Wed Feb 16 20:51:13 2005
For the most part, this text is a kind of inventory, motivated largely by want to know what is going on and accepting responsibility for my decisions and the consequences they have. It is to say that not knowing is no acceptable excuse. That who wants to know, can find out, because enough is done openly for everyone to hear and see. Many different issues and stories are touched only briefly, which leaves a certain dissatisfaction because so many things are left unmentioned or should be presented and argued much more in depth and detail. Therefore, the text remains unfinished and work in progress.
This text is also about theory of change. Changing ourselves first and foremost. That is for everyone at any moment to be as 'clear and coherent' as we can be. I don't know what is best for anyone but myself. So i cannot speak about change in the sense of what another one should do or which ways to choose and how to walk.
Many people feel that we are living in critical times and see the death and destruction the dominant order is inflicting. But really it is only that some people start to see more clearly. Things didn't fundamentally change and times are as dire as were for too many generations already. Systemic and systematic mass extermination was always very much part of the mentality and way of life of the Europeans and their diaspora, and is fundamental to the capitalist economic order. The European colonizers, settlers, traders, missionaries and soldiers, are a prime example of the European spirit. These people, claiming dominion over foreign lands and the indigenous peoples of that land, taking away everything for nothing and killing off the indigenous peoples, often to extinction, were thieves and thugs both in spirit and action. As their current and most likely last leader, the USA symbolizes the West, as in the 'West and the Rest' , like none other country.
One of the most characteristic features of our people is the disconnection between how we talk and what we do, what we think and who we are. It can be simply seen as endless lies always talking ideals and good intentions, but acting the other way. Which seems clear from the point of view of those who see themselves as always being lied to. But much too often this strategy still works and people continue to listen and believe what is being told to them, despite all contradicting experience and evidence.
Either against or with them
When President Bush II proclaimed "You are either with US, or you are with the terrorists", he made one of his few statements, which actually make sense. Plain and simple, either you are against the USA and their partners in crime, or with them. There is no 'clash of civilizations', but one civilization, which wants to impose itself and dominate all others. It is a situation, which demands that we stand together in struggle against the common foe. We can not expect Western civilization to recover from itself, for we have walked the wrong ways for too long, leading us into a one-way-street with no escape, with the roots rotten and the core stinking.
So, who is 'them'? From my point of view, being a german white male, living currently in New York City with enough income to pay for my needs, 'them' is 'us'. 'Us' is first and foremost Western Europeans and their diaspora in the USA, Canada, Australia. Add Japan because of its investments and technology and maybe Russia with its strategic nuclear arsenal and vast natural resources. I call 'them' the Democratic Totalitarian Societies (DTS). Our wealth and power will make people line up everywhere in scores, to say what we want to hear and to get a nice position serving us, ready to betray their own people for a share of the bounty. Usually those who base their fortune and career on us are with us and in time actually become very much like us. But unfortunately it doesn't stop there.
People coming in contact with us and our organizations and institutions are under serious threat of mental and physical contamination, and effective immunity requires a high level of clarity and discipline. When not fought back, the disease causes loss of vitality and spiritual decay, leading its victim into a state of perpetual dependency and weakness. First manifest in seemingly minor character changes, it later progresses into serious distortions and deformations, particularly selfishness, greed, falsehood, gradually compromising the integrity and dignity of the victim.
The disease is more devastating when it befalls whole communities and peoples, or when you grow up in a society already completely sick. It is so infectious because it uses our weaknesses and hopes to create desire where there was no need, and get us to focus on what we have instead of who we are and where we belong. Like a drug addiction it gets us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do to get the money to buy the stuff we got to depend upon. Competition and enviousness pollute our relationships with others and burden our communities. The trick is that first comes the party, and the destructive consequences are showing only later. We don't see it coming, but once drawn into its web, it is very difficult to get away from it.
Through colonialism and imperialism, the capitalist order spread disintegration and destruction of native orders, imposing itself as a dominant force, ruling more or less direct. Some of the profits from the exploitation of peoples and seizing of wealth through colonization and imperialism were distributed as selective concessions and privileges to deal with the growing power of the working class in the industrial centers at home.
The victory of the Communist Revolution in Russia 1917 raised the hopes of workers and peasants, that victory may be possible in their struggles as well. The capitalists used a combined strategy of massive repression against more radical and uncompromising groups and individuals, and New Deal programs offering employment and benefits for the working class to keep them quiet and build up loyalty.
The basic structure of the international order we are living under today was determined by the United States as the leading capitalist-democratic power emerging out of WW-II, and also by the requirements of particularly Britain and France to restructure their colonial empires into more profitable ventures, somewhat following the more efficient US-imperialist model of exploitation.
Keynesian economic policies with full employment and social benefit programs, mass consumption and middle-classization, increased the pool of loyal citizens to a point where stable democracies could be established and maintained. But this policy could not prevent the rise of simultaneous struggles in both the capitalist centers and the countries of the periphery (COP). For an end to poverty and for rising income, for better working conditions and benefits, against work as a condition for income. On the fields and in the villages, like in the factories, the slums and communities of the cities. Anti-colonial and national liberation struggles. Profit rates came under pressure on many fronts and finally brought the post-WW phase of reconstruction in Europe and Japan, and post-colonial restructuring of the so called underdeveloped countries to an end.
Historically, the working class has imposed "full employment" and has then used it to launch its wage struggles and so further attack the power of capital. If the struggles of the U.S. unemployed in the Thirties forced an end to the usage of devastating levels of mass unemployment and deflation to control wage rates, the wage struggles of the Sixties showed that "full employment" is also politically unmanageable. ...
These struggles for more money and less work, working class rejection of incomes policies, absenteeism, lowered social productivity, sabotage, welfare struggles, urban insurrections have been autonomous struggles, carried on by the direct initiative of those involved in them, whether through existing political organizations, if these organizations - Government agencies, trade unions, "workers' parties" - could be used, or through new organizational solutions. Everywhere the mass wage offensive has been productive self-organization, including mass direct action, the political use of mass violence, and the explicit organization of armed struggle in the community against the factory and the State. Everywhere the same political characteristics of the wage struggle have emerged: in advanced England, backward Portugal, dependent Argentina, reformist Chile, and socialist China. At the same time that the waged working class has used "full employment", antiFascism, Peron, Allende and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution for its wage initiative, the masses of the unwaged the world over have intensified their pressure, forcing the opening of entirely new wage fronts. It is the immense income demand of the unwaged that has produced local growth and plans for economic development in Libya, Algeria, Iran, Venezuela, Indonesia, Nigeria. Decades of national liberation struggles have incubated an explosive unwaged, unsatisfied, uncontrolled working-class demand in what was once called the "Third World."
At the international level, the cycle of struggles of the U.S. working class remains the main reference point, not simply because of the strategic position and strength of the U.S. working class, but because the U.S. cycle has shown the highest wage re-composition of a multinational working class. In this sense, the U.S. cycle interprets and expresses more clearly the political quality of the international cycle as a whole: the recomposition of the waged and the unwaged.(2) Political recomposition of the working class meant a wage explosion and a welfare explosion at once that a traditional recession (1969-1970) could not even begin to contain. During the Nixon recession unemployment, welfare and wage rates rose while profits fell. By mid-1971 it was clear that the good old medicine no longer worked.
... From Welfare struggles to rent strikes, from criminal activities such as shoplifting and robbery to direct appropriation attacks on supermarkets, from squatters to food price boycotts, we see the opening of a whole spectrum of working class struggles for wealth. The existence of these two levels of the class struggle (the factory and the community, the waged and the unwaged) is nothing new or peculiar to this cycle of struggles. What is new is the force each side has achieved and the rapid circulation between them that made any recession-unemployment-wage-cut sequence impossible.
Malthusian concepts of over-population became common talk again during the 1960s, blaming poverty on the impoverished. A triage was implemented, in which those who do not command enough resources or money to pay for their needs are treated as expendable and must face hunger and starvation, diseases and death. Money became the ultimate enforcer of command. Do what is required to get enough of it, or you may suffer and die.
The monetarization/commodification of relations, and particularly of food production and distribution, deteriorated food security and disrupted rural and fishing communities and economies. Instead of providing food for the local people, the land and water, fishing stocks, grazing areas and forests were increasingly being used to produce for the larger markets, often for export.
Systematic mass extermination of some million people every year through hunger, diseases and war, is mainly driven by the concern of the DTS planners about the growing disparity between the minority, who wants to control all of the earth and the so called resources, and the growing majority which demands their share of it.
The attack on population was launched on a grand scale with the 'Green Revolution' of the Kennedy administration and anti-population propaganda offensive about 'The Population Bomb' . In the campaign to ban the use of DDT, at that time, and in some regions even today, the most effective and affordable means to control malaria, non-governmental organisations worked hand in glove with nation states. The not so 'Silent Spring' and forseeable result of their work were millions of additional malaria cases and whole regions again becoming inhabitable.
It was food, where the major attack on population was organized. In the 1960s, all the major wheat exporting countries, the U.S., Canada, Australia and Argentina, had implemented policies of planned scarcity with programs to reduce wheat production. Under capitalism, the food surplus/scarcity situation is always one of the market and not one of dietary needs. While there were some hundred million people with not enough money to pay for adequate food, the privileged ones with rising incomes were shifting to the American dietary model, demanding more bread, meat, and poultry.
... Lifestock and poultry rather than people became the main market for American grain, and the soybeans and corn ranked with jet aircraft and computers as the country's major exports. As more countries aspired to this grain-based diet, the need for grain increased.
By the early 1970s, animals ate up about as much of the world's annual harvest of wheat, corn, barley, oats, rye and sorghum as humans did. Lifestock and poultry in just two countries - the United States and the Soviet Union - consumed one bushel out of five of all this annual harvest of grain.
It was the sale of large quantities of grain to the Soviet Union in the early 1970s which reduced available world market surpluses to a point where speculation on shortages took over and drove prices out of reach for millions of poor people wordwide.
Other events in 1972 in addition to the Russian grain purchases helped the United States of its surpluses and send grain prices to their highest levels since 1917. Droughts occurred all over the world that year, and prices would have risen with or without Russian buying. But the surprise in, and the magnitude of, Soviet buying tipped the balance. As grain prices rose, there was panic and hoarding on a planetary scale. ...
From mid 1972 through 1973 export prices of wheat and rice each more than tripled, finally stabilizing at very high levels during 1974. Along with this move went the reduction of US 'food aid'. Concessional food shipments under PL480 were an instrument of US foreign and economic policy, on the one side to get rid of surpluses and subsidize US agricultural industry, and on the other side to penetrate and take over foreign markets from small local farmers producing for themselves and their communities. The combination of Green Revolution schemes and subsidized food imports forced more and more small farmers and farming families to give up their land and to become agricultural laborers or migrate into the slums of the cities. Countries and people, which had been made dependent on exports for both their revenues, as well as on imports of basic food requirements, were now caught in the vicious cycles of perpetual poverty and dependency, forced to compete for food on the world markets with the little money and credit they command. Growing demand, combined with high prices, made US agricultural exports in dollar values grow at an enormous rate.
The devastating famine that killed millions in the West African Sahara during 1972-73 had been signalled since 1967 by clear warning signs which, though unmistakable indicators of what was to come, were ignored by aid staff on the spot. ...
The pictures of famine from Africa presented to us a vision of suffering and death, which achieved several objectives. It presented the victims of our aggression as underdeveloped and uneducated people, unable to effectively organize their societies and therefor unfit to handle their own affairs by themselves, desperately needing foreign help and guidance. Thereby it gave rise to still another expression of the colonial attitude, where the more civilized must teach and guide the lesser ones how to do things.
On the other side, it put on notice all of us not yet in such dire conditions, that nothing should be easily taken for granted, not even food on the table. People worldwide were reminded, that our wellbeing and survival actually depends upon our position within the order.
Hunger, diseases and war are the main means of extermination used in a triage of [integration | subjugation | extermination], grouping people according to their usefulness in terms of profit expectation and benefits, leaving numerous millions dead. Integration through domination (ITD), meaning the imposition of relations by the dominant societies, subjugation through violence, meaning the imposition and exertion of command over others, and extermination of those not even useful as a poor people for either the (surplus) labor or aid market, dispossessed and impoverished on their own land.
The underdeveloped, decolonized self-administered colonies and highly dependent countries were never supposed to control their own development and way of life, nor their wealth for that matter. World market integration, debt and development programs and aid, international law, obligations and regulations, and covert operations when necessary, were the main tools to impose and exert foreign control, and keep the wealth flowing from the poor and weak to the privileged and mighty.
Where there is world market industrialization or mining, people additionally suffer from poisoning of the natural elements. Industrial agriculture and fish production claim vast tracts of land and coastal areas, destroying the economic foundation of families and whole communities, submitting them to a life in dependency and on the edge. Hundreds of millions of people live in a constant state of food insecurity with periodic or chronic malnutrition and starvation. Many millions are dying every year from the combined consequences of hunger, environmental damages and diseases.
Hunger is imposed upon its victims by forced dispossession and impoverishment. Diseases spread easily in an environment of mass poverty and crowding in slums and camps, with insufficient or lacking water and sanitation infrastructure in an environment of industrial poisoning, with much stress and struggle to make urgent needs end and to avoid having to live on the streets.
Abject poverty and the threat it represents are a necessary condition to create the masses of people so desperate that they accept working conditions and wages offered by the world market factories and sweatshops. These operations are concipated so that they can be moved to another location without much costs. They are temporary alien implants controlled by multi and transnational entities as pieces of their worldwide production and distribution/communication networks. World market production, like tourism, features environmental, social and cultural devastation, with much corruption, repression and violence. These activities have one crucial reason, which is to generate profit for investors. People (in world market factories mostly girls and young women) are maximum exploited for a few years and replaced when their performance drops. When the resources or the labor pool are exhausted, or when social unrest or organized labor can no longer be kept or put down, operations are moved somewhere else.
The history of European expansion and conquest, which led to the first ever global totalitarian regime (GTO), carries a disturbing message: 'their violence works, it hardly ever fails'. The most wicked, cruel, ruthless and destructive of all civilizations could not be stopped on its way to worldwide domination. It will be hard times until we can finally push it into disintegration and make it forgotten.
The West and the Rest
Under President Bush II more than ever it has become popular to blame the USA for many things. The US policies are aggressive, overwhelmingly violent and threatening, make us want to hold on to something to relieve us from the fear, and at the same time it becomes the favorite target of frustration and anger. But while the US is promoting its own national interests, we may not forget that it acts as the leader of the DTS (the 'free world'). The Pentagon is the ultimate guarantor of the monetary and property relations forced upon us. Globalization and world order can only exist because there is military enforcement to impose and defend that order, to punish and put down peoples who dare to challenge the rule.
The problem is not George Bush II or the USA, but the DTS and their domination. Only together can these societies hope to be able to keep or even expand their hegemony and control over relations and development, and to impose their schemes upon all peoples, either by propaganda and education, privileges and sanctions, control of trade and money, or plain violence and force. We find the DTS heavily competing among each other, which creates friction and leads to numerous proxy wars. But if we take a closer look at the relations, we will find that there is basic understanding and solid common ground, which binds these societies together against the rest.
Most importantly, our societies and wealth are built and maintained on unequal relations and exploitation. Although there are poor people in our societies, as collectives we depend on the continued domination and oppression of the earth and the rest of peoples. It is the transfer of stolen wealth which enables us to consume so disproportionately much. Whatever we may say to justify starvation in the midst of abundance, obscene richness in the face of abject poverty, the injustice still remains obvious. The capitalist order of things means that the profit of the one is exploitation of the other. The rich societies live of the suffering and blood of the others. Only the constant and continued flow of resources and profit from the COP to the DTS allows them to continue their way of life.
Probably the most dangerous groups today are those who argue and promote further centralization of authority to world governmental and judicial frameworks. Universal human rights and international courts, intervention and occupation forces under UN mandates, global standards and enforcement all over us. Behind the recent offensive of the DTS is the powerful ideology of western moral and intellectual superiority. The power of that ideology comes from people believing in it despite all contradicting experience and obvious limitations and flaws.
The W Europeans and their disapora in America, Australia, Africa and elsewhere, not just share common heritage and interests, but also fundamental values and views. Like the idea of untermenschen and the superiority of their culture and civilization. Or the belief that science and progress make things better. The German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in a speech at Princeton University on November 19, 2003:
The present situation shows that, for all of us, but especially for the US and Europe, security in the 21st century can no longer be defined by the traditional categories of the 20th century. A new totalitarianism, Islamist terrorism and its inhumane Jihad ideology, pose a threat to peace and stability, both regionally and globally.
Its goal is to upset the existing power system in the Islamic Arab world, especially in the Arabian peninsula and in the Gulf region, and to destroy Israel in the long run. Its instruments are suicide attacks and the terror of brutal, cynical force. Its tactic is to create bloody chaos, while its strategy aims at the withdrawal of the US and the West from the entire region.
This new threat is comprehensive. It is no longer a question of opposing systems, as was the case in the fight against the traditional totalitarianism of the 20th century. Rather, we are faced with an even greater danger: It is aimed at a religious and cultural clash of civilizations between the Islamic Arab world and the West, led by the US.
Our response to this must be equally comprehensive. And since September 11 at the latest, we know that our security in the 21st century does not only depend on the successful globalization of the free transfer of goods. It depends even more on the globalization of fundamental values, such as human rights, respect for life, religious and cultural tolerance, the equality of all human beings, of men and women, the rule of law and democracy and a share of the blessings of education, progress and social security.
Positive globalization is the real strategic response to the deadly challenge of a new totalitarianism.
For that, we need more than strong democracies based on a stable foundation of values. We also need strong multilateral institutions - first and foremost a reformed UN - which are able to enforce and uphold this order in keeping with international law. Such a world order must be based on effective multilateralism, which is able to impose peace and security.
This effective multilateralism requires both the US, as a world power, and the UN, as a framework institution recognized by its 190 member states and therefore indispensable. For, despite all its shortcomings, the UN is the only international organization with the resource of global legitimacy.
One of the favorite gloomy questions being asked by political journalists at present is, "Is the West at an end?" My clear answer is "no!". The West would only be at an end if the transatlantic community were to have no future due to a lack of common interests, and Europe and America were to go their separate ways.
However, our interests demand the very opposite. Let us not get confused by the current dispute in the transatlantic family. There will always be arguments now and again in an alliance of free democracies, and they can be very fundamental arguments.
We can only successfully counter these new threats if the US, Canada and the EU draw up a long-term plan to tackle this strategic task together, on the basis of their common values, interests and the successful transatlantic tradition of the last few decades.
Let us fully appreciate the intellectual monstrosity presented here. The West must unite to be able to impose its fundamental values and globalization upon all of us and enable itself to enforce compliance under its order, but those who want to
upset the existing power system in the Islamic Arab world
, which is a result of colonialist and imperialist domination by the West, and
aims at the withdrawal of the US and the West
from their lands in order to be able to regain control of their own history and reorganize their own societies according to their own fundamental values, are presented as totalitarian and a
threat to peace and stability, both regionally and globally.
There is a Will to Exterminate
At the end of the Cold War the USA again had to make sure to everyone, that it is willing and able to use its military superiority in the fight for influence and control between the Great Powers and against the rest of humankind. A target country had to be selected and war being waged. To be successful, the aggression had to be short and highly destructive. From the very beginning, the main policy aim was the symbolic punishment of Iraq through mass extermination of its people and re-underdevelopment (the destruction of essential infrastructure and production capacities of Iraq).
After the Iraqi capitulation, the UN/US aggression was continued with no-fly zones and the UN protectorate in the northern Iraqi provinces, frequent missile and aircraft bombings, covert operations to destabilize the government, trade restrictions and UN control of Iraqi oil revenues. In addition, large reparations have been awarded to members of the coalition of aggressors in a grotesque procedure under the UN Compensation Commission, cutting deeply into Iraqi oil revenues.
Iraq is the example, that the USA and their key allies are able and willing to use their military potential to force their will. Who will suffer and prosper, control over development is the essential question. Iraq is one of the countries in the forefront of the fight against re-colonization and imperialist domination. We can only salute the heroic resistance of the Iraqi, like the Palestinian, Chechen and Kashmiri peoples, who continue despite incredible suffering and overwhelming violence to stand up and struggle for their liberation.
Iraq, like no other example, symbolizes the US efforts and project to define relations in the immediate post Cold War era. Working through the UN, imposing the most comprehensive sanctions, blockade and embargo ever, using its full military potential below the level of atomic bombs against the defenceless country, taking away control of its northern provinces through the establishment of a UN protectorate, intensive open and covered operations to organize internal unrest and uprising, always accompanied by more bombing and missile attacks, two million Iraqi people were systematically exterminated mostly through a combination of environmental poisoning, impoverishment and diseases.
War on Terror
The war on terror is an important part of the broader scheme of domination and assimilation, but not limited to it. In recent years the mission statements of DTS political leaders have become much more openly aggressive, once again claiming Western values to be universal and to be enforced globally, with the core propaganda themes being freedom, democracy and human rights.
But NATO is involved in a lot of things, including in Afghanistan, but NATO needs to respond to the Iraqi's request. This is about the spread of freedom and liberty. That's what NATO has stood up for from the very beginning. It is consistent with NATO's values. Many of the members of NATO would not be free and at liberty themselves had it not been for the sacrifices of others, including sacrifices of the United States. And I think what the President will challenge NATO to do is, in much the way that he challenged the G8 and much the way that he will talk to the E.U., that this is an historic opportunity to continue the forward march of freedom and liberty. And NATO needs to play a role in that.
This statement is interesting because, during the Cold War, NATO was usually presented in defensive terms standing against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Treaty Organization. Without any even remote threat to European military security, there is no justification for any European military but as a tool of intervention, aggression and occupation. The bombing and partial occupation of Yugoslavia were the first official NATO aggression, showing its will to use economic and military violence to dictate and control relations within Europe, and also as a means of expansion and oppression outside Europe. NATO forces are active under the GWoT and the occupation of Afghanistan. NATO infrastructure and especially Germany and Italy are major communication hubs for the occupation of Iraq.
The curtain before the international order was moved aside and what has remained of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of weak or highly dependent states is largely reduced to mockery. Many countries have to deal with continuous interference and intervention into their national and regional affairs and are increasingly being put under direct foreign rule.
"There is no neutral ground. All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization," Bush said.
Indeed, all governments that support the war on terror are complicit with the DTS and their plans for world domination.
The war on terror means further militarisation of international relations as well as increasing authority and role of enforcement. This includes expansion of DTS police and undercover operations, export of techniques and technology of control and repression, and broad justification for state terror. One of the major goals of the campaign is to declare as terrorism every armed resistence of non-state nations and groups, to be criminalized and persecuted, so that the unity of people in struggle can be broken by fear. Once divided into a 'legitimate' peaceful and 'terrorist' armed struggle, not defined by common cause but the chosen means of resistance, the people will be even more defenseless and the internalization of defeat will spread further.
'Suicide attacks' are not about lunatics or fanatics committing barbaric acts of terrorism, but a deliberate and conscious strategy coming from decades of resistance at a particular phase of the struggles for liberation. It is important to recognize the propagandistic use of the term 'suicide'. Those who execute the attacks are not doing so to commit suicide, but quite the opposite because of a strong commitment for the cause they believe in. It is the ultimate personal sacrifice a person can make to give his/her life struggling for their people and we should honor it as such. Therefor i prefer to accept the terms 'martyr' and 'martyr attack'.
The use of martyr attacks has to do with desperation. If you are forced to live under occupation and witness the most outrageous crimes, humiliations and injustices day after day and year after year without being able to stop it from happening, desperation and the struggle for hope and dignity clearly are a major element of life. And we can be sure the Palestinian armed struggle would prefer to use helicopters and tanks, airplanes and missiles to fight the occupation, instead of stones or relatively unsophisticated weaponry and martyr operations. But unfortunately they are not in a position to do so.
As the first Palestinian Intifada [Stone Intifada 1987-1994] was manifested with broad participation of the Palestinian people, the second Intifada immediately turned into a military confrontation between the resistance groups and the occupation forces.
Atef Odwan, political sciences professor at the Islamic University in Gaza...
"Both Intifadas manifested themselves in broad popular participation. The big difference between the two is that the second has turned into a military action in response to the incessant Israeli assassinations."
"Contrary to the first Intifada, Palestinian factions resorted during Al-Aqsa Intifada to martyr operations against the occupation forces and Israeli settlers, while such a technique was scarcely used at the first."
Al-Aqsa Intifada has also seen a remarkable coordination among all Palestinian resistance groups, contrary to the first Intifada during which tensions were running high.
On the other extreme, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat has opted for the peace process and negotiating table cliche, deserting decades of military struggle against the Israeli occupation.
Another key hallmark carried by Al-Aqsa Intifada is the pivotal role played by Palestinian women in resisting the occupation.
Women who sacrificed themselves in a string of bombings against Israeli interests have hit headlines over the past four years.
Palestinian mothers also showed unprecedented strength, watching sons pay with their souls to resist the Israeli occupation.
Palestinians were reduced to a small portion of their homeland and systematically forced into exile, poverty and dependence. Communities suffer tremendous loss of life and resources and are forced to live under constant harassment and terror from occupying settlers and troops. Many of the Israelis reside in stolen houses, farm on stolen land and drink misappropriated water. Most of them benefit from the occupation one way or another. Israelis are not generally innocent civilians, but part of the annexing and occupying society, which makes the Zionist project possible by supporting or not resisting it.
Year after year many Palestinians are being murdered by Israelis and no Palestinian under occupation can feel safe for their families, friends or themselves. Attacking Israeli civilians is a strategy which holds the Israeli society responsible for the actions of its leaders. It tries to make clear to the Israeli people that they cannot feel safe for themselves and their loved ones as long as they continue the occupation. But we saw the Israeli society again reaffirming that it is neither willing nor able to make peace with its neighbors.
The following numbers are compiled by B'tselem 'The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories', and cover the time from since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa intifada September 29, 2000 until March 31, 2005.
|Palestinians killed by Israelis||3255|
|Israelis killed by Palestinians||958|
According to the above numbers, 3.4 times as many Palestinians have been killed and 5.66 times as many Palestinian minors. Israeli assassination attacks resulted in 469 Palestinians killed, of which 181 were the official target and 288 'collateral' killings. Within the occupied territories, 437 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, half of which were troops. Within the territory claimed as Israel, 521 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, of which 438 were civilians.
And those numbers don't even talk about Palestinians being denied access to a hospital, their workplace and school, family and friends by occupation forces at the numerous checkpoints. Or about Palestinians getting sick from contaminated drinking water and denied access to medicine, or land confiscations, house demolitions and forced displacement, uprooting of fruit and olive trees and denying farmers access to their fields, or about military courts and imprisonment, beatings and torture of Palestinians.
It is clear that the occupation is the reason for resistance and that the Palestinian struggle is both legitimate and necessary for their survival as a people. They are heavily outgunned and defenseless against air and ground assaults, and unable to drive out the occupation troops by force. While it is legitimate to resist occupation, the occupying forces and society cannot claim self-defence against resistance to its aggression. This is not to say that moral concerns are not important, nor that killing civilians is no concern. Just that the occupation is violence against a whole people who try to defend themselves and fight back as best as they can.
Modern warfare and counter-insurgency is all about terrorizing people into capitulation and submission and therefor civilians are the prime target. How can we demand, that those, who try to defend themselves against overwhelming force and ruthless violence by an aggressor, refrain from using any means and tactics they decide?
... I think it is principally impossible to condemn the people, who sacrificed their lives for the freedom and independence of their own nation. ...
A bloody and terrible war is fought in Chechnya, and it got initiated by the Kremlin in order to eliminate the whole Chechens ethnos. The nation offers as hard a resistance as it can. No one has the right to forbid the nation, which fights to defend its own rights for existence, to choose the methods and means for defending their own lives.
War on Islam
When the Cold War finally came to an end and the dust had settled, we began to see more clearly that two distinct comprehensive and complete concepts of ways of life had been revived and more openly began to challenge the dominant societies and their claims of superiority of their civilization and the universality of their principles and values.
The challenge comes from Muslims and Indigenous Peoples respectively. Both movements have in common that they are deeply spiritual and non-secular, based on holistic and coherent codes of life, providing meaning and guidance for humans as part of all creation, stress responsibility and community instead of freedom and individualism, and demand that speech and practice must match to be true. Both raise hopes that people can heal from the diseased mentality and relations imposed on them by the Europeans and their diaspora, and can turn their fate and resolve pressing problems by implementing their own solutions based on and in accordance with their own traditional beliefs and customs. This includes trying to recover and revive the ways from before European subjugation and domination.
These struggles for revival gained traction when it became obvious, that the Humanist secular doctrines are unable to provide meaning and direction beyond force and desire, that they offer nothing but expectation of more death and destruction, degradation and desperation. At this phase of the struggle, these movements are not posing any serious economic or military threat to DTS rule. But they strike hard in the area ideas and concepts, offering hope and direction, a perspective of restoring sense and truth, of reorganizing community and life in harmony with all creation based on applying the spiritual/religious principles and teachings to reality. Gaining integrity and authenticity and turning vision into reality will depend on the ability of peoples to rupture from the dominant system, to mentally and physically de-colonize, and to gain independence from world markets and convertible currency.
Chief Arvol Looking Horse of the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota Nation on Turtle Island, offered his perspective in a message given on September 15, 2001:
This new millennium will usher in an age of harmony or it will bring the end of life as we know it. Starvation, war and toxic waste have been the hallmark of the Great Myth of Progress and Development that ruled the last millennium. To us, as caretakers of the heart of Mother Earth, falls the responsibility of turning back the powers of destruction. We have come to a time and place of great urgency. The fate of future generations rests in our hands. We must understand the two ways we are free to follow, as we choose the positive way or the negative way the spiritual way or the material way. Its our own choice--each of ours and all of ours.
Islam as religion and program is open to all kinds of people, and is largely independent of space and time. Although it has laws which conflict with certain capitalist practices, it is not principally irreconcilable with capitalism and democracy, although practically it may well be.
Most Indigenous peoples traditionally define themselves as a group in relation and dependency to particular space(s), and through their communal life, beliefs and customs. They are many different peoples, who don't share a common ideology or belief, and have no way to unite beyond common grievances without compromising what they struggle for. But their beliefs and concepts tend to be principally contradicting and mutually exclusive to Western concepts.
In the Western societies God died several generations ago, becoming a personal and private matter. A obvious problem results out of this. Without a divine entity, morality, the definition of good and evil, becomes relative and fundamentally a question of power of one group of humans against others. Crediting the German philosopher Nietzsche, Emil Vlajki writes
When God is dead everything evil is possible because those, temporarily the most powerful world actors, substitute themselves to God imposing their egoistic interests as divine and universal ones.
What unites the Western people more than anything else is that they are deeply convinced of the supremacy of their own values and superiority of their knowledge and ways. It is this attitude which leads to the arrogance and paternalism we see all over the places. Islam fundamentally challenges the West because the only supreme and absolute being is Allah, the Creator. Even more so as Allah has provided humankind guidance through the Qur'an and through the example and words of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
The more than a billion Muslims have the potential to challenge the dominance of the DTS to control development and minds. This is even more so in light of the obvious failure of humanist rationality and science to explain and provide answers to central issues of life in any satisfying way. It cannot provide spiritual and moral guidance because scientific rationality and progress systematically reduce and degrade human beings into biological, chemical, physical, psychological, and social things, mutated from apes and caught in a bitter struggle to survive and reproduce, whose primary goal it is to maximize happiness, motivated largely by desire and lust, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, and determined by either nature or the social and economic conditions and relations. Spirituality and religious belief turns into superstition and a secular private business while morality is constantly being eroded because, in final analysis, there is no rational reason for absolute or universal values and immutable moral responsibilities, prohibitions and restrictions.
The Western mind and politics constantly divide people on the basis of sex, class, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. Repeatedly, people were persecuted on the basis of political ideology or religion. Despite all proclamations of equality of all people, inequality, and division of people on the basis of inequality, is a fundamental means of organizing and exerting control and authority.
They had a Dream
... The Civil Rights movement [in the United States] was probably the last full-scale effort to realize the avowed goals of the Christian religion. For more than a century, the American political system had proclaimed the brotherhood of man as seen politically in the concepts of equality of opportunity and justice equally administered under the law. Equality under the law, however, was a secularized and generalized interpretation of the Christian brotherhood of man - the universal appeal of individuals standing equally before God now seen as people standing equally before the law and secular institutions. ... A majority of Americans rejected this secular version of brotherhood and sought to prevent its realization because of long-standing attitudes that people of color were necessarily inferior.
Before the Civil Rights movement, however, one must look at the Nuremberg Trials as the moment of history in which Western Christianity achieved its greatest influence. In those trials the victorious Allied nations presumed to speak for all of civilization and judged the Nazi leaders not as loosers but as those who had violated the basic tenets of civilized and religious existance. ...
After WW II, the victorious powers were setting themselves up as both lawmakers and judges. It was an effort to clear themselves from their own crimes of colonization and mass extermination, and to present and justify the devastating war between Great Powers for hegemony and control over world order as a model 'just war' of the good (victorious) against evil (loosers).
Meanwhile, the high moral standard propagated was in sharp contradiction to their actions, which remained violently oppressive and morally despicable. While the United States were presenting themselves as champions of justice and freedom, the indigenous and black peoples under its authority were treated as untermenschen and systematically exploited and discriminated against by the dominant white peoples.
... At a certain point in the struggle for realization, it became apparent that goals of the Civil Rights movement could not be achieved because people did not subscribe to them and because the goals were, after all, abstract projections of an ideal world, not descriptions of a real world.
The Western concept of equality, being an abstract idea-value instead of either description of reality, or at least practical guidance and obligation to act, is completely disconnected from the physical world, real human life and relations, and practically useless and meaningless outside of a schizophrenic mind creating reality for itself, and as deception for those still in denial.
Believers and Unbelievers
In contrast to humanist multiculturalism, the concept of peoplehood in Islam is not one of equality of all people.
The whole concept of peoplehood is important in being able to understand struggle and being successful in struggle. Allah on the basis of the Qur'an divides mankind on the basis of belief, because there are believers and unbelievers.
Peoplehood is based upon belief more than anything else. More than race, more than on any physiological characteristics, peoplehood is determined by belief; ...
By overwriting all other concepts of identification and allegiance with their common belief, and by actually submitting themselves to the will of the Creator, obeying the rules and following the guidance given to them, the believers have a program to overcome divisions among them and come together in unity.
My pilgrimage broadened my scope. It blessed me with new insight. In the two weeks in the Holy Land, I saw what I never had seen in the thirty-nine years here in America. I saw all races, all colors, -- blue-eyed blonds to black-skinned Africans -- in true brotherhood! ... not just brotherhood toward me, but brotherhood between all men, of all nationalities and complexions, who were there. [Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 362 (Ballantine 1965)]
While on the one side emphasizing the unity of believers, there are different injunctions in an Islamic State for Muslim and non-Muslim citizens (Dhimmis). Unlike Muslims, Dhimmis are excluded from Sharia laws and even
encouraged to have their own courts and laws
. Certain compulsory obligations are only for Muslims, while Dhimmis may be excluded from certain top positions in the Islamic state and taxed differently. This concept is fundamentally different than the nation state concept of citizens vs. immigrants and the social and structural discrimination of racial or ethnic minorities.
Whatever beliefs and customs we have, it is clear that others may not share the same ideology, principles or goals. How can peoples organize so that even fundamentally different ways of life can co-exist side by side within a state or territory, while eliminating or at least minimizing the need to either assimilate or compromise? Enlightened humanism and democracy proved unable to answer this central question neither in theory and even less in practice.
Preventing and Attacking Unity by Creating Divisions
In terms of the war on Islam, using and promoting divisions among Muslims is of central importance to the DTS warlords. Their concept is to put Muslims into three categories ('moderate', 'traditionalist' and 'fundamentalist') and sub-divide further within each category. The 'moderates' are encouraged and supported in all kinds of ways. They provide for the good Muslim, representing a cleansed, sanitized and reduced new Islam, more tolerable or even acceptable, because accommodating the DTS principles and ways.
To rise above the confused rhetoric of the classifying agents, one needs to understand the basis of actual classification among human beings, not Muslims alone.
For this one needs not go too far away from the beginning of the Qur'an. Four verses at the beginning of second chapter describe the believers. The next two describe the disbelievers, and thirteen verses that follow describe the hypocrites among Muslims for the simple reason that identifying hypocrites is extremely necessary to avoid their mischief.
This is where we see that all the self-pleasing shades among so-called Muslims -- from liberal to enlightened moderates and those associated with the amalgamated religio-political parties -- is nothing but hypocrisy under different labels.
The term fundamentalism named the Christian movement in opposition to capitalist/humanist ideology and liberal secularism. The term became associated with backwardness and reactionism, a movement defending religious superstition against scientific and industrial advancement. Directly opposite, those movements which struggle to implement Islam look forward to change relations as they are, to free themselves from foreign domination, to overcome poverty and decay, to use science and technology according to their own priorities and interests, in short, to advance their lives in all aspects.
We should therefor be careful, when we speak about 'Islamic fundamentalism' or 'Islamic fundamentalists'. What we should see clearly is the totalitarian mindset and propaganda of the Europeans at work, setting themselves as most advanced and superior, trying to impose their own thinking upon all others. The history of the Europeans with centuries of tyranny under the Catholic Church, which had become an obstacle for the rising bourgeoisie of early capitalist industrialization, out to seize control of state power for themselves, led to privatization of religion and to secularism. This particular experience and development of the Europeans and Christianity has no universal aspect and nothing suggests, that other societies and religions may have the same conflicts, nor that secularism is a good solution for the problems we face.
So the West's description of Islamic movements as being fundamentalist is nothing but a war against the return of Islam as a comprehensive system. It is a strategic, even a vital issue for the West. They are intent on keeping the Third World, especially the Islamic world, backward and distant from any true revival. ...
Believers are a group, which defines itself through a common faith and submission to the will of Allah, as revealed first and foremost through the Qur'an, and supplemented by the life of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It thereby constitutes a group identity, which challenges the DTS because it rejects and transcends the concept of white supremacy, national identity, racism, sexism and classism their societies are build upon. The DTS are engaged in building multi and transnational institutions and organizations and work to develop group identity beyond nationalism on the basis of certain idea-values (beliefs), namely freedom, democracy, human rights, private property, rule of law, science. They cannot accept the much more advanced concept of unity of the Islamic Ummah (community) and Khilafah (Islamic State).
The broad lines of the civil, military, criminal, political and social legislation of Islam, which are evident in hundreds of verses and in the numerous authentic sayings of Muhammad (PBUH), are there for implementation. The rules of Islam require the existence of a State with the authority to organize the myriad of relationships that characterize the society and the resources for producing a favourable environment for the Ummah to live their lives to fulfil the overall objective of human creation. These values and principles and the spiritual aspect of governance were effectively implemented in the lifetimes of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and the times of the orthodox Caliphs, as well as some Muslim rulers who came after them.
The clear message of the Qur'an ... puts three distinct responsibilities on the shoulders of Muslims: individual responsibilities, responsibility to bind the Ummah, and collective responsibilities as an Ummah. ...
Struggle and Resist
The concept of Jihad is openly challenging the concept of absolute authority of the democratic state representing the supreme sovereign, which are the citizens of that state. Not some ideology, country or nation, but only the cause of Allah alone is what the believers in Islam strive for. This concept constitutes an obligation and actual necessity to struggle and resist what is in the way of becoming more conscious of and submitting to the will of Allah. This goes fundamentally against accepting domination under the DTS and a way of life violating the values, principles and laws of the Creator.
The demonization of Jihad is used to legitimize aggression in the name of fighting Jihadists and Jihadism, to de-legitimize and criminalize the just struggles of people(s) in self-defense, to free themselves from foreign domination and occupation. The concept of Jihad speaks about struggle for and resistance in defense of what you truely believe in. It speaks about obligation and responsibilty to fight for truth and justice and in this it is universal in the sense that we all make decisions and face the truth of our death one day.
Forcing Muslims in a Defensive Position
The DTS propagandists concentrate their efforts on defining the terms and gravitation of discourse to put Muslims into a defensive position. Massive fear of terror campaigns were used to openly revert the presumption from innocent before proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt into guilty before or even despite proven innocent. This is combined with a program focusing on eliminating all rights of people being categorized as terrorists or terrorist suspects. This does not only include the captives in Guantanamo and numerous other 'interrogation centers' worldwide. We are witness to mass detentions and deportations, various forms of torture and collective punishment, kidnappings, disappearances and assassinations.
When, after years of preparatory propaganda, the war on Islam, while still disguising as war on terror, was openly declared on September 11, 2001, all the DTS were standing as one, united and fully committed to defend and reaffirm their totalitarian domination.
Oppression of Women and Children
Oppression of women is a fundamental historic and cultural reality of most societies, but definitely of all Christian and Humanist societies. The women's liberation struggles in the Democratic Totalitarian Societies (DTS) did not achieve emancipation from the men-dominated culture and social relations, nor are women generally respected as equally important and dignified persons and subjects of their own.
What makes sex sell? Are all these pictures of sparsely dressed, and explicitly sexualized posing women in the media an expression of women's liberty and dignity, or maybe of their degradation to objects of mens desires? Why is there no broad consensus and movement to stop violence against women and children in our neighborhoods and communities? How much do we really care for any women being beaten by their husbands, daughters and sons being raped by relatives or friends?
How much flesh must a woman show in order to be free? Why is it, that the media celebrate an Afghani model and Pakistani girl because they show themselves in swimsuits before camera? How free is a girl who wants to look and dress like the models and stars? What makes them chase the ideals of what is defined as successful, attractive, beautiful and sexy? Is the ever changing fashion more than a strategy of marketing and profit generation? Is the objectification of women's bodies not an obvious degradation of their personal integrity and dignity?
It's a men's world
This is not said to blame the 'victims', because it is us men who are fully responsible how we look at women and sexualize their bodies. It is not the bodies, or flesh and curves being exposed or accentuated, which do something with us as objects, but it is men who want to control woman and their sexuality by making their bodies an object of our imagination. The massive proliferation of pictures of woman as sex objects, and the persistent objectification of women both in public as well as private life, indicates increased oppression of women and not their liberation.
We men seem to mostly enjoy the view of sexy women and can't get enough of it. Women's bodies are separated from the whole person and made an object of men's phantasies and self-projection. It is a deeply degrading and humiliating reality that men construct, and not something women do to themselves. It is an expression of oppression when girls want to look like the models in magazines and movies. Or when women undergo cosmetic surgery, or girls starve themselves into better shape.
But meanwhile, in relationships and bedrooms, things are not at all well. Which should come with no surprise, but we don't know what to do about it. Mutual dissatifaction increases tension and pressure to perform. Sex is often overburdened with expectations and projections. With love in short supply, there is much need, weakness and dependency, all of which does not help to build loving and caring relationships. And widespread cheating and lying, missing respect and empathy, prevalent neglect and exploitation, just contributes to erosion of trust and confidence, and more broken hearts, leading to further social atomization and loneliness. Surely, erection pills and faked orgasms, pretending that everything is all right, will not help. Love affairs are often battlefields and leave numerous dead. Many murders and acts of physical violence, as well as suicides, are related to love and sex.
Emotional and physical abuse
Sexuality, at least for most societies, is a private affair, happening behind closed doors. It has a lot to do with control and abuse, dependency and violence. Many taboos and strong moral and social prohibitions and stigmatizations create a climate of fear and shame around sexuality and sexual oppression, with much conspiracy and dishonesty in dealing with these issues. This is further enforced with a conception of private sphere and privacy within the own home, which gives abusers a relatively safe space alone with their victims. Often the victims become more and more isolated and turn to denial, self contempt and despair, carefully hiding their situation, which makes it even more difficult or even impossible for them to get help from others.
Children are especially vulnerable to emotional and physical abuse, even more so in atomized societies. In most societies, as long as they keep the facade of normality up, parents have near total control over their children and they use and abuse their power. We not only speak about physical abuse, but likewise mental and emotional suppression and violence. Resistence happens mostly in private and isolated, and there is not much practical solidarity and organizing to stop oppression and violence against women and children in our societies.
Motherhood, childhood, and the services
In the DTS, motherhood is idealized and devalued at the same time. So called full-time mothers are seen as outmoded and less than those, who manage their children in parallel with a professional career. What a contrast to many other cultures where 'grandmother' and 'mother' are most highly recognized and honored. Because, after all, what could be more important for a community than the upbringing of their children? This is not to say that women should not promote and develop their interests outside of house and apart from children. And not to say that the biological parents are necessarily the best caregivers for their children. Just to mention, that children are increasingly seen as costly and burdensome, a major reason why families usually don't want more than one or maybe two. Because they don't have much time for them, they have to hire nannies and organize a full schedule for their children to accommodate their own already burdensome schedule. And because they are exhausted or have no time for the other reproductive works, they have to buy more services. So we have to work more to make more to spend more. This is all good for economic growth and profit, but the monetarization of more and more functions of our lives means that we have less and less control over our own lives.
In Western societies, despite all political correctness, women still do most of the homework and childcare, including caring for the emotional needs and demands of their men, who all too often don't want to fulfill their share of responsibilities and act irresponsibly and aggressive. Men are generally not pleased with the increasing demands by women for more balanced relationships, respect and attention for themselves as equally important persons.
If they are single parent, women cannot expect much help from society, financially or otherwise, and are often stigmatized. They are especially vulnerable to economic exploitation and government agencies taking their children away. Children of poor families are systematically taken away from their caregivers and handed over into state control, which move them around between foster families, institutions and facilities, and as adults many of them quickly find themselves in prisons working in the prison industrial complex at lowest wages.
Children are most vulnerable to malnurition and diseases, what makes them the main targets of exterminative population control policies. On the other side, women are targeted with sterilization and other forced pregnancy prevention measures. As birthgivers and often primary caregivers for their children, mothers are most severely hit by poverty and many must watch their children suffer or die in vain. Children are being sold into servitude and sex services, recruited for war and forced to work or live in the streets. An increasing number of children are being traded or transfered from poor societies to the wealthy. And it is mostly young women who work in the sweatshops and world market factories under extreme working conditions at lowest wages.
Ellen Bonnie Mass wrote in 1977 about women's liberation:
In recent years, the news media, popular journals and liberal political activities have been increasingly saturated with women's liberation rethoric, making it impossible to ignore what purports to be the major women's issues of the day. Distrortion of social reality by popular, but false rethoric has successfully confused the meaning of women's emancipation. Women's liberation campaigns which speak to the interests of a vocal and privileged minority profess to encompass the needs of the majority when, in fact, the economic and social condiitions which most women must endure are ignored.
Because so many women's organizations are geared to the interests of privileged women and yet speak in behalf of all women, it has become important for those who wish to understand the roots of women's oppression to distinguish these contradictory expressions of women' fight for freedom and equality. Once we fix our sights on the conditions of life which exists for most people and take into account the political, social and economic mechanisms which drive a society to function in a specific way, within a specific historical epoch, then realistic perspective on social issues, such as women's emancipation, can be deciphered from idealistic and false interpretations.
In order to rectify distorted interpretations of the women question, political priorities for feminists and non-feminists alike must be transformed. it is essential to redefine commonly accepted terms such as oppression and liberation, and to re-evaluate political goals so that they are directed toward the liberation of the majority of the people. ...
Destabilization and Disintegration
There is much talk about an obligation to intervene to stop genocide, and Rwanda is the example most often cited. Specificly, the Darfur propaganda campaign against Sudan makes use of the term genocide to construct justification for foreign intervention to advance the wicked schemes of division and recolonization of Sudan. The term genocide is so arbitrarily applied theses days that it became more a political instead of a descriptive term. With regards to the Rwandan genocide, there is a massive propaganda effort going on to rewrite history and hide the simple fact that it was Western (US, British, France, Belgium and Germany) and UN/NGO intervention, and not the lack of it, which helped provoke the Rwandan war and further escalation into genocide.
Whatever story is being told always depends on the position of the one who tells it. But no one can honestly deny that without foreign intervention in the form of financial and military aid, as well as political and propaganda manipulation of the conflict, the Rwandan war and genocide would not have developed the way it did. Talking about 'what would have happened if' is always speculative, but more likely than not, without war-promoting policies of foreign Great Powers and the UN/OAU 'peace process', the genocide would not have happened.
It is also important to note, that many more people than in the Rwandan genocide itself died as a consequence of war in the DRCongo, which is related to the Rwandan genocide through refugees, and sparked by the invasion of Rwandan and Ugandan forces into the Congo. The enormous wealth of the Congo makes it a prime target of expansionist interests and efforts of recolonization. And we should not forget to mention, that the conflict of Rwanda was also spread into neighboring Burundi.
The following short summary is written from an anti-interventionist perspective arguing against any foreign and 'international community' intervention. Any moral or legal construct of an obligation to intervene into the affairs of other peoples can best be understood as an effort to justify and legitimize more aggression and plunder.
In many ways, the colonial rule and post-colonial arrangements are the roots from which division and conflict are nurtured and grow. The failure of African liberation struggles to dissolve the political-economic structures and institutions imposed on them by their colonial masters meant that the colonial legacies and dependencies continued to weight heavily on their post-colonial histories.
Uganda a Proxy to Spread Violence
After the National Resistance Movement/Army (NRM/A), led by Yoweri Museveni, seized power in Uganda January 1986, Uganda became the central component of British and American foreign policy in the region. This policy aims at deliberate destabilization and disintegration of states through the spreading of warlord politics and ethnic strife. The strategy aims to weaken and make African states fail in order to again put them under more direct foreign control. There are three regions which became primarily targeted: the Great Lakes region and Congo, the Greater Horn of Africa region, and the West Africa region.
Since 1986 Ugandan troops have been constantly engaged in offensive military actions that include invasions of neighbouring states and war crimes. Uganda has been involved in aggressive military and political manipulation of ALL of the states that share frontiers with Uganda.
The policies of Museveni have precipitated the worst violence in Africa's history and jeopardised the lives of several dozen millions of Africans who face hunger, disease and violent deaths as a consequence.
The NRA [National Resistance Army] was constituted mainly by soldiers from Museveni's home area of Ankole in south-western Uganda, but was supported by ethnic Tutsi soldiers from Rwanda. The Rwandan connection emerged from the close ethnic ties between the two groups along the Rwanda/Uganda border, and also from the fact that Museveni had developed a strong friendship with Paul Kagame, a Rwandan Tutsi, while the two had been resident in Dar es Salaam. ...
War against Rwanda
After the Rwandese had helped the NRM to take over power in Uganda, it was now time to help them do the same in Rwanda. President Museveni and Kagame, supported by and acting as proxy of the Americans and British, began to build up and prepare the Rwandan Patriotic Front/Army (RPF/A) for war against Rwanda. The RPF recruited its troops from the community of exiled Rwandan Tutsis, mostly second generation refugees living in exile after their families had fled from Rwanda to escape persecution.
Rwandans serving in the Ugandan military received training from British forces at their base in Jinja, Uganda, while the Americans began schooling the RPF leadership. RPF leader, and current president of Rwanda Paul Kagame, had previously been Museveni's director of military intelligence. He had received training in a Command and Staff course at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, just prior to his forces' invasion of Rwanda. ...
By mid-1990, Uganda was preparing the invasion of Rwanda and on October 1, 1990 the RPF, supported by Ugandan troops, began the war, claiming that it was about the right of exiled Rwandan Tutsis to return home, and to ensure that persecution of Tutsis in Rwanda would end. Unlike many national liberation armies, the RPF strategy was not designed to win any support of the people in 'liberated areas'. Instead, whole areas were depopulated and people displaced in masses with each new RPF offensive.
The Habyarimana government in Rwanda, supported by France and initially Belgium, which switched sides during the war, was militarily on the defensive, tried to regain initiative with a program of political liberalisation,
which resulted in a democratic constitution being written into law in June 1991. Rwanda now had a multi-party system with scheduled elections. All exiled Rwandans had the right of return.
The RPF, counting on their ability to take over Rwanda militarily and advantage in the area of propaganda to win the 'international community' opinion, refused to even test the offer to return and participate in a political process. Participating would have made them just a political grouping among others, and so they preferred to continue unabated with their quest to seize power in Rwanda by military means.
HRW and other NGOs put out human rights reports to mobilize 'international community' opinion against the Rwandan government and provide justification for the RPF to continue the war. The international donor nations, threatening to cut off aid monies, pressured the Rwandan goverment into the 'peace process' conducted under the auspices of the OAU. President Habyarimana was forced to sign the Arusha Peace Agreement on 3 August 1993, which effectively initiated the count-down to the genocide April-July 1994 and ended with the seizing of power in Rwanda by the RPF.
Today, many blame insufficient troop strength of the UNAMIR 'peace-keeping' operation for the failure of the 'Peace Agreement'. But this idea is based on the false assumption that the involved DTS on both sides were interested in peace, or maybe that they care enough about deaths of Rwandans. UN troops are never impartial but mercenaries representing the interests of the DTS, which in the case of Rwanda were devided among themselves. The RPF was out to seize complete control and the Hutu extremists were not willing to accept that.
Into the Congo
The UN and humanitarian NGOs continued to contribute to destablization of the region by helping to provide safe havens in the Congo for over a million refugees from Rwanda, among them numerous of the killers of the Rwandan genocide, politicians and organizers, like members of the defeated Rwandan army and Interahamwe. The refugees were held up from returning to Rwanda by both the militia controlling the camps and fear of massacre by the RPF. Killing of Tutsis continued in the refugees camps and thousands died from a cholera epidemic. These 'refugees with big guns' were repeatedly used by Rwanda as legitimization to invade the neighbor country.
The RPF, after taking power in Rwanda, did not focus on defending themselves against attacks from militia in the Congo. Instead they moved on to expand into the Congo, allying themselves with the Banyamulenge peoples in the Congo and began to provide them with arms and training.
The history of these Banyamulenges starts in the late 20's, Belgian colonial authority imported labor Rwandan into the plantation of Kivu and the mines in Katanga. The purposes were: I) high demographic rates in the high plan of Rwanda, which was overpopulated, and II) to have easy controlled labor because expatiated. This new group was composed hutus as well as tutsis. With the other Rwanda population who were immigrates here before colonial era, the rwandophones became a important ethnic composition of this region. Earlier before the independence, all of the rwandophones know now as Banyamulenges received the Congolese nationality.
Making a Weak State Fail
During the Cold War, President Mobutu of Zaire was a valued ally of the US and as such enjoyed privileged treatment from western donors and the IMF/WB and Paris Club alike. His alliance with the UNITA rebels in Angola provided him with another important patronage resource. All this changed with the end of the Cold War. The Troika of former backers (United States, Belgium, France) reversed their support and instead began to put pressure on Mobutu. The WB broke its ties and the IMF announced that Zaire would receive no more loans. Relations to donor governments and creditors deteriorated, foreign firms left the country, banking services and the formal economic activity collapsed.
Most Zairians faced the harsh consequences of an economy that had shrunk 40 percent between 1988 and 1995 and of inflation that had risen to 23,000 percent in 1995.
Mobutu, faced with shrinking revenues to control his patron-client network and reward associates for their loyalty, cut social services and public infrastructure expenditures, effectively privatizing government revenues for himself. The radical privatization of the state meant that those government functions and agencies not generating any benefit in terms of control over resources and profit were abandoned.
Mobutu, who exercised private control over many of Zaire's resources with foreign help, safely abandoned expensive health care facilities, schools and public works - all of which served citizens but contributed little to his stock of political resources.
Mobutu's long-run problem lay in reasserting his political authority amid declining resources. His patronage network fragmented as he lost his capacity to match the old rate of payouts. Much of the (unpaid) army had disappeared by the early 1990s, for example, declining from a peak of 70,000 troops in the mid-1980s to close to 20,000. Mobutu's first step was to give new roles to specialized security forces. He gave six distinct military units substantial new latitude of action to profit from clandestine trade. ... Each unit jealously watched the other while struggling to control its own wealth.
The strategy aimed to encourage violence and ethnic strife to create a climate of distrust and fear, disorganize and prevent any opposition groups from building political authority, and encourage those no longer useful to warlord politics to give up. This was cheap enough to finance and kept Mobutu in power as long as he could balance contending forces. As part of this strategy, Mobutu supported the Hutu militia in the refugee camps along the border with Rwanda.
... Even the Kinshasa government joined the looting in 1996, supporting a decree that stripped Zairian citizenship from people of Rwandan-Tutsi ancestry [the above mentioned Banyamulenges] and directed them to give up their property. ...
Rwandan Troops Invade
In October 1996, Rwandan troops entered Zaire in a vast military operation of "cleaning", and further in support of the Banyamulenges, which they had provided training and arms since taking power in Rwanda, as part of an armed coalition named Alliance des Forces Democratiques pour la Liberation du Congo-Zaire (AFDL) led by Laurent-Desire Kabila to overthrow Mobutu Sese Seko.
In September 1997, the prestigious Jane's Foreign Report reported that German intelligence sources were aware that the DIA trained young men and teens from Rwanda, Uganda, and eastern Zaire for periods of up to two years and longer for the RPF/AFDL-CZ campaign against Mobutu. The recruits were offered pay of between $450 and $1000 upon their successful capture of Kinshasa.
Toward the end of 1996, US spy satellites were attempting to ascertain how many refugees escaped into the jungle by locating fires at night and canvas tarpaulins during the day. Strangely, every time an encampment was discovered by the space-based imagery, Rwandan and Zaire rebel forces attacked the sites. This was the case in late February 1997, when 160,000, mainly Hutu refugees, were spotted and then attacked in a swampy area known as Tingi Tingi. There was never an adequate accounting by the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies of the scope of intelligence provided to the RPF/AFDL-CZ.
When the AFDL-CZ and their Rwandan allies reached Kinshasa in 1996, it was largely due to the help of the United States. One reason why Kabila's men advanced into the city so quickly was the technical assistance provided by the DIA and other intelligence agencies. According to informed sources in Paris, US Special Forces actually accompanied ADFL-CZ forces into Kinshasa. The Americans also reportedly provided Kabila's rebels and Rwandan troops with high definition spy satellite photographs that permitted them to order their troops to plot courses into Kinshasa that avoided encounters with Mobutu's forces. During the rebel advance toward Kinshasa, Bechtel provided Kabila, at no cost, high technology intelligence, including National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) satellite data.
In May 1997, they took over Kinshasa and Kabila declared himself President of the now renamed Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). After Kabila had ordered his former Rwandan allies to withdraw from the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda again invaded the DRCongo in August 1998, which prompted SADC to rush to the defense of their member state (troops from Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia).
I don't know much about all the different warlords and rebel groups supported by whom or masquerading as others and fighting on which side or independently and who did what in the war which officially ended in April 2003. But very clear is, that the UN and its agencies are now all over the DRCongo and in particular its Northeastern part, which is possibly the richest part of the country both in terms of mineral and agricultural resources, with officially more than 10,000 UN troops currently deployed. The DRCongo, one of the most important exporters of strategic minerals worldwide, is being put under International Community Control and Occupation.
Strategy of Deterrence under Stress
The term 'vital US interests' suggests that it is perfectly normal the US claims access to markets, minerals and resources all over the earth, or interferes into the internal affairs of other countries and peoples to influence their politics and governments. But really it is all just about hegemony and domination, US interests being forced upon others.
A strategy of deterrence works with perceptions and expectations. It requires not just the (assumed) capabilities to inflict prohibitive damage to a potential challenger, but also the expectation that these will actually be used, even when the costs of doing so increases. The best deterrence may be to put out clear and rational guidelines, make the appropriate preparations, and execute when the lines are crossed. But this is a luxury even the USA can not (or no longer) afford.
The USA, besides all its strategic nuclear arsenal, officially has a two simultaneous major conventional wars strategy. The idea is that while fighting a major war, there would still be sufficient capabilities left to fight another war at the same time. The main point of that strategy is to be able to wage war without becoming too vulnerable to other challengers of US interests while doing so. It is therefor a strategy of warfighting instead of prevention of war.
With the end of the Cold War, public opinion assumed that with the communist threat gone, there would be a 'peace divident'. It just wasn't possible to justify the same level of expenses for the military. The US active force and readiness levels could not be maintained, while at the same time the definition of US interests was broadened and challenges to these interests became more widespread and difficult to evaluate. Additionally, the US force posture was no longer matching the realities of a changing strategic landscape.
Maintaining Deterrence despite Shortage of Troops
At the end of the 1990s the US was facing the prospect of loosing the conflict with Iraq, which had regained the initiative with its agile and focussed foreign and trade policy, and support for the sanctions regime was eroding quickly. All overt and covert efforts to destabilize the Iraqi government had failed. Running out of options and facing defeat against Iraq, which was supposed to be the prime example of the 'New World Order' - a whole nation being punished mercilessly, isolated and impoverished, with two million people exterminated - the US decided to escalate, intervene and occupy Iraq.
But the need to properly introduce the public to the new enemy, justifying increased military budgets and always the next war, was still to be resolved. After years of preparatory works, the war against Islam, while still disguising as war on terror, was openly and broadly propagated since 911. Looking for an appropriate target for aggression to satisfy the immediate desire for revenge, and distract the American public from thinking about what had happened, Afghanistan was most obvious. The demonization of the Taliban government and war propaganda had gone a long way and was waiting to be activated instantly.
The aggression against and invasion of Afghanistan not only delayed the invasion and occupation of Iraq but also continues to bind troops. That is on top of thousands of US troops still occupying parts of former Yugoslavia. It was clear that the occupation of Iraq would put into serious question the ability of the US to fight any other parallel major conventional war. US forces in many places all over are stretched thin and cannot be easily reinforced.
Irrational and Unpredictable Government
The US would still be free to wage major bombing campaigns using missiles and warplanes. But for a certain unknown period, where large number of ground troops are needed to maintain the occupation of Iraq, deterrence of potential challengers would be significantly weakened. This is a situation where a good dose of seemingly irrational and unpredictable behavior can be helpful to a strategy of deterrence. It makes an assessment of what would happen if, what could be reasonable and rational response, much more difficult. At the same time the US public opinion is prepared to accept government propaganda and policies which are contradictory, appear erratic and at times irrational. Moreover, by pushing extremist views and keeping fear propaganda up, public opinion is now quite polarized and highly volatile. When events spin out of control will the US go crazy and 'drop the big one'?
West European Powers step in
While the US military is running low in free deployable troops, others from the DTS camp have to take more responsibility for engaging and checking potential challengers to their common interests. This job falls obviously on the West European Great Powers, meaning first and foremost Germany and France, mostly operating through the EU or UN.
For many years the US had pushed its European NATO allies to increase their military spending and shoulder a bigger share of the common 'defense burden'. With the end of the Cold War there were many and some long standing issues to be resolved among the dominant European countries and with regards to the relation between NATO and a European military, which hampered both the restructuring and usability of NATO as well as the buildup of European intervention forces. Currently, the EU does not have any significant capabilities for military intervention nor the level of centralization of power for a common foreign policy to use them.
European NATO forces are used for the occupation of parts of former Yugoslavia as well as Afghanistan, and in GWoT operations. Additionally, the EU is making much use of political and economic means of intervention. A recent examples is the EU interference against Iran about restrictions to its nuclear industry.
Some EU member states (e.g. France, Britain) have significant national intervention and occupation forces to secure their decolonized possessions and interests. While Britain doggy devoted itself to serving the US, French troops are intervening all over the places in Africa. Germany is trying to get boots on the ground wherever it can. Others don't want to miss out on the new scramble for Africa (e.g. Norway, Sweden, Belgium) working to manipulate and decompose communities, organize strife among peoples and supporting selected warlords.
Good Cop - Bad Cop
We must not be fooled by public display of disagreement and even dispute among the DTS. After all quarreling, at the end of the day they sit together and devide the bounty among themselves, shake hands and move on. Often they stage the 'good cop, bad cop' play just to confuse and frustrate us. The game is so old and well known that that it is most astonishing it still works.
Faced with the US preparing to invade Iraq, many people looked to the UN and Germany/France for help. This was not just a futile effort to begin with, it ironically and in a perverse twist helped the UN to polish its self-image and pose as trying to save peace, while at the same time unabatedly continuing its policy of mass extermination of Iraqi people (an estimated two million Iraqis died as a consequence of UN policy).
Germany and France were using the 'good cop' role to push their own, not at all peaceful, agenda forward. Besides talking they did nothing at all to help Iraq. Quite the opposite, Germany is host of major military facilities and infrastructure without which the US occupation of Iraq could hardly have been launched or be continued. German paramilitary units (THW, GSG-9) helped the US military build up the necessary technical infrastucture to sustain large troop contingents in Iraq. While the US focused on Iraq, France was intervening militarily in the DRCongo, Ivory Coast, Liberia. German and French troops are helping with the occupation of Afghanistan as well as parts of Former Yugoslavia. Just to give an idea about the intense cooperation really going on.
Meanwhile, the EU is engaged in building up its own full fledged intervention forces, which will operate under the same preemptive war doctrine as the US and Russia. Rapid deployment, light and mobile, high firepower elite killer groups clearing the way for more stationary occupation troops to follow. The 'good cop' is really no different than the 'bad cop' and the other day they may change roles to play the same stupid game with us.
More Troops Needed: Recruitment
When the US lost the war against the Vietnamese, Nixon decided that looking forward the US wanted to make 'Asians fight Asians', instead of doing the job themselves. This concept in now in full swing in Africa where the African Union is being developed into and used as an interventionist force to serve the interests of sub-imperialist African Great Powers and their imperialist and monetary masters of the DTS.
Additional troops are being recruited or borrowed to be used as supplement or surrogate, under whatever mandate, in conflicts other than war or low intensity warfare. Under UN flag there are currently tens of thousands of troops deployed in several African countries as well as in Haiti.
NGOs are another important tool of intervention against impoverished peoples and weak states. While human rights NGOs mainly apply propaganda and thereby political pressures, humanitarian NGOs have numerous personnel on the ground. NGOs are taking an increasingly important role in the recolonization efforts mainly because they still seem to enjoy some undeserved credibility among the targeted populations.
The trends of privatization and outsourcing have not stopped at the business of war. Many support functions are now provided by private companies. Mercenaries are in heavy demand and these days often come along as regular employees of private security firms.
Main Issues Today
People(s) struggling for survival with dignity and integrity, for liberation and self-determination, are facing enormous and mounting pressures from the combined processes of multi- and transnationalization of capital, the inter-, multi- and supranationalization of politics, and the expansion of global communication and cultural interference.
Main issues of the multi and transnationalization of capital are property rights, money (investment, debt, prices, exchange rates), and trade. The struggle is about control over development and distribution of wealth. It is about control of resources and how to use them.
Main issues of the inter-, multi- and supranationalization of politics are the expansion of international law and regulations, the adoption and implementation of global standards, and the deployment of multinational enforcement capabilities and mechanisms. The struggle is against politics and for radical de-centralization of competence and control.
Main issues of the expansion of global communication and cultural interference are securing the lines of communication and promoting intercultural exchange and multiculturalism. The struggle is about defending/regaining the cultural/spiritual integrity of peoples and control of methods and content of learning, information and perceptions.
Rejecting the Public Discourse
We are in a very critical phase because the meaning of many things and ways are being changed and often not well understood. Democracy and human rights are now the main weapons of ideological warfare by the DTS. Peace, unbound from justice, means successful elimination of violent resistence. Occupation and mercenary troops are called peacekeepers, bombing and subduing heavily outgunned and defenseless victims became peacemaking, the dead thrown in mass graves as collateral damage. Invasion and occupation again becomes liberation, war of aggression is renamed preemptive war. Armed resistance against rulers and occupiers becomes terrorism. Muslims are no longer the peoples worshipping Allah and practicing what was revealed to humankind through the Qu'ran, but moderates, traditionalists and fundamentalists, all somewhat suspect and guilty before or despite proven innocent. Maybe the most disgusting of these terms is the humanitarian intervention, which may mean bombing, massacres, invasion, occupation, starving people into submission through denial of access to water and food, manipulation of social relations and messing with the minds of the targeted population, or any combination of the above. Humanitarian and development aid are integrated instruments in a comprehensive strategy of control, counter-insurgency warfare and subjugation of peoples.
We must realize that what terms really mean is not what we think or what is written in some dictionary or what makes sense, but how they are defined by propaganda and within the discourse they are used. The language we use carries meaning beyond what we think and intend and we have to become more aware of this in order to learn to communicate more effectively with each other. This will not be possible as long as terms and language are transporting the dominant notion of reality. We can work for power to define the dominant discourse. This approach is unlikely to be successful at this point because we cannot hope to effectively challenge the intense propaganda all around us, or an academic sector where income and careers so completely depend on servicing the ones running the show. A more promising approach may be to reject and remove ourselves from the dominant discourse and concentrate instead on building our own. This will enable us to open up language and with it meaning it carries, redefine with more precision and eventually move away from the dominant mindset and thought patterns.
Rejecting White Supremacy
Despite all the confusion generated by words and language we all should be able to see clearly that the dominant societies are still continuing on the same path which we took more than five centuries ago, still trying to subdue and impose our way of life upon all others. In our view, no other way of life seems respectable and will be accepted. Certain cultural, spiritual and religious differences are not only allowed, but even celebrated as entertaining addition to the multicultural feast, but any serious comprehensive effort to organize relations, economy, justice according to other principles will not be tolerated, undermined and crushed.
We successfully used our military advantages to conquer lands and continents waging numerous wars, burning down and bombing villages and cities, destroying food reserves and crops to starve people into submission, massacring and exterminating with extreme efficiency. We cannot maintain peace and customs even within our societies without massive state bureaucracy and institutions backed by strong police and other enforcement. We are for peace and justice worldwide but are constantly plotting, organizing and waging always another war to bring peace and try to enforce our definition of justice upon all others.
How does our history qualify us to decide about war and peace of other countries and peoples? Does our history of imposed or broken treaties, lies and trickery make us honest brokers? Is the peace we keep and enforce anything else but intervention to manipulate the history of other peoples to promote our own interests? What makes us believe we must intervene to prevent mass murder and genocide although our wars and interventions past and present are a major cause of wars and mass extermination? Are our actions justified by any other reason but force?
We made profit the ultimate criteria to define the worth of living with the consequence of mass poverty and mass extermination. Whoever and whatever is not useful for us is diposable and millions are left with not enough to live on. Is life only of value and important to us when it is useful for us? Isn't that enough statement to explain our humanism?
Particularly arrogant and showing the full extend of supremacist mind-set and attitude is the claim of the DTS people that we are the solution to the horror we caused. We claim to be the most advanced and progressive civilization to lead all humanity. This is the bottom line. Sometimes we may acknowledge mistakes or even excuse ourselves, but always want to have the final say anyway.
We want to define what is justice, peace, science, freedom, rule of law, human and women's rights, liberation and legitimate resistance, sound economic policies, state, secularism and democracy. Moreover, we not only insist that our ideas and concepts are superior, but also proclaim our principles or values as universal and absolute. Not on the basis of a divine entity, but because we see ourselves as enlightened civilization entitled to command. Still the same idea of man and his relation to other living, pressing life in neat categories and hierarchies, always putting ourselves on top while talking about equality of all human beings.
Still showing no respect for other peoples and no signs that we would be willing or even able to peacefully coexist, we leave no basis for dialogue or compromise. Just rotten societies walking the road of death and destruction for much too long already, people decomposed into anonymous particles of mass societies, having lost ourselves a long time ago, with no hope to find a way to get better and heal, it is all about desperately holding on to our privileges by all means and at any cost, using the accumulated stolen wealth and military supremacy to continue on the same road, divide and conquer, coerce and corrupt, subdue and exterminate.
Never believe anything coming from the DTS. We will always propagate our good intentions and even may appear sincere at times, but never do as we talk. Always expect trickery and ambush. There is no basis for dialog with leaders and organizations belonging to the DTS, because they are rarely honest, without integrity and respect for others, and therefor cannot be trusted. All talks will always be held in the shadow of arms and money and are not much more than tactical maneuvers.
Democracy is not mainly a particular social-political order, but more importantly an abstract idea-value, the ultimate means of legitimizing power. This goes so far that even dictatorships, military, colonial and occupation regimes conduct elections to fabricate some legitimization to their rule.
Democracy is a propaganda term, which is not clearly defined and means many things, depending on who uses it and in which context it is used. There are not many efforts to analyse and argue democracy in principal because, as an abstract idea-value so many people believe in, it doesn't need to be proven and cannot be seriously questioned either.
When you talk with defenders or proponents of democracy about the democratic order, serious questions are often answered by stating that what we have is not yet the 'real democracy' and what we need is more 'democratization'. The obscure thing is that what is termed 'real' never was and is not very likely to ever develop, while the real democracy as we got to know and live under in so many places for so long already, is rejected as basis for an evaluation of the system.
The Democratic Totalitarian Societies (DTS) are by definition 'democratic', 'humanitarian' and 'free' - we can simply say 'good' and 'superior'. And the authorities, who define and judge what is seen and accepted as democracy and democratic, are the usual suspects: governments and organizations of the DTS.
It can be enough to have some 'international observers' and 'election monitors' (which tend to fall upon weak countries under watch like a plague) certify that some election was 'free and fair' to have everyone shut up and basically accept whatever rulers. Reverse, they can also say an election was 'irregular' and thereby put whole governments in question (and thereby preparing them for regime-change).
The DTS want to make democracy a 'universal' value (like we already mostly succeeded with our 'human rights'). This is based on the same old claims of superiority of our civilization and supremacy based on violence and corruption. We want to define, monitor, investigate and judge compliance, and impose sanctions upon all in defiance. Never loosing sight of our own interests and benefits, we won't allow, and use massive violence against, any serious challenge to our domination and control.
As citizens under democracy we are free to express ourselves and organize - as long as what we don't challenge the status quo in any serious way. We are free to consume and choose fashion and style from a wide range of offers - as far as money goes. We can be mentally and socially destructive as we please. But after all, we are still just particles of a mass society, replaceable and redundant, dependent and weak.
Democracy is just an order used to organize control and oppression. People(s) are told that participating in elections and complying with and limiting themselves to legal political procedures is all they can get and their only chance of inclusion and representation, otherwise their interests will simply be ignored, or worse they will be targeted and persecuted.
Features of Democracy
To get an understanding of what democracy is we best look at those countries which have been stable democracies for a long time. Following is a list of features common for the democratic social-political order:
- freedom of expression of opinion
- high intensity exposure to media/propaganda/advertizing
- extensive bureaucracy and high information availability about individuals
- dominance of private ownership and property rights with strong enforcement
- rule of law enforced by large police forces and judicial apparatus
- use of violence monopolized by the state
- voting of political rulers/authorities
- constitutional division of state powers
- more or less pronounced separation of church and state (secularism)
- at least two major political parties which are generally only marginally different
- mass societies consisting of increasingly atomized individuals
- individuals completely dependent on anonymous structures, organizations and corporations for their essential needs
- a majority of people with a relatively high level of consumption, possible because of extreme exploitation of peoples and theft of resources from the 'under-developed', and given in exchange for loyalty.
Modern democracy and its features like constitution, elected parliament and individual liberties, are bourgeois both in origin and spirit. Intrinsically tied to capitalism and complementing it, democracy is a means of organizing society and rule in the most efficient way to accommodate capitalist development and secure the capitalist fundamentals (profit/exploitation, private property, monetary relations and terms of trade).
Rule of Majority
The most fundamental flaw of democracy may be that it propagates the rule of majority. There is not much incentive to either agree upon something or find a good solution. It instead favors short-term interests and benefits of population segments and tactical coalition-building to assemble a majority. It is a form of government which tends to produce twisted compromises instead of coherent approaches to a right way or common good.
Particularly when combined with secularism, democracy strengthens the role of selfish, mostly short-term material/financial benefit motivations in the decision making process and tends to ignore or hide motivations and interests which bring no votes, regardless of their importance. The theory goes, like in capitalism, that when each individual selfishly decides in his/her best interest, it will somehow turn out to be good for the whole as well. This is another of these claims which obviously contradict experience and perception of people but are nevertheless believed by many.
Majority of what? As members of highly industrialized mass societies we are grouped in many ways, few of which are chosen and most of which are highly anonymous and technical. Why should we accept the authority of a majority of a grouping which was imposed upon us? A strategy of decentralization of competence and control, disconnecting peoples and separating concerns, will allow us to regain independence and strength as communities and reclaim history for ourselves.
The bigger a group, the stronger it becomes as a whole, but the less meaning and influence each individual member has. Generally speaking, mass society seems irreconcilable with community and self-determination . As soon as the grouping grows beyond some hundred, delegation of responsibility and authority can no longer be based on personally knowing the ones put in charge of common affairs. Also, the more complex a system, the less we can understand the issues and mechanisms ourselves and the more we rely on anonymous others, which we don't know and really have no reason to trust.
In political elections each individual is really irrelevant and only appears as part of a mass. Simple math will tell everyone that in any grouping larger than a few hundred, a single vote weights next to nothing. In national, state and even city elections the number of voters is usually huge, thousands and often millions, making voting a purely symbolic gesture of compliance with the order, showing that someone still believes in and accepts the democratic process.
As citizen under democracy i will always be part of a minority being overruled, with no hope or expectation whatsoever to convince enough people to ever become a majority within the order we are forced to live under. Left with no say in and no framework to secede from the dominant society, the only thing left to do for us is to struggle where and as best as we can and try to get stronger for ourselves. For this it may be important to realize and remind us how weak and manipulated we actually are and how justified demands are to be left alone and live as we decide for ourselves.
Right to Vote
Most democratic voting schemes are based on the idea that each member of whatever grouping has the same vote, regardless of, for example, character, experience, skills and even the extend of concernment by the decisions made. There are some exceptions to this. Usually only citizens are allowed to vote. And of them children are generally not considered fit for voting under some age definition. Likewise, certain sick or handicapped people are excluded. Some societies exclude convicted or imprisoned people, others women. All these exclusive schemes have some reasoning, but finally construct a list of qualified voters.
People of different heritage, tradition, belief, wealth and status are assumed to be equal when it comes to democratic decision making procedures. The elders have the same say as the young adults. People of faith and other spiritual people have the same say as those only concerned with material wealth. Men have the same say as women on women's issues. Does any of this make much sense?
Voters generally don't know much about political issues and options and even less about implications and consequences. There are many aspects of politics and administration which are happening completely outside of public opinion. Many issues are complex and information availability limited and mixed with propaganda. Implementation details and administrative regulations remain hidden in piles of documents written in a language not accessible to most. What it comes down to is that people choose from the limited offerings provided to them through mass media and public discourse.
Moreover, voting as yes/no or multi-choice based exercise reflects a limited perception and major distortion of realities. A main reason, besides technical-organizatonal limitations of voting as a procedure, is that the complexities of life cannot be handled in the processes of propaganda and public opinion. Things have to be simplified to a degree that people with very different background and identity can have a common denominator.
Fight for what is right
In a democracy, once an issue is voted upon, it is accepted as decided. Sometimes there is a next step to the courts and let them rule if a decision made violates some law(s). What is wrong with this?
Fundamental principles and basic values may be defined differently by different peoples but must not be compromised over nor imposed upon others. Obedience under political/judicial or any other human authorities must always be conditional and questioned for compliance with what we see as right. There has to be a moral and spiritual assessment of what is happening based on what we believe in.
We must not accept what we find wrong and not follow orders which violate our principles. The courts cannot decide what is right and just. We must not look for some authority to fix things for us, but fully accept our responsibilities and obligations, which means it is not enough to just question and criticize, but we have to act accordingly and engage in constant struggle involving all we are.
Democracy as counter-insurgency strategy
Democracy is a system designed to allow for incremental and gradual changes within limited parameters and only in certain orderly ways, thereby helping to prevent any serious uprising and revolution from the bottom. It grew out of and is complementing capitalism - colonialism - imperialism.
Voting gives people the illusion as if their opinion actually makes any difference while in reality it doesn't. Democracy always has a next election, providing hope for another chance and even comes with a framework to express opposition in the meantime. If and as long as the peoples are made believe in the cycle, it is a vicious one: an endless loop ensuring that people won't fundamentally change order and relations. The freedom of expression, fair and free elections, multi-party democracy is disguising the powerlessness of the citizens. The right to dissent is largely just a means to keep us from resisting and moving to change things.
Moreover, most democracies are set up to call out the troops in case the people rise up to overcome democracy. Fundamentally changing the political system therefor cannot happen through the system but only through struggle against it, and most likely cannot avoid confrontation with the armed forces securing it. As soon as any movement develops into a serious threat to the ruling groups and organizations, it will be targeted, isolated, infiltrated, criminalized and attacked. Any real resistance has to face their troops. Expect no less than the full power of enforcement apparatus moving against us if we ever stand up and resist.
As long as we do not challenge the rules and boundaries the democratic society is forcing upon us, at least as a white and middle-class male, we are relatively safe. We can publicly express our opinion and organize protest, we can vote and even run for political position, but any serious challenge against the system will undoubtly be crushed mercilessly. We are people living in a cage made believe that the cage is freedom and who no longer know how it is to be free.
Participatory democracy is an effort to integrate more people in the political processes. Increasing participation of citizens in a democratic system means strengthening it and as such it is a preventive counter-revolutionary strategy. As such it is quite effective because it makes people hope that the best they can do to advance their interests is to influence decision-making on the democratic avenues.
Be sure that democracy will not give you access to decision making in any meaningful way. There will always be another election and your vote will still count next to nothing. Voting means confirming basic acceptance of the political process and the rule of whatever majority. The myth of democracy as a superior political system does not prove in reality. Democracy, human rights and science are the most fundamental weapons of ideological warfare to defend the claim of white supremacy and western cultural superiority.
Against 'International Community'
What is the 'international community' and where is it? It is not a community in the traditional meaning of the word. What makes the 'international community' is a group of people who frequently relocate and travel between a set of related locations. There are the conferences and meetings where they come together either physically by plane or virtually by electronic means, 'development' or 'aid' hot-spots where many organizations have projects targeting the same country and peoples, administrative and political headquarters located close to the source of funds (the donor community). The 'international community' is a result of and complementing the processes of multi and transnationalization (often termed 'globalization').
There is no such thing as globalization. There is concentration of capital, transnationalization of banking, corporations and markets, expansion of trade and investment both in terms of spaces and quantities, multi- and supranationalization of politics and security (control and repression). We see the militarization of the police and the policization of the military, and global use of these forces. We see 'aid' and 'development' being privatized and outsourced by governments, increasingly integrated with 'security forces' into a comprehensive strategy of (re)colonization and (re)education to extend and expand control against the targeted societies.
Information society and mass transportation, which are said to bring people closer together and make spacial distance less important, in many ways alienates and divides us even further. Instead of strengthening community and helping to close the gap between rich and poor, communities become more anonymous and indeed virtual, and the distribution of wealth and control further concentrated and polarized.
... long after we have talked about the need for information and communication technologies as tools with which to contrive the information society, we are soon to discover that receivers and computers are powered by electricity which is unavailable in a typical Third World village. Long after we have talked about connectivity, we are soon to discover that most platforms for electronic communication need basic telecommunication infrastructure which does not exist in a typical African village.
What is worse, we will discover, much to our dismay, that the poor villager we wish to turn into a fitting citizen for our information society, is in many instances unable to read and write. Where we are lucky to find the villager literate and numerate, we soon discover that he or she is not looking for a computer terminal but for a morsel of food; an antibiotic to save his dying child; a piece of land on which to eke out an existence, in short, looking for a humane society that guarantees him food, health, shelter and education.
Digital communication is restricted and sensory deprived communication, confined and defined by technological possibilities and limits of expression, authenticity and integrity of data exchanged through networks. The problem is not primarily that this kind of communication is happening, but that it is accompanied by, and developing as a result of, progressing atomization, isolation and loss of togetherness, meaning and belonging in space. Another major problem with digitalized communication is, that the enabling technologies and core network nodes are controlled by corporations and states, which is a dangerous dependency and source of most serious data integrity and privacy issues. With access to the major hubs, data transfered via the Internet can not only be easily corrupted, manipulated and monitored, but in many cases integrity is impossible to verify, or at least requires serious efforts and discipline of participants following strict rules of conduct. It is also quite disturbing that inter-human communication becomes increasingly associated with and dependent upon services, instead of being autonomous and free.
The term and concept of a 'global village' reveal the extend of alienation which has befallen the DTS. It is obvious that a village can never be global, because it is always local, a particular physical space where villagers dwell. Villages are small size both in terms of people and area. The 'global village' is a fictional one, located in a virtual space, created through high-speed exchange of digital data, providing an illusion of connection and belonging, while alone and in anonymity without privacy, a senseless reality displaced and disconnected from real space and meaning. Reality is, that people are increasingly being confined to a tiny space in front of monitors, which create an illusion of being connected and involved with real physical events in near real-time and beyond space constraints. Mass (multi)media and mass transportation allow the illusion of transcending space. But in reality we are always just in one space, but increasingly disconnected and alienated.
State formation and mass society systematically and fundamentally conflicts with community belonging to the land and binding people together.
... The category of the village community comes into the picture as the primary social relation of the people, for this is the institution that is the most continuous and primary unit of human life on the land. When this new, yet traditional, category of the community forms the basis of the revolutionary project, the category of the state and the ideology of nationalism may disappear.
... Class formation is not separate from that of state-formation: the class system could reproduce itself only because state institutions exist, which not only mediate between the producing and non-producing classes, but also protect the dominant class. ...
State-formation is based upon the dis-empowerment and destruction of self-managing, autonomous village communities. ... Sometimes the only way to identify clearly the consolidation of state power is to observe the loss of autonomy and self-management of local communities.
The 'international community' has nothing to offer but maintaining and servicing the status-quo on which it depends for the prosperity and status of its member organizations and institutions.
The post WW-II world order is designed as a global multinational structure with its central institutions being the IMF/WB/UN, recently complemented by the WTO, each covering a certain area of concerns. The core of the order is a monetary and trade system centered around the USA and to a lesser extend its allied DTS. The de-colonized self-administered imperialist peripheries and newly re-colonized territories are kept in a position of perpetual inability to control their own development and as time goes and they become ever more involved with international debt and trade, increasing dependencies and thereby the price of rupture from the order, which keeps them down and exploited.
Through its succession in adapting to the new developments and renewing itself, capitalism at the center has absorbed the threat posed by a new wave of national and social liberation in countries of periphery (COP). The capitalist regimes of the center have devoted considerable effort toward containing the threat from radical intellectuals by supporting the non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which are, a part of the "Marines of US imperialist culture" (i.e. Human Rights Organizations, democracy advocacy and teaching groups, the non-governmental governments...etc) (...) in the Third World. They attempt to corrupt the leftist and nationalist cadres in a campaign to invade and terminate the struggle of organic intellectuals against imperialism by means high salaries, travel, luxurious offices...etc. ...
By doing that imperialism is, in fact, re-educating the people in countries of the periphery (COP) about the capitalist culture, consumerism, market ideology, and internalization of subjugation.
By achieving this, capital succeeds in destroying independent economic, cultural, and political development in the Third World. One of the few exceptions that escaped this, Iraq, became the target of wars and brutal destruction.
Once a country and people are dependent upon 'development' and 'humanitarian' aid, they must allow all these foreigners into their country messing with their economic and social relations even further. Everything is designed to repeat the same cycles over and over again. And after all, the poor are always presented as responsible for their poverty. There will be another 'sound economic policy' and 'good governance' directive coming down with another set of strings attached to get the aid and credit monies they were made to depend upon. And another swarm of 'development consultants' and 'humanitarian helpers' will fall over these countries and peoples to enlighten them about the superiority of the concepts of those living wealthy off the suffering of the exploited and dispossessed masses.
If our programs produce completely different results than we prognosed - mostly easily forseeable and for the targeted 'beneficiaries' destructive - we don't want to be held accountable and accept responsibility, but instead come up with a slightly modified and rephrased version and loop the same routine again. More declarations and promises to reduce poverty and world hunger by some percent during the next decades. And logically, if enough of the hungry die, the total number of hungry will be reduced as long as the number of newly hungry is smaller than the ones who died. Or we adjust the definition what hungry is. But whatever happens, somehow the poor will always be responsible for their poverty, and expect us to have another plan then to loop again through the same routine. The fact that we consume most of everything from everywhere proves that we know best how to acquire material wealth, but makes us bad advisors how to avoid or overcome poverty.
NGOs are a very broad grouping, lumping together all kinds of organizations on the basis of being non-governmental, which is just one of many attributes of organizations. Transnational organizations, with offices and operations worldwide and multi-million dollar budgets behave very much like transnational corporations. They have not much in common with self-determined efforts of local people to organize themselves to advance their own agenda. Generally spoken, the bigger an organization, the more alienation it produces and the less power the individual members have. That doesn't mean that small NGOs are any more trustworthy than big ones, just that size has serious negative implications.
We suggest to group NGOs into DTS and non-DTS, with non-DTS being all those with neither organizational affiliation nor budgetary relations with DTS governments, corporations, organizations or institutions. Next we group DTS-NGOs into interventionist, non-interventionist and anti-interventionist, where interventionist means all those NGOs which interfere or promote interference with the affairs of other peoples and their relations, without sharing any physical space or acting in self-defense. We want to further differentiate interventionist DTS-NGOs into humanitarian (charitable) and human rights (propaganda) organizations, with both being essential elements in a comprehensive strategy of control and (re)colonization, alongside and complementing the efforts of military forces, foreign governmental agencies and corporate investors.
The worst of the human rights DTS-NGOs, like Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW), International Crisis Group (ICG), Action Aid, Church World Service, etc. go as far as openly promoting the use of economic sanctions and military force against selected weak countries. To manipulate public opinion it is much more effective if the DTS-NGOs call for intervention and occupation, instead of the DTS-governments themselves. Even more when African or Asian DTS-NGOs join in the refrain and demand their own (re)colonization.
'Humanitarian' NGOs tend to work closer to people and intervene in critical areas of mind manipulation and social relations. 'Human rights' NGOs are mainly focussing on propaganda and political pressures. In many aspects, NGOs are an updated version of the missionaries of the old colonial times, preaching their gospel of human rights and humanitarian help while working to defend white supremacy, to expand and deepen foreign dominance. All this, while living off the suffering of their prey.
The NGOs have been used as a cover to hide the ugly face of imperialist regimes in the countries of the Third World that suffered greatly from western capitalist colonialism, later imperialism, and currently globalization, Some Western capitalist regimes have been used for this role, like Norway and Sweden, whom I call, in this context, "Non-Governmental Governments". Governments with little no colonial heritage in the periphery...
Actually, the NGO phenomenon came as a new tool for globalization, the last development of capital's domination and hegemony over the World. Through this domination, the compradoric rulers, academics, and intellectuals in the periphery deteriorated to the level of declaring total "loyalty" to imperialism.
The emergence of the NGO phenomenon came in parallel with the Third World debt crisis as well... the regimes of poor countries were poor to the extent of not being able to resist the lure of the relatively large amounts of money which NGOs are able to afford. ...
As a hidden face, NGOs have been favored by imperialist countries over the direct governmental development assistance departments like ODA.
Aggregate statistics about monetary flows of NGOs are not easily available, but international NGOs collectively spend billions of dollars annually, with the biggest of them commanding several hundred million dollars each. The funds come from private 'philanthropic' contributions, governmental and corporate sources, or grants from Foundations. NGOs compete among themselves as well as with dependent regimes for control over donor monies.
Instead of engaging in struggle to change the conditions which cause poverty, humanitarian action is focusing on symptoms only. Working within the system to cushion some of the worst effects it has. Charity instead of paying reparations for all the stolen wealth and suffering inflicted. Giving to the poor as a voluntary contribution instead of obligation for the more wealthy. Giving for what you believe in instead of letting the recipients decide for themselves.
'The UN is nothing but a tool of crime'
The UN is the result of interests and power relations shaped during WW II. First and foremost it represents a compromise between the European colonial interests while establishing a multinational order centered around the USA. The UN system of states is characterized by very steep hierarchies with the Security Council on top. Member states represent only a tiny fraction of all nations, and of these states only a tiny group controls all of the major decisions.
The UN is not the nations of the world united but a tool to enforce and defend a system of states and international relations which came out of European history and expansion and serves the interests of state rulers in general and those of the most powerful states in particular. Nations and peoples were both lumped together and divided into states according to the designs of the colonial powers, alien and hostile to the histories and identities of the peoples living under them. Most of these states have no reason of existence besides foreign dictates and legal frameworks, and are the cause of much grievances and conflict among nations and peoples.
The state governments and rulers of these post-colonial states, are generally supporting the UN system as a main source of legitimization of their power. The UN system of states is diametrically opposed to the interests of small nations trying to regain or defend their integrity, autonomy and self-determination. Often one or more dominant nations control the state and oppress and discriminate against the other nations, and many nations have been or are being extinct. In other cases, nations have been divided into several states, made minorities under their respective states.
During the critical period of the the late 1960s and through the 1970s, the UN and its agencies played an important role in promoting neo-Malthusian ideology and population control programmes (the adoption of policies of population prevention and decimation). The core of the Mathusian ideology is to blame the poor for their poverty. Parents are declared responsible for their children dying from malnutrition and diseases. The rationale implemented goes like this: first, those who don't have enough money to pay for their existential needs will either die or forced into bondage and at the mercy of the international donor community, and second, if families are poor and cannot afford children, they either must prevent them from being born or will face their children suffer much and die early.
Collective Punishment of a Nation
The UN is directly responsible for the mass extermination of Iraqi people. Authorized by the UN, between January 17 until February 28, 1991, a defenseless Iraq was bombed, with an intensity never before seen in the history of warfare, by a multi-national coalition led by the US-CENTCOM. The UN continued its collective punishment of the Iraqi nation with 13 years of sanctions, embargo and blockade. The UN policies systematically impoverished the Iraqi people and left the country without the means to recover from the devastating destruction of the 1991 assault. Altogether, an estimated two million Iraqis died in the name and by the actions of the UN, mostly from malnutrition, diseases and bombing.
Legalize War of Aggression
In the fall of 2001, the UN 'legalized' the US war of aggression against Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries, which tried to recover after decades of war and facing the consequences a long drought. With winter quickly approaching, all aid operations stopped when the USA began its assault. Unknown numbers of people died not only from the bombing or were killed by the invading troops, but also because their food or firewood reserves proved insufficient or while trying to reach one of the camps where many died as well. Still today Afghanistan continues to be occupied by US/NATO troops.
If we look at the history of colonization of Africa, particularly following the Berlin Conference of 1885, humanitarian justifications for intervention were as common as today. And the results were also the same as we witness today. Trade and finances were controlled by foreign companies and countries, selected youth 'educated' to adopt the views of their masters and disrespect their own culture and history, to be used to serve within the colonial and post-colonial administrations and hierarchies. Local peoples were largely dispossessed, impoverished and forced to work, or exterminated.
Based on colonialist and imperialist plunder, subjugation and imposition of economic/political/legal schemes, providing the basis for foreign control of markets, prices and currency exchange rates, resulting in widespread poverty and struggle for control over increasingly scarce resources, fuelled by military and humanitarian assistance by the dominant foreign countries (mostly delivered through proxy states and NGOs) and inter-capitalist competition, unrest and fighting is spreading in Africa.
The conditions created and manipulated by past interventions and continued control of markets and transfer of wealth are used to justify further intervention by those same foreign forces most responsible for the misery. The pattern of foreign intervention is very similar in most cases. The strategy of the DTS to organize strife and escalate conflict is often building upon potential or actual tribal, ethnic and religious differences and historical grievances. This is done
- to distract from the underlying causes of misery and degradation, like the spiritual, social, cultural, economic and ecological disintegration and devastation resulting from colonization/imperialism and foreign controlled development,
- to distract from the ruthless expropriation and exploitation of peoples and resources through world market integration, and the destruction of local economies based on family and community subsistence agriculture and other production, focusing on self-sufficiency and self-reliance for the things needed to sustain their own way of life and control development,
- to distract from mass extermination committed to eliminate potential consumers of resources, which DTS claim and reserve for themselves. The main leverage of mass extermination is the monetarization of relations, resulting in dispossessed and impoverished masses of landless people, made dependent upon and at the mercy of forces completely out of their control,
- to strengthen the preconception of 'them' being backward and primitive, not being able to advance on their own, thereby justifying (re)colonization.
The Cold War limited the usefullness of the UN against countries to force them to comply with the dictates of the USA and its Allies. After the end of the Cold War the UN is increasingly used as a tool in a comprehensive strategy of control and enforcement by the DTS, alongside and complementing the IMF/WB/WTO. It is important to note the high level of coordination and integration of social, economic, medical, psychological, political, humanitarian and military aspects into a comprehensive strategy of intervention and domination.
The favorite means of intervention against financially weak are military and humanitarian aid, given directly or through proxies, through governmental or non-governmental channels, more or less open or under-cover, often combined with logistical and intelligence support. Some guerrilla/warlord/militia is selected for support with training and weapons to wage attacks and provoke the state authorities to enter into a cycle of violence which can than be used to wage propaganda aggression and threaten sanctions or armed intervention.
The WB, IMF, WTO and UN provide the main official political framework of control and intervention below the level of higher intensity warfare. Cutting off access to international debt markets and forcing access for foreign capital to local markets, imposition of economic policies and conditions to secure and increase the flow of profit to foreign investors and destroy whatever local control of markets is left. The UN often contribute to further escalate the conflict through political and economic pressure, like sanctions, embargoes and other trade restrictions, freezing of assets, or the use political justice (international or special courts). A next stages on the escalation ladder are coercion of involved groups into some sort of 'peace process' and 'reconciliation' scheme, deployment of foreign troops, and imposition of political and economic structures (power-sharing, democracy, good governance, human rights, sound economic policies).
Tens of thousands of UN troops are operating in a number of weak states, mostly in Africa. Areas under occupation of UN troops tend to be a great opportunity for humanitarian and certain religious NGOs to expand their influence because they get secured and largely unrestricted access to communities to spread their gospel and launch their programs upon weak and often desperate people.
Out of almost 75,000 military, police and civilian personnel serving in 17 current operations, more than two-thirds are in Africa. ...
... In June 2004, the Group of Eight industrialized nations (G8) adopted the Africa Action Plan to train and equip thousands of African peacekeepers and develop the capacity of African organizations to manage peace support operations. The European Union has also established an African Peace Facility to assist in building indigenous peacekeeping capacities.
...: at the end of 2004, the 10 largest troop and police contributors were all from the developing world, providing almost two thirds of UN peacekeepers. Top contributors Bangladesh and Pakistan deployed one quarter of all uniformed personnel. EU member states, however, while paying 40% of the UN's peacekeeping budget, provided fewer than 10% of the peacekeepers. While the United States gave 26 percent of the peacekeeping budget, it had 318 uniformed personnel in the field at the end of the year. The UN needs, in particular, highly trained units for some specific functions of contemporary peacekeeping missions, which are found more readily in the militaries of developed states.
Meanwhile, at UN Headquarters in New York, DPKO has strengthened its capacity to plan, deploy and sustain complex peacekeeping missions. The department is nearing its goal to be able to set up a mission within 30-90 days of Security Council authorization. ...
In this context of intervention and colonization, disarmament programs are just another act of aggression. The policies of disarming peoples and groups only make them less capable of fighting and more vulnerable to state oppression. The dogma of the state as the only legitimate force to authorize and use violence and impose its laws and regulations leaves less autonomy and authority of peoples for themselves. Pacification achieved by manipulation and coersion is no peace, but one of the worst forms of oppression. There can be no peace without self-determination free from foreign intervention. Therefor a necessary condition for peace is to break free from international community domination and manipulation, and to overcome dependencies from world markets. Only after getting any foreign powers out of their affairs can peace become possible.
The UN proved to be nothing but a tool of crime. The UN Security Council is something like a permanent Berlin Conference dividing the world into areas of influence among the Great Powers. Together with western NGOs, IFIs and development agencies and backed by troops, the subjugation and assimilation of COP peoples under the dominant culture of the DTS is continued unabated.
No Justice under International Law
The concept behind International Law and Prosecution is based on assumptions that there are universally applicable laws and that a supranational prosecution and enforcement structure is desirable. Both these assumptions are revealing a deeply rooted totalitarian mindset.
Peoples were never asked or involved with making any of the international laws which are neither a reflection of any common moral imperatives communicated and agreed upon nor are they based upon a divine entity. Moreover, it should be clear to everyone seriously thinking about this, that there is not even a theoretical not to mention practical way that the peoples of the world could ever communicate as equals and even less agree upon a common moral code or laws to follow.
- Human is always relative to other human and cannot create any absolute binding for humankind.
- Principals and values can only be obligatory insofar as people agree or voluntarily accept to obey and quickly turn into oppression and violence against minority positions.
- Peoples ways of life, cultures and histories are not only different, but often conflicting or even mutually exclusive.
- Mega-structures, covering many millions or even billions of people, feature a high degree of centralization and steep hierarchies at the top.
But even if we assume there would be laws most people agree upon, they would be of not much use without prosecution and enforcement. And it is absolutely clear that any supranational judicial and executive power structure would always be controlled by the dominating military-political and scientific-economic forces.
When we hear statements like the one by Pope Paul that
International law must ensure that the law of the more powerful does not prevail,
, appealing for the replacement of
the material force of arms with moral force of law.
we may remind ourselves that the 'moral force of law' -- control yourself according to the rules imposed upon you -- is indeed very much based upon 'the material force of arms' -- violent enforcement of these rules in case people don't obey voluntarily --. We may hope with the Pope that international law, 'the law of the more powerful does not prevail' because in its core international law is just another means used by the Dominant Powers to advance their own interests.
Laws work Differently for those with Power
Although the powerful mostly make the laws, sometimes these laws become an obstacle to themselves in a certain case or under changing circumstances. In these situations they will either re-interpret or simply violate their own laws, while continuing to demand that all others comply. And more often than not we see systematic factors like racist attitudes and the availability of funds for defense and bribery influence the use of laws.
We are living through a transitional phase, where the international political order, largely defined during WW II in anticipation of the Cold War and superpower polarization, is being accommodated according to the requirements and realities of:
- multi and transnational monetary and economic communication and integration
- political and military control and enforcement
- information control and propaganda
This is why the application of
treaties and other sources of international law
appears more and more openly arbitrary and contradictory. Particularly the UN Charter's
principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members
, which was never meant to be more than appeasement and essentially an empty phrase, is now broadly and openly rejected and redefined.
Historic example of Political Justice: Nuremberg
The decline of the British and Ottoman Empires and the intensification of wordwide competition between the Great Powers for imperialist or colonial control over territory, peoples and resources led to the two 'World Wars'. World War II was fought about hegemony and not about principles or moral superiority. The vicorious Allies were not satisfied with German capitulation. They began a psychological operation to divert attention from the causes of war.
The Nuremberg trial (International Military Tribunal) against 21 Nazi officials and high ranking military personnel was the most prominent of the show trials of the West. The victorious Allies of WW II wanted to present the war as one between 'good' and 'evil' and themselves as 'good' and winning a 'just' war. The accused were the actors in a media and propaganda spectacle which had nothing to do with justice and everything with propaganda, control, and subjugation.
"Just followed orders" and "Didn't know anything"
Nuremberg was designed to implement a scheme, which opened an easy way for Germans to avoid being confronted with their actions during the Nazi rule. Only very few were put through trials or imprisoned, while all the other Germans who had 'just followed orders' and 'didn't know anything' were cleared and somehow turned into 'victims' of the 'evil' Nazi regime themselves being 'liberated' from Fascism by the 'good' Americans or Russians respectively.
Indeed, many people who had actively participated in imprisonment, torture, oppression and genocide found themselves in comfortable positions and collaborating with the new rulers like they had done under the old.
Germany Marching Again
For Germans as a society to embrace a 'unique historical guilt' because of what we have done to the Jews is a way to absolve ourselves of guilt concerning what we do now.
Prevented was the development of a genuine culture of resistance and civil disobedience, an obligation and culture of not following orders which are unethical, and a fundamental rejection of war as a means for Germans under whatever conditions and circumstance but self-defence against invading troops. Nothing really has fundamentally changed and Germany is back attacking and occupying other countries these days expanding its influence all over the places.
We may remember that the destruction and bombing of Yugoslavia was promoted by Germany in clear violation of it's own constitution (written under occupation) and international law forbidding war of aggression. Germany has prominent roles in the occupation of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan with a significant and expanding military profile in Africa and parts of Eastern Europe. Germany is marching again.
International Law as an Instrument of Domination
What we know as 'international law' is designed from the experiences and requirements of the West Europeans and largely based upon their worldview, which they try to impose upon all others, and serving their interests.
Having raised to power in suitable nation-states those elements of the African petite bourgeoisie who showed the most loyalty to Europe, the imperialists fashioned chains by which to control them. ... a whole battery of international "conventions", a fettering bundle of "duties and obligations" sanctioned by something called international law. It was incumbent upon our newly independent governments, it was said, to uphold and maintain all these "laws" and conventions, for the colonial powers had signed them on our behalf ... Besides, the new African administrators had signed agreements to uphold these conventions before they were allowed to enter into their new offices. They had promised to uphold "international law and morality" (whatever that is); promised to join the United Nations and to abide by its rules and recommendations; promised not to expropriate foreign companies even if they robbed Africa poor. Moreover, they had entered into mutual defense pacts with European nations, pacts whereby the European powers could intervene in African politics, sending their troops to save or prop up or restore their African proteges. ... And to make sure the African regimes would not be easily moved to disregard these legal constraints, their minds were further tied up with ideological and moral chains. The African petit-bourgeois leaders were persuaded that it was proper, respectable, advantageous and wise for them to earn the right to be called moderates by the western press ... They were persuaded that the pursuit of formal democracy of the western European varieties was the epitome of civilized conduct -- in other words: debate, debate, debate; debate for the sake of debate; and never do a thing that is screaming to be done, especially if the voices of the West disapprove. They were persuaded that they had to be responsible -- to imperialist interests and advice, that is; that they should do nothing that might hurt their image as "responsible statesmen" -- as imperialist agents, collaborators and stooges, that is.
On the other side, for the Great Powers international law was always about interpretation and violated when regarded best interest. While the USA still maintains its national sovereignty in internal matters and regarding its citizens, the Europeans are much more interested in expanding international law, supranational judicial institutions and means of enforcement. There are two major reasons for this. One, the European nation states currently undergo the process of transfer of national authority to multinational frameworks. A major theme of the process is, how to further centralize authority and combine national into even stronger multinational power, while not loosing the citizens who are conditioned to identify themselves with the nation-state, and shifting authority to world frameworks seems suggesting. And two, in contrast to the US strategy, the European strategy is much less based on military power, reflecting the overwhelming military strength of the United States. Therefor, non-military means have a more important role in a comprehensive strategy of control and domination.
Indeed, international law is today the chosen instrument of Northern domination. It is the medium through which third world countries are seceding sovereign economic and social space to international institutions ...
A gamut of international laws have come to dictate the content of national laws in crucial areas of sovereign decision making such as foreign investment, technology, trade in goods and services, monetary policy, environment and labor.
On the face of it, international law agreements or rules have been voluntarily accepted by individual third world countries. However, there acceptance is "voluntary" only in the formal sense. ...
No universal human rights
Humans don't exist for or by themselves as independent beings, but are always depend on others. As social beings we can only exist within community. While dependence from and interaction with others is necessary and empowers us, it often turns problematic and weakening because it gives others leverage against us. At this time, we can be quite sure, that any essential and even more existential dependencies, especially when asymmetric, will cause efforts to exploit the vulnerability to usurp control over the dependent people(s).
'Good' and 'Bad'
The concept of good and bad people is misleading in the sense that no one is good or bad, but everyone is both good and bad. Sure, we could begin to say that someone is worse than another one. But how should that be measured? Is it about time - who spends more time being bad? Or is it about the magnitude of bad acts - give bad acts a score and add them up as a kind of a badness indicator? And should the evaluation be based upon intentions or consequences? Besides, how do we set the standards for what is good?
There are few ways to argue 'good' and 'bad' universally, meaning not relative to and defined by peoples according to their ways and views. Whatever moral or ethical concept we apply, there will always be the fundamental problem of others having different understanding, definitions and decisions. And we find that rights which are declared, but not practiced, are no rights, but rather lies. So, after several decades of 'universal human rights', we can conclude that they don't exist but as propaganda and utopian belief. Everything finally comes down to our individual decisions, which show in our acting. Only to the extent, that expressed intentions and observable practice regularly match, can we trust the words. Basically we are, what we decided to be, in the frame of our possibilities and responsibilities.
Those who believe in a creator or whatever divine entities, a spiritual system and practices informed by superior or absolute authority and wisdom, transcending humanity and placing it into proper context as part of creation and defining relations and meaning, don't have to argue their morality on humanist terms. They instead study and apply the sacred teachings and revelations to their lives. But because others believe differently, and even among the followers of any faith we find a diversity of different interpretations and directions, the absolutes derived from faith are only universal for those who believe in them.
Since god died in western philosophy and science, defining good and bad became very difficult indeed. Coming from long periods of terrible oppression, destruction and mass extermination in the name of their Christian god, the ethical and spiritual degeneration of the western societies proceeded quickly under enlightenment, capitalism and industrialization, generating masses of highly isolated and manipulated human beings without much power for themselves, unwilling or unable to respect and live in peace with each others.
Among humans we find, that good and bad, right and wrong don't exist independently from us, at least to the extend that we are the ones who define those things. Everyone is both wrong and right, bad and good, depending on the definitions and perspective applied. And we can begin to understand the arrogance and totalitarism behind the concept of universal human rights created by Western thinkers, claiming to be superior people who have the right, or even the obligation (white man's burden), to force all others under their rule (to civilize them and bring progress) for their own good (which they don't really know themselves). With god dying, these people were claiming to be god themselves.
Universal Human Rights
Universal human rights are usually argued on three distinct grounds. Coming out of the particular historic realities of late Christian rule and the struggle against the Catholic Church in Europe, the conception of human rights is nevertheless in many ways either a scientific, humanist or democratic reformulation of Christian morality and values. So it is nature, rationality, or social contract, or some mix of these, which are used to argue the existence or even universality of human rights.
When god began to die in Western philosophy, it was quickly stated that all men are equal. It was further argued that our common nature means we have the same rights. But this line of argumentation fails in several aspects:
- The concept of nature, and the relations and interaction with the natural elements and other living things, are very different between cultures and nations.
- Even genetically identical twins can be quite different people. Genetics doesn't determine very much of who we are.
- Even if nature makes us equal in certain aspects and areas of definition, it does not give anyone more but the endless effort to argue that we are subjected to and determined by rules of the physical world and particulars of our species. These views largely dismiss what is most dear and important to us, our personal sensations and perceptions, our conscious efforts and choices, experiences and expressions.
- Even if behaviorist or utilitarian studies have some successes at the level of social control and mass society, they fail to explain in any satisfactory way the complexities and depth of life beyond the surface and a few anecdotes of behavioral patterns. They quickly hand over to the psychiatrists, neurologists, physicians, and the like, who tell us their stories about ourselves. And the social planners and propagandists, law and enforcement, punishment and prison system will make sure that compliance and obedience is enforced and deliquency contained and oppressed.
- If nature makes rights, how is it that those rights where never practised by us all? In practice, the Christian-Western societies never even respected the most basic of those rights. Instead we are engaged in constant warfare and plunder, exploitation, humiliation, destruction and mass extermination. If nature tells us anything, it is that, if not restrained, selfishness, lust and violence finally rule.
Those arguing for rationality as a foundation of moral principles and values, to a varying extend, are in principle accepting the idea that humans are reponsible, and that we need guidance how to act. By rejecting the absolute authority of God, they were faced with constructing absolute moral authority solely on human terms. This may well be possible, but no group of humans is more entitled than any other to assume that role for themselves. What it comes all down to is that rights are either about education and voluntary consent, or about imposition and enforcement.
This line of arguing assumes some kind of absolute rationality. But again, while a few basic logical procedures may be common, we are far too complex and different. Whatever seems perfectly rational for you, may seem foolish or despicable for someone else. Everyone knows that what the other one thinks is not necessarily what we think, and so we disagree about many things. We cannot rationally claim that only our perspective and principles are valid, or somehow superior, and those of others not equally respectable. Instead we face the reality of different and conflicting views and interests, which have to be negotiated insofar as necessary.
Moreover, far from just being rational, we find ourselves emotional and subjective, esthetic and creative, sensual and spiritual, extending far beyond the realm of logic and reason, transcending and defying the boundaries of whatever abstract rationality has been suggested. All kinds of wholesale criminality and morally despicable activities have been justified as perfectly rational and progressive, supported and also enabled by modern science.
The dominant scientific rationality is grounded in, and shaped by the specifics and often unique experiences and histories of Europeans. It is a particular understanding of relations between humans among themselves and with others, between human and non-human existing entities and living things, and of humanity within and as part of all creation. It is their epistemology of what is regarded relevant, from which position to approach and how to relate to things, as well as their methodology and doctrines.
Others base the concept of universal human rights on the idea of a social contract between members of a society or community. When this idea is generalized and applied to all humanity, we have the specter of a global community united under a common social contract in peace and justice. Even more than the concept of universal rationality, which at least sees the individual as the essential moral being, the democratic approach to human rights is much more openly totalitarian.
The idea, that all humans come together as equals to discuss, agree and decide about a catalogue of human rights, not even to speak about the rules, regulations and means of enforcement, is quite unbelievable and even theoretically impractical. Because even if such a process of fair dialogue in mutual respect, and with equal say for all, could be organized, there will always be peoples who don't agree with whatever dominant position and doctrine may emerge. And moreover, any such contract will always be based upon already existing relations and histories, which precludes the absense of coercion and domination of one over the other. Also, as each new generation is born into a pre-existing contract, which is imposed upon them through involuntary membership and enforced obedience, any such contract quickly turns into a dictate and expression of power instead of a moral imperative.
Control over Development
Poverty is mostly result of economic development. The struggle is about who controls development in terms of time, space and substance. Is land and water used by and for the people living on it or for the world markets? Is whatever industry may develop grown out of and part of the local economy, or is it based on foreign investment and integrated with global production and distribution networks? Where are the profits flowing? What dependencies are being created and how mutual and balanced are these? Are native culture and perceptions being manipulated and devalued in favor of humanist multiculturalism and modern science? These are just some of the questions.
... When you go deeper into exorbitant debt, when you pay more for fewer products and earn less for more primary products, when you go from agricultural self-sufficiency to massive importation of staple items which used to be farmed on land now given over to "cash" export crops (tell me: can you eat cash?), you are on the way to ruin. For you are putting control of your stomach in alien hands that have for five hundred years been consistently inimical to your welfare. And when you call that "development" and rejoice, I am aghast.
Who controls development is the most important question for all peoples and countries, because it is about who determines how future relations will look like. Institutions of the 'developed' countries put a lot of effort into studying 'developing' countries because they want to make sure that future relations benefit themselves.
Schooling and Education
Educating the young is one of the most important task there is and it is both an obligation and opportunity of community and peoples to make sure that their way of life is being communicated and taught to the next generation. All peoples who struggle to defend their cultural and spiritual integrity and survival must therefor place special emphasis upon controlling the education of their children, particularly the school system and curriculum.
The colonial/imperialist/democratic totalitarian powers know well that the best way to secure their control and expand their influence is to manipulate the young and future generations in a process of destroying the culture of the colonized. It is of great importance to be conscious and resist these efforts of indoctrination, and to counter exposure to mass culture (movies, music, sports, lifestyle brands, advertising) and propaganda (news, schools, universities).
Still there is the notion that the Western science and doctrines are somehow superior or even universal. This myth is persistent despite obvious and fundamental contradictions between realities of life and theories about it, with life being a totality of all things and science a reduction of life into objects and areas of faculties. And even from within science it became clear that the observer, who was long assumed to be neutral, is indeed related and manipulating the observed and that if we change the context of things, these things are already being altered. It turns out that the reductionist, objectifying science is indeed unable to appreciate and comprehend life outside of its own narrow definitions and concerns.
What this kind of science is good for, is to extract selected pieces of information and use them to develop technology and procedures controllable by humans insofar as they are aware and interested. instead of accepting that creation is perfect far beyond human capability and even comprehension, a certain people developed the notion that creation is dangerous, wild and unorderly, and that it must be re-made and re-modeled to function according to their will.
Like it could be expected and unavoidably, the blatant degradation and objectification of creation leads to a vicious cycle of decomposition, disintegration and destruction, and corresponding reorganization and rebuilding, replacing vastly complex and integrated realities with dull, human made or reduced and caged realities. Western science is not just profoundly anti-moral and anti-life, mostly asks the wrong questions and gives stupid answers, it is actually one of the main sustaining forces behind DTS domination and means of mind control as well as physical control. People believe in science beyond all reason and even against their own experiences and observations.
Modern science embodies the particular destructive and morbid mindset of the Europeans and cannot be separated from it. Industrial mass production means mass distribution, mass consumption and mass society. And to control mass society and mass consumption it needs massive propaganda and mind control, categorized individuality of normalized people functioning within limited variation from the base line. Modern science is like the Pentagon and NATO, or the UN and international law, all of it to be abolished and rooted out thoroughly once and for all.
- there is no absolute human knowledge
- there is no neutral science or technology
- knowledge by itself has no liberating quality and can be harmful
- methods and procedures are profoundly influencing results of research
- asking the right questions is more important than answering the wrong ones
- there are many sources and ways to gather and relate information leading to different results
- science is mostly just another faith claiming universality (closely resembling the narrow intolerance and dogmatism of Christianity)
- science may be abstract ('pure') or practical ('profit oriented'), but generally misdirected
A major point to understand about propaganda and science is that careers in academics and media are ordinary. Professors and teachers want to keep their jobs and climb the ladder like other professionals do. Writers and news people are dependent on some employer paying their work. Like with any other job, they don't choose their own assignments and don't control the market for which they produce. So we find that academics, writers and politicians are generally sell-outs and tamed, looking for some market niche and building themselves a nest (reputation/recognition/entitlement). Intellectuals are more dependent than other professionals or trades and crafts, because what they produce has no specific monetary value or general usefulness.
If people make it through school and university, more than 15 years of indoctrination and conditioning are already limiting them. Their mind is either schizophrenic or cynical, but generally submissive and caged. The same old theories and doctrines are rebottled again and again without much change in substance, as if there is no practice and experiences to evaluate and falsify. Realities may be perceived and interpreted differently, but theories cannot repeatedly fail to explain without loosing their relevance. The trick being used is to turn theories and doctrines into belief and create abstract idea-values untouchable and indeed unrelated to real life events and processes. These ideas, however rotten and unreasonable, are being fed to students under pressure to compete and achieve, in an effort to prevent them from thinking clearly and coherently.
Schools are not at all designed to serve children, but instead to prepare material for use in industry, bureaucracy, administration and military. Children are treated as incompetent and unable to decide what they want and don't want to learn, and have no say how they are being taught. Committees decide about the curriculum and schedule, as well as the school structure and methodology of teaching and testing. Standardization of content and time lines allow comparability of tests and relatively stable quality of output for easy intake and replacement of workforce. To a limited extend, students are encouraged to think and argue 'independently', because that is a requirement of industrialized society. But they quickly learn that their grades will drop when they actually do step out of the mostly 'invisible' bounds of accepted thought. In many ways, schools are like baracks or prisons, drilling children in obedience as condition to compete and achieve, preparing the students to robot for the system.
Students have no say whatsoever, but often are obligated to go to school. Curiosity and interest to learn are systematically blunted and life sucked out of them, replaced by pressure, boredom and mechanical procedures. If students resist by refusing to function as demanded, don't want to sit still listening and don't accept what teachers try to sink into them, they are harassed with long hours over homework and bad grades, often with depressing effects hurting their self-esteem. Or they are being psychologically and chemically manipulated to make them function 'better'. Never have children been so pressured and alienated to robot as replaceable anonymous particles of mass society. And, like usual, this all happens in the name of the 'best for the children', by and with the support or acceptance of 'loving parents'.
When the hegemonial societies steal and incorporate some of the knowledge of the peoples they dominate, it can make them more capable to secure and deepen their hegemony. On the other side, to accept the ways, doctrines and methods of the hegemonial societies is just a step to assimilation. For example, one world multiculturalism only makes sense for the dominant DTS culture insofar as these people want to stay on course (defend Western civilization). Every other peoples can only loose by selling or sharing their knowledge or cultural and spiritual concepts and practices, after already having lost control of their history and relations to colonialism/imperialism/multinationalism.
Instead of focussing on strengthening and defending the integrity of the own culture and knowledge, allowing the alien (multi)culture to infiltrate and spread, seems insane. The main target of the dominant culture are the young, because they are most easily manipulated and fascinated by stars and brands symbolizing lifestyle choices being just variations of the one dominant culture being a mix of consumerism, careerism and competitive individualism. So called counter-cultures are quickly commercialized, adopted and incorporated into the dominant culture, or otherwise marginalized, criminalized, subverted and corrupted. There is nothing but emptiness behind the shining surface and therefor it works like a drug addiction and needs to be treated as such.
Schools as Part of Assimilation Policies
There are many examples of the destructive and colonizing role of formal, institutionalized education. The boarding school system in the US illustrates well the violence and terror of assimilation policies and the role of schools in these policies. Thomas J. Morgan, in his first report as Commissioner of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior in 1889, declared
The Indians must conform to "the white man's ways," peaceably if they will, forcibly if they must.
His motivation was simple
"It's cheaper to educate Indians than to kill them."
The fastest--the only--way to assimilation, as he saw it, was to get the young Indians off their reservation, away from their benighted elders, and into White-run schools. This meant, most importantly, getting the Indian youths away from the influence and teachings of their religious leaders, the "medicine men", whom Morgan regarded as a principle force obstructing assimilation. The tribes were no longer a military threat; their ablest chiefs and warriors were dead or powerless; even the traditional political and economic structures of their societies were in tatters and disintegrating. It was the religious leaders, mostly, who were keeping Indianness alive.
The assimilationists considered themselves well intentioned, working to save the Indians from physical extermination and extinction, and allowing these poor Indian children to suffer the blessings of White men's education. The strategy implemented included serveral measures. Replacing open warfare, which no longer was necessary after the nations were militarily defeated,
police and government terrorism and imprisonment of Indian nationalists and 'troublemakers'
were used to oppress resistance and punish defiance, while it was hoped that those who refuse to be assimilated would die off sooner or later.
The tribal religions were no churches and not separated at all from the social, economic and political life, or the understanding and negotiation of justice. Realizing, that the spiritual concepts and systems of the tribes, being an inseparable and well integrated part of their life, were the most powerful force that held these societies together and enabled them to maintain some integrity and coherence, the assimilationist policies were attacking the religious expressions and practices, and putting the children in institutions for indoctrination and alienation.
After the establishment of the United States, the government recognized most missionaries as able allies in dealings with tribes. ... If there was fault to be found with them, it was their tendency to take the Indians' side in conflicts with aggressive White frontiersmen and with such government policies as the forced removal of the eastern tribes to the western side of the Mississipi River--actions that interfered with the missionaries' goals of conversion. But, in general, Congress and the administrations in Washington regarded them as the best civilizing influence and came to rely on them increasingly as agents to guide the Indians towards assimilation.
President Grant in 1869 began turning over the full responsibility for the administration of Indian agencies to American churches and missionary bodies...
On the whole, it was a disaster for most of the tribes. ... With their authority backed by troops, they tyrannized the Indians with orders that banned Indian ceremonies and dances, the telling of Indian legends and myths, and all other manifestations of Indian religion. ...
The policy of entrusting reservations to the churches ultimately failed...
This, however, did not end the assault on Indian religion, institutions, and culture. The harsh era of missionary control set patterns for the treatment of Indians under the policy of forced assimilation that ensued during the next fifty years. Civil agents, still supported during most of that period by the military, continued to look for help from missionaries, and the alliance of agent, soldier, and missionary subjected Indians to an even tighter and more effective dictatorship than before...
US-government regulations made religious practices an offense to be punished by withholding food rations or imprisonment. Actions against forced assimilation, like ceremonies, dancing, singing and praying in a traditional way, or defending the children against the schools, was punished with imprisonment for 10 to 30 days. Every overt religious practice was banned by an encompassing Religious Crimes Code.
By 1894, virtually the entire range of indigenous spiritual practices had been outlawed, a measure expressly intended to eradicate all vestiges of the traditions which afforded cohesion and continuity to native cultures. Meanwhile, the bulk of all American Indian children were forcibly removed from their communities at the earliest possible age and sent to remote boarding schools where they were systematically deculturated. Kept in these institutions for years on end, they were prohibited not only from practicing their religions, but from speaking their languages, dressing or wearing their hair in the customary manner, and often from having even cursory contact with friends and families as well. Meanwhile, they were subjected to sustained indoctrination in Christian and Western values, in combination with the rudimentary skills which would allow them to serve as laborers and functionaries for the dominant society.
To a certain extend these policies were successful. Much knowledge and customs has been wiped out, many people were mentally and spiritually broken and communities disintegrated.
Some people, whom the Whites termed "progressives", accepted the steadily hammered lesson that the day of the Indian was over, and became willing to try to follow the White man's road.
Yet, it seems that
oppression was largely counterproductive, alienating great numbers of Indians, stiffening their determination to resist adopting the White man's ways, and turning them against acceptance of government programs.
In the end the program failed to eradicate the Indigenous Peoples' religions, which were continued to be practiced and taught as best as the circumstances permitted. It took several generations, but there was still enough remembrance of and spiritual knowledge kept alive for
a remarkable revival of the vitality and influence of Indian spiritualism
since the 1970s.
This US policy was about extermination and forced assimilation, driven not just by greed, but a strong desire to legalize and justify conquest and genocide, and to build the legend of its history upon the Christian doctrine of discovery and manifest destiny, claiming to be the vanguard of true civilization and governed by the rule of law, despite the absurdity of that claim. The indigenous peoples and slaves (mostly African people) had to be prevented from ever being able to break free from the United States, and the colonization of the minds and disintegration of communities are the means being used.
The strategy used by the US government against the Indigenous Peoples of Turtle Island (N.America) seem as a model for some of the practices we see today, with human rights and humanitarian NGOs in the role of church and missionaries. The force and punishment approach appears somewhat less pronounced and openly oppressive, but if we look at the campaign and repression against Islamic religious education and schools, and the persecution of religious leaders, it seems, while things may be more refined and optimized, they fundamentally remained the same.
Educate to Follow
For the French and British, de-colonization meant reforms which would allow nominal independence while maintaining sufficient indirect control over their former colonies to keep the wealth flowing in their direction. Both used schools and universities to indoctrinate and train local elites and integrate them into the colonial institutions and administration. French universities began to set up African outposts or partnerships and the curriculum and methodology of teaching was controlled by professors from France. The official language was the one of the colonizers, as were the ideas and concepts being taught, and even history and the arts. Going through this and graduating, the students were thoroughly Europeanised in thought and culture, believing in the superiority of the colonizer and looking down on African knowledge, sprituality, culture and traditions.
Even after the colonial armies had left, African universities did not really de-Europeanize their curriculum or methodology, on the one side because of the political and academic elites, well knowing that their status and wealth depends on their European (or more recently American) education, on the other side because of a general lack of career opportunities independent of foreign trade, investment and aid monies. The African petite bourgeoisie of bureaucrats, lawyers, traders, accountants, journalists, teachers, are much closer to their DTS counterparts than most of their fellow Africans.
... At best, introducing the Western system is like laying a thin socio-cultural membrane over indigenous society and norms, creating a sort of cultural schizophrenia. At worst, imposing the Western system of education builds a support mechanism for direct colonization, which has dogged non-Western peoples for several centuries. Ignoring any serious consideration of these issues cannot be seen as simply remaining 'neutral' or 'objective.' Rather, in the present aggressive climate of American triumphalism, ignorance or passivity can amount to self-degradation and indirect colonization.
Any meaningful program of education for decolonization and rejuvenation has to take into account the damage already done by colonialism, and must take steps to undo that damage, heal the wounds, and especially avoid repeating its reprehensible and destructive characteristics in a new guise. Such a prospectus requires a two-pronged approach, which will simultaneously dismantle the destructive tendencies and institutions built upon them, and assemble more constructive beliefs and practices in light of human and ecological needs.
The most perfect control and command over a people is when they truely believe what the rulers tell them. So that they basically volunteer for submission and even encourage their children to strive to please the oppressor and perceive as normal what is most outrageous and unacceptable, degrading and destructive. And this is what schooling is supposed to do.
If you read African news by Africans, the dominance of the DTS train of thought becomes obvious. There is a widespread absense of anti-colonialist thought and analysis, of general scepticism and distrust of everything European, of rejection of foreign manipulation and intervention. The well educated people all too often embrace the theoretical garbage as well as political and social ideology coming to them from the DTS. It goes so far, that African intellectuals and news people openly accept or even demand recolonization, now again termed help and peace keeping.
The African States are mostly products of colonialism/imperialism, like are most of their institutions and organizations. For example, despite the clear failure and devastating results, most African governments and intellectuals still believe in liberal democracy and capitalism. The African Union is modeled after the UN and EU, African troops are trained and equipped by Europeans and Americans, acting under hostile international law. Rwandan and Ugandan troops, known from a series of wars of aggression and specifically for their brutality and slaughtering of civilians in the DRC, pose as peacekeepers in the name of the AU. And recently, the AU even asked NATO to help it step up intervention against Sudan.
Crusade against Madrassa in Pakistan
British colonial rule over India featured immense atrocities and systematic mass extermination policies in an effort to maximize the profits for Britain. The strategy was to train and educate a local elite, which becomes accustomed to and even proud of their British education, loves British etiquette and culture, while disrespecting their own, and, most importantly, is thankful to get a well paying job serving their former colonial masters.
When the British realised that indoctrinated people under this system have grown up to handle power in India and under their rule British interests would be safe, it decided to say an end to occupation. Local population was expected to forget British atrocities. While living under apparent freedom and independence, they would gradually accept British as their educational, cultural and civilisational masters. British handed over power to Oxford-stricken community. Since then, they didn t let the system move an inch from what had been established under the colonial rule. They always looked for direction to London and then Washington.
America's US Agency for International Development (USAID) pledged $100 million to support reforms in Pakistan's education sector over the next five years on August 9, 2002. ... American interference in our educational system has grave implications for the future of the already enslaved nation. America is concerned about Muslim opposition to American domination. It regards Pakistan's youth as the key to dealing with its opposition.
The World Bank-UNESCO report "Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise" announced a complete change in the personality of youth in developing countries. The report calls for "a general or liberal education" whose focus is "the whole development of an individual, apart from his occupational training. It includes the civilizing of his life purposes, the refining of his emotional reactions..."
There is no hidden agenda for reforming education system for effective domination. The colonialists openly admit that liberal education is based on Western values and norms they have nothing to do with Islam, except diluting its influence on our lives. The report states: "this particular method of education has Western roots." Furthermore, the colonialists realise that there will be resistance to the colonialist system of education. The report states that liberal education "recalls colonial domination and education" but then dismisses this as "unfortunate."
The education reforms in Pakistan are thus part of the long term attempts at neutralising our Islamic identity and indoctrinating Muslim youth with Western culture and values. The colonialists are using education as a mean to make us accept domination without any resistance. As mentioned earlier, educational indoctrination and cultural domination have always been the central pillars of colonialism and occupation. ...
Decolonizing the Mind
I am a member of the colonizing societies (DTS), and a citizen of a former colonial, defeated and occupied , imperialist and newly colonizing state (Germany). I have never been subjected to colonization nor did my ancestors, which means my mind is colonized the other way, meaning a colonizer mind instead of a colonized mind. So why would a colonizer mind be interested in decolonizing mind? There are two principle reasons: on the one side, sociologists/psychologists/propagandists research decolonization to find ways to prevent and distort, confuse and manipulate the process; on the other side, people look for answers and ways to free themselves from a position, where our way of life depends on domination, exploitation and extermination of the others. In this, the perspectives of colonized struggling to decolonize can be a mirror showing who we are. The colonized know about us what we like to ignore, overlook, deny or rationalize before ourselves, be it personal or collective lies. Time to listen and learn instead of always having the last word and claiming to know better. We don't know how to do things right for others and the choice of living for ourselves seems at least unwise, but also overly violent and negative.
Q: Would you please give us a brief introduction of the topic and what is a colonized mind?
Colonization, as you know, is often formally seen as a period of history when the European and American powers forcibly and physically held colonies throughout what is now called the Third World, and from which they drew fabulous wealth. ...
However, two world wars in the 20th century virtually destroyed Europe and greatly weakened most of those colonial powers (except the US, which was strengthened for a time), so throughout the 20th century we see a wave "independence" movements, which is basically what we call it when the colonial powers physically left. However, the systems the colonizers put in place - health, education, science, technology, law - insured that the formerly colonized peoples would not do anything very different from what the colonizers intended in the first place: that the Third World remain subordinate to the West. This condition of continuing the policies and ways of life forced upon the Third World under direct colonization is what is usually termed "mental colonization." ...
Q: How is decolonising the mind important from an Islamic perspective? I think the timing is important.. you see the 'war on terror' is going on in full swing..What can Muslims really do nowadays?
Decolonizing the mind is important for everyone who believes that colonization was not in the best interests of the what is now called the Third World, which includes the Muslim world. Of course, there are those who have no complaints with British, or American, or other forms of colonialism, so for them it is an incomprehensible idea to become "decolonized." ... Colonialism destroyed local cultures, ways of life, and ways of knowing, including farming, medicine, agriculture, and education, but peoples of the Third World today are questioning what replaced their indigenous systems, and finding ways to regain their own knowledge systems. In other words, I am not promoting a new movement; I am describing what is already happening in the world today.
Histories and Progress
Many people think history in terms of progress and advancement. Like from hunting, fishing and gathering, to nomadism and agriculture, to trade and industry. Or like primitive, feudal, capitalist, socialist. These theories not only construct a hierarchy of ways of life from the perspective of and based on the particular rationality and value system of those societies which claim to be the most advanced, but furthermore suggest that societies have to develop in certain ways.
We should realize that life does not fit in any such generalizing concepts and hierarchies. And that the histories of peoples are theirs to tell and evaluate. Humans only have in common that they belong to the same species, which is just a biological category. It means even less for humans than for most other species because we are free. As social and spiritual beings we are quite different, and do not share the same culture, principles, values, myths, goals or even ways of learning, understanding and communicating.
While development of society in its totality can only be evalued by the people of that society itself, and by other peoples to the extend they are affected by the actions of that society, access to and use of technology has specific conditions, dependencies and stages. For example, a society cannot make much use of information technologies without first providing the electricity and basic telecommunication infrastructure needed to use these technologies. Likewise, sophisticated medical technology is not useful for people without access to safe drinking water, sanitation and sewage water treatment facilities, and basic health services.
(Re)production is a necessary function of life, but it only needs to be a dominant theme as long as there is scarcity in the area of essential needs. Once we found a sustainable way which provides us with the things we need without too heavy a workload, why put us in jeopardy just to accumulate more? If people feel secure to have their material needs satisfied, a solid foundation for pursuing more important goals than always more consumption of goods and services is given. Why bother to consume more and better instead of focusing on social, cultural and spiritual issues? Relations with others - family, friends and other people - and other beings - land, water, stones, trees, plants, animals and other existing - as well as our creative, physical, moral and spiritual potentials and obligations, are so much more important to our well-being.
The spectacular successes of western science in developing technology and using techniques do not prove in any way the superiority of the concepts, methods and processes. Technological achievements and development brought useful as well as a lot of useless and destructive things. Some science resulted in useful or interesting information as well as misinformation, systematically eclipsing or suppressing other information. Industrialization is seen as progress, but it is even more destructive. Production of things where there is no essential need seems like waste more than anything else. Worst of all, industrialization made people increasingly dependent on forces beyond their control and decomposed local communities in mass society.
High input and marketable output industrial agriculture and livestock breeding systems are no progress towards subsistence agriculture and shifting cultivation. Successful agricultural systems, which for centuries or even millenia have proven to be both sustainable and sufficient, were and are being attacked and replaced by industrial systems for profit expectations. The industrially produced food is usually of degraded quality and with significant dosages of pesticides and other chemicals, the methods used are damaging the natural elements, and the accompanying structural and social changes are disastrous for local farming and fishing communities. Mono-cultures of cash crops create ideal environments for plant diseases and pests, chemicals contaminate soil and water, high water usage often exceeds the amount of water available from natural sources, irrigation causes degradation and loss of hundred thousands of hectar of land annually.
Industrial agriculture is characterized by high energy input (machinery, fuel, chemicals, irrigation, etc.) and high output per worker hour, but low energy output per energy input. Workers are replaced by capital, which makes farmers shift production according to their need for money to pay off the debt instead of the nutritional needs of their community and natural conditions and limitations. Particularly for low income COPs, replacing what they have plenty (workers) with what they are most deprived of (capital), can only lead to increased impoverishment and exploitation of the masses of people, and result in further loss of control over development due to increased dependencies on energy imports and world markets for exports. The implementation of industrial agricultural systems are a major reason for food insecurity and widespread malnutrition.
Essential things like food should only have to be traded in case of emergency. A society/nation/community which is dependent upon imports for its survival is in a position where it must either control the outside (re)sources or risk being controlled through them.
Western medicine is unable to see living beings in their totality, but dissects us into selective small pieces and phenomena, biological, chemical, electronial, mechanical objects to be tested and analysed. The fact that you can get some life extension out of chemical inputs and high-tech medical equipment does not change the reality that most people die as a consequence of malnutrition and displacement, unhealthy environment and living conditions, nor does it in any way change the fact that we will all have to face dying and death. Instead of focusing on trying everything to extend life, it seems much more important to prepare ourselves to die honorable and with dignity.
In the last decades, health problems and aging became major sources of profit and areas of intense political struggles. The fundamental problem with health is that the systemic and social causes for illness are largely excluded and turned into something which is wrong with the individual. Even if people refuse to accept what is wrong with their lives, their bodies are not fooled that easily and react appropriately. Getting sick often seems a most healthy reaction and we should learn to accept ourselves. Dividing us into mind and body and demanding that our body has to function like we think or that our mind has to function in a prescribed way are expressions of alienation and loss of integrity. Propaganda is used to control peoples minds and medicine to control peoples bodies. As the definition of physical and psychical normality is tightened and increasingly imposed even upon very young children, deviation from the norm is seen as disfunction and becomes less acceptable. What is healthy and what is sick? Why should i not want to die when my time comes?
Resistance and Counter-Insurgency
Resistance has many ways and faces. There is no living person which never resists. This is because human beings are free and must make choices, and therefor are responsible within their personal and collective frame of possibilities. No one always functions the way the system wants us to, causing massive efforts by science trying to control our humanity, mostly through chemical inputs (e.g. medicine, additives in food and water), propaganda (e.g. schools, mass media, entertainment), and other psychological operations (e.g. deprivation/overstimulation schemes, behavioral standardization).
The last major cycle of organized political protest and resistance in the democratic capitalist societies began with the civil rights, anti-war and social movements of the 1960s. Confirming the bitter experiences of past struggles, none of these movements was able to seriously challenge the dominant order and state. Still, several generations of political activists followed on the same path, looping through the same routine and repeating the same experience again and again.
Using simple tactics of integration, corruption, criminalization and repression, usually splitting movements along the lines of law and order, insisting on strict obedience under the law and enforcing the government's monopoly of violence, protest could mostly be rendered harmless easily and turned into political gaming about group interests representing votes.
When necessary, the state would step up threats and escalate, deploy massive police forces and use open violence against protesters, things like kicking and beating, shooting rubber bullets, or applying low-lethality chemical agents. Often combined with mass arrests and judicial prosecution. Radical and difficult-to-corrupt popular leaders would be taken out and when possible replaced by more cooperative opportunists willing to sell out. Certain groups, when assumed dangerous, are criminalized and persecuted, and their members imprisoned, deported, assassinated, or massacred.
But if we look at examples of more advanced struggles and the all out counter-insurgency operations waged against the people of Iraq, Palestine, or Chechnya and Kashmir, we know that our enemies have plenty of options left to escalate, should we ever rise up more determined and forcefully. Abdallah Shamil Abu-Idris describes the situation in which the Chechen people find themselves struggling to survive and liberate their nation.
And no matter how much we try to come to terms with the rules of this world, neither so-called international law, nor democracy, nor human rights and other fancy things will save us from genocide; we merely grow weaker from relying on these terms and promises. While they talk to us about democracy, international law and the rest, 200,000 of our people have been killed; that is 25 percent of our people. Imagine 2.5 million Swedes out of your 10-million population being wiped out.
Today the whole world is willingly or unwillingly assisting in the genocide of our people, just by demanding that we observe certain rules. The situation is like that in a boxing ring, where a boxer and a kick boxer are fighting. The referee, in the form of the world community, allows the kick boxer to kick, while the boxer is not allowed to use his feet, even to block his opponent's kicks, because there are no such rules in boxing.
In recent years, fundamental contradictions in the struggle against the dominant order became more obvious and clear.
Historic materialism is a theory about history which constructs historical stages based on the means of (re)production and driven by class struggles towards an end of history. True to the spirit of European enlightenment, the theory declares itself scientific and progressive, while defining the world strictly from the perspective of European realities, its history, institutions, struggles, traditions, morality, rationality. The theory focusses primarily on production relations (so called 'basis'), describing economic and class contradictions, but has not much to say about cultural, moral and spiritual contradictions (so called 'superstructure'). It doesn't speak about White Supremacy or Patriarchy, nor about different rationalities and epistemologies. But really, beyond securing access to and availability of the basic material necessities of life in a sustainable way, there is no good sense in constantly changing production and distribution to produce more and more commodities.
There is no common good road for all. Self-determination means that all peoples must follow their own ways according to their own maps. Any effort to manipulate, intimidate or force others to comply with our 'universals' or 'absolutes' is nothing but aggression. Nothing is more important at this time than the struggle against the DTS and particularly MNCs/TNCs. We should shut up about how others decide to live and mind our own business instead. There is no world to save and no one else to liberate but ourselves.
No group can define or decide above another without violating the integrity of the other group. There is no compromise possible between a position for self-determination, in defense of and solidarity for fundamentally different ways of life on the one, and a position for universal human rights, international law and worldwide standards on the other side, simply because these concepts are mutually exclusive in theory and hostile in practice. Self-determination of peoples is indivisible and is not negotiable.
Among the political 'left' or 'liberals' there is no consistency or coherence of thinking and no clear guidelines recognizable either. For example, foreign intervention is rejected against Cuba, Venezuela, not mentioned against Chechnya, Pakistan, accepted against Liberia, Sierra Leone, DRCongo, demanded against Sudan, Indonesia. Sanctions are widely accepted and even demanded, as are other restrictions and interference with the national sovereignty of weak countries. Even direct foreign rule finds some support, using the same rotten language as the colonialists of the past.
Afghanistan was a target of many on the left, particularly after the Taleban had come to power and managed to stop the warfighting in most of the country for the first time in decades. Farmers could go back in the fields and hope to actually harvest what they had sown. Women could again leave their homes without fear of being raped and kidnapped. People could travel without being robbed or murdered for nothing. Afghanistan was recovering and many basic things of everyday life were improving.
Defeated the Soviets exited from Afghanistan and their beneficiary Najibullah too had his last tragic hurrah in 1992. Najib's exit marked another phase of destruction, devastation and social anarchy and betrayal in Afghanistan. The weapon-laden bitter harvest of competitiveness and intense intra-Mujahideen rivalry wreaked havoc on the Afghan people. If the 1979 Soviet invasion triggered defiance among the Afghans, the post-Najib developments triggered revulsion. The post-Najib phase lasted until 1996 when the Talibaan forces took over Kabul. ...
While superficial conclusions about the Talibaan blame them for imposing 'alien' ways on the Afghan public, especially religious extremism and ethnic exclusions, it is the Talibaan's ability to understand, accept and assimilate the organic ways of administering Afghanistan that has made their sustained control possible. Talibaan's influence and control on the 90% of Afghanistan's provinces is directly linked to their ability to keep the population and especially the tribal influential satisfied; mostly in terms of maintaining peace and security and providing livelihood opportunities which would mostly mean agricultural activity but without disturbing the tradition-bound practices.
The Taleban (until the US/NATO aggression) were factually the government of Afghanistan, controlling most of the country, except the Panjsheer Valley controlled by the guerilla under Ahmad Shah Massoud. Nevertheless, only three countries had recognized the Taleban government. The UN instead selected Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani as 'their' Afghan President.
The Talibaan government, with all the difficulties it faces, shows no sign of surrendering to pessimism or frustration. It remains determined to undertake, with dignity and devotion, the colossal tasks of reconstruction and rehabilitation. In their meetings with the UN agencies the Talibaan firmly convey their own agenda to them. Reportedly the Amr Bin Maroof minister told special a UN Rapporteur that, "we had our own priority our country was to be divided into various parts, our first priority was to ensure our country's unity, now we will work in other areas."
Many DTS people couldn't accept what was happening in Afghanistan because the principles and ways implemented by the Taleban with the Quran as the Constitution of Afghanistan fundamentally contradict the humanitarian idealism and utopism and multicultural universalism they believe in. Activist groups and NGOs of the DTS joined with expatriate Afghans for an unabating propaganda attack against Afghanistan, which further complicated international relations and thereby efforts of reconstruction and rehabilitation of the country. Turs out, the propaganda effort very much helped to prepare the case for military aggression (under Clinton) and invasion/occupation (under Bush Jr).
The point is that what we share across the political spectrum is a basic mental condition that makes us think that we know what is best for others and indeed for the whole world. Generally, we don't respect and won't tolerate that other peoples want to live according to their own history and ways. There is no hesitation to judge others and interfere with their life. The same totalitarian mindset claiming our principles and values to be absolute, universal human rights and global standards to be imposed and enforced for the best of all, the same myths of progress, freedom and happiness.
We must understand that protest movements in the DTS are fully embedded into their societies. The atomized individuals of high-tech mass societies have very limited physical or mental autonomy apart from being part of the whole. This is because of the systematic disintegration of communities and autonomous structures. They are completely dependent upon the dominant society, and particularly the multi- and transnational networks to fulfill even their most basic needs, like water, food, clothing, housing. And they know that moving out of bounds may result in heavy penalties and isolation.
You cannot really put up a serious struggle against an enemy which has nearly complete control over you. One of the most fundamental rules of resistance is that we have to develop self-sufficient and sustainable communities which can keep the struggle alive even under all kinds of pressures being applied against us.
The protest movements in the DTS generally have no solid material or spiritual foundation, and are therefor easy to handle by the authorities. Protesting in a cage is better than doing nothing at all, and may actually help to save or recover some dignity and self-respect. But it does not offer any hope to ever break out and gain control of our own lives.
What we are often told is that we have to settle for small incremental changes taking a long time. This is not only quite discouraging, but seems plain wrong. From what we can learn from the past, there have been periods of rapid and fundamental change, whole civilizations disappeared, knowledge and ways were lost.
The stakes are quite high today, maybe higher than ever before. The reason is that the DTS, which dominate world order today, not only have the most destructive technology, but also an extremely destructive and violent mentality. We have forgotten what it means to be a human being and part of creation. Not willing or able to face ourselves and take responsibility for our actions, our societies, full of fear, will continue to spread death and destruction until the bitter end.
Dissolving the System
The 'system' is a certain reality, for nearly all of us the dominant and for many the only reality they are aware of. This particular reality is both comprehensive and expansive. It allows deviation only within strict parameters and strives to assimilate, incarcerate or finish off living not controlled by it. What doesn't fit under and within or at least attached and somehow utilized or utilizable is not recognized or even less respected.
Everyone and everything is turned into an object and taxed. The only one thing we are equal before the system is that we die and will be replaced. The system is without senses, truely senseless. The functions of the system need to be served for it to continue. The important relation to notice is that functioning within the system always means supporting it to some extend.
Many believe in incremental changes for the better. reform and progress, a long march to peace and justice for all and worldwide. But we are facing a very dynamic and adjustable system which reproduces itself even in and through its fiercest critics and opponents. This is one of the most remarkable abilities of the system. It can make use even of its enemies to strengthen itself.
Instead of just confronting opposition, it made it a function of itself. Rebellious energies are not only expected, but are seen as important corrective impulses. Ways are open to organize and express protest and work to influence policies. By making protest and to a certail extend even resistance part of itself, it is rendered ineffective in challenging the system.
Growing up as part of and educated by the system it takes a lot of time and focus to de-educate and overcome the mindset and perception of reality propagated and imposed on us. But it is necessary in order to be able to discover our own strength for ourselves and begin to regroup, reorganize and reconnect.
As a European i cannot see anything in our history for many centuries to connect to for positive reference. We have been so thoroughly conditioned and even our spiritual roots and memories have been wiped out so that we no longer know who we are outside and apart from the system as peoples for and by ourselves and as part of creation.
Our civilization is rotten far beyond recovery. Our way and understanding of life are not sustainable. Our continued rule and domination can only bring more degeneration and sickness, death and destruction.
When we depend on world markets to feed ourselves and shop with large retail chains for clothing and household stuff, need media and computer to communicate among ourselves about what is going on and how we want to handle things, as long as the material and mental relations and conditions remain fundamentally unchanged, we will not be able to heal or even think about building a better society in any meaningful way.
People who want another world often avoid facing the need to disintegrate and destroy the system in its totality. There is nothing really to gain from reform or fight for power within as there is no way we could be recovering as long as the system dominates our lives.
The 'system' is an abstract term, but it is indeed a concrete reality. It is the totality of organization and enforcement, of communication and perception of the particular reality which is being particle of mass society and 'global community'. We are facing the first ever global totalitarianism, trying to establish and impose itself as the only acceptable and possible concept and order, and allowing no other way of life being practiced based on different rationality and spirituality. There may be limited tactical and temporary exceptions to that rule, and we see different means of triage (integration, assimilation, extermination) being applied. But whatever the concrete situation, the DTS will not concede hegemony and loosing their privileges without being forced to do so. We will fight till their bitter end and use all means to defend our positions of power and privilege. There are no grounds for dialog or compromise because relations are based on domination and mass extermination of others, lacking even the most basic respect.
This reality needs to be abandoned for other realities to (re)emerge and (re)cover space and time. The question is not to envision some utopia, but how to dissolve, disintegrate, sabotage and destroy the totalitarian system in all its material and mental manifestations.
We don't need no global movements to fight globalization. There is nothing worth preserving of worldwide production and communication networks. No good in keeping records and information harmful or meaningless outside of the context of the system. Information is of central importance for the functioning of the system. Without it, the system will be extremely difficult to recover and reconstruct. Like financial and property ownership claims, police and judicial records, official documents about who we are and what we did. Especially important is the physical corruption or eradication of judicially relevant documents and records.
The point is that the system (DTS) is like a disease which must be completely removed from the body (earth) or it will come forward again and take over. It is not enough to fight the system and make some gains small or large. It may not even do any good because it may strengthen and prolong the system after all. Constructive energies should be directed not within or toward reforming the system but toward strengthening ourselves and recovering meaning and direction as part of creation. The system only deserves our destructive energies directed against it.