e. normal human beings with feelings) must be destroyed, dominated, or at the very least, controlled.

And doubletalk is a principal means of control for them – the “sound and fury, signifying nothing” that spreads the confusion, doubt and plausible lies that can cause naive human beings to act contrary to their own best interests. For example, on the subject of Syria, US president Barack Obama recently stated:

The Russians now have been there for several weeks, over a month, and I think fair-minded reporters who looked at the situation would say that the situation hasn’t changed significantly. […]

Now, where we continue to have an ongoing difference is not on the need for a political settlement; it’s the issue of whether Mr. Assad can continue to serve as President while still bringing the civil war to an end.  It’s been my estimation for five years now that that’s not possible.  Regardless of how you feel about Mr. Assad — and I consider somebody who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people illegitimate — but regardless of the moral equation, as a practical matter, it is impossible for Mr. Assad to bring that country together and to bring all the parties into an inclusive government.  It is possible, however, to preserve the Syrian state, to have an inclusive government in which the interests of the various groups inside of Syria are represented.

And so, as part of the Vienna process, you’re going to see the opposition groups — the moderate opposition groups that exist within Syria — some of which, frankly, we don’t have a lot in common with but do represent significant factions inside of Syria — they’ll be coming together in order for them to form at least a negotiating unit or process that can move Vienna forward.

Now, there are outright lies there – Assad killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, for instance – but the doubletalk is in the more subtle details. For instance, the adjective “fair-minded” likely means something other than the literal meaning of fair-minded, given that it is followed by a blatant lie – “the situation hasn’t changed significantly.” A truly fair-minded reporter would have to admit the situation in Syria has changed very significantly since Russia began its military campaign in Syria, not least with the recent disruption of the ISIS oil-trafficking black market to Turkey – a black market that high-level officials in the Turkish government have been involved in.

Then there are contradictory terms like “moral equation” and “moderate opposition”, as if morality could be somehow ‘calculated’ (a paramoralism itself), and alleged ‘opposition groups’ (in reality a covert proxy army of mercenaries) who start a civil war against ‘their’ government could be somehow “moderate”.

Then there is the double mention of “inclusive government” in as many sentences, a phrase which likely sounds wonderful to the Democrat party faithful in the US, but no doubt means something quite different to the US State Department.

The problem goes much deeper than that, of course – these are fairly mild examples. As to what can be done about it, Laura points to one suggestion Lobaczewski makes:

At this point, Lobaczewski makes a very useful suggestion regarding how to cope with this need to become fluent in the language of Doublespeak/Doubletalk for our own protection:

“We thus have the right to invent appropriate names which would indicate the nature of the phenomena as accurately as possible, in keeping with our recognition and respect for the laws of the scientific methodology and semantics. Such accurate terms also serve to protect our minds from the suggestive effects of those other names and paralogisms, including the pathological material the latter contain.” [p.191]

The word Lobaczewski invented to explain this field of research, ponerology, is itself an example of this principle at work. The book contains many other suggestions, but at the very least, we all need to start pointing out the doubletalk of politicians and authoritarians if we expect to have any hope of finding our way out of the Bizarro World situation in which we find ourselves.

Quick Reality Check

posted in: The Bigger Picture | 0

earth-kaboom

Okay, so here are the major world issues happening at the moment, just off the top of my head:

  • Russian bombing of ISIS/Western proxy-mercs in Syria.
  • US invasion of Syria via Special Forces.
  • Saudi Arabia’s ongoing invasion of Yemen.
  • Investigation of Russian flight 7K9268.
  • Israel continuing its ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
  • Refugee crisis in Europe.
  • US provoking China in the South China Sea.
  • Ukraine continuing to implode as a state.
  • US Police State continuing its murderous authoritarian rampage.
  • Mass shootings at colleges and universities in the US seem to have become epidemic.
  • Western public protests against injustice and the economy intensifying.
  • TPP and TTIP treaties threaten to remove more civil liberties at the behest of corporations.
  • Western spy agencies want power to see absolutely everything everyone is doing on the Internet, including banning strong encryption from consumer use.
  • Eurasian Economic Union and BRICS continue to strengthen.
  • China now positioning the Yuan as a global reserve currency.
  • First signs of a very cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere.
  • Severe earthquakes and storms continue to develop, with the occasional volcano going off as well.
  • Increased signs of meteor/fireball activity e.g. recent fireballs above Bangkok and probably flight 7K9268.

That about cover it? 🙁

 

Words and Meanings

posted in: General, The Bigger Picture | 0

Dictionary

Okay, rant time.

I have seriously had enough of the shitty examples given in the Oxford Dictionary of English that is provided as part of Apple’s “Dictionary” application in OS X. The dictionary usually has a serviceable definition of a word, but the contextual examples provided after the definition are often distorted, perverse, or just flat-out wrong.

For example: I recently looked up the Latin phrase “mutatis mutandis” to see what it meant. Here’s what the Oxford dictionary supplied:

mutatis mutandis |mu??t??t?s mu??tand?s, mju?-, -i?s|

adverb

(used when comparing two or more cases or situations) making necessary alterations while not affecting the main point at issue: what is true of undergraduate teaching in England is equally true, mutatis mutandis, of American graduate schools.

ORIGIN Latin, literally ‘things being changed that have to be changed’.

Okay, I get it – a Latin phrase that describes that two cases or situations are basically analogous, with only minor details different. Now look at the example:

what is true of undergraduate teaching in England is equally true, mutatis mutandis, of American graduate schools.

This example is completely wrong. The study towards a degree-level certification (e.g. a Bachelor of Science) is referred to as undergraduate study in both the English and American systems of education. Therefore, the main point of undergraduate teaching in England (to gain the knowledge required for a degree-level certification) is NOT THE SAME as an American graduate school – an educational institution that ALREADY REQUIRES the completion of a degree-level certification as a prerequisite for advanced studies. Thus, the example given directly contradicts the definition of the phrase.

Now, no doubt some smart-arses out there are thinking, ‘but you haven’t understood that they meant… xyz’. If so, you are completely missing the crux of the matter. The nebulous phrase “what is true of…” could apply to many aspects of both cases, and the reader is left to interpret what particular aspect of undergraduate teaching in England vs graduate teaching in America is supposed to be the “main point at issue” in order to try and reconcile the definition of the phrase with the example given so as to gain a correct understanding of the phrase “mutatis mutandis”.

The imprecision and lack of clarity in the example potentially confuses the reader, and this is something that is unprofessional, and just plain stupid from a dictionary that is supposedly the ‘gold standard’ in defining the English language.

If you think I am over-reacting, I invite you to start using the Oxford dictionary as your ‘go-to’ dictionary and enjoy the many backwards, upside-down and inside-out examples that you will absolutely encounter there, because a good example seems to be the exception, rather than the rule in it.

In truth, I got completely fed up with this a long time ago, and changed to using Webster’s 1913 Dictionary of English, one that I have discovered preserves the meaning of most common English words with precision, provides multiple examples, and is a great deal more informative than the Oxford one. The drawback is that it doesn’t contain many modern words and phrases (including common non-English words and phrases used in English) that the Oxford one has. Also, the Oxford dictionary, it has to be admitted, does include a good etymology for nearly all the words it contains.

Through using the Oxford dictionary over time though, I have received the impression from it that the editors, or at least some of them, have that supercilious, arrogant quality of many intellectuals that leads them to suppose that they are ‘teaching’ people by providing examples that lack sufficient information to logically deduce an answer, instead, creating a confusing ‘puzzle’ that requires the reader to make an inductive ‘leap’ in order to resolve contradictions. This type of attitude often seems to accompany ambiguity in speech and writing, and I would like to take this opportunity to inform such ‘individuals’ should they be reading, that true teaching involves taking responsibility for the understanding of the student, or the reader, in this case. Maximum information, precision and clarity are to be striven for with a goal of good-faith communication.

Unfortunately, such things are rarely the case with those who enjoy wordplay without giving a damn as to the potential confusion or enlightenment of those around them. Is it too cynical to wonder if certain editors at the Oxford English Dictionary are such types? Or to wonder if such behaviours betray certain psychological deformations characteristic of pathology?

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary still remains useful in some ways. I’ll probably keep using it for certain tasks for now, but I stopped using it as my ‘go-to’ dictionary a long time ago. I suggest you all do the same.

/Rant