Caller: Chad In Alaska
The Science of Mass Manipulation
through Crisis Creation
through Crisis Creation
video tutorial
US Congressional Record (1940) British-Israel-World-Government
Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife—Part I
REMARKS of HON. J. THORKELSON OF MONTANA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, August 19.1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, In order that the American people may have a clearer understanding of those who over a period of years have been undermining this Republic, in order to return it to the British Empire, I have inserted in the RECORD a number of articles to prove this point.
These articles are entitled "Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife." This is part I, and in this I include a hope expressed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in his book entitled "Triumphant Democracy." In this he expresses himself in this manner:
“Let men say what they will, I say that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, to shine upon, to greet again the reunited states—the British-American Union.”
This statement is clear, and the organizations which Mr. Carnegie endowed have spent millions in order to bring this about. This thing has been made possible by scholarships, exchange professors, subsidies of churches, subsidies of educational institutions; all of them working for the purpose of eliminating Americanism as was taught once in our schools and to gradually exchange this for an English version of our history.
These organizations were organized to bring about a British union, a union in which the United States would again become a part of the British Empire. However, this has been upset to some extent by the attempt of the internationalists to establish their own government as an International or world union. And there is, therefore, a conflict between the two, for England wants a British union, with America as a colony, and the international money changers want a Jewish controlled union, in order to establish their own world government.
It is, therefore, best for us to stay out of both of these, in order to save what is left of this Republic as it was given to us in 1787, by a people who knew more about international intrigue and the real problems that confronted the world, than we know today. These early founders not only understood the problems, but in drafting the Constitution they provided an instrument for us to follow, so that we could remain secure from foreign double-dealing and intrigue.
inculturation
• the adaptation of Christian liturgy to a non-Christian cultural background.
enculturation
The process of formally and informally learning and internalizing the prevailing values, and accepted behavioural patterns of a culture. The term is sometimes used synonymously with socialization. Sport can play a major role in enculturation.
eupraxsophy
Paul Kurtz coined the term eupraxsophy (originally eupraxophy) to refer to philosophies or lifestances such as secular humanism and Confucianism that do not rely on belief in the transcendent or supernatural. A eupraxsophy is a nonreligious lifestance or worldview emphasizing the importance of living an ethical and exuberant life, and relying on rational methods such as logic, observation and science (rather than faith, mysticism or revelation) toward that end. The word is based on the Greek words for "good", "practice", and "wisdom." Eupraxsophies, like religions, are cosmic in their outlook, but eschew the supernatural component of religion, avoiding the "transcendental temptation," as Kurtz puts it. Although critical of supernatural religion, he has attempted to develop affirmative ethical values of naturalistic humanism. Kurtz's Eupraxophy, then, is a practical analysis of morality that has much in common (if it is not identical to) the philosophy behind the science of morality.
science of morality
Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. Historically, the term was introduced by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. This position has become increasingly popular among philosophers in the last three decades.
Language lags behind science, and too frequently refuses its aid to knowledge. The innovations of philosophy upon long-received expressions are slow and difficult. Philology is apt to refuse the contributions of the other sciences. It prides itself on its poverty. And this is the more to be regretted, inasmuch as all languages had their birth in a period when moral and intellectual cultivation could only be in their infancy.
-Jeremy Bentham
The idea of a science of morality has been explored by writers like Joseph Daleiden in The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations or more recently by neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris' science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality. Harris and Daleiden chiefly argue that society should consider normative ethics to be a domain of science whose purpose amounts to the pursuit of flourishing (well-being). They add that "science" should not be so narrowly defined as to exclude important roles for any academic disciplines which base their conclusions on the weight of empirical evidence. These ideas have not seen widespread acceptance by the scientific community, have been disputed by philosophers, and continues to generate public controversy – although they have also gained some support (e.g. Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and other proponents).
Patricia Churchland sometimes refers to a neuroscience of morality in relation to her book Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality. The term "science of morality" is also sometimes used for the description of moral systems in different cultures or species. For a collection of the hypotheses of how moral intuitions are thought by some to have evolved and emerged, see moral psychology and the evolution of morality.
In sum, from the perspective of neuroscience and brain evolution, the routine rejection of scientific approaches to moral behavior based on Hume’s warning against deriving ought from is seems unfortunate, especially as the warning is limited to deductive inferences. The dictum can be set aside for a deeper, albeit programmatic, neurobiological perspective on what reasoning and problem-solving are, how social navigation works, how evaluation is accomplished by nervous systems, and how mammalian brains make decisions.
-Patricia Churchland in her book Braintrust
The idea of a normative science of morality has met with many criticisms. These critics include Sean M. Carroll, who argues that morality cannot be part of science. He and other critics cite the widely held "fact-value distinction", that the scientific method cannot answer "moral" questions, although it can describe the norms of different cultures. In contrast, moral scientists defend the position that such a division between values and scientific facts is arbitrary and illusory.
Among other methodological issues that a science of morality would need to address include the is-ought problem (i.e. Can we, in any sense, determine how people morally ought to behave based on physical facts. If so, how?). There are also questions of naturalistic fallacy, where the alleged fallacy is deriving moral claims from natural facts (although the term is sometimes used very differently: to refer to the alleged fallacy of calling behaviours that are natural to humans "moral").
http://batr.org/solitary/082411.html
BATR.org
NWO Overman is the Eupraxsophy of Transhumanism
"I think our grandparents were Victor Frankenstein. I basically am the kind of deeply unnatural creature that Mrs Shelley instinctively dreaded. I not only eat her sacred cows but I eat them with ketchup. While I take her point, I think that transgressive monstrosity and tampering with the life force are both a lot more fun than she suspected"
-Bruce Sterling
The concept of Übermensch, is a German term generally associated with a superman. This Overman concept is much more than a school of thought viewpoint. It is a nightmare of untold propositions. Paul Kurtz is editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry. He states, "There is no word in the English language that adequately conveys the meaning of secular humanism. Secular humanism is not a religion; it represents a philosophical, scientific, and ethical outlook. I have accordingly introduced a new term, eupraxsophy, in order to distinguish humanistic convictions and practices from religious systems of faith and belief.
"Max More, Ph.D. goes deeper into the construct.
"The concept of eupraxophy encompasses within it humanism, transhumanism (including Extropianism), and possible a future posthumanism. Humanism is a eupraxophy or philosophy of life that rejects deities, faith, and worship, instead basing a view of values and meaningfulness on the nature and potentials of humans within a rational and scientific framework. Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition.
Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life rather than in some supernatural "afterlife". Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies such as neuroscience and neuropharmacology, life extension, nanotechnology, artificial ultraintelligence, and space habitation, combined with a rational philosophy and value system.
Finally, Extropianism is the foremost version of transhumanism. While all transhumanists as such will agree on many overall goals, they may differ over the principles that will get us to a posthuman stage. The philosophy of Extropianism affirms the values of Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, and Intelligent Technology, and Spontaneous Order."
Before your mind hits overload, take the time to listen to the interview with Tom Horn on Future Quake Radio. If you are ambitious and have the time to delve into the extended insights of Mr. Horn, TransHumanism & Genetic Manipulation is an earth shattering experience.
So what does this Transhumanism mean for mankind? Well, Joe Kovacs in World Net Daily quotes the aforementioned Mr. Horn again.
"DARPA calls its project "BioDesign," and in its 2011 budget, the agency explains it "eliminates the randomness of natural evolutionary advancement primarily by advanced genetic engineering and molecular biology technologies to produce the intended biological effect."
Horn says the real purpose has to do with immortalism.
| <><><><><><><> |
| <><><><><><><>
| <><><><><><><> |
| <><><><><><><> |
BATR.org
He who does not enjoy solitude will not love freedom.
--Arthur Schopenhauer
Solitary Purdah
The politics of the individual
Politics, while essential to human interaction, is seldom properly understood. Those who practice the art of the craft, often claim the title politician. As they slant their rhetoric to appeal and tap into the fears or dreams of citizens, substance in purpose and solutions rarely brings relief. The outcry for the good of society is heard with each utterance that offers a seductive optimism, while corrupts mankind with the distortions of a failed structure, based upon a false maxim. Solitary Purdah is the individual in a state of social isolation. It is a way of thinking that breaks the restraints of current convention and restores the wisdom of the ages to the proper balance.
Philosophy of politics is ignored or avoided by the officeholder. The office seekers deal in emotions and make promises of help. They want you to accept them as public servants, and to forget who they serve. The society they fashion is one that depicts a condition known as - PURDAH - a state of social isolation. Each resident is told they are a citizen of an ideal conception, known as the State. Politicos tell inhabitants they are part of a nation and have a noble mission in life, demystified into the function of a taxpayer. Every person is trained that they are empowered with a vote, so that they can select leaders that will work for them. Then, these same balloters are instructed that they are constituents of the elected and that their voice counts.
E Pluribus Unum - Out of Many One - became the Great Seal of the United States. This national emblem sounds sweet, inspires faith and invokes fidelity. But is it a valid idea that deserves acceptance? The - SOLITARY - of each individual, simply means that we are all alone. This axiom of existence eludes most people for they desperately want to believe their pedagogues that we are all social creatures. We are supposed to accept that community is natural and that society is inescapable. Thus, the need for government and that pinnacle of all human achievement - the supremacy of the STATE.
So each person is presented with a conundrum. Since every human is an individual, how can they become one with an abstract entity that emerges and behaves as their master? Solitary Purdah will explore this age old relationship. These tracts will put forth the case for a culture that envisions the ultimate purpose for a society; namely, Liberty of the individual. The vast distinction between unbridled personal freedom and definitive moral responsibility is central to an awareness of how one acts and what functions a government employs.
While ideology matters, discernment between and among varied forms of political organization, requires answering the proper inquiries. Subsequently, most confusion stems from never addressing the correct questions. The social isolation that is systemic in the technocratic postmodern age, is not an accident. The solitude that befalls the citizen transforms them into a denizen transplant, in an environment that becomes nearly unrecognizable. This kind of “Purdah” separation does not solely conform to screen the genders or keep out strangers. No, it produces an alienation and disaffection within the fabric of society that expects conformity and demands compliance as the decisive tests of national loyalty. Estrangement summons governments to respond with more odious requirements.
So how can a society that celebrates diversity as a religious dogma, coexist with so many conflicting factions? Most of the social problems of the last half century stem from an impaired aspiration to force a square peg through a round hole. Consequently, turmoil increases while contentment diminishes. If this misfortune was simply a byproduct of a complex commonwealth, ingenuity would offer prospects for solutions. However, the reality of realizing meaningful result and pragmatic answers, eludes discovery. The lauded homogenous mixture of dissimilar elements produces a combustible solvent. But there is no remedy to extinguish a fire that threatens to spread and become an inferno.
Can more of the same from government perfect the individual? Or must each human being give up more of their uniqueness to satisfy the requirements of social order? As long as people deny their own dignity and subordinate their genuine self interest for a substitute and flawed fraternal altruism, society will continue to deteriorate. The ‘pols’ of policy will preach a message of inclusion, while their approach produces an outcome of malaise that ends in despair.
The theme of Solitary Purdah has a focus that examines the fundamental conflict between the individual and the State. Our advocacy defends the person and condemns the coercion that all governments exalt. The political game has not changed over time. Grabbing power to impose obedience upon citizens, under the threat of force, is the business of government. It is a sinister practice of people control. Tragically, the public has a bad habit of denial and immediate gratification. They reject their unique worth and refuse to accept that the State is the enemy. Social isolation is inevitable, when society is predominant over the individual. If you crave to know yourself and your specific role in society, learn the lesson of Solitary Purdah.
SARTRE - July 4, 2003
BATR.org
The Evil that is Democratic Thought
The mantra that democratic rule exists in the realm of governmental affairs has proven false. The fact that deficit spending is commonplace and acceptable to their populace links the social democracies in a feudal structure that most are unwilling to acknowledge. The practice of debt created bank money underlies every social policy and expenditure. The notion that paying for public projects, based upon popular support and taxes, is extinct. Destroying domestic currencies and obligating future generations to the debt slavery of past failed projects, has replaced the work ethic. Democracies pledge subsidies without labor and security absent of personal freedom.
Is this the promise for a society based upon individual dignity, or is this the formula for subsistence survival of servile serfs?
One of the consistent symptoms of self-delusion in the postmodern global society is the denial that evil is not real. The very term evil offends sophisticates that revel in God is Dead mindset. Friedrich Nietzsche’s proposition that the idea of God is dead now rules much of the planet. The end result is that eternal standards of ethics and morality are rejected and situational whims that foster unsavory appetites are adopted. Under the inevitable void in ethical principles, the discipline of epistemology and the search for truth becomes impossible. Knowledge is never relative; it is everlasting and founded upon permanent reality. Contrary to the Transhumanist vision for mankind, human nature is undeviating in its common and shared traits and foibles. The most pronounced shortcoming in all of us is the tendency to accept or even commit evil, in the normal course of our behavior.
The philosophy of history has long struggled with ethics in politics. Yet, the champions of the modern state cling to the suspect claim that legitimacy of a political regime stems from the public authority of citizens reflected by their democratic will of consent. The essential question posed, that few will address, rests upon the ultimate nature of any political structure. Can a democracy be moral, when selfish sycophants shout and pose as the voice of the people?
Tyler S. Moselle in a paper, Natural Evil in Politics, concludes.
A Theory of Natural Evil in Politics
“We have seen various moderns approach the question of natural evil in politics with direct reference to eternal essence. The general modern trend refers to attempts to turn back to eternal essence as naturally evil due to inadequacies in human reason, conceptions of justice, or physical necessity (self-interest and survival). Yet, none of the moderns destroy a natural link to justice or evil in politics – they merely shift the grounds of the debate. Conceptions of radical freedom with no essence preceding existence still affirm notions of responsibility and ethics.
The liberal conception of injustice often attempts to defend itself with teleological justifications (via Kant and Hegel) that can be linked to the classical conception of the eternal ideas. Machiavelli and Nietzsche turn against eternal essence and being in unique ways in an effort to affirm the physical over the intangible. Most importantly, we have seen that Hume’s attack on essence preceding existence is not so devastating. We addressed an alternative through Noam Chomsky’s work synthesizing a conception of natural evil in politics through anarchism and activism. We offered a sustained argument for progress which turns against the conservative arguments of eternal being and unchanging essence from the classical conception. Now it is time to sketch a brief theory of natural evil in politics.
Natural evil in politics is the following: the extreme periphery against the middle ground. Plato establishes the difficulty and problems in nature when seeking to reconcile eternal being with becoming. Aristotle puts forth a practical vision of the political regime based on moderation.
Confucius establishes a natural right teaching that focuses on the middle way. The moderns push for the physical over the metaphysical and make an argument for harmonizing the extremes or at least reveal that both the extreme periphery and the stable middle are the solid core. Hume makes the eternal essence of classical metaphysics applicable but does not destroy it.
Chomsky provides an applicable model of testing the theory of natural evil against reality while retaining conceptions of natural justice and eternal ideas as a basic standard. The arguments for historical progress reveal compromises that underscore the harmony of the radical few who push for progress in the name of the eternal essence of ideas while being stabilized by the unradical many and the becoming of reality. This is not determinism but the basic realization that the extreme periphery and the solid core fuse into a symbiotic whole as prefaced in the introduction”.
Mr. Moselle uses the term progress as a theme if not a goal. Can such an objective be applied to a nanotechnology state that seeks to remake human nature into a transhumanist cyborg robot? There is no escape from asking and seeking an answer to the philosophical inquiry of the evil nature in each of us. When maniacal scientists dream of their benign Frankenstein creatures free of original sin, they verify that human progress is attainable only in their own demented minds.
Verbalizing the concept of original sin with its implied cosmological implications must seem like heresy to those who reject that evil exists. Yet, you do not have to advocate the tyrannical disposition of Plato’s Philosopher King to recognize that the record of historic achievements are few, when stacked up against the pattern of barbaric pillage, that extends from the use of the sword to the speculation in derivatives, swaps and naked shorts.
Western Civilization has produced the greatest degree of individual human freedom because it is founded upon universal principles and the sanctity of all life. The exploration of intellectual thought during the Enlightenment pressed the boundaries of traditional political systems. With the emergence of a tradesman and guild economy, the principles of democratic participation became a trend. The focal levers of power never transferred to the ordinary layman, but with the rise of literacy, the input of former serfs became the sentiment of the mass public.
As with any rise in understanding and knowledge, a little insight does not make a mastermind. However, the average appreciation of historic lessons and immutable values, of the 18th and 19th century, far outpaced the social relativism of the last few generations of whiz kids. Those who argue that the educational achievement of government schools is a proud record for human development are proof positive of their lack of perspective and wisdom.
The government dependency clones that matriculate through the socialized indoctrination of society are a very dangerous wounded animal that believe they have an equal entitlement on democratic thought. This assessment does not exclude their natural rights or civil protections under an equal application of the law. Nonetheless, the idea that the popular will of addictive subsidy government recipients, trumps the voice and influence of independent and self-employed wealth creators is absurd. Yet, logic and common sense has never been an important element within the political process.
When will people address the metaphysical macrocosm of political power? Machiavelli and Nietzsche seem to be the operative sages for the insane world that is imploding more each day. The internationalist interdependency of foreign policy and corporatist commerce benefits from the demise of God, because the beneficiaries are the same elites that have ruled the planet for the ages. The democratic movements that seek to purge the cabals, diminish the economic cartels and break up the banksters institutions understand the evil character of this concentration of power. However, many misguided activists use sophistry when directing their outrage into attempts to be part of a corrupt body politic.
The 99% vs. the 1% misses the mark because the philosophy that underpins the redistribution of the riches cry violates the principles of actual wealth creation. Mob rule is transient; oligarchy governance is the norm, while representative government is rare. The reason that government fails to represent the democratic will of the people is that it is inherently an evil institution. Democratic thought fails because it so many people believe that government is tamable and is able to achieve good outcomes.
As long as the human race populates the planet, clashes with competing factions and conflicts will be the net result. Utopian dreams always grind down to practical circumstance, because our mutual nature is usually the only factor that we all share. Universal voting to achieve political consciousness might be achievable in local jurisdictions, but is ridiculous when implemented on national levels.
Ending ineffective and inept spending financed by debt is the proper conclusion of rational thought. Woefully, we live in a democratic ethos of idiots. The existential advocacy that existence precedes essence may apply to the human context of possibilities and achievements, but the Hume viewpoint that essence precedes existence pertains to governments. While being human institutions, the state and more to the point, the iniquitous banking syndicates are systemic evil. The righteous outrage of the people needs to be directed at the abolishment of the debt created money. People will never be equal in means or talent, but a new financial system can rid the world of the curse of central banking interest extortion.
BATR.org
The only conception of freedom I can have is that of the prisoner or the individual in the midst of the State. The only one I know is freedom of thought and action.
- Albert Camus
Albert Camus, Anarchism and the Individual
Few concepts are more misunderstood than anarchism. Much of the efforts of civilization have been devoted to define anarchy as chaos, disorder and turmoil. For the powers that govern, the threat of mob rule is the decisive risk to their privileged status. But is this the correct conclusion to describe the essence of anarchy? That nebulous abstraction known as society, exists as an artificial fabrication, designed to synthesize individuals into a unified structure. Even the most avid proponent of law and order must concede that the organization of institutions is based upon singular components. The entire purpose of society demands restrictions upon the unbridled freedom of individuals.
Thus, posing the question: Is society necessary, becomes a revolutionary act.
Placing limits on freedom can be self-imposed or coerced from external influences. Presenting arguments that self-interest is enhanced, when destructive behavior is willingly tempered respects the natural rights that each person possesses. However, when constraints are imposed using the rational - for the betterment of the “common good” - it usually means that the ruling factions seek to protect their position.
Albert Camus is often portrayed as a depressing figure, offering little hope or optimism. While “The Stranger” may not make the short list for a wedding party, the union that men and women enter with their fellow neighbors, seldom approaches a meaningful and permanent relationship.
The short story, “The Guest” is “a troubling story of Algerian culture and free will. "The Guest" works on many levels, from the question of Arab relations to what choices a person must make alone. Camus does not offer solutions; he does not even offer clear questions. The reader of "The Guest" is left to his or her own questions and answers.” This assessment of vague, indecisive and perceived incoherent orientation doesn’t produce a resolution to our personal condition. For this reason, Camus and most Existentialists are branded as irrelevant. Yet, those who achieve an earnest introspection conclude that the order that society claims is so important does not really exist.
A critique of this work, by U. Buster offers this appraisal: “Anarchy is personal; it is not a collective possibility. It rests upon the idea of a person acting within a sphere where his existence is not intrusive upon the existence of another human being unless invited to be so. Should a person find that he has uninvitedly trespassed upon the serenity of another, Individual Anarchy points that man toward accepting the responsibility for his own actions while not condemning the failure of others to own up to the things they may have done wrong.”
The theme of non-requested anguish creates the anxiety of choice. Conform, obey and do your duty as a citizen, or deal with the unpleasant judgment of what might be an opposite but correct decision? “The ambiguity of Camus' The Guest is intentional; sharing Daru's (main character - native French-Alergian) point of view, we share also his frustration at having to deal with the perplexing situation that is thrust upon him. If he could truly know his Arab guest, know his guilt or innocence, he could make without difficulty the choice to free him or lead him to jail. But no one ever truly knows another, and yet we must all choose again and again.”
Some may misinterpret that morality is relative if one should not judge another. Quite the contrary, the seeming absurdity of a conflict stems from the rejection of ethics that guide each person to behavior in a moral manner, based upon a willful choice. Standards provided by society, enforced by government and sanctified by the STATE are not equivalent to morality. Virtue and righteousness may well clash with the order within a community. Would this form of anarchy be justified?
Camus is known as a novelist and playwright more than a philosopher. The theater often impacts the public with a message that profound thinkers rarely approach in their formal tracts. Rebellion is a reoccurring necessity for Camus. If the state of individual anarchy is the inherent plight of our common nature and choice is the inevitable dilemma we face, why is the rebel condemned as an outlaw when the crimes of the State are the inexorable imperative?
Is harmonious subjugation the basis of a good citizen or does the individual retain the responsibility to act morally in the face of pernicious laws? Camus was moved by the enormity of the civil structure. His distress was not self-induced, but was directed towards the utter failure of our self-imposed prison, where we do time, within a penal colony of a congenial ‘PC’ culture. What is normal behavior to the mass majority may well be insane and destructive punishment of the innocent.
Anarchism does not require armed revolt, but it does demand active moral confrontation. Insurrection will usually fail and the prospects for any replacement regime are likely to be based upon the same false tenets. Camus confronts the stark reality that the individual, while preeminent in value and worth, is treated as chattel of the State. The reason that the populace allows this tragic injustice lies in their unwillingness to deal with the harsh fact that the most depraved among us strive to make regulations for the rest. The codes of society are generally adopted without scrutiny. When Camus states: “Integrity has no need of rules”, we are given an insight that few can digest. Their own lack of honesty, principle and integrity allows them to accept the madness that dominates society.
Camus presents a challenge for those willing to take the high road to personal fulfillment. In order to respect your own individuality, your willingness to make a concerted effort to appreciate the value of anarchy is essential. Freedom is inescapable, even for the captive. The guests you invite into your world earned their way to an invite. Those who place demands and requirements under the threat of coercion violate the natural order. Their substitute dictum cannot approach the supreme law. Evict the intruder, safeguard your home.
SARTRE - October 22, 2003
Ben Best
A Case for Free Will AND Determinism
I.THE FREE-WILL VERSUS DETERMINISM PSEUDO-DICHOTOMY
II.KARL POPPER'S ATTEMPTED REFUTATION OF "SCIENTIFIC" DETERMINISM
III.FREE WILL IN LEONARD PEIKOFF'S OBJECTIVISM
IV.A REPLY TO THREE ESSAYS ABOUT DETERMINISM
V.FREE WILL VERSUS DETERMINISM AS IT RELATES TO CRYONICS
VI.REPLIES TO E-MAIL CRITIQUES BY ERIC MCMILLAN
---
This collection of essays is not a systematic presentation of a thesis. Instead, it is pieces in the development of my thinking written at different times — presented in chronological order. The later material reflects my current belief that the use of the word "free" in the determinism controversy confuses metaphysical issues with political issues. I have not changed the titles or the use of the word "free" in the earlier essays because they contribute to the development of my view.
THE FREE-WILL VERSUS DETERMINISM PSEUDO-DICHOTOMY
Some people consider it impossible to advocate both determinism and free will. Yet this position has been taken by many philosophers — from the time David Hume wrote the classical "reconciliation" in his ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.
Determinism is the view that all events have causes. Although many people delight in the belief that quantum theory disproves physical determinism, they refer only to
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Schroedinger, Einstein, Bohm, Penrose and many other physicists have never accepted the claim that quantum theory disproves determinism. Moreover, even if quantum uncertainty is a reality, it can do no more than establish "random will", not free will.
The word "freedom" does not mean "freedom from causality or materialism", it means "freedom from compulsion or restraint". Thus, if will exists, it can exert its influences through causal relations. Causality provides constraints, not unfreedom. Gravity limits the conditions under which a person can fly, but it does not prevent flying. The causal sequences by which nerve stimulation results in muscular action give the will the freedom to manifest itself in the world.
Determinism is often erroneously equated with fatalism, which is the true opposite of freewill. Under fatalism the will is ineffectual, no matter how much it struggles. Under determinism there is no limit to how effectual the will can be. Causality determines the nature of will, but does not prevent any action which is not in violation of physical law. A will is not unfree by virtue of the causal roots of its origin and existence (heredity and environment). Causality creates a will, but does not subject the will to ongoing compulsion. To justify a causeless will on the grounds that a person can choose what he or she does not really wish to choose (wills what is not really willed) is self-contradictory.
First Cause refers to an uncaused cause. Absolute causality requires that every effect has a cause, which implies infinite regression when each cause is interpreted to be an effect of a prior cause. How can there be an infinite chain of prior causes to all phenomena? Ultimate First Cause seeks to sidestep this infinite regression. But this is like asking for a beginning or end of time — or an end of space. The non-infinite is harder to conceive of than the infinite (space ending at a wall beyond which there is nothing?), even though the infinite cannot be fully comprehended. A physicist might assert that the Big Bang was the beginning of time & space just as a Deist might assert that a Creator was the beginning of time & space. "What created the Big Bang or the Creator?", and "What came before the Big Bang or the Creator?" are assumed to be prohibited or meaningless questions.
Aside from Ultimate First Cause used to avoid infinite regresssion, First Cause can be invoked to avoid causality of choice, or to describe will as an uncaused cause. All theories of First Cause (uncaused "choice") imply a spiritual, non-material "chooser". Whether choices are the product of material causes is entirely a scientific question — not a question of "self-evident axiom". A claim that knowledge is not possible without this spiritual First Cause chooser loads the definition of "knowledge" with spiritual assumptions.
Although most people acknowledge that the random will of indeterminacy is not a free will many people nonetheless seek "freedom" in causelessness. But if freewill is an uncaused cause, how can it be anything other than random? Ironically, there are two opposite classes of defenders of the theory that a freewill is a First Cause (uncaused cause).
One class of defenders of First Cause finds freewill in the most whimsical and spontaneous of actions. But how can such actions be anything other than a consciousness manifesting pseudo-randomness from unconscious impulses? Can such acts — which clearly don't spring from intention — really be the mark of freedom?
The other class of defenders of First Cause will find freedom in the greatest acts of deliberation and effort. A person's will is composed of many desires and many kinds of desires (and fears) which can come in conflict. Deliberation and effort can resolve these conflicts, but resolution of conflicting desires is not an uncaused process. A person may choose not to eat "junk food" because the desire for good health outweighs the desire for momentary gratification. A person's desire to fulfill a duty may outweigh the desire for entertainment — or vice versa. A person may be prudent enough to avoid letting anger dictate her or his behavior. Bodily reflexes incline a person to withdraw a hand from hot water, but interneurons from higher brain centers can allow someone to keep a hand in hot water. If "lower motives" incline me to strike a person out of anger, but "better judgment" inclines me to refrain, the fact that "higher motives" have taken precedence does not make those motives any less caused (First Cause) than the anger.
The will is simply the sum of a person's desires, motives and tendencies. Although the will is created by external factors, once it has come into existence it becomes a control centre (rather than a marionette on strings). Only when a will cannot manifest its intentions is it unfree. A will that has been drugged, restrained or subject to compulsion is physically unfree, but does not lose its autonomy.
Introspection indicates that the will is the source of choices. Freudian determinism, however, asserts that "Freudian slips" reveal the extent to which the conscious mind is subject to unconscious impulses. In this view, hidden motives are more important than the motives we imagine (or rationalize) to be the cause of our actions. But if the will or the self is taken to include the conscious as well as the unconscious, it can still be declared to be free from external constraint. It would be meaningless to talk of internal constraint — does the self constrain itself? The self is created by, not controlled by external causes. Causes interior to the self are the self, and cannot be said to control it. Nonetheless, the idea of a central commander in the brain that is in charge of — rather than at the mercy of — unconscious impulses, could still be an illusion.
Although hunger & thirst are interior to the physical body they can feel inferior to the self in the same sense as sensations of pain & anger that higher control centers (will) can override. But when pain becomes intense enough it can feel interior to the will or overwhelm the will. Similarly, hormones & drugs can profoundly affect mood, attitude or will.
Romantic & erotic arousal are not acts of will. A man does not have an erection because he wills himself to become tumescent — even though he can "seduce" his own arousal by guided fantasy. Similarly, loving another person is not an act of will — we cannot command our hearts to love someone. Love feels more closely associated with self than with will. If the will and the self are regarded as distinct entities then the question of "free self" may be more relevant than "free will". But even if self is distinguished from will, this distinction does not affect the issues at stake in the freewill/determinism question because both can be regarded as control centers created by external causes.
A problem with introspective evidence for volition is that it is not possible to introspectively describe the difference between a volition to raise an arm and a volition to tap a foot. Another problem is that we can only imagine that we could have made choices other than the ones we made. We do not actually observe ourselves making choices other than the ones we made. A third problem is that introspection doesn't necessarily reveal all of the causal influences on our decisions, even if we imagine otherwise. Intuition is fallible.
Some people claim that determinism precludes knowledge and ethics, implying that determinism means that choices can only be made on subjective, not objective considerations. But the material, causal human brain has the capacity to use reason and assess a situation apart from vested interests and immediate desire — and such an ability has survival value. That reason, reality and effort can influence choices is not inconsistent with determinism.
Some people claim that determinism renders life meaningless. But the source of meaning in life is the will. The will is the source of all values — values exist when the will exists. All purpose arises from beings which have enough consciousness to have valuing entity — a will — which is the source of motivation, emotion, pleasure, pain, aesthetics, etc. (For more on the subject of "The Purpose of Life", see my essay Why Life Extension? or Why Live at All?)
Does determinism preclude moral responsibility? Legal systems must be based on the principle that people are responsible for their actions. The same applies for me, personally. I want to deal with people who are trustworthy and dependable — people of good character. I am reluctant to praise or blame someone whose actions are erratic and inexplicable. If I am injured by a person who is under the influence of alcohol, I may conclude that I can trust that person not to injure me only when that person is sober. But if I conclude that a man injures me because he was abused as a child, I still hold him to be the source of my injury — and to be regarded with circumspection, despite the pity I may feel. Holding him responsible for his actions is primarily a matter of concern for myself and those I care about — especially in view of his possible future behavior. Responsibility is concerned with social context, rather than properties of the brain or personality.
Children are taught about the world by adults as well as by their experience. Children can learn moral behavior ("guidelines for conduct") by reward or punishment (praise or blame). Adults too can learn from others or by "the school of hard knocks". In all cases some have quantitatively better or qualitatively different opportunities than others — and some have better capaciti (or different capacities) for learning than others. In this sense, there is a great similarity between facts and values.
Determinism does not imply complete predictability or a denial of creativity. Flipping a coin is a deterministic mechanical process, but predicting the outcome is inordinately difficult. The human brain contains 100 billion neurons, many of which have the potential to connect with thousands of other neurons. The complexity of the system allows for creativity and precludes absolute prediction — especially with current technology.
"Experimental philosophy" investigates the psychological sources of philosophical belief. Psychological research indicates that people equate determinism with the idea that deliberation cannot influence choice. Even in the context of a hypothetical deterministic universe, people are not inclined to relieve others of blame or moral responsibility, especially for highly reprehensible actions. Emotional reactions to reprehensible actions bias people against determinism [SCIENCE; Nichols,S; 331:1401 (2011)]. Neuroscience has produced results which philosophers find more troubling — specifically, the finding that recordings of neuron activity can predict an impending decision with 80% accuracy many milliseconds prior to a subject's conscious decision or awareness of a decision to act [NEURON; Fried,I; 69(3):548-562 (2011)].
Determinism is the most productive way of viewing the universe insfar as a determinist will be more "determined" to search for causes when causes are not apparent. The relentless drive to understand causes underlies not only scientific discovery, but understanding of all aspects of life. In this sense, anti-determinism is the more fatalistic attitude because it allows for the acceptance of certain phenomena as being uncaused, and thus unable to be found by investigation.
In sum, claims against determinism rarely contain much explanation of the workings of the alternative. Causelessness cannot be the source of a will, free or unfree. Arguments that the will does not act in accordance with desire usually imply motives which are not acknowledged to be desires. A free and morally responsible will can be created by and exist in an entirely causal world.
Green Climate Fund Wants Immunity from Any Kind of Prosecution
Fox News is reporting that the Green Climate Fund, created by the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is seeking full diplomatic immunity from "any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates."
The U.N. enacted the legal framework for the private-public fund at the Copenhagen Accord in 2009, but it was ratified last year during COP-17 in Durban, South Africa. The fund, controlled by a 24-nation board of trustees, received $30 billion in start-up money from U.N. member nations.
The function of the Green Climate Fund is to be the facilitator of money between countries. According to Wikipedia they will act "as a mechanism to transfer money from the developed to the developing world, in order to assist the developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change."
In other words, they are the group that decides where the money gets distributed. Clearly an outfit like this handling such large sums of money would be ripe for corruption. And perhaps that's why they seek this broad immunity before the wealth transfers begin in earnest. Why else would any organization request immunity if they weren't anticipating injustices in the actions they take?
Their stated objective is to mobilize $100 billion in annual funds. They admit, however, that there's "a lot of uncertainty where this money would have to come from." Yet, they have outlined several potential sources of funding that further blends an already dubious relationship between governance and big business.
Potential sources for raising these funds include:
1. Public sources: The national governments could generate new incomes through the introduction of several new taxes, the removal of subsidies for fossil energy and the auctioning of emission allowances. These new forms of income could be added to the direct budget contributions by the national governments.
2. International development bank loans: These would form a leverage by channeling the funds that were raised by the other (potential) sources specified. They should be seen as a 'secondary source/channel for generating additional flows, rather than as a separate source in their own right'.
3. Carbon markets: purchases of offsets in developing countries: 'The potential scale of these resources is dependent on the stringency of the emissions reduction commitments of developed countries, on carbon market design and on the availability of eligible emissions reductions in developing countries.'
4. Private sector flows to developing countries: 'The magnitude of flows would likely be higher, the better the investment climate in the developing country.' Furthermore, 'developed country policy actions, as well as the multilateral development banks, the United Nations and the investments and instruments of bilateral agencies, can catalyse and foster additional private sector flows' (Source)
This type of unaccountable fascist organization has become the hallmark of what passes for governance these days. A marriage between elite money changers and public policy makers where the wolves are always guarding the hen house.
Recently, a U.N. policy paper outlined the building blocks for a world government and suggested it should be "heavy-handed (in its) transnational enforcement powers." The excuse for building this fascist (corporate-run) world government with heavy-handed powers is of course to combat climate change. So it's no surprise that this request for immunity should arise at the same time.
The Green Climate Fund, as well as the pending world government, does not want to have to answer to any other authority, especially the people they intend to tax and govern. In other words, they want to be above the law. We should all be wary of any organization seeking to be immune from any future injustices. It just seems to be an excuse to get away with murder and fraud.
http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/11062/knowledge-bank/upside-down-economics--morality-before-greed.html
Mindful Money
Upside down economics - morality before greed
Economists divide into two main camps - those who advocate tough love spending limits and those who prefer a more gradual, gentler approach to the "deficit". It's the right-left gulf in conventional political terms, with both claiming their solution is the better to bring back economic expansion and happiness. The two would agree that "greed is good", a driver of progress - they will diverge on the degree that it is good.
But what if the growth equals joy equation is fundamentally flawed? What if greed is bad? What if we are chasing an impossible target of constant improvement? And what if economists are redundant - the failed alchemists of our age?
This sums up the questions raised by the thesis of Czech academic and political adviser Tomáš Sedláček. He has broken ranks with his co-professionals, advocating a cultural and moral approach to money, rather than rely on economics.
Growth leads to debt
In an interview with German news magazine Der Spiegel he posits that an economic policy which only pursues growth will always lead to debt. It is simply the degree of debt that is uncertain - at times it will be "manageable" at others, it will lead to the misery currently experienced in Greece. But it's the same debt. Besides money to be repaid or renegotiated by subsequent generations, we also leave environmental debts.
Virtually unknown in the UK, 35 year old Sedláček was a former adviser to the Czech finance ministry and to the former Czech president Vaclav Havel.
Now the author of Economics of Good and Evil and wants to turn conventional economics on its head. The usual pattern is of an economic base and a moral or "how we want to live" superstructure built on it. Sedláček reverses that. He says how we want and ought to live should determine the financial superstructure. In some ways, his views on economics resonate with those of Harvard lecturer Michael Sandel on politics.
Sedláček believes that far from being "good", greed, one of the seven deadly sins, is corrosive. He says: "Mankind's oldest stories tell us that greed is always Janus-faced. It is an engine of progress, but it's also the cause of our collapse. Being constantly dissatisfied and always wanting more seems to be an innate natural phenomenon, forming the heart of our civilization. The original sin of the first human couple in the Garden of Eden was the result of greed."
Greed in the Garden of Eden
He adds: "According to Genesis, the forbidden tree was a feast for the eyes, rather like modern advertising. Eve and Adam grab the opportunity and eat the fruit. The original sin has the character of excessive, unnecessary consumption. The living conditions in paradise were complete, and yet everything God had given the two wasn't enough. In this sense, greed isn't just at the birthplace of theoretical economics, but also at the beginning of our history. Greed is the beginning of everything."
And this legend is repeated in other mythologies such as the Greek Pandora, who opens her jar out of curiosity, thereby releasing poverty, hunger and disease into the world. In Babylonian culture, the Gilgamesh epic shows how desire rips man out of the harmony of nature.
The saturation point, like the end of history, is never achieved. Consumption works like a drug. Enough is always just beyond the horizon. The Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek put it this way: "Desire's raison d'être is not to realize its goal, to find full satisfaction, but to reproduce itself as desire."
And this could explain why the "economics of equilibrium" are doomed to failure, or at least to boom and bust.
More is better fails to add up
He says: "Eve's desire -- in economic terms, her demand -- will never subside. And Adams's offer to toil by the sweat of his brow will never be enough. The monetisation of our society has strengthened the illusion that all the things we desire are within our reach. The equation "more is better" doesn't add up anymore."
But how do you decrease consumption, cut back on the waste that only exists because we want more of everything. Sedláček admits that cutting is tougher than pushing eternal expansion.
He says: “Yes, the social ladder becomes sticky on the way down. The view of economists is that each individual seeks to maximise his benefit. The only problem with this is that we cannot precisely define what the optimal benefit is for us. We don't know what we want. That's why we need comparisons, examples and suggestion. Try imagining an object of your desire, a beautiful woman, for example. It doesn't work as an abstract idea, because the imagined image in your head is volatile. You need a photo, a description, a model. Someone has to tell you what you think is so great that you find it irresistible -- society, neighbors and colleagues, but also the advertising and entertainment industry, ads, films and books. All desires that exceed our basic biological needs are determined by culture. We want to live as if we were actors portraying ourselves."
So our debts have increased through greed and not need. Sandel does not like the term "communitarian" which is often applied to him. But Sedláček is happy to embrace it.
Adam Smith and a fair distribution of wealth
He says: "We are definitely communitarians. Only a truly egomaniacal person can live happily in a society in which he is the only rich one. Man has a need for fairness and, therefore, for a fair distribution of wealth. In his "Theory of Moral Sentiments," Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, defines sympathy as the basis of morality and as the driving force of human activity. The suffering of one person also affects someone else. Self-interest guides human behavior, but Smith knew that man cannot be explained by the egoistical principal alone. I believe that Smith's legacy consists in the incorporation of moral questions into economics -- in fact, that they are precisely what constitute its core. For modern economists, on the other hand, the question of good and evil is practically heretical."
Weak morality needs a strong state
He adds: " A functioning society rests on three columns: morality or decency, competition and regulation, or basic government conditions. The weaker morality is, the stronger the state must intervene. The Eastern European countries, which depended entirely on deregulation to create markets after the fall of communism, learned this lesson after painful experiences. A society that focuses on egoism without morality descends into anarchy. The most positive, descriptive economic models have approached the question of how the market economy functions with complicated mathematical models for decades, but they are simply wrong or pointless at best. The real question should be: Is the economy working the way we want it to? A market economy without morality is a zombie system: The robots function perfectly, but in the end they leave behind a trail of devastation. We have to return to our origins and talk about the soul of the economy."
Zero Hedge
"When Money Dies" Author Adam Fergusson And James Turk Discuss (Hyper)Inflation In The Past, In The Present And In The Future
When it comes to discussing monetary history, and specifically what happens when it all goes horribly wrong, there are two must read tomes: one is "The Dying of Money" by Jens Parsson (pdf link) and the other one is "When Money Dies" (pdf link) by Adam Fergusson. Today, we are lucky to bring to you a must watch interview between James Turk of the GoldMoney Foundation and the author of the former, Adam Fergusson. They discuss the fateful decisions that led to hyperinflation in post-First World War Germany, and how central bankers as well as ordinary members of the public today would be well advised to heed this warning from history. Fergusson discusses how the hyperinflation affected different groups in German society in different ways – with debtors benefiting and huge numbers of middle-class savers wiped out. Riots, corruption and political extremism were just some of the malignancies encouraged by the hyperinflation. He points out that those who held hard currencies as well as people who held tangible assets like gold and silver were in-large part protected from the worst economic consequences of the hyperinflation. In his words: “gold remained at all times in Germany the measure of what was important to them.”
James and Adam discuss whether or not today there is any way for governments in the developed world to repay their huge debts. Both men conclude that inflation is the only politically viable method of repudiating these unmanageable obligations. Fergusson highlights the importance of velocity and the demand for money in determining whether or not inflation turns into hyperinflation – though points out that this tipping point can take a surprisingly long-time to arrive; in Germany, people kept confidence with the rapidly devaluing mark throughout the First World War, despite clear signs that the country was heading for a currency crisis.
Fergusson thinks that we are heading for high inflation in many countries, but is doubtful that Weimar Germany’s nightmare currency collapse can be replicated in a sophisticated modern economy. He concludes with a quote from Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, who recently commented with respect of the sovereign debt crisis: “we all know what has to be done; what we don’t know is how to get re-elected once we done it.”
JP Morgan Lawyer Exposes Corruption at JPM, MF Global & the CFTC
Below is the written testimony to Congress of Diane Genoa, Deputy General Counsel for JP Morgan as it relates to the MF Global investigation. I have no doubt that she was "deputized" such that JPM's actual General Counsel, Stephen Cutler, didn't have to speak. Unfortunately for the Bad Guys, Ms. Genoa's dance around the issues may have provided more information than they wanted to expose. Here's the statement...
Statement from JP Morgan re: MF Global Collapse
Clearly JP Morgan believes they did NOTHING wrong and were just an innocent bystander who was trying to "lend a hand" to one of their customers in a time of need....GIVE ME A BREAK!
Basically, Ms. Genoa knows exactly what they did illegally in this situation and is trying to dance around it. JP Morgan KNOWINGLY confiscated at least $200M of customer funds and then tried to cover their tracks by getting MF Global to sign a waiver three times that stated the funds were legitimate and not customer segregated funds. MF Global never signed the document but JP Morgan still hasn't given the money back.
Here's the telling statement on page 7...
"In retrospect, events appear to have overtaken MF Global during the weekend before it filed for bankruptcy, and, as a result, the letter was not signed. Nevertheless, our request did result in our receiving multiple clear oral assurances from senior MF Global officials that MF Global was in compliance with its obligations under the CFTC rules."
So who were these "senior MF Global officials" at MF Global?
"...we wound up speaking with Ms. Ferber's deputy general counsel, Dennis Klejna. We understood Mr. Klenja to be a former Head of the Enforcement Division of the CFTC..."!
Now wait a minute...why do I know that name? Oh yeah, DENNIS KLEJNA was also part of the Refco bankruptcy (that JP Morgan was deeply involved in) and actually had to pay up $1,250,000 to the victims but never had to admit any guilt...
OVER $135 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL REFCO FRAUD PROCEEDS FORFEITED BY MANHATTAN U.S. ATTORNEY DISTRIBUTED TO VICTIMS
Not only that but Dennis Klejna actually busted REFCO when he was at the CFTC in 1992 for violating the Position Limits Rule...
Fine Given in Refco Case
He was a "poster child" at the CFTC in the early 1990's but in 1995 he ran up against a force of evil rarely encountered my mortal man...HILLARY CLINTON!
THE WATCHDOG WHO BARKED AT HILLARY
Can it get more complicated? I guess Dennis figured - "If you can't beat ‘em - join ‘em!" and turned to the dark side.
Here's more background on this "Bad Guy"
DENNIS KLEJNA, SENIOR V.P. AND ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
In May 2007, Klejna joined from failed brokerage firm Refco, where he was executive vice president and general counsel. He was named senior vice president and chief compliance counsel of futures brokerage Man Financial -- which was renamed MF Global. From 1983 to 1995, Klejna had served as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's director of enforcement, presiding over 145 CFTC enforcement cops nationwide.
Round and round it goes...
Klejna was the head of the enforcement division at the CFTC when Judge Bruce Levine was hired on to run cover for the manipulation of commodities as admitted in this letter from retiring CFTC Judge George Painter!
Judge George Painter's Admission of CFTC Corruption
The corruption runs deep within the Banking Cabal, the Government Oversight Organizations and the US Legal System.
The GOOD thing about all this is that the curtain is being pulled away and the Banksters can't survive in the light of day.
May the Road you choose be the Right Road.
Bix Weir
The Daily Bell
Stockholm Syndrome:
Wall Street Execs Flog Themselves Hard
Wall Street Admits It's to Blame For Public Perception–Survey ... Wall Street firms finally may be ready to admit that the public perceptions do matter. They may even accept the blame for why the public, and Occupy Wall Street, are so up in arms. The question is whether they will do anything about that. According to a new survey of communications executives at financial firms, done by communications firm Makovsky + Co., 96% of executives surveyed admit their firms invited the public's negative perceptions. One particular fear from those surveyed: compensation. A full 81% say they are worried about negative public reaction to executive compensation in the financial industry. But only 53% of the marketing and public relations executives say that Occupy Wall Street had a real impact on their business.
– Wall Street Journal
Dominant Social Theme: Wall Street sucks. The top men should just admit it and regulate themselves into oblivion.
Free-Market Analysis: When the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media starts analyzing non-existent aggregations like "Wall Street" (see above) you can almost be sure a dominant social theme is in the works.
In fact, this IS the meme the power elite is flogging relentlessly right now: "Wall Street is a terrible place and needs more regulation so that it doesn't take advantage of people."
Of course, Wall Street IS a terrible place and IS anti-consumer. But Wall Street isn't REALLY the problem. What is? A tiny cabal of elitists who are trying to take over the world and are using directed history and the money thrown off by central banking to do so. But you'll never read THAT in the mainstream media!
Directed history, within its largest context, involves world wars and subsequent world reactions of a globalist nature (like the UN) to set up world government.
Shakespeare said, "All the world's a stage," and in the past century, anyway, he's been correct. The elites have manipulated history, wars and economic scenarios to constantly move toward world government.
Central banks and the paraphernalia of world governance did not even exist in the late 1800s. Now there are 150 central banks and the world has a parallel global government, including a criminal court, parliament (UN) and standing army (NATO).
Like rust, the elite never sleeps. In the past 200 years, the American Republic has been its main target, especially American capitalism and free-market thinking of the modern kind.
The democratic features of American culture have driven the elites wild. Over and over, they've taken dead aim at Wall Street's evolving (or devolving) capital-raising facilities. The idea that someone can get capital for a good idea is anathema to them – especially if that person becomes independently wealthy as a result.
This is just what we've been predicting. There is a dominant social theme here – and the solution always comes back to government, and the necessity for government control. The power elite that wants to take over the world uses mercantilism to do so. Thus it needs much government power.
Modern regulatory democracies are perfect vehicles for the modern power elite. Their complexity and size make it easy for what is apparently a shadowy elite of dynastic families – controlling central banks – with their enablers and associates to control governments as well.
It is these top elites, working through George Soros apparently, that have created Occupy Wall Street. And Occupy Wall Street's top people have given lip service to the idea of protesting when it comes to the larger system but haven't made any real attempts to do so.
It's still called "Occupy Wall Street" and this controlled opposition is still intended, in our view, to set up modern Pecora Hearings (after Obama is reelected) that will kill whatever is left of the free-market securities and banking culture in the US.
By the time the apparently controlled OWS movement has run its course, government agencies shall be fully in control of finance. The elites will have achieved their real goal, which is to turn the American exceptionalist republic into a full-on European regime where one's opportunity is bounded by one's class and nothing more.
This article, excerpted above, is a great example of how Wall Street itself will cooperate in its demise. Of course, there is not much of Wall Street that doesn't deserve killing. But in the process of its dying, the top Street honchos will do their best to further confuse the issue by accepting responsibility that is not theirs to take.
They will never explain, for instance, that Wall Street is already a kind of arm of the US government and military-industrial complex. They will never explain that Wall Street operates as a kind of abusive government monopoly at this point and that real competition to serve the investing public has long since withered away – and began to do so after the Civil War.
No, like this article, Wall Street honchos will continue for one reason or another to give off the impression that the Street itself (those who work on it and prosper from it) are engaged in real free-market efforts when the free market in the US went out of existence long ago. Here's some more from the article:
Of those surveyed, 71% said they expect Occupy Wall Street to continue beyond the presidential election. While the executives surveyed likely don't control what the companies do, Tangney described them as the "front lines" with the public, and said there has been a change in attitude at the companies. He foresees a change in how the financial industry explains its existence to the broader public, focusing instead on how financial industries help municipalities and governments, for instance. "They need to really reboot their explanation of why they are in business," Tangney says.
Wall Street's top execs at this point are victims of a kind of Stockholm Syndrome. In the US one can go to jail for almost anything these days and the top execs know it.
Occupy Wall Street is being used by the elites to make it clear that they will brook no opposition to their plans. Resist and the elites will turn Wall Street into Libya.
Their plan is likely to set up another phony Pecora-style hearing to regulate Wall Street into the oblivion it richly deserves. As part of this process, the elites hope dearly that regular people will get the idea that REAL free markets are dangerous and need rigorous supervision by the government.
Beyond this, the elites want to use such hearings to make sure that the central banking system that has destroyed economies the world over is not blamed for the current economic and financial ruin. Wall Street and capitalism generally are convenient scapegoats.
Conclusion: Here's another benefit from their point of view: By prosecuting Wall Street types, the elites intend to use upcoming show trials to reinforce the credibility of the abusive penal-industrial complex. It, too, is coming under attack in this era of 'Net truth-telling that we call "the Internet Reformation" – and the elites intend to strike back, if they can.
3 Days that Could End America – Day 2
Does anyone expect that one of the four liberal Supreme Court Justices will vote to strike down Obamacare?
Indeed, at Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on Obamacare it seemed that whenever Obama’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. floundered, which was often when arguing in favor of the individual mandate, one of the liberal justices stepped forward to rescue him.
As CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted, “All four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law… And it was really the liberal justices who carried the argument much more than the lawyer.”
What was most interesting – and most frightening – about Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments about Obamacare was the absence of concern for individual freedom from any of the four liberal justices.
The notion that the State might compel an individual American to purchase a product or to engage in any other affirmative act did not seem to bother Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagen in the least.
Their concerns were entirely communitarian in nature – what was cheapest for the State was the paramount concern of the liberal justices.
As Ginsburg put it when she attempted to bailout Verrilli from a tight spot, “I thought your main point is that, unlike food or any other market . . . what was unique about this is it’s not my choice whether I want to buy a product to keep me healthy, but the cost that I am forcing on other people if I don’t buy the product sooner rather than later.’’
Countering the liberal communitarian argument in favor of Obamacare Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "Could you define the market so that everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli?"
To conservative lovers of individual freedom, and students of American history and the Constitution, the argument that because my action or inaction creates an additional cost for the rest of society I should be forced to do something is the weakest and yet the most dangerous of all the arguments in favor of Obamacare.
Conservatives recognize that once the sanctity of the individual human spirit is violated by such State compulsion it is a very short next step to mandating that one may not have more than one child or that medical treatment be withheld from the severely disabled because after all, it is cheaper for the State.
While it is dangerous to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case based on the questions asked during oral arguments, Tuesday’s hearing did offer conservatives a ray of hope that a majority of the justices might vote to strike down the individual mandate when Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the federal government "is telling an individual he has the obligation he must act [to purchase insurance]… That threatens to change the relationship between the government and the individual in a profound way."
That Justice Kennedy recognizes the “profound” change in the relationship between the individual and the State that Obamacare represents is a small sign that individual freedom may be temporarily preserved in America by a 5 to 4 vote of the Supreme Court.
GREENMEDINFO.COM
Radiation Found To Be The #1 Cause of Tobacco-Related Cancers
It is well-established that 25-30% of all cancer are caused soley by tobacco consumption – a completely avoidable cause.
But what if the tobacco itself were not actually the primary cause of the cancer, but something else contaminating it? And what if it the tobacco industry knew this lethal contaminant was in their product, and even knew how to remove it, but did and said nothing for over 30 years in order to conceal this deadly secret from the public?
In 1998, major tobacco industries’ internal secret documents were made available online by the Master Settlement Agreement, revealing that the industry was aware of the presence of a radioactive substance in tobacco as early as 1959.
It was discovered in 1964 that the cancer-causing radioactive substance was Polonium 210, which millions still inhale in their cigarette smoke, unwittingly. Polonium 210 is a byproduct of the decay of uranium daughter isotopes, which, while occurring naturally in the environment, are primarily found within our soil as a result of pollution from various industries. Uranium mining is one source, as are the nuclear and coal-fired power industries. In fact, “fly ash” produced from coal-fired power carries 100 times more radiation into the surrounding environment than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.1 This is, of course, when nuclear power plants properly contain their radioactive fuel and waste and don't release massive, irretrievable quantities of radioisotopes into the environment, as occurred in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuclear weapons and munitions (depleted uranium), are another well-known source of global contamination. No matter where the uranium comes from, tobacco plants selectively absorbs and concentrates the byproduct of its decay, Polonium 210, to dangerous -- if not lethal -- levels. The relatively high levels found within tobacco are rather consistent over time and geographical area.2
A recent review published in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research summarized this disturbing fact of history as follows:
“...[T]he industry was not only cognizant of the potential "cancerous growth" in the lungs of regular smokers but also did quantitative radiobiological calculations to estimate the long-term (25 years) lung radiation absorption dose (rad) of ionizing alpha particles emitted from the cigarette smoke. Our own calculations of lung rad of alpha particles match closely the rad estimated by the industry. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the industry's and our estimate of long-term lung rad of alpha particles causes 120-138 lung cancer deaths per year per 1,000 regular smokers.
These findings indicate that the tobacco industry’s relationship to their consumer base was (and still is) homicidal, in the worst, premeditated sense of the word. Moreover, the industry actually knew how to mitigate the problem, but realized it would interfere with the addictive power of their product (and therefore profitability) to do so:
"Acid wash was discovered in 1980 to be highly effectively in removing (210)Po from the tobacco leaves; however, the industry avoided its use for concerns that acid media would ionize nicotine converting it into a poorly absorbable form into the brain of smokers thus depriving them of the much sought after instant "nicotine kick" sensation.”
Polonium 210 is extraordinarily toxic when ingested or inhaled. In fact, it is 4500 times more toxic than radium 226 -- a startling fact considering that during the Manhattan Project (1944), the "tolerance dose" for workers was set at 0.1 microgram of ingested radium. When incorporated into the body, radioisotopes like Polonium 210 emit alpha particles, which are the radiobiological equivalent of howitzers on a cellular level, profoundly damaging, mutating and destroying DNA, as well as causing other forms of irreparable damage to the cell. Because of the fact that the dominant radiation risk model does not acknowledge the profoundly detrimental effects of low-dose, internalized radioisotope exposure (largely because it was developed before the discovery of DNA in the early 50’s and was based on external exposures to the type of gamma-radiation associated with atomic bomb blast), the true dangers associated with Polonium 210 have been largely concealed or discounted.
According to a review published in the journal Health Physics in 2010, smoking tobacco has resulted in “443,000 deaths and 5.1 million years of potential life lost among the U.S. population each year from 2000 through 2004.” Furthermore, the review estimated that the associated collective radiation dose from smoking is “more than 36 times that to the workers at all the U.S. nuclear power plants, U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons facilities, and crews of all the vessels in the U.S. Nuclear Navy.” It is no surprise then that it has been suggested that tobacco products should carry a radiation-exposure warning label.3
View the Polonium abstracts from the National Library of Medicine indexed on GMI.
1Hvistendahl M. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste. Scientific American. 2007.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
2 Polonium-210 and lead-210 in the terrestrial environment: a historical review. J Environ Radioact. 2011 May ;102(5):420-9. Epub 2011 Mar 5. PMID: 21377252
3 Waking a sleeping giant: the tobacco industry's response to the polonium-210 issue. Am J Public Health. 2008 Sept 98(9):1643-50. Epub 2008 Jul 16. PMID: 18633078
Growing Spirulina, General Hydroponics, Strawberry Tower and Worm Composting Bin
video tutorial
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/futurism/surviving-the-singularity-top-3-supplements.html
Forbidden Knowledge TV
Surviving the Singularity: Top 3 Supplements
Ray Kurzweil
If You Can Survive for 34 More Years, You Have a Good Shot at Living Forever
If you can survive for 34 more years, you have a good shot at living forever (one may ask if one may actually want this?)
He says he takes 150 different pills per day of about 70 or 80 different things. Although people may think that this is a very aggressive program, he asserts that this actually quite conservative, "because everything I do is based on a lot of evidence...Aging's not just one thing, it's many different things."
His three favorite dietary supplements that he takes to stick around for the singularity are:
* Coenzyme Q10 - which he says is very important (especially at his age of 63, as an antioxidant.
* Phosphatidylcholine - which is depleted from cell membranes with aging, causing skin to lose suppleness and internal organs "to stop working very well."
* Vitamin D - which he says is "maybe the most important vitamin to take. There's really a tremendous amount of research and a consensus that it really does prevent cancer and other diseases."
The Living Matrix ~ The Science of Healing
video documentary
The Battle of Athens:
Restoring the Rule of Law
Restoring the Rule of Law
documentary short
Lilith the Genesis of the Feminism Curse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
asymmetric warfare
Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.
"Asymmetric warfare" can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the "weaker" combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.[1] Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized.[2] This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.
The term is frequently used to describe what is also called "guerrilla warfare", "insurgency", "terrorism", "counterinsurgency", and "counterterrorism", essentially violent conflict between a formal military and an informal, poorly-equipped, but resilient opponent.
Discussion since 2004 has been complicated by the tendency of academic and military communities to use the term in different ways, and by its close association with guerrilla warfare, insurgency, terrorism, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism. Military authors tend to use the term "asymmetric" to refer to the indirect nature of the strategies many weak actors adopt, or even to the nature of the adversary itself (e.g. "asymmetric adversaries can be expected to...") rather than to the correlation of forces.
Academic authors tend to focus more on explaining the puzzle of weak actor victory in war: if "power," conventionally understood, conduces to victory in war, then how is the victory of the "weak" over the "strong" explained? Key explanations include (1) strategic interaction; (2) willingness of the weak to suffer more or bear higher costs; (3) external support of weak actors; (4) reluctance to escalate violence on the part of strong actors; (5) internal group dynamics[3] and (6) inflated strong actor war aims. Asymmetric conflicts include both interstate and civil wars, and over the past two hundred years have generally been won by strong actors. Since 1950, however, weak actors have won a majority of all asymmetric conflicts.
Advancements in this type of warfare have been dramatically amplified with the evolution of advanced weaponry. The perpetual evolutionary arms race[dubious ] has made industrialized/more-developed countries incredibly advanced in comparison to less-developed nations. This has given those advanced countries huge advantages in asymmetric warfare.
For a detailed description of the advantages for the weaker force in the use of built-up areas when engaging in asymmetric warfare, see the article on urban warfare.
The other view is that asymmetric warfare does not coincide with terrorism. For example, in an asymmetric conflict, the dominant side, normally as part of a propaganda campaign, can accuse the weaker side of being bandits, pillagers or terrorists. Others argue that asymmetric warfare is called "terrorism" by those wishing to exploit the negative connotations of the word and bring the political aims of the weaker opponents into question. The Iraqi insurgency is similarly labeled as terrorism by its opponents and resistance by its supporters.[8] Similarly, the use of terror by the much lesser Mongol forces in the creation and control of the Mongol empire could be viewed as asymmetric warfare. The other is the use of state terrorism by the superior Nazi forces in the Balkans, in an attempt to suppress the resistance movement.
Franco-Spanish War, First Anglo-Burmese War, Second Russo-Persian War, War of the Cakes, First Anglo-Afghan War, Uruguayan Dispute, Austro-Sardinian War, First Schleswig-Holstein War, Second Anglo-Burmese War, Anglo-Persian War, Italo-Roman War, Two Sicilies, Franco-Mexican War, Second Schleswig-Holstein War, Anglo-Abyssinian War, Anglo-Egyptian War, Tonkin War, Franco-Siamese War, Second Italo-Ethiopian War, Second Boer War, Sino-Russian War, Tripolitanian War, Franco-Turkish War, Polish Revolution, Italo-Ethiopian War, some Israeli-Arab conflicts: the First and Second Intifada, and various conflicts with the Hezbollah,[9] First Sino-Japanese War and Second Sino-Japanese War, German-Polish Confrontation of World War II, German-Danish Confrontation of World War II, German-Norwegian Confrontation of World War II, German-Belgian Confrontation of World War II, German-Dutch Confrontation of World War II, Italo-Greek Confrontation of World War II, German-Yugoslav Confrontation of World War II, Korean War, Himalayan War, Vietnam War, Second Sino-Vietnamese War, Soviet War in Afghanistan, Gulf War, War in Afghanistan, Iraq War, 2006 Lebanon War, 2011 Libyan civil war.
Examples of asymmetric warfare
From its initiation, the American Revolutionary War was, necessarily, a showcase for asymmetric techniques. In the 1920s, Harold Murdock of Boston attempted to solve the puzzle of the first shots fired on Lexington Green, and came to the suspicion that the few score militia men who gathered before sunrise to await the arrival of hundreds of well-prepared British soldiers were sent specifically to provoke an incident which could be used for propaganda purposes.[10] The return of the British force to Boston following the search operations at Concord was subject to constant skirmishing, using partisan forces gathered from communities all along the route, making maximum use of the terrain (particularly trees and stone field walls) to overcome the limitations of their weapons- muskets with an effective range of only about 50–70 metres. Throughout the war, skirmishing tactics against British troops on the move continued to be a key factor in Rebel success; however, they may also have encouraged the occasional incidents, particularly in the later stages, where British troops used alleged surrender violations as a justification for killing large numbers of captives (e.g. Waxhaw and Groton Heights).
Another feature of the long march from Concord was the urban warfare technique of using buildings along the route as additional cover for snipers, which provoked the logical response from the British force — destruction of the buildings. When revolutionary forces forced their way into Norfolk, Virginia, and used waterfront buildings as cover for shots at British vessels out in the river, the response of destruction of those buildings was ingeniously used to the advantage of the rebels, who encouraged the spread of fire throughout the largely Loyalist town, and spread propaganda blaming it on the British. Shortly afterwards they destroyed the remaining houses, on the grounds that they might provide cover for British soldiers. On the subject of propaganda, it should be borne in mind that, contrary to the impression given in the popular American film The Patriot, British forces never adopted a popular response to partisan-style asymmetric warfare — retribution massacres of groups selected on a semi-random basis from the population at large.
The rebels also adopted a form of asymmetric sea warfare, by using small, fast vessels to avoid the Royal Navy, and capturing or sinking large numbers of merchant ships; however the British responded by issuing letters of marque permitting private armed vessels to undertake reciprocal attacks on enemy shipping. John Paul Jones became notorious in Britain for his expedition from France in the little sloop of war Ranger in April 1778, during which, in addition to his attacks on merchant shipping, he made two landings on British soil. The effect of these raids, particularly when coupled with his capture of the Royal Navy's HMS Drake — the first such success in British waters, but not Jones's last — was to force the British government to increase resources for coastal defence, and to create a climate of fear among the British public which was subsequently fed by press reports of his preparations for the 1779 Bonhomme Richard mission.
From 1776, the conflict turned increasingly into a proxy war on behalf of France, following a strategy proposed in the 1760s but initially resisted by the idealistic young King Louis XVI, who came to the throne at the age of 19 a few months before Lexington. France also encouraged proxy wars against the British in India, but ultimately drove itself to the brink of state bankruptcy by entering the war(s) directly, on several fronts throughout the world.[11]
The Boer commando raids deep into the Cape Colony, which were organized and commanded by Jan Smuts, resonated throughout the century as the British and others adopted and adapted the tactics used by the Boer commandos in later conflicts.
Sri Lanka
The Sri Lankan Civil War which raged on and off from 1983 to 2009, between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) saw large scale asymmetric warfare. The war started as an insurgency and progressed to a large scale conflict with the mixture of guerrilla and conventional warfare. The LTTE pioneered the use of suicide bombing and perfected it with the use of male/female suicide bombers both on and off battlefield; use of expansive filled boats for suicide attacks on military shipping; use of light aircraft targeting military installations.
US organisations:
Documents:
asymmetric warfare
Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.
"Asymmetric warfare" can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the "weaker" combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.[1] Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized.[2] This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.
The term is frequently used to describe what is also called "guerrilla warfare", "insurgency", "terrorism", "counterinsurgency", and "counterterrorism", essentially violent conflict between a formal military and an informal, poorly-equipped, but resilient opponent.
Definition and differences
The popularity of the term dates from Andrew J.R. Mack's 1975 article "Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars" in World Politics, in which "asymmetric" referred simply to a significant disparity in power between opposing actors in a conflict. "Power," in this sense, is broadly understood to mean material power, such as a large army, sophisticated weapons, an advanced economy, and so on. Mack's analysis was largely ignored in its day, but the end of the Cold War sparked renewed interest among academics. By the late 1990s new research building on Mack's insights was beginning to mature, and after 2004, the U.S. military began once again to seriously consider the problems associated with asymmetric warfare.Discussion since 2004 has been complicated by the tendency of academic and military communities to use the term in different ways, and by its close association with guerrilla warfare, insurgency, terrorism, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism. Military authors tend to use the term "asymmetric" to refer to the indirect nature of the strategies many weak actors adopt, or even to the nature of the adversary itself (e.g. "asymmetric adversaries can be expected to...") rather than to the correlation of forces.
Academic authors tend to focus more on explaining the puzzle of weak actor victory in war: if "power," conventionally understood, conduces to victory in war, then how is the victory of the "weak" over the "strong" explained? Key explanations include (1) strategic interaction; (2) willingness of the weak to suffer more or bear higher costs; (3) external support of weak actors; (4) reluctance to escalate violence on the part of strong actors; (5) internal group dynamics[3] and (6) inflated strong actor war aims. Asymmetric conflicts include both interstate and civil wars, and over the past two hundred years have generally been won by strong actors. Since 1950, however, weak actors have won a majority of all asymmetric conflicts.
Advancements in this type of warfare have been dramatically amplified with the evolution of advanced weaponry. The perpetual evolutionary arms race[dubious ] has made industrialized/more-developed countries incredibly advanced in comparison to less-developed nations. This has given those advanced countries huge advantages in asymmetric warfare.
Strategic basis
In most conventional warfare, the belligerents deploy forces of a similar type and the outcome can be predicted by the quantity of the opposing forces or by their quality, for example better command and control of their forces(c3). There are times where this is not true because the composition or strategy of the forces makes it impossible for either side to close in battle with the other. An example of this is the standoff between the continental land forces of the French army and the maritime forces of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. In the words of Admiral Jervis during the campaigns of 1801, "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea",[4] and a confrontation that Napoleon Bonaparte described as that between the elephant and the whale.[5]Tactical basis
The tactical success of asymmetric warfare is dependent on at least some of the following assumptions- One side can have a technological advantage which outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy; the decisive English Longbow at the Battle of Crécy is an example.
- Technological inferiority usually is cancelled by more vulnerable infrastructure which can be targeted with devastating results. Destruction of multiple electric lines, roads or water supply systems in highly populated areas could have devastating effects on economy and morale, while the weaker side may not have these structures at all.
- Training and tactics as well as technology can prove decisive and allow a smaller force to overcome a much larger one. For example, for several centuries the Greek hoplite's (heavy infantry) use of phalanx made them far superior to their enemies. The Battle of Thermopylae, which also involved good use of terrain, is a well known example.
- If the inferior power is in a position of self-defense; i.e., under attack or occupation, it may be possible to use unconventional tactics, such as hit-and-run and selective battles in which the superior power is weaker, as an effective means of harassment without violating the laws of war. Perhaps the classical historical examples of this doctrine may be found in the American Revolutionary War, movements in World War II, such as the French Resistance and Soviet and Yugoslav partisans. Against democratic aggressor nations, this strategy can be used to play on the electorate's patience with the conflict (as in the Vietnam War, and others since) provoking protests, and consequent disputes among elected legislators.
- If the inferior power is in an aggressive position, however, and/or turns to tactics prohibited by the laws of war (jus in bello), its success depends on the superior power's refraining from like tactics. For example, the law of land warfare prohibits the use of a flag of truce or clearly marked medical vehicles as cover for an attack or ambush, but an asymmetric combatant using this prohibited tactic to its advantage depends on the superior power's obedience to the corresponding law. Similarly, laws of warfare prohibit combatants from using civilian settlements, populations or facilities as military bases, but when an inferior power uses this tactic, it depends on the premise that the superior power will respect the law that the other is violating, and will not attack that civilian target, or if they do the propaganda advantage will outweigh the material loss. As seen in most conflicts of the 20th and 21st centuries, this is highly unlikely as the propaganda advantage has always outweighed adherence to international law, especially by dominating sides of any conflict.
- As noted below, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is one recent example of asymmetric warfare. Mansdorf and Kedar[6] outline how Islamist warfare uses asymmetric status to gain a tactical advantage against Israel. They refer to the "psychological" mechanisms used by forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas in being willing to exploit their own civilians as well as enemy civilians towards obtaining tactical gains, in part by using the media to influence the course of war.
Use of terrain
Terrain can be used as a force multiplier by the smaller force and as a force inhibitor against the larger force. Such terrain is called difficult terrain.The contour of the land is an aid to the army; sizing up opponents to determine victory, assessing dangers and distance. "Those who do battle without knowing these will lose." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The guerrillas must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea. ― Mao Zedong.A good example of this type of strategy is the Battle of Thermopylae, where the narrow terrain of a defile was used to funnel the Persian forces, who were numerically superior, to a point where they could not use their size as an advantage.
For a detailed description of the advantages for the weaker force in the use of built-up areas when engaging in asymmetric warfare, see the article on urban warfare.
War by proxy
Where asymmetric warfare is carried out (generally covertly) by allegedly non-governmental actors who are connected to or sympathetic to a particular nation's (the "state actor's") interest, it may be deemed war by proxy. This is typically done to give deniability to the state actor. The deniability can be important to keep the state actor from being tainted by the actions, to allow the state actor to negotiate in apparent good faith by claiming they are not responsible for the actions of parties who are merely sympathizers, or to avoid being accused of belligerent actions or war crimes. If proof emerges of the true extent of the state actor's involvement, this strategy can backfire; for example see Iran-contra and Philip Agee.Asymmetric warfare and terrorism
There are two different viewpoints on the relationship between asymmetric warfare and terrorism. In the modern context, asymmetric warfare is increasingly considered a component of fourth generation warfare. When practiced outside the laws of war, it is often defined as terrorism, though rarely by its practitioners or their supporters.[7]The other view is that asymmetric warfare does not coincide with terrorism. For example, in an asymmetric conflict, the dominant side, normally as part of a propaganda campaign, can accuse the weaker side of being bandits, pillagers or terrorists. Others argue that asymmetric warfare is called "terrorism" by those wishing to exploit the negative connotations of the word and bring the political aims of the weaker opponents into question. The Iraqi insurgency is similarly labeled as terrorism by its opponents and resistance by its supporters.[8] Similarly, the use of terror by the much lesser Mongol forces in the creation and control of the Mongol empire could be viewed as asymmetric warfare. The other is the use of state terrorism by the superior Nazi forces in the Balkans, in an attempt to suppress the resistance movement.
Representative list of asymmetric wars
Below is a representative list of interstate asymmetric wars fought between 1816 and 2011:[citation needed]Franco-Spanish War, First Anglo-Burmese War, Second Russo-Persian War, War of the Cakes, First Anglo-Afghan War, Uruguayan Dispute, Austro-Sardinian War, First Schleswig-Holstein War, Second Anglo-Burmese War, Anglo-Persian War, Italo-Roman War, Two Sicilies, Franco-Mexican War, Second Schleswig-Holstein War, Anglo-Abyssinian War, Anglo-Egyptian War, Tonkin War, Franco-Siamese War, Second Italo-Ethiopian War, Second Boer War, Sino-Russian War, Tripolitanian War, Franco-Turkish War, Polish Revolution, Italo-Ethiopian War, some Israeli-Arab conflicts: the First and Second Intifada, and various conflicts with the Hezbollah,[9] First Sino-Japanese War and Second Sino-Japanese War, German-Polish Confrontation of World War II, German-Danish Confrontation of World War II, German-Norwegian Confrontation of World War II, German-Belgian Confrontation of World War II, German-Dutch Confrontation of World War II, Italo-Greek Confrontation of World War II, German-Yugoslav Confrontation of World War II, Korean War, Himalayan War, Vietnam War, Second Sino-Vietnamese War, Soviet War in Afghanistan, Gulf War, War in Afghanistan, Iraq War, 2006 Lebanon War, 2011 Libyan civil war.
Examples of asymmetric warfare
The American Revolutionary War
From its initiation, the American Revolutionary War was, necessarily, a showcase for asymmetric techniques. In the 1920s, Harold Murdock of Boston attempted to solve the puzzle of the first shots fired on Lexington Green, and came to the suspicion that the few score militia men who gathered before sunrise to await the arrival of hundreds of well-prepared British soldiers were sent specifically to provoke an incident which could be used for propaganda purposes.[10] The return of the British force to Boston following the search operations at Concord was subject to constant skirmishing, using partisan forces gathered from communities all along the route, making maximum use of the terrain (particularly trees and stone field walls) to overcome the limitations of their weapons- muskets with an effective range of only about 50–70 metres. Throughout the war, skirmishing tactics against British troops on the move continued to be a key factor in Rebel success; however, they may also have encouraged the occasional incidents, particularly in the later stages, where British troops used alleged surrender violations as a justification for killing large numbers of captives (e.g. Waxhaw and Groton Heights).
Another feature of the long march from Concord was the urban warfare technique of using buildings along the route as additional cover for snipers, which provoked the logical response from the British force — destruction of the buildings. When revolutionary forces forced their way into Norfolk, Virginia, and used waterfront buildings as cover for shots at British vessels out in the river, the response of destruction of those buildings was ingeniously used to the advantage of the rebels, who encouraged the spread of fire throughout the largely Loyalist town, and spread propaganda blaming it on the British. Shortly afterwards they destroyed the remaining houses, on the grounds that they might provide cover for British soldiers. On the subject of propaganda, it should be borne in mind that, contrary to the impression given in the popular American film The Patriot, British forces never adopted a popular response to partisan-style asymmetric warfare — retribution massacres of groups selected on a semi-random basis from the population at large.
The rebels also adopted a form of asymmetric sea warfare, by using small, fast vessels to avoid the Royal Navy, and capturing or sinking large numbers of merchant ships; however the British responded by issuing letters of marque permitting private armed vessels to undertake reciprocal attacks on enemy shipping. John Paul Jones became notorious in Britain for his expedition from France in the little sloop of war Ranger in April 1778, during which, in addition to his attacks on merchant shipping, he made two landings on British soil. The effect of these raids, particularly when coupled with his capture of the Royal Navy's HMS Drake — the first such success in British waters, but not Jones's last — was to force the British government to increase resources for coastal defence, and to create a climate of fear among the British public which was subsequently fed by press reports of his preparations for the 1779 Bonhomme Richard mission.
From 1776, the conflict turned increasingly into a proxy war on behalf of France, following a strategy proposed in the 1760s but initially resisted by the idealistic young King Louis XVI, who came to the throne at the age of 19 a few months before Lexington. France also encouraged proxy wars against the British in India, but ultimately drove itself to the brink of state bankruptcy by entering the war(s) directly, on several fronts throughout the world.[11]
20th century asymmetric warfare
Second Boer War
Asymmetric warfare featured prominently during the Second Boer War. After an initial phase, which was fought by both sides as a conventional war, the British captured Johannesburg, the Boers' largest city, and captured the capitals of the two Boer Republics. The British then expected the Boers to accept peace as dictated by the victors in the traditional European way. However instead of capitulating, the Boers fought a protracted guerrilla war. Between twenty and thirty thousand Boer commandos were only defeated after the British brought to bear four hundred and fifty thousand troops, about ten times as many as were used in the conventional phase of the war. During this phase the British introduced internment in concentration camps for the Boer civilian population and also implemented a scorched earth policy. Later, the British began using blockhouses built within machine gun range of one another and flanked by barbed wire to slow the Boers' movement across the countryside and block paths to valuable targets. Such tactics eventually evolved into today's counter insurgency tactics.The Boer commando raids deep into the Cape Colony, which were organized and commanded by Jan Smuts, resonated throughout the century as the British and others adopted and adapted the tactics used by the Boer commandos in later conflicts.
World War I
- Lawrence of Arabia and British support for the Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were the stronger power, the Arabs the weaker.
- Austria-Hungary vs. Serbia, August 1914. Austria-Hungary was the stronger power, Serbia the weaker.
- Germany vs. Belgium, August 1914. Germany was the stronger power, Belgium the weaker.
Between the World Wars
- Abd el-Krim led resistance in Morocco from 1920 to 1924 against French and Spanish colonial armies ten times as strong as the guerilla force, led by General Philippe Pétain.
- TIGR, the first anti-fascist national-defensive organization in Europe, fought against Benito Mussolini's regime in northeast Italy.
- Anglo-Irish War (War of Irish Independence) fought between the Irish Republican Army and the Black and Tans/Auxiliaries. Lloyd George (British Prime Minister at the time) attempted to persuade other nations that it was not a war by refusing to use the army and using the Black and Tans instead but the conflict was conducted as an asymmetric guerilla war and was registered as a war with the League of Nations by the Irish Free State.
World War II
- Winter War - Finland opposed an invasion by the Soviet Union
- Warsaw Uprising - Poland (Home Army, Armia Krajowa) rose up against the German occupation.
- Germany in Yugoslavia, 1941–45 (Germany vs. Tito's Partisans and Mihailovic's Chetniks).
Britain
- British Commandos and European coastal raids. German countermeasures and the notorious Commando Order
- Long Range Desert Group and the Special Air Service in Africa and later in Europe.
- South East Asian Theatre: Wingate, Chindits, Force 136, V Force
- Special Operations Executive (SOE)
United States
- Office of Strategic Services (OSS)
- China Burma India Theatre: Merrill's Marauders and OSS Detachment 101
After World War II
- United States Military Assistance Command Studies and Observations Group (US MAC-V SOG) in Vietnam
- United States support of the Nicaraguan Contras
Cold War
The end of World War II established the two most powerful victors, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, or just the Soviet Union) as the two dominant world superpowers.Cold War examples of proxy wars
- See also proxy war
21st century
Israel/Palestinians
The battle between the Israelis and some Palestinian organizations (such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad) is a classic case of asymmetric warfare. Israel has a powerful army, air force and navy, while the Palestinian organisations have no access to large-scale military equipment with which to conduct operations; instead, they utilize asymmetric tactics, such as: small gunfights, cross-border sniping, rocket attacks,[15] and suicide bombing.[16]Sri Lanka
The Sri Lankan Civil War which raged on and off from 1983 to 2009, between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) saw large scale asymmetric warfare. The war started as an insurgency and progressed to a large scale conflict with the mixture of guerrilla and conventional warfare. The LTTE pioneered the use of suicide bombing and perfected it with the use of male/female suicide bombers both on and off battlefield; use of expansive filled boats for suicide attacks on military shipping; use of light aircraft targeting military installations.
Iraq
The victory by the US-led coalition forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, demonstrated that training, tactics and technology can provide overwhelming victories in the field of battle during modern conventional warfare. After Saddam Hussein's regime was removed from power, the Iraq campaign moved into a different type of asymmetric warfare where the coalition's use of superior conventional warfare training, tactics and technology were of much less use against continued opposition from the various partisan groups operating inside Iraq.See also
- Civilian casualty ratio
- Counter-terrorism
- Fourth generation warfare
- Guerrilla warfare
- Irregular military
- List of guerrillas
- Lawfare
- War on Terror
- Low intensity conflict
- Military use of children
- Partisan (military)
- Political Warfare
- Reagan Doctrine
- Resistance movement
- Space
- Unconventional warfare
- Unrestricted Warfare
Documents:
References
- ^ Tomes, Robert (Spring 2004). "Relearning Counterinsurgency Warfare". Parameters (US Army War College).[dead link]
- ^ Stepanova, E (PDF). 2008 Terrorism in asymmetrical conflict: SIPRI Report 23. Oxford Univ. Press.
- ^ Zhao, et al. (2 October 2009). "Anomalously Slow Attrition Times for Asymmetric Populations with Internal Group Dynamics". Physical Review Letters 103, 148701 (2009) (APS).
- ^ Andidora, Ronald (2000). Iron Admirals: Naval Leadership in the Twentieth Century. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 3. ISBN 0-313-31266-4.
- ^ Nicolson, Adam (2005). Men of Honor: Trafalgar and the making of the English Hero. HarperCollins. p. 73. ISBN 0-00-719209-6.
- ^ Mansdorf, I.J. and Kedar, M. The Psychological Asymmetry of Islamist Warfare. Middle East Quarterly, 2008, 15(2), 37-44
- ^ Reshaping the military for asymmetric warfare Center for Defense Information
- ^ Asymmetric Warfare, the Evolution and Devolution of Terrorism Emergency Response & Research Institute
- ^ Cordesman, Anthony H (2006). Arab-Israeli military forces in an era of asymmetric wars. ISBN 978-0-275-99186-9.
- ^ Tourtellot, A.B. (August 1959). "Harold Murdock's "The Nineteenth of April 1775"". American Heritage Magazine 10 (5). Retrieved 2008-01-13.
- ^ Bicheno, Hugh (2003). Rebels & Redcoats. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00-715625-1.
- ^ Chris Bray, The Media and GI Joe, in Reason (Feb 2002)
- ^ Oxford English Dictionary
- ^ Anonymous (Michael Scheuer), Imperial Hubris - Why the West is Losing the War on Terrorism, Washington DC, Brassey's (2004) ISBN 1-57488-849-8, Chap. 2
- ^ "Hamas claims responsibility for attack". 6 May 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-06.
- ^ McCarthy, Rory (1 January 2008). "Death toll in Arab-Israeli conflict fell in 2007". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-02-18.
Further reading
Bibliographies- Compiled by Joan T. Phillips Bibliographer at Air University Library: A Bibliography of Asymmetric Warfare, August 2005.
- Asymmetric Warfare and the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) Debate sponsored by the Project on Defense Alternatives
- Arreguin-Toft, Ivan, How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict, New York & Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005 ISBN 0-521-54869-1
- Barnett, Roger W., Asymmetrical Warfare: Today's Challenge to U.S. Military Power, Washington D.C., Brassey's, 2003 ISBN 1-57488-563-4
- Friedman, George, America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle between the United States and Its Enemies, London, Little, Brown, 2004 ISBN 0-316-72862-4
- Paul, T.V., Asymmetric Conflicts: War Initiation by Weaker Powers, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1994, ISBN 0-521-45115-5
- J. Schroefl, Political Asymmetries in the Era of Globalization, Peter Lang, 2007, ISBN 978-3-631-56820-0
- Kaplan, Robert D., Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos, New York, Vintage, 2003 ISBN 0-375-72627-6
- Merom, Gil, How Democracies Lose Small Wars, New York, Cambridge, 2003 ISBN 0-521-80403-5
- Metz, Steven and Douglas V. Johnson II, Asymmetry and U.S. Military Strategy: Definition, Background, and Strategic Concepts, Carlisle Barracks, Strategic Studies Institute/U.S. Army War College, 2001 ISBN 1-58487-041-9 [1]
- J. Schroefl, S.M. Cox, T. Pankratz, Winning the Asymmetric War: Political, Social and Military Responses, Peter Lang, 2009, ISBN 978-3-631-57249-8
- Record, Jeffrey, Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win, Washington D.C., Potomac Books, 2007, ISBN 978-1-59797-090-7
- Gagliano Giuseppe,Introduzione alla conflittualita' non convenzionale,New Press,2001
- Sobelman, Daniel, 'New Rules of the Game: Israel and Hizbollah after the Withdrawal from Lebanon, Tel-Aviv University, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, 2004 [www.inss.org.il/upload/(FILE)1190276456.pdf]
- Sobelman, Daniel, 'Hizbollah—from Terror to Resistance: Towards a National Defence Strategy, in Clive Jones and Sergio Catignani (eds.), Israel and Hizbollah An Asymmetric Conflict in Historical and Comparative Perspective,Routledge, 2010 (pp. 49–66)
- Ivan Arreguin-Toft, "How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict", International Security, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), pp. 93–128.
- J. Paul Dunne, et al., "Managing Asymmetric Conflict," Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 58 (2006), pp. 183–208.
- Fowler, C. A. "Bert" (March, 2006). "Asymmetric Warfare: A Primer". IEEE Spectrum.
- Marcus Corbin Reshaping the Military for Asymmetric Warfare CDI website October 5, 2001.
- Vincent J. Goulding, Jr. Back to the Future with Asymmetric Warfare From Parameters, Winter 2000–01, pp. 21–30.
- Hemmer, Christopher (Autumn 2007). "Responding to a Nuclear Iran". Parameters (US Army).
- Andrew J.R. Mack, "Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict", World Politics, Vol. 27, No. 2 (January 1975), pp. 175–200.
- Montgomery C. Meigs Unorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfare (PDF)
- Richard Norton-Taylor Asymmetric Warfare: Military Planners Are Only Beginning to Grasp the Implications of September 11 for Future Deterrence Strategy, in The Guardian, October 3, 2001
- Michael Novak, "Asymmetrical Warfare" & Just War: A Moral Obligation in NRO, February 10, 2003
- Toni Pfanner, Asymmetrical warfare from the perspective of humanitarian law and humanitarian action, International Review of the Red Cross Vol. 87 No. 857 (March 2005), p. 149-174.
- Sullivan, Patricia. 2007. War Aims and War Outcomes: Why Powerful States Lose Limited Wars Journal of Conflict Resolution 51 (3):496-524.
- Jonathan B. Tucker Asymmetric Warfare, a 6 page analysis, Summer 1999.
- Asymmetry and other fables, Jane's Defence Weekly, 18 August 2006
- David Buffaloe 'Defining Asymmetric Warfare' [2] September 2006
- Gates Assails Pentagon on Resources for Battlefields Washington Post April 22, 2008
- Zhenyuan Zhao, Juan Camilo Bohorquez, Alex Dixon,and Neil F. Johnson "Anomalously Slow Attrition Times for Asymmetric Populations with Internal Group Dynamics", [3], Physical Review Letters 103, 148701 (2009), 2 October 2009
- Mandel, Robert. "Reassessing Victory in Warfare." Armed Forces & Society, Jul 2007; vol. 33: pp. 461–495. http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/461
- Mandel, Robert. "The Wartime Utility of Precision Versus Brute Force in Weaponry." Armed Forces & Society, Jan 2004; vol. 30: pp. 171–201. http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/2/171
Real Jew News
Jewish Imperialism & The US Military
Zen Gardner
The Illum-O-lympic Prison City Rollout
Enjoying the in-your-face Illuminati occult rituals at the Superbowl and their media self-award ceremonies? They’re getting pretty bold and brazen and over-confident in their flagrant flaunting of seeming conquest of humanity.
The psychotic idiots are just getting warmed up.
The Zion Olympics coming up are going to sport so much cattle prodding techno-policing, surveillance and militarization you’d think they knew it was going to be another ground zero and are just building a psychic case.
More than that, they are imprinting on the world psyche a dystopian brand of prison-like city dwelling that makes their multitude of predictive programming scenarios in print and film come to life.
It couldn’t be more obvious. Even the general public is appalled, with the lavish spending expected to reach 10-fold the original 2.4 billion pound estimate. Electric fences, thousands of military troops, exercises on the Themes…I mean, overkill seems strangely appropriate in more ways than one.
In addition to the concentration of sporting talent and global media, the London Olympics will host the biggest mobilization of military and security forces seen in the UK since the second world war. More troops – around 13,500 – will be deployed than are currently at war in Afghanistan. The growing security force is being estimated at anything between 24,000 and 49,000 in total. Such is the secrecy that no one seems to know for sure.
During the Games an aircraft carrier will dock on the Thames. Surface-to-air missile systems will scan the skies. Unmanned drones, thankfully without lethal missiles, will loiter above the gleaming stadiums and opening and closing ceremonies. RAF Typhoon Eurofighters will fly from RAF Northolt. A thousand armed US diplomatic and FBI agents and 55 dog teams will patrol an Olympic zone partitioned off from the wider city by an 11-mile, £80m, 5,000-volt electric fence.
Illuminati Imprint
It’s not security they’re concerned about. It’s making a statement for all the world to see. “Behold your future containment system, plebians. Get used to it, because it’s coming to a city near you!”
They’re well aware these Illuminati sponsored Olympics are a standard bearer. Look at any one of them in the past and they’re the same ceremonial worship service. All for the exaltation of their Luciferian doctrine of Elite control in honor to their occult gods of insanity.
Such bullshit.
So What’s the Agenda?
Just guess. Anyone reading this probably already knows. Same old ceremonial broadcast stations at work, thinking they’re putting their “spell” on an unwitting world of bread and circus loving drones. Yeah, works to some extent. But it’s crumbling as sure as I’m writing these things.
The brazen broadcast of their agenda is now past unreal. To militarize a sports event to such a degree…billions of dollars in expense on an already overburdened public, and to sensationalize and terrorize a people with such fear and jackboot police state pomp is trauma-based abusive conditioning to the max.
Should be interesting to see what sort of staged incidents they’re going to pull to force their point home.
Nothing Luciferian Going On Here…
Prometheus the light bearer would be proud. The Olympics are the picture of a Luciferian worship service; spectacular arenas, crazed throngs of the masses with the elites peering from their luxury suites at incredible feats of (harnessed) human prowess, military pomp and circumstance, bright occult insignias everywhere…wow. Aren’t we the rulers of our own destiny! We indeed are the ultimate form of controlled civilization!
While the surrounding villages die of hunger. “Come to the police state and we will care for you!”
Stuff it.
Illuminati Symbolism Is Off the Charts
It goes on and on, as usual. They really don’t care if we’re catching on. They see us as a soon to be exterminated pests who makes little difference.
Boy are they in for a surprise.
What’s interesting again is the architect used for this symbol laden Olympic stadium in none other than the architect for Astana in Khazakstan, one of the planned capitols for the new world order.
Did you know this?
Astana Architect Designed London IllumOlympic Arenas
Now whudathunk. You mean they use the same guy as a designer of one of the new world order capitals being built? What a coincidence! You want an eyeful, take a look at the whole Illuminist city of Astana, Kazakhstan….or go to Canberra, Australia, or Dubai, or Denver International Airport. Connect a few dots for fun and prophet.
Here’s something to chew on:
Heck, I don’t know anything. We can only conjecture.
That’s what the ancients did. It was called “philosophy” back then. Now it’s “conspiracy theory”.
Get the picture? Ha! Laugh in their lying faces!
Love, Zen
BREAKING: TERRORISTS ARE EVERYWHERE!
video short
Ron Paul Stolen Democracy
(this may be one of the most important election fraud videos ever!)
VIDEO PROOF THAT ELECTIONS ARE AND CAN BE RIGGED WITHOUT DETECTION...
Quantum Levitation
Video courtesy of the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC), representing the science center and museum field worldwide. To learn more, visit www.astc.org. Follow us on Twitter: @ScienceCenters.
Tel-Aviv University demos quantum superconductors locked in a magnetic field (www.quantumlevitation.com). For an explanation of the physics behind this demonstration, visit www.quantumlevitation.com/levitation/The_physics.html
With the theme "Knowledge that Works: From Theory to Practice," the 2011 ASTC Annual Conference featured more than 100 sessions, which highlighted how science centers and museums are putting new ideas to practical use to serve their communities. The conference was hosted by the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore, October 15-18.
Thunder Road Report details continuing gold price manipulation
Paul Mylchreest claims to show absolute proof of massive gold price manipulation (suppression) in a detailed analysis of price patterns in his latest Thunder Road Report. His arguments are compelling.
Author: Lawrence Williams
Posted: Thursday, 29 Mar 2012
The Invention of Capitalism
Classical Political Economy and the Secretive Accumulation of Primitive Accumulation
By Michael Perelman
(2000)
Amazon Reviews
The Foundations of Morality
By Henry Hazlitt
(1964)
Henry Hazlitt was a libertarian philosopher, an economist, and a journalist for various publications including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and Newsweek. He was the founding vice-president of the Foundation for Economic Education and an early editor of The Freeman magazine, an important libertarian publication. In 1946 Hazlitt wrote Economics in One Lesson, his seminal text on free market economics, which Ayn Rand referred to as doing a "...magnificent job of theoretical exposition." Hazlitt is credited with bringing his ideas and those of the so-called Austrian School to the American economics scene and his work has influenced the likes of economist Ludwig von Mises, novelist and essayist Ayn Rand. In Foundations of Morality Hazlitt presents a consistent moral philosophy based on the principles required for voluntary social interaction.
---
The Foundations of Morality could be seen as an additional chapter to Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises. Mises adopted a utilitarian stance on ethical issues, but Hazlitt wrote a detailed explanation of what Austrian economics implies about utilitarian ethics. Social cooperation under the division of labor is moral because it makes improvements in human welfare possible. Hazlitt ignored all of the false comparisons that mainstream economists of the mid-20th made between real imperfect markets and idealized views of government. Markets enable people to improve their lives, while never achieving perfection. The market process is progressive, and government regulation leads to stagnation and even decline. Moral rules work to minimize conflict and promote social cooperation. "The system of capitalism is a system of freedom, of justice, of productivity". Hazlitt understood Mises and knew how to bring his economics into discussions of natural rights, act utilitarianism, and rule utilitarianism.
Hazlitt also brings the issue of time preference into the discussion of ethics. The idea that immorality derives from high discount rates is so simple that one has to wonder how nobody thought of it before Hazlitt (at least as far as I know). Yet this is a profound insight. Hazlitt is not remembered as a great scholar, but there are few scholars who can claim to have hit upon such an insight.
Whether you agree with Hazlitt or not, any reasonable person should admit that this is a well thought out book. This book is a must read for anyone interested in ethics and economics. Unfortunately, Hazlitt does not have enough of a reputation to get the attention he deserves. There is an abridged version for those who want to economize on their time, but either way, read this book!
---
Henry Hazlitt was the author of 17 books. He is best known in libertarian and conservative circles for his outstanding, ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON. He also wrote a fascinating book on ethics entitles, THE FOUNDATIONS OF MORALITY.
This is a comprehensive work on the foundations of ethics. According to Hazlitt, the foundation of morality is social cooperation and from this principle he develops a variation of rule utilitarianism. Drawing upon the free enterprise tradition in general and the economic theory of von Mises in particular, Hazlitt argues that actions are good that promote social happiness, and the best way to achieve this is through the free enterprise system. Hazlitt therefore rejects other approaches to ethics, such as natural law or religious based morality.
The best portion of this work is how Hazlitt relates utilitarianism and self-interest. One argument against utilitarianism is that by making the social good the basis of morality, all self-interest and initiative is destroyed. But as Hazlitt shows, those acts that are in our own self-interest tend to increase the overall happiness of society. If all my acts had to motivated by a desire to save starving people in the four corners of the world, neither they nor I would be likely be any better off as a result.
After he describes the foundations of ethics, he takes up some practical issues. For example, there are two outstanding chapters which discuss the relative morality of capitalism and socialism.
This book contains a brief introduction by Prof. Leland Yeager, who has written a book on ethics from a similar perspective entitled, ETHICS AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE: THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIAL COOPERATION. For a different view on ethics from a libertarian perspective, check out Murray Rothbard's, THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY.
---
Henry Hazlitt's "Foundations of Morality" is a book that presents a case for rule utilitarianism - the idea that the best way to judge whether an act is or is not moral is whether it follows a rule that, if followed by all, would lead to the greatest good for all. In other words, a rule utilitarian would judge whether or not it is good to pick up litter off the street, go over the speed limit, or loan money to friends, would be to ask whether, if everyone followed that rule, the greatest good for the greatest number would be achieved.
Hazlitt contrasts this with act utilitarianism, which is the idea that each act should be judged separately for its capacity to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. What's the difference? Take our example about whether it is moral to go over the speed limit. The act utilitarian might say that it is moral to go over the speed limit in some instances because there may be a greater good involved (quickly getting to a friend in need maybe). The act utilitarian would suggest that it is not moral to go over the speed limit because were everyone to do it, driving would become less pleasant for everyone. Therefore, even if there are individual situations where a greater good is satisfied by speeding, the act is still immoral because the greatest good is achieved from everyone following the traffic rules.
This leads to perhaps Hazlitt's main thesis: individual self-interest and social good coincide more often than we may think (as long as we see self-interest as long- rather than short-term). Some may say that my self-interest is to speed. Hazlitt would point out that over the long-term, though, EVERYONE including myself would benefit from EVERYONE following the 'no speeding' laws. By way of another example, a company may see benefit to advertising falsely about their product in order to drum up more business. Of course, this flusters their long-term self-interest in two ways: (a) they will likely acquire a bad reputation and sacrifice their long term viability at the expense of short-term gains, and (b) by advertising falsely, the company is breaking a rule that, if broken consistently by others, leads to a world where no one wants to live.
I have mixed feelings about Hazlitt's thesis and his defense of it. The first big concern is that it is too easy to think of instances where the morality of x and the morality of a universal rule based on x are very different. An act of forgiveness may be judged as very moral and noble, but were everyone to forgive all wrongs like this, the likelihood is that such a rule would lead to more wrongs being done (as retribution would cease to be a deterrent). In fact, some acts - like charity toward others - acquire their moral status BECAUSE they are rare (and therefore unexpected acts of kindness rather than expected and unsurprising matters of course). The problem is that Hazlitt simply does not bring up or defend his view against any counterarguments or counterexamples. He articulates his position, but really doesn't defend it.
Another thing Hazlitt does not do, to his detriment, is bring up a problem similar to the "free-rider" problem. Hazlitt wants to judge an act's goodness by whether, if it were followed by all, the greatest good for the greatest number would be achieved. But this judges the act's consequences only in a world that doesn't exist! Imagine Hazlitt saying it: "Act x is a moral act because it hypothetically would lead to the greatest good in a hypothetical world where everyone were to follow the rule Whether it actually leads to the greatest good in this isolated instance is beside the point. I can imagine a world where it would lead to the greatest good, and that trumps the real consequences at present." As wrong as they may be, the act utilitarians can at least be concerned with evaluating morality based on actual, rather than hypothetical, consequences.
And there is also the REAL 'free rider' problem to talk about. To return the example about speeding, how would Hazlitt try and convince me that not speeding is more moral than speeding (supposing that I have a very pressing concern that may tempt me to speed)? He would likely say something like: "Speeding now may be in your short-term self-interest but it would also induce others to speed, leading to a world where everyone will speed. It is in your long-term self-interest not to speed because it is best to live in a world where traffic can flow safely." But, per game theory, I would ask Hazlitt what possible reason I have to think that my not speeding will help foster a world where others don't speed? Hazlitt writes as if my restraint now is in my long-term self-interest, but my long-term self-interest (of living in a world where traffic is safe and no one speeds) is mostly contingent on whether others refrain from speeding, not whether I refrain from speeding. (Of course, I may feel better by not speeding when I would expect others not to speed, but the claim that my long-term interest will be met by me not speeding now is quite wrong.)
In the end, I simply think that while rule utilitarianism has its appeals, there are too many weaknesses in its case (which Hazlitt presents only decently) for it to be the whole truth. I believe that morality is much more complex than Hazlitt's book acknowledges, that contra Hazlitt's arguments, ultimate ends often do conflict (I am a moral pluralist), and that any talk of the "greatest good for the greatest number" begs more questions than it answers.
My conclusion: a decent book, but not a very deep discussion.
---
A logical, rational, and refreshingly unpretentious explanation of morality that doesn't fall victim to crass oversimplification, mysticism, or myopia, and which incorporates many of the best insights of previous moral philosophers while successfully debunking so many of the accompanying myths that don't stand up to analysis. It is so refreshing to read a book on ethics that actually takes the principles and logic of economics into account.
Hazlitt takes what most of us already seem to intuitively understand about the utilitarian nature of morality (as revealed through our preferences and implicit in the way that we argue our moral views), and helps put these intuitions into a logical framework that brings impressive clarity and comprehension to the great moral mysteries. In so doing, we discover that the common man is often closer to understanding the truth than the moral philosophers who make it their business!
One of the great things about Hazlitt's perspective (and I am tempted to in fact call it the correct one) is that it presents an objective case for morality (explaining its _foundations_) without dismissing the realities of moral conflict and ambiguity. Hazlitt's special brand of rule-utilitarianism (or "Mutualism") still allows for much reasonable debate over what the precise rules are that will in fact be most socially (and thus individually) beneficial in the long run, although he certainly gives us some solid pointers to that end.
Hazlitt has some really brilliant sections in here, most notably his chapter on "The Moral Criterion" and the final chapter which, taken together, provide a succinct overview of his moral framework. The writing is generally clear and understandable for any reader. Hazlitt often repeats himself, but it's usually to good effect since many of the concepts need reinforcement and rephrasing before they really sink in. Occasionally this does become a bit cumbersome, however.
Hazlitt was one cool dude. If everyone would take the time to read this book, the world could be a better place. This guy gets mad props from me. This is the book that I would have tried to write if Hazlitt hadn't already done it for me. It's a shame that so few people know about this book!
http://www.thedailybell.com/3729/Tibor-Machan-The-Tenacity-of-the-Nihilists
The Daily Bell
In the book Reading Obama (Princeton, 2010), James T. Kloppenberg makes a case for how the kind of approach President Obama takes to public policy is now widely preferred, to put it paradoxically, on principle at the most prestigious universities. Obama's rejection of general principles, the kind of we find stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, is in sync with what has come to be mainstream philosophy in America.
Mind you, this is no novel insight about American intellectual life. Pragmatism is, after all, America's homegrown school of philosophy, one that on principle rejects the value of principled thinking! Now, pragmatism has several versions but the one that has become fashionable is the radical type that Paul Krugman uses to ridicule principled thinkers by calling them 'fundamentalists,' as if they were dogmatic, mindless and doctrinaire.
Principled thinkers, such as the American founders, are nothing like this. The principles they found valid for governing a free society were learned from extensive studies of history, by philosophical education and reflection and by reading a lot of others who embarked on inquiries about human affairs.
In a way those alleged fundamentalists whom at least the more vulgar type of pragmatists try to marginalize are like medical scientists. They learn about the criteria of good health and physical condition from their study of human life, a study that comes up with certain reasonably stable notions about what can be done to achieve and maintain good health. These notions are not Platonic forms, fixed in heaven forever and incapable of being modified and updated. But they aren't the infinitely flexible ones that are preferred by those who scoff at principled thinking. Engineers, farmers, gardeners, pharmacists and others who take the findings of the various sciences and translate and apply them to problem solving aren't doctrinaire or dogmatic for being guided by generalizations, principles that come out of those sciences and the experimentation that is part and parcel of them.
Indeed, all disciplines are comprised of more or less fundamental notions that come out of the studies being done in them and the practical implementation of the results of those studies. It is like a pyramid, with some very basic propositions that, to use a phrase the Cambridge philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein made prominent, "stand fast for us," as well as ones that are less and less well established and more subject to revisions.
Instead of denying that there are fundamentals in fields like political economy and political science, embracing a vast Heraclitian flux that leaves everything indeterminate, ambiguous and open to infinite interpretation, depending upon the personal preferences of those concerned with a discipline, a better, contextual approach is warranted. Even pragmatists tip their hats to this when they, for example, refuse to be flexible about the viciousness of rape or murder. They know that some things do stand fast for us, including the value of human life, maybe even of human liberty!
However, those spending reams of paper apologizing for Barack Obama's wobbly political economic decisions and policies act as if this abyss of pragmatically invented ideas could really guide public policy reasonably, productively. (Check out Sam Tanenhaus's "Will the Tea Get Cold?" in the March 8, 2012 issue of The New York Review of Books as a good example!) They ought to check with those who study and practice such fields as medicine, engineering, farming, or auto mechanics and see if anything could be dealt with successfully without general principles, with well founded theories in them. They would find that none of these vital areas of concern can bear fruit without principled thought. And thus they could also realize that neither can the discipline of political economy.
To put the matter bluntly, so called market fundamentalists − as Krugman likes to call people who hold that the best economic arrangements in societies should rely on the free choices of economic agents − are on solid footing; it is sheer laziness not to seek out firm economic principles and theories and proceed by mere intuition, by, literally, nothing at all. Such nihilism hasn't advanced any of the fields of study, research and reflection that human beings have relied upon to steer them toward a more and more successful way of living, including of organizing their communities.
And let us not kid ourselves: One reason the nihilist's stance is attractive is that it supports the policy of arbitrary governing, governing that need not give any account of itself, governing that is, ultimately, autocratic and a matter of pure will. Yes, there are some authentic pragmatists and even nihilists but mostly these positions give aid and comfort to corrupt leaders and their cheerleaders in the academy.
http://www.thedailybell.com/3729/Tibor-Machan-The-Tenacity-of-the-Nihilists
The Daily Bell
The Tenacity of the Nihilists
By Tibor MachanIn the book Reading Obama (Princeton, 2010), James T. Kloppenberg makes a case for how the kind of approach President Obama takes to public policy is now widely preferred, to put it paradoxically, on principle at the most prestigious universities. Obama's rejection of general principles, the kind of we find stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, is in sync with what has come to be mainstream philosophy in America.
Mind you, this is no novel insight about American intellectual life. Pragmatism is, after all, America's homegrown school of philosophy, one that on principle rejects the value of principled thinking! Now, pragmatism has several versions but the one that has become fashionable is the radical type that Paul Krugman uses to ridicule principled thinkers by calling them 'fundamentalists,' as if they were dogmatic, mindless and doctrinaire.
Principled thinkers, such as the American founders, are nothing like this. The principles they found valid for governing a free society were learned from extensive studies of history, by philosophical education and reflection and by reading a lot of others who embarked on inquiries about human affairs.
In a way those alleged fundamentalists whom at least the more vulgar type of pragmatists try to marginalize are like medical scientists. They learn about the criteria of good health and physical condition from their study of human life, a study that comes up with certain reasonably stable notions about what can be done to achieve and maintain good health. These notions are not Platonic forms, fixed in heaven forever and incapable of being modified and updated. But they aren't the infinitely flexible ones that are preferred by those who scoff at principled thinking. Engineers, farmers, gardeners, pharmacists and others who take the findings of the various sciences and translate and apply them to problem solving aren't doctrinaire or dogmatic for being guided by generalizations, principles that come out of those sciences and the experimentation that is part and parcel of them.
Indeed, all disciplines are comprised of more or less fundamental notions that come out of the studies being done in them and the practical implementation of the results of those studies. It is like a pyramid, with some very basic propositions that, to use a phrase the Cambridge philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein made prominent, "stand fast for us," as well as ones that are less and less well established and more subject to revisions.
Instead of denying that there are fundamentals in fields like political economy and political science, embracing a vast Heraclitian flux that leaves everything indeterminate, ambiguous and open to infinite interpretation, depending upon the personal preferences of those concerned with a discipline, a better, contextual approach is warranted. Even pragmatists tip their hats to this when they, for example, refuse to be flexible about the viciousness of rape or murder. They know that some things do stand fast for us, including the value of human life, maybe even of human liberty!
However, those spending reams of paper apologizing for Barack Obama's wobbly political economic decisions and policies act as if this abyss of pragmatically invented ideas could really guide public policy reasonably, productively. (Check out Sam Tanenhaus's "Will the Tea Get Cold?" in the March 8, 2012 issue of The New York Review of Books as a good example!) They ought to check with those who study and practice such fields as medicine, engineering, farming, or auto mechanics and see if anything could be dealt with successfully without general principles, with well founded theories in them. They would find that none of these vital areas of concern can bear fruit without principled thought. And thus they could also realize that neither can the discipline of political economy.
To put the matter bluntly, so called market fundamentalists − as Krugman likes to call people who hold that the best economic arrangements in societies should rely on the free choices of economic agents − are on solid footing; it is sheer laziness not to seek out firm economic principles and theories and proceed by mere intuition, by, literally, nothing at all. Such nihilism hasn't advanced any of the fields of study, research and reflection that human beings have relied upon to steer them toward a more and more successful way of living, including of organizing their communities.
And let us not kid ourselves: One reason the nihilist's stance is attractive is that it supports the policy of arbitrary governing, governing that need not give any account of itself, governing that is, ultimately, autocratic and a matter of pure will. Yes, there are some authentic pragmatists and even nihilists but mostly these positions give aid and comfort to corrupt leaders and their cheerleaders in the academy.
