You Can’t Handle the Truth!

Dec 8, 2010 | Australian Values, Citizenship, Corruption, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Legal, Media Values, OzPol Values, Terrorism, USPol, Values, War

You Can’t Handle the Truth!

 

… This was a lie and we could not let them publish it …

 

We keep thinking of Jack Nicholson‘s character’s justification for the secrecy that governments and their institutions maintain over their citizens – that is to say, their owners, their employers, the “sovereign people”:

“You want The Truth?
You can’t handle The Truth!”

It’s the only possible explanation.

Governments and their functionaries can only be thinking that their citizens – who are the actual authority of the State – are incapable of dealing with reality and need to be cotton-wooled, treated like mushrooms if you like, kept in the dark and fed bullshit, to play with their toys and live their fantasy lives while the powerful look after the real games like big boys, as such people have been doing since long before Machiavelli shone his own light on their games.

 

Rep Ron Paul tweets:

“ Re: Wikileaks- In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.

Daniel Ellsberg (re)tweets:

“ For less than $3 you can buy a copy of the Pentagon Papers from Amazon yet they won’t host Wikileaks.”

Here’s what Hillary Clinton said on the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square:

“ A China that has made enormous progress economically, and that is emerging to take its rightful place in global leadership, should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal.

 

This anniversary provides an opportunity for Chinese authorities to release from prison all those still serving sentences in connection with the events surrounding June 4, 1989. We urge China to cease the harassment of participants in the demonstrations and begin dialogue with the family members of victims, including the Tiananmen Mothers. China can honor the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally-recognized human rights, and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform.

 

But wait! There’s more! Speaking at the Newseum in January this year she said a lot of fine things about freedom of speech and the internet, and how while it was a great organ of free speech and for good in the world, there were those who were trying to stifle it.

“ On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress. But the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.

This challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the First Amendment to the Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone.

[ … ]

As I speak to you today, government censors are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics.

[ … ]

As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools.

[ … ]

Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.

And much, much more hypocrisy like this on the foreignpolicy.com website

Clinton should take a good hard look at herself and take a leaf from her own book.

So to help Clinton, let’s repeat Nicaraguan Interior Ministry Director of Censorship, Nelba Blandon’s, statement:

“ They accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.

Glenn Greenwald, in his column in Salon disputes The Washington Post‘s Jonathan Capehart’s assertion that there’s nothing new here (and I apologise for reproducing the entire list but please read the whole excellent article).

“ If there’s Nothing New in these documents, can Jonathan Capehart (or any other “journalist” claiming this) please point to where The Washington Post previously reported on these facts, all revealed by the WikiLeaks disclosures:

 

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

 

(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA’s kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

 

(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA’s torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Will Bunch today about this: “The day Barack Obama Lied to me”);

 

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War “investigation”;

 

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

 

(6) “American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world” about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post’s own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;

 

(7) the U.S.’s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal — a coup — but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

 

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

 

(9) Hillary Clinton’s State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

 

That’s just a sampling.

The sadness of this is that it was The Washington Post that stood up so steadfastly and courageously for freedom of speech and truth, supporting Woodward and Bernstein and the independence of the Press against the secrecy and lies and machinations of Washington’s most powerful in the Watergate scandal – from which, of course, “Cablegate” inherits its name.

Meanwhile, where is GetUp on the shocking treatment by the Australian government of Assange, an Australian innocent of any Australian crime but nevertheless pre-emptively accused by both Gillard and McClelland of criminal or at least illegal activity. McClelland:

“ From Australia’s point of view we think there are potentially a number of criminal laws that could have been breached by …… the release of this information.”

For goodness’ sake even Rudd and John Howard agree Assange is not at fault.

“ Mr Rudd appears to be in agreement with former prime minister John Howard, who earlier today said Mr Assange had not done anything wrong by publishing cables that contained ‘frank commentary’.”

The Guardian has a live blog of developments which you can follow including a large amount of support for Assange and the leaking of the (previously) secret documents.

 

 

Wikileaks Cablegate and Hunter S. Thompson

Dec 5, 2010 | Australian Values, Citizenship, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Legal, Media Values, OzPol Values, Terrorism, USPol, Values, War

Wikileaks Cablegate and Hunter S. Thompson

 

Hunter S. Thompson said it, and he wasn’t a traitor:

“ America…just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.

It needs to be amended to say “… used car salesmen and soccer moms …”

The first thing to say about the Wikileaks “Cablegate” is:

There are no surprises.
We all knew it.
We know they are liars.
We always have known.

It’s like that person who finally works up the courage to make an embarrassing confession, a clean breast of it, and haltingly admits that they have been living a lie, that they’ve been pretending to be one thing but hiding who they really are and what they’re really like. And all their friends say, “Well, duh. Everyone knew that! Tell us something we don’t know.”

We know that all governments spy and have no respect for conventions and even treaties when it doesn’t suit them.

We know what China is like, we know how toxic the Russians are, and how ruthless and ignorant the Chinese government is. We have always known what a dick Berlusconi is and what a wanker Sarkozy is, what an arrogant dork Rudd is, and in one way or another how fucked up almost every country, in the fact the whole world, is if you look at it in certain lights.

So there are no real surprises and the world isn’t about to change.

What has changed, and what all the fuss is really about, is two things:

First, the US Government has lost the most precious protection of a professional liar, plausible deniability.

Second, it’s not true simply that knowledge is power but that secret information is power and the US Government’s secrets are not secret any more.

The US government (amongst others) is exposed, the klieg lights are on and they have nowhere to turn, nowhere to go, no escape hatch to fall through in their embarrassment.

So they are making the ridiculous assertion that they have been wronged by being exposed spying on their friends and lying to their own people. They have been backed into a corner and we see the honesty of their snarling teeth.

But how did we know what we know?

It’s no thanks to governments, politicians or bureaucrats, or especially to FoI legislation. It’s not even really thanks to journalists who have known most of this but don’t report most of it, too.

If anything it’s thanks to TV and movie writers. Apparently there’s more truth than we thought in those spy thrillers we imagined were a bit fanciful and exaggerated.

What’s becoming clear is that the Enlightenment was an illusion. We’ve always thought that since the Divine Right of Kings went down the chute and representative democracy took hold, L’êtat is no longer moi and is now The People. There is after all, we have been fooled into believing, no other source of power or authority but The People. No special dispensation from a god, nor from a king.

Under our western-tradition democratic systems – as enshrined in laws and constitutions; as publicly and pompously promoted even by any number of unbearably bloated, unethical, pathologically untruthful power-hungry politicians and money-hungry plutocrats – it is we, we naïvely believed, who own the State and all its power and authority.

Politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, police and other functionaries (we simple-mindedly thought) are our servants who owe their allegiance to us, as their employers and paymasters. We, we childishly assumed, as the actual owners of the information gathered by our governments, have a right to know that information.

Gullible fools!

In reality the world is governed by political elites, dynastic families and people with carefully nurtured personal and professional connections. The world is ruled by people who have an immovable and deep-as-hell belief in their own privilege and entitlement.

The world is ruled by corporations and vested interests. Probably the biggest vested interests are the world’s militaries and the corporations who rely on them. Reportedly a Pentagon spokesman complained, about news film of Iraqi soldiers killed by helicopter gunfire,

“ If we let people see that kind of thing, there would never again be any war.”

We, the people, are nauseatingly patronised by narrow minded, morally shallow, easily-bribed, power-mad, status-hungry, greedy people.

Clinton’s, and others’, position seems to be similar to that of Nelba Blandon, Nicaraguan Interior Ministry Director of Censorship:

“ They accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.”

Wikileaks’ action is a broadside against an astonishingly powerful and impermeable machine. The intention is in keeping with the professed values of the Enlightenment which are publicly supported by all western-tradition democracies. But the true beliefs of the powerful are on open display around the world with calls for the assassination of Assange, who Republican Senator Mitch McConnell calls a “high-tech terrorist” [get a bloody grip!], the Swedes redefining rape to include the inadvertent breaking of a condom during consensual sex, and any number of politicians, including the awful Gillard woman, calling the publication of the leaks “criminal” and “illegal” when they simply are not. There is plenty of very senior legal opinion explaining in detail why Wikileaks has not done anything illegal>

But Gillard is fawning over the US – who have, by the way, broken international law and convention, undeniably and undenied – to traduce, and to remove protection from, Assange, an Australian national, in just the same way that Howard did with David Hicks.

And so “Australia” in time-honoured fashion is on its knees once again, begging please to suck America’s cock even though we know America despises us (as it does everyone) while telling us (as it tells everyone) it loves us and we’re the only one.

In the meantime the attempts to shut down Wikileaks have suffered from the Streisand Effect and there are now many mirror sites. The current site is available at http://twitter.ch On Twitter Wikileaks is posting news updates at http://twitter.com/#wikileaks You can find more information about the reaction to the leaks at the Wikileaks Facebook page.

So goodnight. Sir Roger leaves you for now with this piece of advice for Hillary Clinton from the Poet of the Enlightenment, Robbie Burns:

Wee, sleekit, cow’rin, tim’rous beastie,

O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!

Thou need na start awa sae hasty,

Wi’ bickering brattle!

UPDATE: Wikileaks posts “Sarah Palin says Julian should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden — so he should be safe for at least a decade.”

At the ABC’s Drum website Kellie Tranter says,

“ Yet a concerted program of personal vilification and an international manhunt continues. After all, hell hath no fury like bruised, frustrated Capitol Hill and Wall Street egos. Do political leaders really believe that Assange is the only person on the planet who wants governments to be open, transparent and accountable? Do they think he’s the only person who understands that our governments are almost pathologically incapable of telling the truth, or that they authorise the commission of despicable acts in our names behind hypocritical calls to freedom and democracy?

As of now (6/12, 7pm AEDT) there are 355 Wikileaks mirror sites, so best of luck with shutting them all down. Or up.

 

 

Update:

Republican 2008 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said that “anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” Surely this is criminal incitement to murder given that he has not been charged anywhere in connection with Cablegate and in fact has not broken any laws. Similarly, Mastercard has cut off Wikileaks’ services because it says Wikileaks has been engaging in “illegal activity”. Of course there is no legal basis for Mastercard’s assertion. There is clearly a little pressure and a little leaning on American companies by some powerful people. And, says the Guardian, in Canada ‘ “police are investigating whether there is evidence to proceed against a former adviser to the [Canadian] Prime Minister after he called for Assange to be killed. Tom Flanagan, now a professor at the University of Calgary, suggested on television last week that Assange “should be assassinated, actually”. 

The nature and fierceness of responses by these people throws its own light on the workings of the world and the people who work it.

 


 

Addendum:

While the Wikileaks saga is fascinating and enlightening, and while the case for “the more the merrier” certainly can be made, and that we have a right to the information about our own countries, and that politicians should tell the truth, perhaps we should also take a deep breath, stand back for a moment and ask ourselves whether we are ready for the kind of world in which nothing is secret and politicians are honest.

The emergence of such a world would see a seismic convulsion into confusion and discomfort and therefore perhaps calamity. Somalia anyone?

Are we big enough, grown-up enough, cohesive enough as a community, to manage it? Or have we been cradled and protected from the real world too long, so long that our muscles have become atrophied and we can’t stand up? Are we responsible enough as societies, or are we baby-booming tit-suckers who just want to sit in our playpens with an iPad while mummy sings soothing lullabies and cooks our pre-digested dinner?

 

 

Tony Blair: All the Perfumes of Arabia

Sep 5, 2010 | Australian Values, Corruption, OzPol Values, Religious Values, USPol, Values, War

Tony Blair: All the Perfumes of Arabia

 Doctor: What is it he does now? Look, how he rubs his hands.

Gentlewoman: It is an accustom’d action with him, to seem thus washing his hands.

Foul Whisp’rings Are Abroad

 

S ir Roger has been listening and reading about Celebrity War Criminal Tony Blair’s 720 page excuse for his inexcusable war crimes, TONY BLAIR: A JERK.

And, as he listens and reads, Sir Roger’s mind is flooded with lines from Shakespeare’s Macbeth.

“  Macbeth:
What hands are here? Ha! they pluck out mine eyes.

Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood

Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather

The multitudinous seas incarnadine,

Making the green one red.

[ … ]

Lady Macbeth: 
Yet here’s a spot.

Out, damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why, then ’tis time to do ’t.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?

What, will these hands ne’er be clean?—Here’s the smell of the blood still; all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, oh, oh!

Wash your hands, put on your nightgown; look not so pale.

I tell you yet again, Banquo’s buried; he cannot come out on ’s grave.

To bed, to bed! there’s knocking at the gate. Come, come, come, come, give me your hand. What’s done cannot be undone.


Exit.


Doctor:
Foul whisp’rings are abroad; unnatural deeds

Do breed unnatural troubles; infected minds

To their deaf pillows will discharge their secrets.

More needs she the divine than the physician.

God, God, forgive us all!

… except Tony Blair, who “loves not Caesar less but loves Rome more”.

Yet do I fear Blair’s nature; It is “too full o’ the milk of human kindness” to be authentic.

In fact, what Blair has done, has endorsed, has pursued, has prozelytised for, has lied through his teeth for and has conveniently forgiven himself for is, simply, unforgivable.

And on top of all this, of course, what he did has made the world a much more dangerous place for the rest of us.

He says that he has wept for those he sent to their deaths and that he was truly upset by those who died. But if he were truly sensible to, and authentically sorry for, the horrors for which he is personally responsible for inflicting on so many thousands of people he would by now have gone completely mad, leapt naked into a pit of thorns and snakes, covered himself in ashes, and begun flailing himself with chains, because the horrors he has for political expediency visited on, in fact, millions, are so awful that it is impossible to grasp their true enormity, ugliness and inhumanity.

Blair’s simpering, smirking, self-congratulatory, self-indulgent, self-promoting self-forgiveness is insufficient. It is as shallow as Lake Eyre in a drought and as intelligent as a dead slug.

 

 

Here’s the smell of the blood still; all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand

 

 

 

“  And also with bloodied hands of course the vile Bush and Howard (and by extension those who endorsed them, up to and including Pell). There is another, the one man who probably had the power to stop the madness but chose to be its champion – Rupert Murdoch.
~ Wanderer 

 

Delaying the Economic Apocalypse

Jul 5, 2010 | Australian Values, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Economic Values, Legal, Lifestyle & Life, Media Values, OzPol Values, USPol, Values

Delaying the Economic Apocalypse

 

Who ultimately pays?

 

Sir Roger is not an economist. He is (therefore) not a marxist. Nevertheless he has long been confused and at the same time fascinated by the doctrine of endless economic growth and has wondered from where and how, in our system, the profit can endlessly come. Who, ultimately, pays?

Here are two items that help to understand these questions.

The first is an animated version of an RSA talk in April this year, “The Crises of Capitalism: Is it time to look beyond Capitalism towards a new social order that would allow us to live within a system that would be responsible, just and humane?”  by Professor David Harvey¹.

 

 

The second is a 2010 Deakin Lecture broadcast on the ABC’s Big Ideas program on Sunday. “Prosperity Without Growth?” by Professor Tim Jackson²

You can listen to the whole talk here, or on the ABC’s Big Ideas page, or download the podcast from their page. 

 

Prosperity Without Growth?

 

ABC’s notes: 

“So much of the analysis of how we respond to climate change assumes that economic growth and emissions reduction are compatible goals. But is this wishful thinking? To question maximising economic growth as an organising principle of society seems close to economic heresy. But is there any evidence that we can de-link consumption and economic growth from emissions growth? Must we re-think the very notion of growth and what it means to be genuinely prosperous?”

 

¹ “Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). A leading social theorist of international standing, he received his PhD in Geography from University of Cambridge in 1961. Widely influential, he is among the top 20 most cited authors in the humanities. In addition, he is the world’s most cited academic geographer … and the author of many books and essays that have been prominent in the development of modern geography as a discipline. His work has contributed greatly to broad social and political debate, most recently he has been credited with helping to bring back social class and Marxist methods as serious methodological tools in the critique of global capitalism, particularly in its neoliberal form.”

 ² Professor of Sustainable Development in the Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES) at the University of Surrey Economics and Commissioner UK Sustainable Development Commission.

  

Why NOT Benny Condoms?

Jun 1, 2010 | Australian Values, Corruption, Lifestyle & Life, Media Values, OzPol Values, PedoPriests, Religious Values, Science Values, Values

Why NOT Benny Condoms?

 

Okay, it can’t be avoided.

 

Sir Roger wrote this in a fit a few weeks ago and he was in a variety of minds as to whether he ought to publish it. Was it intemperate? Of course. It was Sir Roger. Anything else? Was it wrong? Sir Roger, on reviewing it, has determined that he does not resile from its sentiments and so directs its publication. Here then is his response to the

Foreign Office Pope Flap …

Someone at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office made what appears to be a joke memo about what the Pope could do when he visits Britain and before he gets arrested.

The FCO is wishing it had a hole to jump into. The Government doesn’t know where to look. The poor author of the memo has been “assigned to other duties”. And the “Vatican” is effecting to be deeply mortified by the “insult”.

Really?

The true obscenity is that while many of the suggestions are, in an enlightened world, actually rational and reasonable, they are characterised by the FCO as “far-fetched”. Commentators are calling them “astonishing”, “foolish”, “clearly ill-judged, naive and disrespectful”. A Catholic Bishop says, “This is appalling”, “outlandish” and “outrageous”.

So what were the abominations that the poor little 20-something Oxbridge Foreign Office boy proposed?

[ Be careful. You may go to hell just for reading this list.]

It includes:

• Launch ‘Benedict’ condoms

• Review vatican attitude to condom use

• Bless a civil partnership

• Reverse policy on women bishops

• Ordain a woman

• Open an abortion ward

• Training course for all bishops on child abuse allegations

• Announce sacking of dodgy bishops

• Vatican sponsorship of AIDS clinics

• Launch helpline for abused children

So all of these things are done by other religions and/or secular groups in advanced 21st Century society around the world. Done by grown-ups, by rational, thoughtful people, by mature, socially-concerned human beings dealing with actual problems in the real world.

Nevertheless, the “Vatican” (whatever that is a metaphor for) is not part of 21st Century society. nor is it any of those other things. It is anchored in 6000 year-old anxieties of desert tribal culture, was hijacked into a militaristic system by a mad emperor in the 4th Century who appropriated it to his imperial service and decided its beliefs, and for millennia has been so wrapped in archaic, cannibalistic, irrelevant ritual that it has lost even the vaguest connection to the “true” orgins of the cult.

If Christ were to return today it is the Catholic Church which would most vehemently be clamouring for his murder – because he would threaten to collapse their cosy, now entirely temporal, globally-tentacled, fear-mongering, parasitic apparatus, emasculate their power structure and reduce the fraudulent façade of their unctuous piety to rubble.

What the “Vatican” is doing now, must do and always does do is to desperately try to prop up the flimsy cardboard and canvas of the awful illusion they call their “authority”; patch it, stitch it, retouch it. And scream obscenities at – and, as they have so frequently done, kill – those who too clearly see their fakery and their flagrant lies and refuse to pretend it is real.

The more the church screams injustice and victimhood the more you know they are lying and afraid and protecting their livelihood whatever the cost to the real people in the world.

Because that is the problem; the catholic church through its pope is literally – and I mean literally – responsible for the deaths of millions in Africa, millions who are dying right now.

The catholic church is harming lives around the world. It is causing endless misery on a daily and hourly basis with its so-called “beliefs”. The pope’s “beliefs” are not merely irrational, illogical, deeply stupid and pathologically detached from reality; they are caustic, toxic, savage and inhumane. They are putrid, repugnant and rotten. They are fundamentally anti-life.

The catholic church for at least 1700 years has been, in its deepest nature, dishonest and utterly debauched. The establishment — which supposedly honours a simple, plain man who blessed the poor and the downtrodden — smells like a brothel and is painted up like a cheap, toothless harlot. (Metaphorically.) It remains debauched, like a syphilis-ridden hag, because those who have attached themselves like crabs into its stinking knickers don’t understand that they cannot continue to get away with what their predecessors have done for so very, very long.

 

Here endeth the lesson.