Sunday, September 23, 2012

Caveat Lector! Beware Subtext in Political Writings

George Orwell wrote years ago about how to impart ideas into people's head correctly.  That is to say, create images in the way in which you want the reader to see not the way that the reader may interpret your writing.  This means that when attempting to write white propaganda for a corporation or a government writers must select their words carefully.  After all, they don't want to be caught lying in the future.

So they run into the problem of audience and reception.  They can't flat out lie, they can't make obfuscations too obvious, and they can't tell the truth.  The truth won't keep the public support anymore than lies will.

George Orwell explains in "Politics and the English Language" (1946) and in "Propaganda and Demotic Speech" (1944) that government bureaucracies use language unfamiliar to the layman to sell ideas.

When you examine Government leaflets and White Papers, or leading articles in the newspapers, or the speeches and broadcasts of politicians, or the pamphlets and manifestos of any political party whatever, the thing that nearly always strikes you is their remoteness from the average man. It is not merely that they assume non-existent knowledge: often it is right and necessary to do that. It is also that clear, popular, everyday language seems to be instinctively avoided. The bloodless dialect of government spokesmen (characteristic phrases are: in due course, no stone unturned, take the earliest opportunity, the answer is in the affirmative) is too well known to be worth dwelling on. Newspaper leaders are written either in this same dialect or in an inflated bombastic style with a tendency to fall back on archaic words (peril, valour, might, foe, succour, vengeance, dastardly, rampart, bulwark, bastion) which no normal person would ever think of using. Left-wing political parties specialize in a bastard vocabulary made up of Russian and German phrases translated with the maximum of clumsiness. And even posters, leaflets and broadcasts which are intended to give instructions, to tell people what to do in certain circumstances, often fail in their effect. For example, during the first air raids on London, it was found that innumerable people did not know which siren meant the Alert and which the All Clear. This was after months or years of gazing at A.R.P. posters. These posters had described the Alert as a ‘warbling note’: a phrase which made no impression, since air-raid sirens don’t warble, and few people attach any definite meaning to the word. (1946)


In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

"While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. (1944)

Similarly, in our war, the white papers are worded as if these very concerns were in mind.

Here are two war related examples:

Which Path To Persia? (Brookings Institute) - One of the authors was arrested for spying and informing to Israel.  The other authors are from the oil/military/intelligence complex or academia.

Rebuilding America's Defenses (Project For A New American Century) - There aren't many newspapers that net the sinn (sense) of what is said in the following,

[quote]Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater.  Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces.  And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. (page 60)[/quote]

Space weapons.  Old news. Underwater Navies. blah blah... Ope! Did you get that there at the end?  Race-based bio-weapons as a useful population control tool?  And this under the section about "trasforming America's conventional

They'd never publish that...oh my...

Yes, both documents are obviously propaganda, but they are absolutely useful when one can discern between propaganda (usually who it is aimed for) and the actual guts (sinn) of what is being proposed. We'll call this "legitimate propaganda" (something to be used on an official capacity) for now and its purpose to "persuade" the underlings of the bureaucracy.  I know, it is the furthest thing from "legitimate."  =/  Words...

This is similar to how Chemtrails is polarizing term, scary and laughable, but Unilateral Geoengineering is serious, scientific, and happening.  There is no reason for them to hide it.  How many people would associate the two things? They both refer to, "injecting light-reflecting particles into thestratosphere, that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system..." (UG 1)

Take this for instance this quote from "Unilateral Geoengineering":

The danger of stopping once geoengineering starts
If albedo-adjusting geoengineering were to proceed for an extended period while CO2 emissions continued or grew, cessation of geoengineering could yield rapid, large and damaging shocks to the climate system. While this issue has not been studied with much detail, one recent simulation suggests that if a system reducing solar flux abruptly failed or was terminated, carbon sinks would weaken, potentially leading to unprecedented global temperature increases of 2-4°C per decade (more than ten times the current rate of temperature change). Such a rapid increase would surely have profound negative impacts on ecosystems and much else that depends on climate.

Developments that could justify geoengineering
Despite great uncertainty about geoengineering, and the likely negative environmental consequences that it could have, if we are surprised by unexpectedly rapid or large climate change, there might be situations in which the governments of the world would be justified in taking collectively action. Here are just two examples... (pages 9 & 10)

The underlined words and phrases are meant to lessen the mental impact of reading them and their logically associated actions or events.  Since this post is about reading and it is late, I'll leave the reader to click the links read and try and notice when phrases are hiding a true meaning because they are vague and or esoteric.

Caveat lector!

Then take note:

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Subjectivity, Ethics, and the Non-Aggression Principle

Does subjective perception of morality/ethics precede the function of NAP and thus negate the uniform importance of property rights, putting into question the legitimacy of NAP as a social institution?

Stated another way, "If ethics and morality precede property rights in human perception and subjectivism reigns as the window of perception, can the Non-Aggression Principle still retain justification?"

COPIED FROM THIS THREAD (involving slave labor and the morality of buying goods with the knowledge of coercion)

My point is that libertarians apply 'subjectivism' to anything and everything.  You might call it a fact.  Yes, it is a fact in a real world economic sense.  However, one cannot have any intellectual discourse when libertarians just say "oh, subjectivism. case closed" in every instance of social inquiry.
Morality?  "Subjectivism."

Justice?  "Subjectivism.  Duh, idiot"

Market?  "Subjectivism.  Whatever, fuck you!"

Good v. Bad; Right v Wrong?  "Subjectivism."

Rationality?  "Subjectivism."

{Inset normative inquiry} "Subjectivism.  Your premise is flawed."

It is starting to me to be a less and less applicable answer to social inquiry. (cultural, not necessarily economic)

I also fail to recognize how libertarians can just say "subjectivism" and think that this is the answer that people are wanting elaborated upon.  People should just know any question they pose on these boards will draw out "subjectivism" as a response to everything.  It is a cop out because it fails to ever reveal anything deeper about culture (cultural norms).  But, I suppose the whole concept of culture (or cultural importance) is negated with the claim of subjectivism (read: subjective perception), huh?

This is why I don't like nihilists as well.  They are moral-less and have the potential for infinite selfishness and evil in my mind (not the the two go hand in hand, but the potential for both is extremified under their moniker).  Why bother with logic and reason and emotion if they are a priori and/or subjective?

It was said by a poster on this board that:

"There is no objectively justifying human action."

Except owning property, huh?
"There is no objectively justifying human action."

...implies "subjective perception" as the base justification for (any old) human action.

That same poster said, regarding the subjective ontological perception of the world, that:

"I think we can get consistent answers, however, which actually reveal valuable truth, if we start with reality."

The "reality" that property rights is the only legitimate perspective of ethics or morality so as to justify the broad application of subjectivism?

The same poster:

"Morals are subjective, so we shouldn't pretend anything else just to have a fun debate."

No one is saying that that is not a true statement.

But, in society, people abide by morals other than their own from time to time.  "Why?" would be an illegitimate or irrelevant question with 'subjective morality and ethics' applied everywhere.  Ultimately it leads one to think that social ethics (a term for when people abide by morals other than their own from time to time) are relativistic; i.e., not subjective.  Which means that people's worth or value of property rights will vary from person to person (whether this is in their interest or not) and also implies that ethics and morals precede property rights in people's action sequence (decision making process).  Even though the ends of the action sequence may be based around the acquisition or dis-acqusition of property itself.

I am wondering if NAP can be justified in light of this.

Again, the poster:

"I don't see what's wrong with being infinitely selfish."

But, some parts of society does.  Why?  Jealousy?  Religion?  Perception?  Historical evolution (ha)?  Morality?

Subjectivism (more specifically, relativism, and more poignantly, nihilism) broadly applied to ethics and/or morality, but not necessarily property rights, will yield the rejection of "'natural law' and reason."

So, the abstractions of philosophy are merit-less in inquiry if subjectivism is applied broadly.  Everyone, then, is basically a philosopher of life/action/ethics/epistemology/logic if this is the case.  There must be limits to the use of subjectivism.  Especially for libertarian social/political theory/philosophy.

Also, subjectivism (and nihilism, relativism) will allow for the rejection of a priori knowledge, of which all logic is.

Libertarians must be selective where they apply subjectivism.

The Higgs Boson and public perception

This post will require a viewing of the video as I think it captures the essence of what I have observed fairly well, sorry.

This also might be a chaotic post.

Does it seem to people that people (other ones of course, not you!) seem to put a lot of stock in the Higgs Boson discovery.  The video mocks the level of celebration that people are enjoying with the "greatest discovery of the century" (I mean, we are only twelve years in).

Will science take the place of religion?

Will the scientific method take over the State?

If people developed for a few (several) millenia with the mentality of religion, does religion form a necessary part of our 'civilized' psyche?

It would seem to me that this is the case.  I have thought for awhile that the State is what fills the "God hole" for most secular democrats, but upon reflection think that 'science' might displace even the critical functions of the State at some point.  The video points out that simlarity between 'believing' in God and 'believing in the higgs boson'.  CERN becomes a temple, the research data, scripture; 'None can see it [the higgs] and the ability to weaponize it becomes...a thing.'  The state, in order to be efficient and logical, would seek to replicate that of what the scientific method dictates and hence become the enforcement arm of the administrators of scientific inquiry, another point in the video.

At the very end of the video Robert says, "[this]."  I have heard it argued before, as I sure others have, that the scientific method has numerous flaws, but one glaring one is the hypothesis.  One is just supposed to dream up an explanation to something, then figure out ways to test for it.  I think the point Robert is making is that we are only explaining things that we ask for and only doing so after the collective effort of mankind develops the technology necessary for the questions we ask, so shouldn't we ask more relevant questions (about life)?

The scientist calls the things in the universe "crap."  This is indicative of people's dismissal of nature.  I have an inkling that humans used to revere nature and not think of it as crap that is the result of a series of accidents and happenstances, as is the trend today.  People revel in the explanation of natural things, but at first thought question what material advancements it may bring them.
So, if the scientific method is what dictates the future state, the scientific method is 'progressed' by whatever human inquiry demands, and this combination of things fills the "god hole," are we just left in a spinning test tube for the people at the top?
People rarlely understand all of the intricacies of their own religion.  My guess is that few have actually thought about the higgs in a way that is not ignorant glorification of this endless magnification of the microcosmic in order to understand the macrocosimic that is colloquially referred to as the scientific method.  Bertrand Russell says in The Problems of Philosophy that, 

"Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called 'the mathematical principles of natural philosophy'. Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy."

It is almost punching you in the face; "Quod est inferius est sicut quod est superius, et quod est superius est sicut quod est inferius, ad perpetranda miracula rei unius."  We are proving the ancient pagan beliefs to be true.  I heard Michio Kaku (just so you know this guy is a state propagandist) claim in a video that the universe prior to the big bang was a geometrical constant (he says it is a crystal; all crystals are geometric constants).  How could we know that?  More importantly, does that shape have resemble a Platonic or Archimedean Solid?  There is research that says the universe is shaped like a dodecahedron...after all (Plato was right...cough)... Implications of which are staggering...I'll refer you to my quote of Russell again.

We are way off course.  The kind of ignorant celebrations surrounding I see not as healthy.

I hope this made sense.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Rand Paul, the Constitution, and Russian/U.S. hostility

Just for the record, I knew Rand was a wolf in sheep's clothing from the beginning.

Still, the ONLY thing that I cannot put a reson behind, well wait a sec, maybe I can, was his voiced opposition to including Georgia into NATO.  Now that I think about it....stay with me on this...

Rand halted a procedure to include Georgia into NATO.  If we look at the 2008 Georgian war, we can easily see the dynamics of the Pro NATO (Georgia & U.S.) and anti NATO (Russia & the separatists) segments of Georgia (Ossetia and Abkhazia).  The NATO issue is precisely why that war occurred and why those separatist movements exist.  Pay mind to this.  Russia and the U.S. have a long held understanding that NATO will never completely surround Russia. Russia views NATO as its primary geostrategic adversary.

Well, Georgia is the only country that is left.  If the separatist movements are officially recognized, then Georgia looses territory and there are then two slivers of land that Pro Russia elements will occupy.  If Georgia is included into NATO, then Russia has allowed itself to be surrounded after all these years...

So, when McCain gets caught taking money from Georgian lobbyists in 2007/8 to vote Georgia into NATO, which happens by 2011, Rand throws a wrench into the machine.  This prevented a very different reality of relations with Russia (especially in light of the escalating Syria debacle).  I will submit that Rand used this as his card to say, "I know the jig.  Let me in."

You see, Rand Paul's outspoken-ness about the issues that we (Ron Paul supporters) support was not directed at us...ever.  He was poking the bear and saying I'll be a thorn in your side unless I am included in your crooked deals.  I'll help you contain my father's supporters."  He throws bones to little things while selling out on the big ones.

Now that Rand Paul is in, seemingly, it is encumbent upon him to support McCain.  He says things like, "McCain isn't an imperailist." (you can read it in the preview section that Amazon gives you; Jack Hunter helped Rand write his book)  What a joke.  McCain and the other three esteemed members of the Senate, aforementioned, in fact, are imperialists.  Their brazen behavior surrounding a war with Russia and Iran demonstrate this.  They want to extinguish the classical nemesis; the foil to the U.S. protagonist.

Rand is not stupid, he knows that NATOs inclusion of Georgia would ruin Obama with Russia.  Any possible international cooperation would cease immediately.  Syria would be a very different situation is Georgia had been allowed into NATO in December of 2011.  Obama would certainly not be reelected if Russia doesn't cooperate to some level (just as Israel must) in the international arena.  Obama had this very shaky "RESET" policy with Russia.  Russia responded by putting Putin back in charge.

Think about this.

The other issue that comes with this is if Romney is elected and sticks to the Paul's claim that, "The Congress must declare war!" this could means that whatever military projects are on the horizon, may indeed, get that declaration.  This could mean a much more expensive and bloody war affair than anything Bush Jr. and Obama are responsible for.

Could Rand be inadvertently helping the NeoCon wet dream of war with Russia?  Could Ron Paul inadvertently be helping the NeoCon wet dream of war with Russia?


I am not sure if Ron Paul would not have helped point Rand to the "true" policy making institutions.  I could see Ron Paul saying, "If you want to join 'em, then that's your decision."  After years and years of Ron saying, "I can beat them.  I can beat them.  We can beat them.  It can be done.  The Federal Reserve..."  His lousy kid comes along and says [chewing bubble gum with a toothpick out the side of his mouth and his leather Fonzie jacket and hairdoo], "Look pops {crackle of chewing gum}...if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. hehhehheh 'Raw milk, light bulbs, gay people, Obamacare, blah blah blah.'"

Another thing to help support my main point, Rand has made a name for himself by pointing out the light bulb, raw milk, NLRB issues.  Doesn't the NATO/Georgia thing stand out?  He is a Junior Senator...what in the hell does he know about Eastern European/Russian/NATO military strategies and prospects...?  Wasn't he an eye doctor just two years before?  Did he just intuitively know, that ' Oh, McCain and Rubio are really pushing this stealthily, it must be important...' or is something else afoot?  I posit that he knew this was an opportunity to put his foot in the door with the heavy hitters.

With Israel's wartime government already formed with an Iranian strike the premise for it and the timetable for the strike ending in October 2012, my guess is that Russia has plans if the West sets things off in the middle east.  There is no way that the U.S. doesn't have plans as well.   Israel's reticence to attack Iran now is entirely reliant on whether or not the U.S. will support it.  Bibi knows that Romney and the GOP will be better wartime allies than Obama and the democrats (like Carter, the ilk of Obama, who support the Palestinians).  Russia has drawn the line with Syria; they are selling them air defense gadgets.  Iran is a step further.  I may be wrong, but I think this is the 21 century's first candidate for a "Great Game."  With this said, keep in mind that "Iran" may actually be a "for public consumption" codeword for "Russia."

Rand Paul may or may not know what he is doing...

Thursday, March 29, 2012

South Park and Ron Paul

South Park. Ron Paul. Here is a link to the episode.

They tacitly endorse Paul and Johnson.

The train scene is 'any problem' that can be seen coming, but due to something stupid and meaningless, they die (or simply refuse to face the problem).

The cat consistently saying something unintelligible with outrageous conclusions reached by all those that try to speak with it can be seen to represent consistency and a language barrier. The sound of the cats jumble is similar to the once stated in the episode translation of "O long Johnson."

Everything that is 'the cat' is Paul. It originated online with young people. The media write Paul off as an internet meme. The consistency and replacement of Ron Paul at the end debate with the cat can be seen saying Paul doesn't follow memes or fads and instead says the same thing over and over even though people will interpret it any way they want.

The reference of the language barrier is the "war" with the "cats." The imagined cat army and inevitable war represent Iran and Ahmadinejad. Again, anything the cat says can and will be used against it as evidence for war.

The whole episode is pregnant with metaphor. I submit that they are telling Ron Paul to "Go long with Gary Johnson" and telling people to stop being retards with memes (even though they are funny). The clips of Ron Paul were strategically placed and leveled so as to hear specific things. Even when Paul is not on the stage at the end, his voice can be heard saying, "I thought maybe you were prejudiced against ... and a doctor that practiced medicine in the military."

Matt and Trey told Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate with Gary Johnson. That is my take.

From the description of the video on the official site:  "Mankind's evolution begins to accelerate at a rapid and disturbing pace. Concurrently, another species on the planet is exhibiting the same drastic development. Eventually the two species will battle to the death and Faith Hilling may be humanity's only hope."

I know I am right, at least with the Iran metaphor.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

The "Limited Hangout"

I do not agree with everything in this video so don't flame.

I'd like to start by pointing out that Assange is Australian, not Swedish as the video claims.

I also think the CIA makes money off of the Mexican Drug Cartels.  There would be no reason for the CIA to try and 'expose them' for anything.  Those drug cartels cannot launder their money without going through "regularly audited" international banks...  It has documented for years that the drug cartels are used by international intelligence agencies as a means of raising illicit revenue for black operations (See: Iran/Contra) and laundered through the banks friendly to the Agency. Yes, the very banks that lobbied for, bankrolled, and have operated the CIA (See: the Dulles Brothers; Allen and John). The video claims that the CIA used Anonymous to attack Los Zeta.  I doubt this.

However, on the subject of intelligence companies using naive kids on the internet as cover for a "color revolution" type scenario, I've thought the same things as the video.  The CIA pattern is evident in many modern color revolutions Iran (unsuccessful, 2009) to Egypt (perfect, 2011) and Libya (flawed, 2011).  Wikileaks, as Assange claimed, had lost "cumulative €40m to €50m", since the "financial blockade" (not that long of a time frame). Until, of course, Paypal and Visa et al boycotted and then their revenue went down to monthly figure of €6,000 to €7,000...

That is a many millions of euros worth of donations that cannot bypass the boycotts measures?  It is a "hacktivist" movement and they using nothing but Paypal and Visa (owned by JP Morgan Chase)??  That smells like someone was funding Assange in order to have a hacker expose the holes in international digital exchange.  Someone who could ask the banks to boycott as cover for the dropping of Wikileaks usefulness.  Seriously, stay with me on this.

This type of intelligence tactic is called a "limited hangout."  The 'hangout' is 'critical information' leaked to make the people being propagandized think that there is validity to the claim, which there is, but more importantly, that the claim is the whole truth, which it likely is not.  Hence, the "limited." It is generally used to obfuscate truth and divert attention to irrelevant facts.

Nixon is famous for using this tactic, unsuccessfully, however.  It would not surprise me if Wikileaks was funded by intelligence companies from the Western governments in order to monitor how critical, leaked, and otherwise illicit information can legally travel from country to country, exposing the imperialists for what they are.  Crooks.

Assange articulated many times how information was sent from an initial server to a server in a country or region that had very very lax regulations, or none at all, on digital exchange.  Starting in the city-states of Europe into Sweden and Iceland.  The purpose of doing this was to make sure that after the information had gotten to these safe locations, any transfer of the information out of those safezones was legal.  And anything incriminating would have no solid legal ground to prosecute IP violation or information theft.

I do not think Assange works for the CIA, but I think he was duped by them.  Assange is now being prosecuted several different ways in several different jurisdictions with varying legal cases of varying degrees of foundation to go forward on.

These legal loopholes that Wikileaks and Assange used have been identified and now Assange has no use.  The funding is cut.  The attempted donations to the boycott compliant international banks are monitored along with the core of the actual activists for this particular cause (whistleblowing; an important one) identified.  Wikileaks is castrated and the governments of the world have their loopholes for the modern information and transparency age ready to be clouded, fogged, steamed, and bloodied, but most of all, closed.

P.S. Arguments like this, in this article, cannot hold up, "This was done without due process, without any charges, and has been in place since December last year," he said in a blog post about the blockade. "If I want to give $100 to WikiLeaks, and if I want to use my credit card to do so, who are they to say I can't?"

The banks decided as private institutions not to provide service to Wikileaks.  No due process is required.  Does McDonalds have to go to court to not serve someone with "No Shirt, No shoes"?  Of course not,  Wikileaks tried to expose the banks and the banks fought goes the fool, running errands for his enemies.

Monday, February 13, 2012

U.S. Defense Contractors caught selling women and children

Dyncorp and a few other U.S. defense contractors were caught in Bosnia in the 90's, during the war (and Afghanistan and Iraq more recently) snatching up women and children and selling them for sex slavery and snuff films in Eastern Europe. They got away with it because people do not have the guts to stand up and prosecute these corporations and these governments.

There are no laws in war zones and the corporations tied closest to the military do this kind of thing, not to mention child slave labor, illegally selling weapons, and helping to smuggle drugs...then the money laundering...anyway... Be aware of it, at least.

This is just a trailer to a movie about a real event that I have complained about to people around me that nothing is ever said of it for a while now. So, I am actually glad Tinseltown has decided to make a movie on it.  It is a subject that needs adressing in a real way, not some know nothing celebrity "awareness campaign."