I found this funny pic on the web. Whoever drew it is one funny guy.
When You Can't Point A Finger, Point A Gun
Mr. Geoff Murphy recently joked to me in passing, "They say WWII was a war against fascism. The only conclusion we can draw is that we lost!".
The thing is, a 'war on fascism' or a 'cold war on communism' has some kind of philosophical basis. "Those guys across the sea believe in this doctrine or this idea and we disagree with it". And whatever the outcomes of actual battles and wars may be, the fact of the matter is, you can argue cases for an against these ideas like: Absolute Monarchy; Democracy; Constitutional Monarchy; fascist dictatorship with Fuhrer-Prinzip; Military juntas by coup; Marxist, or even Communist Totalitarianism (a.k.a. Stalinism); Islamist Theocracy; Cult of Personality (Maoism & Kim-ism) and so on. Some might actually argue a case for any of these types of state, as one were running a kingdom/nation in a game of 'civilization'.
The problem I have with this so-called war on terror is that 'Terrorism' is not an ideology of state that you can argue for or against. In trying to do so, it's such a stupid notion that we are reduced to un-nuanced moral arguments ourselves. A construction like, "Terrorists believe in terrorising us through terrorist acts." can be writ large. - Well, clearly, that's wanton violence and we don't like it, but that's largely a moral issue against violence. However, you cane see that Terrorism as such isn't much of a way to run the Reserve Bank, for example. What are they going to do? Threaten to blow up the vault unless we buy government bonds? Terrorise people into taking out home-loan mortgages in order to control the interest rate? (having written that, I realise now that maybe I already do live in a 'terrorist' state)
Anyway, the point stands that the war on terror is largely bunkum fed to us by media hysteria and governments keen to curtail our civil liberties in the name of war-time.
On that note, I'd like to present this link from Pleiades:
(3) PROMOTING TERRORISM:
Fauzi Hasbi's death led to a flurry of speculation about shadowy intelligence links to Indonesia's terror networks.
UMAR ABDUH (Translation): So there is not a single Islamic group, either in the movement or the political groups that is not controlled by Intel. Everyone does what they say.
Umar Abduh says his terrorist group was incited to violence after infiltrators showed a letter saying Muslim clerics would be assassinated.
UMAR ABDUH (Translation): There is a document stating that the Muslim leaders would be executed, we as a younger generation were immediately angered. Damn it, this is not right, we have to kill all those Cabinet members and military leaders, that was our plan.
And he's not the only one who says he was used by intelligence agents. Another convicted terrorist is Timsar Zubil who exploded three bombs in Sumatra in 1978. Although no-one was killed, he paid a heavy price.
TIMSAR ZUBIL (Translation): At first I was sentenced to death, it was changed to a life sentence, I served 22years.
Zubil now believes he was set up by former president Suharto's intelligence agency.
TIMSAR ZUBIL (Translation): We may have deliberately been allowed to grow in such a way, that we young people who were very emotional, were provoked into committing illegal acts.
REPORTER (Translation): Who let this happen?
TIMSAR ZUBIL (Translation): The ones who had the authority to ban us, in this case the ones in power, the Suharto regime. I have only started thinking of this recently, but at the time I was active, I didn’t think it through.
After Zubil was captured, beaten and tortured, something remarkable occurred. The authorities made up a provocative name for his group - Komando Jihad.
TIMSAR ZUBIL (Translation): It hadn’t occurred to us to use that name, but they told us that was to be the name of our organisation. We had no plans to use the name Komando Jihad. They told us to just accept it for the time being and if we wanted to deny it later in court, that was up to us. But it made no difference to the court, they insisted that the name was indeed ours.
This above bit caught my eye in particular because it matches what they've done with 'al Qaeda'. Give them a name like some band that's haggling with a record label.
"You are Kommando Jihad".
"err... Okay. We were thinking more along the lines of The Justice League"
"No, you are Kommando Jihad; the public won't buy your records if you call yourself The Justice League, and we need to sell records."
"...but we like the word Justice and we like the idea of a League of people who all agree."
"You are Kommando Jihad, because that's your image. Dangerous, threatening, with lead codpieces stuffed down really tight pants. Hide-your-daughters stuff. It always sells when you threaten their chicks."
"...but we want to grow out of that image and go more main stream..."
The record hits the streets. They are called Kommando Jihad. Substitute 'Records' for 'Terror' and you've got something that reads more like the blueprint for the 'War on Terror' as a marketing strategem.
And this is also why I'm saying these bombings in Bali and whatnot are media pseudo-events, much like the launch of a new album by a rock act. Sorry about the people who actually have to get blown up, but it's just a big stage show launching some campaign to convince your or me that the world is one fuck of a dangerous place and unless we give up a chunk of our civil liberties, we'll never get through this together alive. Well do you really buy that shite?
In turn, you know you're being marketed this absurd notion that we can indeed fight a war on terror, as opposed to any tangible idea. The lesson that was really learnt from WWII is that if you have an ideology that you're fighting, it opens you up to the need to argue a case. Well, clearly, you might lose those arguments if they have a superior argument; or a totally different set of cultural values. So the best thing is to just insist on a moral imperative, and what better moral imperative can there by than "we have legitimate reasons to fear..."
As long as you can legitimate your fears by making yourself the 'victim', then you can go on the offensive to excessive violence because you've won the right to do so through the court of public opinion.
It's a crock, boys and girls.
No Contributions Without Representation
Japan shoulders the second largest contribution in support of the United Nations. 19.5% of the UN budget is supplied by Japan. Recently Japan asked to join the Security Council as a permanent member, and were resoundingly defeated in the process. So now Japan has decided to argue to lower its fees to the UN on the grounds that it need not pay so much because it doesn't shoulder 19.5% of the decision making. After all Russia only pasy 1.1% and is a regular member of the Security council.
The Ambassador to the UN, Mr Ozawa stated, "If you exclude the United States, the amount Japan contributes to the UN surpasses the sum total of what the 4 nations on the Security Council contribute."
He also said, "our people strongly feel that our contribution is not being appreciated fully. There is also a growing despair and disillusion with financing the United Nations amongst our people."
Them's fightin' words. So potentially, Japan might become the first nation too leave both the League of Nations AND the United Nations... only joking. But it may well be possible that they simply stop paying in protest. Imagine the hypocritical international furore when that happens.
Just for the record, the ratios are:
US 22%
Japan 19.5%
UK 6.1%
France 6%
China 2%
Russia 1.1%
I'd be pissed about that too, especially when China actively campaigned to stop Japan getting a seat; and the only reason the Japanese asked for a seat wwas because, well, if you were paying 19.5%, you'd want representation too. The thing is, to quote the famous Paul Keating quip, these people sitting and negotiating at the UN ARE 'Unrepresentative Swill'.
Naturally, the Russian line has been there is no need to discuss changes to the contribution ratio each nation must make. Well, if I was a nation sitting on the Security Council while paying only 1.1%, I'd say the same thing too. But this is going to prove to be very challenging for the UN if Japan says "we're not paying at all unless you do review it." That's like a fifth of the budget at stake. The UN could go aground faster than you can say, "corruption in the offices of Kofi Anan"
Now, Japan aren't saying, "give us a seat on the Security Council or we don't pay". They're saying, "we understand we're not getting a seat on the Security Council. That's fine. Then we want to lessen our burden because our financial burden is disproportionate to our representation."
This is going to to be so much fun.
Walk-Off HBP Mailbag
This is funny only because I don't have a boss. But it is very funny:
Introducing SerfChoicesSums it up nicely. :)
October 19, 2005
New work laws offer a brave olde worlde, writes Charles Purcell.
The Government is proud to unveil its new industrial relations program - SerfChoices. You may have seen the ads for it already: smiling peasants plough the fields while soothing mandolin music plays. You wouldn't believe how hard it was to find peasants with full sets of teeth for those ads, this being the Middle Ages and all. Or ones that remembered how to smile. But I digress.
SerfChoices features exciting changes to the way your lord handles your employment. In the past, there were many ways you and your lord negotiated. Some lords liked to beat their serfs with maces; some cudgels; some preferred the rack. The Government is pleased to announce there will now be one standard method for beating peasants with large sticks, making it a simpler and fairer system.
SerfChoices also changes the way you, the peasant, negotiate your weekly payment of turnips.
In the past, you negotiated your turnip ration in the presence of your lord and the Government's official torturer, Dagmar the Terrible. The Government is pleased to announce it has eliminated third parties such as Dagmar. Now your lord will beat and torture you directly as you beg for scraps. Once negotiated, your contract will be cast in iron. You can't get much more cast-iron than manacles.
SerfChoices guarantees that many of your employment conditions remain unchanged. As a peasant, you're not entitled to holidays, so there's no change there. Your medical benefits remain intact - when you pass out in the fields from exhaustion, you will be left until you recover or the wolves take you.
The Government has made it illegal for your lord not to beat you because of race, colour, sex or age. Everyone will be given the same number of beatings, making it a better system for all.
The maximum number of working hours a day will be fixed at 23. One hour is permitted for sleeping, smoking noxious weed from the West Indies, and turnip consumption. Casual peasants will earn a quarter of a turnip and a piece of weevil-infested bread for each hour they work over 23.
Your protection from unfair dismissal will depend on your individual bargaining power - that is, whether or not you can talk your lord out of shooting you with his crossbow. Yet another way the Government is rewarding individual talent.
Thanks to SerfChoices, Sunday will no longer be a day of worship, but of work. Your lord is your living god - you may worship him whenever you please. Collective bargaining - otherwise known as peasant rebellions - will be treated in the usual manner, with the king's horses using the dissenters for speed bumps until they drop their demands.
Over time you may notice that your daily turnip ration goes down. That's because peasants in Upper Saxony and Timbuktu are willing to work for less. SerfChoices will allow us to build foundations for a stronger, more prosperous kingdom. If we don't act now, soon there'll be no turnips for your children and your children's children. And no one wants that.
No comments:
Post a Comment