Meowy Wowy Puddin' and Pie

Kitty eats a Word Salad

Archive for the ‘propaganda’ Category

Assorted Posts from Goebbel’s War Diaries 1942-1943

leave a comment »

Originally typed these up for this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3357614&userid=71307

April 29, 1942 posted:

We have received the report of a deserter from Leningrad, according to which conditions there must be simply catastrophic. Even though there may be some exaggerations, it seems, nevertheless, that the food situation in this city of millions cries to high heaven. The deserter claimed more than a million people had already died of hunger. That may not be true, but nevertheless tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings are living there in the direst and most unbearable distress. The deserter claimed that a great part of the population was now feeding on so-called human flesh jelly made of the flesh of dead or fallen citizens and soldiers. The whole report is so revolting that it makes one’s stomach turn to read it.

*******************************************************************

March 10, 1942 posted:

To think what questions of domestic politics are laid before one in the course of a day! Should dancing girls be inducted into the Women’s Labour Service? If one doesn’t do it, they fail to get the necessary Nazi indoctrination; if one does, they become fat and ungainly and unfit for the dancing profession. We are now trying to put the dancing girls through special courses, and while organizing them as in a labour service, to give them a type of work that will not disqualify them for their profession.

*****************************************************

February 18, 1942 posted:

In the evening I had a look at the Polish-Yiddish motion picture, The Dybuk. This film is intended to be a Jewish propaganda picture. Its effect, however, is so anti-Semitic that one can only be surprised to note how little the Jews know about themselves and how little they realize what is repulsive to a non-Jewish person and what is not. Looking at this film I realized once again that the Jewish race is the most dangerous one that inhabits the globe, and that we must show them no mercy and no indulgence. This riffraff must be eliminated and destroyed. Otherwise it won’t be possible to bring peace to the world.

*******************************************************************

intermission: some earlier entries:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goebbels/sfeature/diary.html

*******************************************************************

March 12, 1942 posted:

Embarrassing consequences have resulted from the irresponsible and unpsychological publication of various court decisions. hereafter I am having all court verdicts of any national importance released jointly by the Ministry of Justice and ourselves. (GJ note: The Ministry of Propaganda) Our courthouse reporters don’t have the necessary feel for selecting and publishing verdicts according to psychological considerations. The publication of court decisions is not a question of mere publicity but of public education. In connection with every verdict we must ask ourselves whether publication at this moment will have a favourable or unfavourable effect. That is a matter which only our Ministry can decide in the end.

*******************************************************************

April 13, 1942 posted:

I am of the opinion that existing evils within the Reich cannot be removed merely by propaganda and enlightenment. We must put more blood into our propaganda. I am ing to try that for the first time in connection with our campaign for greater politeness. This propaganda venture is to be given real substance by calling upon the the public to help actively. I shall offer prizes, for instance, for the most polite traffic officer, the most polite official at the ration centers, he most polite waiter, et cetera. I shall make larger sums of money available for this campaign. Possibly the first prize will be a present of 1,000 marks cash. The public itself is to be the judge. By this method I hope to achieve more tangible results than by mere exhortations.

*******************************************************************

March 12, 1942 posted:

The House of Lords has once again taken a stand against the Arabs and for the Jews. It is surprising how much Jewish influence there is among the English people, especially the upper crust, which is hardly English in character any longer. The chief reason is no doubt the fact that these Upper Ten Thousand have become so infested with the Jewish virus by Jewish marriages that they can hardly even think in English anymore.

*******************************************************************

March 6, 1942 posted:

A frontal attack on black markets was made in the House of Commons. (GJ note: he means the British House of Commons) No bones are made about the fact that Jews were chiefly implicated in profiteering in the food market. Heading the procession were the Jewish immigrants who went from Germany to England. Jews awlays remain the same. you must either stigmatize them with a yellow star, or put them in concentration camps, or shoot them, or else let them saturate all public life with corruptuon, especially during a war. There is no halfway measure.

*******************************************************************

May 19, 1942 posted:

As regards the American journalists, the representative of the United [sic] Press, Lochner, is behaving in an especially contemptible way. (GJ note: the editor of the diary!) His attacks are directed above all against German propaganda and he aims at me personally. I have never thought much of Lochner. We made too much fuss about him. We can now see what happens in time of crisis.

Berndt handed in a plan for occultist propaganda to be carried on by us. We are really getting somewhere. The Americans and English fall easily for that type of propaganda. We are therefore pressing into our service all star witnesses for occult prophesy. Nostradamus must once again submit to being quoted.

*******************************************************************

intermission #2: 1925-1926 diaries

http://www.questia.com/read/12023237

*******************************************************************

May 13, 1943 posted:

I have devoted exhaustive study to the Protocols of Zion. In the past the objection was always made that they were not suited to present-day propaganda. In reading them now I find that we can use them very well. The Protocols of Zion are as modern today as they were when published for the first time…

At noon I mentioned this to the Fuehrer. He believed the Protocols were absolutely genuine…. The Jewish question, in the Fuehrer’s opinion, will play a decisive role in England…. In all the world, he said, the Jews were alike. Whether they live in a ghetto of the East or in the bankers’ palaces of the City or Wall Street, they will always pursue the same aims and, without previous agreement, even use the same means. One might well ask why there are any Jews in the world order? That would be exactly like asking why there are potato bugs? Nature is dominated by the law of struggle. There will always be parasites between the strong and the weak. The principle of struggle dominates also in human life. One must merely know the laws of this struggle to be able to face it. The intellectual does not have the natural means of resisting the Jewish peril because his instincts have been badly blunted. Because of this fact the nations with a high standard of civilization are exposed to this peril first and foremost. In nature life always takes measures against parasites; in the life of nations that is not always the case. From this fact the Jewish peril actually stems. There is therefore no other recourse left for modern nations except to exterminate the Jew….

There is no hope of leading the Jews back into the fold of civilized humanity except by exceptional punishments. They will forever remain Jews, just as we are forever members of the Aryan race.

The Jew was also the first to introduce the lie into politics as a weapon. Aboriginal man, the Fuehrer believes, did not know the lie…. The higher the human being developed intellectually, the more he acquired the ability of hiding his innermost thoughts and giving expression to something different from what he really felt. The Jew as an absolutely intellectual creature was the first to lear this art. He can therefore be regarded not only as the carrier but even the inventor of the lie amoung human beings. Because of their thoroughly materialistic attitude, the English act very much like the Jews. In fact, they are the Aryans who have acquired most of the Jewish characteristics…. The nations that have been first to see through the Jew and have been the first to fight him are going to take his place in the domination of the world.

*******************************************************************

November 29, 1943 posted:

I drove to Reinickendorf and Wdding. At the Gartenplatz I took part in the feeding of the public. The men and women workers recieved me with an enthusiasm that is as unbelievable as it is indescribable. This section of Wedding, all around Acker Street, was at one time full of Reds. I should never have thought it possible that such a transformation of spirit and viewpoint could take place….

I had to eat with the people and was lifted onto a box to talk to them. I delivered a very earthy and slangy speech which won the hearts of the workers. Everybody accosted me with “Du” and called me by my first name. The people wanted to carry me on their shoulders across the Platz and I had difficulty preventing it. Women embraced me. I had to give my autograph. Cigarettes were distributed and I smoked one with them. In short, people were in as high spirits as at a carnival.

Naturally the destruction is enormous, but in so far as the people themselves are involved, they take it with the best of humour. They are firmly convinced that we shall be able to overcome the difficulties. They have only praise for the measures thus far taken.

Wedding itself is for the most part a shambles. The same goes for Reinickendorf.

I took leave of the people. They were deeply touching scenes. One woman had given birth to a child during an air raid two or three days ago; nevertheless she insisted on getting up when she heard I had come, dressed, and hurried to the Platz. We can never lose this war because of defective morale.

*******************************************************************

January 30, 1942 posted:

It is interesting to observe what importance the clever exploitation of religion can assume. The Tartars at first had a none-too-gratifying attitude toward the German Wehrmacht. But they changed about completely when permitted to sing their religious chants from the tops of minarets. Their change of attitude went so far that Tarter axillary companies which fought actively against the Bolsheviks could be formed. Our efforts there were supported by our propaganda companies who distributed a picture showing the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem visiting the Fuehrer. That was extremely successful.

[Haj Amin el Hussein was the Grand Mufti. he visited Germany early in November 1941, then went to Italy for about a month, then on his return to Berlin was received by Hitler on December 8, 1941. In August 1946 the British Government refused to have him come to London as a member of the Arab delegation because of his pro-Axis activities.]

Written by meowywowy

January 5, 2011 at 6:04 am

Posted in fascism, propaganda

Tagged with , ,

catphrase: MRRREWoWwwRRR

leave a comment »

NEW POST BY MYF MCGRIFF

catchphrase: I Love tetradugenica.tumblr.com one of the best sites ever!

º∞º. Fuqj.tumblr.com The man who kidnapped my husband and my wife, a very dangerous lawnmower man entity who cruises through the internet looking for people to drive insane. My mother told me he was born when two elf boys in second life had sex, however he is no noble elf, nor is he a man. he is pure malice  and the manifestation sexual fetishes that are very hard to express without 3d rendering software. DO NOT LET YOUR CHILDREN VISIT HIS WEBSITE. IT MAY GIVE THEM A VIRUS

what to watch for: pictures of women with beautiful haircuts that you can buy in 2nd life

catchphrase: Het

http://tetradugenica.tumblr.com/post/927283258/the-ultimate-list-of-tumblr-blogs-to-follow-presented

Written by meowywowy

August 10, 2010 at 6:38 pm

Posted in propaganda

Documentary on IDF’s offensive mouseholing strategy in Palestine

leave a comment »

Just remembered this epic article on D&G’s influence on Israeli Military Theory:

Naveh, a retired Brigadier-General, directs the Operational Theory Research Institute, which trains staff officers from the IDF and other militaries in ‘operational theory’ – defined in military jargon as somewhere between strategy and tactics. He summed up the mission of his institute, which was founded in 1996: ‘We are like the Jesuit Order. We attempt to teach and train soldiers to think. […] We read Christopher Alexander, can you imagine?; we read John Forester, and other architects. We are reading Gregory Bateson; we are reading Clifford Geertz. Not myself, but our soldiers, our generals are reflecting on these kinds of materials. We have established a school and developed a curriculum that trains “operational architects”.’4 In a lecture Naveh showed a diagram resembling a ‘square of opposition’ that plots a set of logical relationships between certain propositions referring to military and guerrilla operations. Labelled with phrases such as ‘Difference and Repetition – The Dialectics of Structuring and Structure’, ‘Formless Rival Entities’, ‘Fractal Manoeuvre’, ‘Velocity vs. Rhythms’, ‘The Wahabi War Machine’, ‘Postmodern Anarchists’ and ‘Nomadic Terrorists’, they often reference the work of Deleuze and Guattari. War machines, according to the philosophers, are polymorphous; diffuse organizations characterized by their capacity for metamorphosis, made up of small groups that split up or merge with one another, depending on contingency and circumstances. (Deleuze and Guattari were aware that the state can willingly transform itself into a war machine. Similarly, in their discussion of ‘smooth space’ it is implied that this conception may lead to domination.)

I asked Naveh why Deleuze and Guattari were so popular with the Israeli military. He replied that ‘several of the concepts in A Thousand Plateaux became instrumental for us […] allowing us to explain contemporary situations in a way that we could not have otherwise. It problematized our own paradigms. Most important was the distinction they have pointed out between the concepts of “smooth” and “striated” space [which accordingly reflect] the organizational concepts of the “war machine” and the “state apparatus”. In the IDF we now often use the term “to smooth out space” when we want to refer to operation in a space as if it had no borders. […] Palestinian areas could indeed be thought of as “striated” in the sense that they are enclosed by fences, walls, ditches, roads blocks and so on.’ When I asked him if moving through walls was part of it, he explained that, ‘In Nablus the IDF understood urban fighting as a spatial problem. […] Travelling through walls is a simple mechanical solution that connects theory and practice.’

Here, you can see an example of the policy in action:

Written by meowywowy

August 10, 2010 at 4:08 pm

The difference between Community and Collective

leave a comment »

from this harrible thread, started perhaps by “Robert” disciple…?

Watermelon City posted:

I don’t think it’s that fascist leaders are the manifestation of collective will of the masses so much as fascist leaders manufacture the collective will that the masses rabidly consume.

Yes, but thus the fascist apparati becomes a positive feedback loop – the leadership is the manifestation of the collective will of the masses, but the leadership must also work to main the cohesion of the  collective will.  So,  ya get folks goin off the wire,  more and more and more extreme, ordinary folks becoming capable of extraordinary atrocities.  Fascism is a state ruled in totality by the collective sub-conscious mind.

Ironic War Criminal posted:

How is this different to Communism?

OK, Before I answer this, before I can contrast the leadership of fascism to that communism, in a meaningful way, I’m gonna develop a fuller definition of fascism than this garbage than we got so far in this thread.

To understand what a fascist leader is, you have to understand where he comes from, i.e. the process of his metamorphosis from cocoon to overlord in the context of his insectoid society. So, let’s start by using the OP’s reasonably accurate, if sloppy, definition of Fascism, that of a movement dedicated towards uniting a society into a sort of super-organic being that encompasses all aspects of social life. Or, more succinctly, as Deleuze would put it (to help Goatstein follow the discussion here), Fascism is Totalitarianism as developed by and channeled through mass movements. As a drone is to a colony of ants, so is a person just a facet of One Unified Organic State. The leader of a fascist state is thus no mere dictator who controls the fate and the fat of the State by the strength of his own hands. No, Dear Leader is a living, breathing conduit for power – one *through* whom is channeled the collective will of the people, in the same spirit and in the same spontaneous reality that a rope is a conduit through which is channeled the collective judgment of a lynch-mob. He is One with the State. There is no such thing as an individual, self-determined will, and subsequently no such thing as individual rights or freedoms. A spirit of Might-Makes-Right replaces morality, and culture is purposed towards a cohesive rather than expressive goal. Dear Leader is thus the one most fit to embody these values.

Now, both communism and fascism are related in that both are reactions against extreme individualism, both recognizing that the concept of an Ayn Rand Individual is a ridiculous myth within the context of an individual living within a culture. While a person may think of their ethics, desires, and will as being completely their own, all these things develop from, and will always continue to be influenced by, the ethics, desires, and will of other people. Fascism and Socialism are in essence opposite perspectives on the teleology of how the individual should develop within society.

Communism is the effort towards the “full realization of human freedom” – for society to be a community rather than a collective. The difference is that a community does not suppress the individual, but is instead *made up* of individuals.  It works, ecstatically, to enable the individual to emerge, triumphant and free, *from* the base collective as a conscious participant in the community! So, I guess Deleuze would say that in the same pithy way that Communism is Democracy, rather than Totalitarianism, developed by and channeled through mass movements.

And there ya have it, the difference between Fascist and Communist Leaership is equal to the difference between Collective and Community.

Written by meowywowy

July 23, 2010 at 4:00 am

Torture in Good Faith

leave a comment »

Here is the text of a pamphlet I wrote (revised slightly; I added a short paragraph at the beginning to include a discussion of a better understanding of what Jonh Yoo means by Good Faith – which is far more perverted than I originally conceived.)  Originally handed out to about 100 protesters, (mostly law students I think, although I did give one to George McGovern!  who seemed like a very nice guy by the way).  I also cross-posted it to the forums afterwards, although there are no responses by EvanTH, John Yoo’s well-known vaugely sock-puppetish SA posting persona. Anyways, the pamphlet was originally titled “Torture is a Product of the Market of Desire,” which is a really unfortunate title but I had the flu and printed these damn things at the last minute.  Torture in Good Faith is a much better title, IMHO.

Infrateal gave me such extensive feedback on developing my argument smoothly and coherently (and with such gusto) that I added him as a co-author.  God Bless!

That funny part at the end was my attempt to take back that powerful patriotic American essence that’s been recently co-opted and stolen by the large corporate interests that currently power the Tea Party.  The song of course describes the American flag, and the prose-part is sorta a free whellin’ satirical inversion of Shelley’s immortal sonnet Ozymandias.  So now you know.

A Condemnation of the Ideology of John Yoo
By J.R. and L.V.

John Yoo has defended his decisions on torture in “good faith” in his role at the DOJ, which most regular and reasonable people would take to mean that he fully understood the stakes and chose a path of action internally consistent with his own view of the world.  That is not what *he* means, however.

The “Good Faith” that John Yoo speaks of, on the matter of torture, is actually the name of a doctrine that he, along with the rest of the Bush Six, have created specifically to answer the question of torture. It says that as long as an interrogator does not *honestly believe,* in good faith, that any particular action is torture to a detainee, then the committed act is thus *not* torture, even if most other regular and reasonable people – especially the detainee himself – believe it to be so. The “Good Faith Doctrine” is nothing more than a buearacratic Catch-22 (ya know, the best Catch there is!) that aims to eliminate moral responsibility from the equation and to insulate the agents of the United States from any kind of culpability, despite what any regular and reasonable people might think of the matter.

The loophole is critically flawed, however. Even if this perverted doctrine could absolve those sadistic solicitors at the very bottom of the chain of command of their crimes, the fact that the writ was not a defensive measure, but a pre-emptive one, means that the men who breathed power into its conception *do* themselves understand that what they worked to enable is torture.  The “good faith” of the interrogators thus derives from the actual good faith of men like John Yoo.  That these actions were taken through his good faith means they truly reflect his view of the world, providing us with a periscope into the living, active heart of his ideology, its lenses unclouded by any dissemblance. What we observe is that through this instrument of good faith the approval and encouragement of torture techniques, such as waterboarding, which mechanically induces the physiological sensation of death, and the possibly more terrifying sensory deprivation, which severs a man from the world to simulate the entirety of death, came to be effectively actualized, for a time, into US law. These instruments of terror were considered necessary, in good faith, to prevent terror. How did such a cold and utilitarian perspective of humanity – a perspective whereby the individual person can be, at a moment’s notice, subsumed into mass numerical identity as a humanoid token of calculation – come to be lived in good faith? For it is that critical leap, turning human into mechanical humanoid, that is the core of the controversy and outrage of Yoo’s work in the Bush administration. The possibility of a sudden transformation from human to humanoid should be terrifying to more than just enemy combatants plucked from the battlefields of Afghanistan. Could you imagine your senator or congressman or hometown mayor saying: “Sorry, y’all, for this torture n’ all, but we’ll put an end to it once we develop technology to directly extract information from your brain… y’know, like we do from a black box from a plane crash?” – always helpfully putting the discussion in accessible terms – “That’s why we voted to fund research at this university, after all…” The prospect of anyone in our democratic government propounding such a view is unthinkable, and yet John Yoo and the Bush Six, as the other top officials in the Bush Administration have become known, not only thought it but did it, from the shadows, unaccountable to the American people.

Such a cynical ideology is far more pervasive than just Yoo. The outrageous torture memo is, at its core, aligned with both neoliberal reasoning which considers torture (or any human question) on the basis of a “cost-benefit” analysis or utilitarian tradeoff, and neoconservative rhetoric which propounds torture as an unquestionable necessity. Setting aside empirical evidence against the ability of torture to render reliable intelligence, all such arguments remove a human being’s humanity entirely from the matter, and thus imply that torture’s goals are acceptable even if the current method is not. That such a view is widely entertained is the result of no conspiracy theory, but what we see as a national existential malaise brought on ever-so-steadily as cultural and technology evolution have disconnected us from each other. The case of John Yoo and the Bush Six is just a particular instantiation of a much more widespread ideology that has begun to see us, as human beings, as abstract units to be controlled and quelled and kept at a safe distance. Fearful of the irrational forces of desire that exist in the human mind, this ideology demands a brutal and unrelenting order: at the individual level, that these forces be locked away, and at the societal level, when desires run orthogonal to any particular individual, that they be manipulated for society’s own good. Whether justice is brought to bear in this case or not, we, as a people, must reject any line of thought that would seek to deny us our own humanity.

One consequence of this human to humanoid ideological shift is promotion for a so-called “market democracy,” where matters of society are handled solely by the rules of and the faith in the free market: if the people want it, then the market will reflect that demand, thus bringing democracy in its purest and fairest sense to all people. We disagree that an idea hatched in such rarefied ideological air can survive in reality, not without growing into a monster. A market system ignores the checks and balances built into democracy as we currently know it to prevent minorities from being trampled by the majority; “pure” majority rule is mob rule, not only tyrannous in itself but susceptible to extraordinary delusions and the tyranny of a manipulator. The widespread belief that The Free Market Is God cannot help but be contrasted with an equally widespread but oppositely aligned belief of animosity for our American government.

In his 1958 essay, “Two Kinds of Liberty,” Isaiah Berlin discusses the difference between the negative and positive freedoms, on which the relationship between an individual and society is built. Negative liberty is constituted of constraints that society has defined for the individual, with the implication that the individual has the freedom to do anything that he or she is not explicitly denied. Positive liberty, in compliment, is the freedom implied in “free will”, the self-determination that allows one to care for and change the world around them. This differentiation is important as an instance of one kind necessarily negates the existence of the other for any particular case, and both are needed for any healthy society. The great triumph of democracy is the right of all citizens to proactive involvement in their government, placing the positive liberty of self-determination in command of that great arbiter of negative liberties. Thus democracy signifies a subjugation of negative liberty to positive free will, while retaining negative liberties as a counterbalance.

Thus a society dependent on a pure market system of rule does not represent true democracy for two reasons:

First, a regulatory body of negative rights is no longer ultimately subordinate to positive rights; it is absent entirely. The recent economic disaster has demonstrated the massively deleterious ramifications of even negligent regulation; consider a similar disaster afflicting not only the national budget and your pocketbook, but the nation itself, your liberties and physical security.

Second, the human desires which constitute free will, and thus the self-determination guaranteed by our system of democracy, manifest themselves within that system by sustained efforts: voting is instantaneous, but campaigning for a preferred candidate or issue is what controls the vote, and candidates committed to running for office is prerequisite for a vote. Such efforts to change the government by campaigning can be considered linear, as vectors of self-determination; only after these vectors have run their course is an instantaneous point of measure taken in a vote. Short-circuiting this process to yield the derivative instantly does not measure the true will of the constituency, with their human need for time to advance their campaigns. A marketplace may provide a majority, but as a snapshot on a curve fluctuating faster than human reason; all semblance of voting reflecting considered opinion is replaced by commodified desires, simple machines that produce simple, free-floating cravings. A market of desire is a system built from a fundamental, crass reductionism.

A market is Darwinian by nature, and thus a market of desire ranks the biggest, purest, and most HUNGRY desires as most valuable: those iron-clad, invincible base instincts, unaffected by rhyme or reason or community. The great danger of such a system lies in the fact that its will is arbitrated by the power that arbitrates all markets – capital. Whether a market is a fair way of appropriating human resources is a separate matter, but on the matter of appropriating the resource of human consciousness, the danger is absolute: it is the path to Fascism, as we understand as totalitarianism developed by and channeled through mass movements. Propagandists, like Frank Luntz, George Lakoff, and Clotaire Rapaille, would seek to design an interface into our desire, little buttons that manipulate a part in order to manipulate the whole – and all you need to press a button is capital. Corporations such as Forrester and IDC seek to create a user manual to the humanoid, a handy guide that shows which buttons to push and how to amplify the effects of a push through identity/wedge politics – and all you need to give for this helpful info is capital. But as these subversive manipulations are externally induced into our consciousness, their presence as part of the whole is not coherent, and inducing cognitive dissonance is hardly in the rational self interest of the individual, or eventually, of society. While the mind of a human being is an unquestionably hardy creation, the end point for an individual in a market of desire is the same desperate, psychotic insanity that occurs any time that irrational desire overwhelms conscious will – effects seen in the likes of Joseph Stack, Malik Hasan, Jack Bedell, and the very same fundamentalist terrorist suicide bombers that our war on terror is targeted against.

I conclude that democracy powered through the derivative of free will is not a democracy of human beings, but a pathological ideology that leads to fascism, which, we reiterate for clarity, we understand as totalitarianism developed by and channeled through mass movements. For it is through this ideology and its utilitarian view of humanity that the Patriot Act, which sanctions dictatorial powers for the executive branch as long as it can maintain a state of perpetual war, was authored by John Yoo and the Bush Six in good faith. It was through this ideology that silent, warrantless surveillance of American citizens was demanded by John Yoo and the Bush Six in good faith. And it follows only from this ideology that a justification of torture and reduction of human beings to mere flesh-covered containers of information is possible in good faith. The ideology of John Yoo is the ideology of Fascism and THAT, in its totality, is what we have come here today to protest.  It is time for the rest of us regular and reasonable people to assert that moral responsibility, not torture, is what we must derive from good faith.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

a lonely voice rings out across the sea…

“It takes just,
a single song of rock-n-roll…
echo-ing away into the night…
and across the stars shrines through a light,
and the darkness… begins to fade all awaaayyyY…”

And in New York’s harbor, a cold grey statue stirs to life… her butt’s ’bout burned to the filter, and so yeah, you could say she’s got a bit of an AXE to grind. Cold smoke still wisping from her fingers, this colossal Queen of Queens slowly reaches down, underneath her robes, and emerges with the flash of BLUE STEEL – ye mighty ten-ton-tall electric gee-tar of the nation’s psalm of freedom. An old rumor sez that she chiseled “LIVE” “FREE” onto her knuckles with her own hand… *vBRRRRGNrngnrrr….* The first pluck of the morning twangs with a radiant shockwave that pierces the dull orange shadow of the dawning light. Don’t know nothin’ bout no rumors, but yeah baby, that sound is bitchin’. There’s a short pause of silence as she tunes the pegs; you can hear the faint crackling of the clay between her fingers, and the creaking groan of her ancient iron joints, and the thunderous tapping of her feet upon the pedestal. But now, grip on Blue Steel steady and sure, she lights the fire again…

“It takes just a single song of rock-n-roll…”

A Condemnation of the Ideology of John Yoo

John Yoo has defended his decisions on torture in “good faith” in his role at the DOJ, which most regular and reasonable people would take to mean that he fully understood the stakes and chose a path of action internally consistent with his own view of the world.  That is not what *he* means, however.

The “Good Faith” that John Yoo speaks of, on the matter of torture, is actually the name of a doctrine that he, along with the rest of the Bush Six, have created specifically to answer the question of torture. It says that as long as an interrogator does not *honestly believe,* in good faith, that any particular action is torture to a detainee, then the committed act is thus *not* torture, even if most other regular and reasonable people – especially the detainee himself – believe it to be so. The “Good Faith Doctrine” is nothing more than a buearacratic Catch-22 (ya know, the best Catch there is!) that aims to eliminate moral responsibility from the equation and to insulate the agents of the United States from any kind of culpability, despite what any regular and reasonable people might think of the matter.

The loophole is critically flawed, however. Even if this perverted doctrine could absolve those sadistic solicitors at the very bottom of the chain of command of their crimes, the fact that the writ was not a defensive measure, but a pre-emptive one, means that the men who breathed power into its conception *do* themselves understand that what they worked to enable is torture.  The “good faith” of the interrogators thus derives from the actual good faith of men like John Yoo.  That these actions were taken through his good faith means they truly reflect his view of the world, providing us with a periscope into the living, active heart of his ideology, its lenses unclouded by any dissemblance. What we observe is that through this instrument of good faith the approval and encouragement of torture techniques, such as waterboarding, which mechanically induces the physiological sensation of death, and the possibly more terrifying sensory deprivation, which severs a man from the world to simulate the entirety of death, came to be effectively actualized, for a time, into US law. These instruments of terror were considered necessary, in good faith, to prevent terror. How did such a cold and utilitarian perspective of humanity – a perspective whereby the individual person can be, at a moment’s notice, subsumed into mass numerical identity as a humanoid token of calculation – come to be lived in good faith? For it is that critical leap, turning human into mechanical humanoid, that is the core of the controversy and outrage of Yoo’s work in the Bush administration. The possibility of a sudden transformation from human to humanoid should be terrifying to more than just enemy combatants plucked from the battlefields of Afghanistan. Could you imagine your senator or congressman or hometown mayor saying: “Sorry, y’all, for this torture n’ all, but we’ll put an end to it once we develop technology to directly extract information from your brain… y’know, like we do from a black box from a plane crash?” – always helpfully putting the discussion in accessible terms – “That’s why we voted to fund research at this university, after all…” The prospect of anyone in our democratic government propounding such a view is unthinkable, and yet John Yoo and the Bush Six, as the other top officials in the Bush Administration have become known, not only thought it but did it, from the shadows, unaccountable to the American people.

Such a cynical ideology is far more pervasive than just Yoo. The outrageous torture memo is, at its core, aligned with both neoliberal reasoning which considers torture (or any human question) on the basis of a “cost-benefit” analysis or utilitarian tradeoff, and neoconservative rhetoric which propounds torture as an unquestionable necessity. Setting aside empirical evidence against the ability of torture to render reliable intelligence, all such arguments remove a human being’s humanity entirely from the matter, and thus imply that torture’s goals are acceptable even if the current method is not. That such a view is widely entertained is the result of no conspiracy theory, but what we see as a national existential malaise brought on ever-so-steadily as cultural and technology evolution have disconnected us from each other. The case of John Yoo and the Bush Six is just a particular instantiation of a much more widespread ideology that has begun to see us, as human beings, as abstract units to be controlled and quelled and kept at a safe distance. Fearful of the irrational forces of desire that exist in the human mind, this ideology demands a brutal and unrelenting order: at the individual level, that these forces be locked away, and at the societal level, when desires run orthogonal to any particular individual, that they be manipulated for society’s own good. Whether justice is brought to bear in this case or not, we, as a people, must reject any line of thought that would seek to deny us our own humanity.

One consequence of this human to humanoid ideological shift is promotion for a so-called “market democracy,” where matters of society are handled solely by the rules of and the faith in the free market: if the people want it, then the market will reflect that demand, thus bringing democracy in its purest and fairest sense to all people. We disagree that an idea hatched in such rarefied ideological air can survive in reality, not without growing into a monster. A market system ignores the checks and balances built into democracy as we currently know it to prevent minorities from being trampled by the majority; “pure” majority rule is mob rule, not only tyrannous in itself but susceptible to extraordinary delusions and the tyranny of a manipulator. The widespread belief that The Free Market Is God cannot help but be contrasted with an equally widespread but oppositely aligned belief of animosity for our American government.

In his 1958 essay, “Two Kinds of Liberty,” Isaiah Berlin discusses the difference between the negative and positive freedoms, on which the relationship between an individual and society is built. Negative liberty is constituted of constraints that society has defined for the individual, with the implication that the individual has the freedom to do anything that he or she is not explicitly denied. Positive liberty, in compliment, is the freedom implied in “free will”, the self-determination that allows one to care for and change the world around them. This differentiation is important as an instance of one kind necessarily negates the existence of the other for any particular case, and both are needed for any healthy society. The great triumph of democracy is the right of all citizens to proactive involvement in their government, placing the positive liberty of self-determination in command of that great arbiter of negative liberties. Thus democracy signifies a subjugation of negative liberty to positive free will, while retaining negative liberties as a counterbalance.

Thus a society dependent on a pure market system of rule does not represent true democracy for two reasons:

First, a regulatory body of negative rights is no longer ultimately subordinate to positive rights; it is absent entirely. The recent economic disaster has demonstrated the massively deleterious ramifications of even negligent regulation; consider a similar disaster afflicting not only the national budget and your pocketbook, but the nation itself, your liberties and physical security.

Second, the human desires which constitute free will, and thus the self-determination guaranteed by our system of democracy, manifest themselves within that system by sustained efforts: voting is instantaneous, but campaigning for a preferred candidate or issue is what controls the vote, and candidates committed to running for office is prerequisite for a vote. Such efforts to change the government by campaigning can be considered linear, as vectors of self-determination; only after these vectors have run their course is an instantaneous point of measure taken in a vote. Short-circuiting this process to yield the derivative instantly does not measure the true will of the constituency, with their human need for time to advance their campaigns. A marketplace may provide a majority, but as a snapshot on a curve fluctuating faster than human reason; all semblance of voting reflecting considered opinion is replaced by commodified desires, simple machines that produce simple, free-floating cravings. A market of desire is a system built from a fundamental, crass reductionism.

A market is Darwinian by nature, and thus a market of desire ranks the biggest, purest, and most HUNGRY desires as most valuable: those iron-clad, invincible base instincts, unaffected by rhyme or reason or community. The great danger of such a system lies in the fact that its will is arbitrated by the power that arbitrates all markets – capital. Whether a market is a fair way of appropriating human resources is a separate matter, but on the matter of appropriating the resource of human consciousness, the danger is absolute: it is the path to Fascism, as we understand as totalitarianism developed by and channeled through mass movements. Propagandists, like Frank Luntz, George Lakoff, and Clotaire Rapaille, would seek to design an interface into our desire, little buttons that manipulate a part in order to manipulate the whole – and all you need to press a button is capital. Corporations such as Forrester and IDC seek to create a user manual to the humanoid, a handy guide that shows which buttons to push and how to amplify the effects of a push through identity/wedge politics – and all you need to give for this helpful info is capital. But as these subversive manipulations are externally induced into our consciousness, their presence as part of the whole is not coherent, and inducing cognitive dissonance is hardly in the rational self interest of the individual, or eventually, of society. While the mind of a human being is an unquestionably hardy creation, the end point for an individual in a market of desire is the same desperate, psychotic insanity that occurs any time that irrational desire overwhelms conscious will – effects seen in the likes of Joseph Stack, Malik Hasan, Jack Bedell, and the very same fundamentalist terrorist suicide bombers that our war on terror is targeted against.

I conclude that democracy powered through the derivative of free will is not a democracy of human beings, but a pathological ideology that leads to fascism, which, we reiterate for clarity, we understand as totalitarianism developed by and channeled through mass movements. For it is through this ideology and its utilitarian view of humanity that the Patriot Act, which sanctions dictatorial powers for the executive branch as long as it can maintain a state of perpetual war, was authored by John Yoo and the Bush Six in good faith. It was through this ideology that silent, warrantless surveillance of American citizens was demanded by John Yoo and the Bush Six in good faith. And it follows only from this ideology that a justification of torture and reduction of human beings to mere flesh-covered containers of information is possible in good faith. The ideology of John Yoo is the ideology of Fascism and THAT, in its totality, is what we have come here today to protest.  It is time for the rest of us regular and reasonable people to assert that moral responsibility, not torture, is what we must derive from good faith.

IM A MEDIEVAL MAN! IM A MEDIEVAL MAN!

leave a comment »

more on the military-industrial-academic complex in infinite cockjammer’s propaganda thread, specifically how darpa has a much more massive influence on academia than its meager (lol) 3B budget would suggest. original

quote=Kire

I was skeptical of Chomsky’s (and other’s) claim that a huge proportion of our economy, especially the high-tech sectors, are state-funded and state-directed under the guise of “defense spending”, but then I started to think about all the engineers I know (quite a few) and every single one of them is involved in research that is somehow weapons related, or if not directly building a weapon then they’re funded by government military grants of some kind. Everything from helicopter motors, to robotics research like tele-surgery, to trying to put out fire with sound (that last one funded by a military grant).

yeah, its pretty pervasive.  what you have to remember is that, besides the huge amount of money directly spent on military research (which is in the hundreds of billions), an even greater amount is externalized.  as long as MICkey mouse has the power to control what is researched and how, you can consider these externalized costs as part of the defense sector of the economy. unfortunately, the speculative nature of start-up companies and universities means that they are dependant on research grants to survive.  Since the majority of grant money is from the DoD and its relatives, these institutions must gear themselves towards projects DoD is interested in if they are to maintain relevance. that means the power of the insitution’s “free” money, (e.g. state-funding and tuitions and alumni-donations in the case of large universities) will be subjugated under the power of the more-competitive darpa grants.

let me give you an example. a lot of people in my research lab get their funding from darpa.  darpa directly controls about 3B (thats b-b-b-billion) bucks a year to hand out in grants to research labs in both academia and industry. these grants vary in size and we often recieve them in partnership with industry. sometimes it’ll be in an equal partnership, or, what usually happens, as the initial stage in tiered research approach.  the way this works is that darpa sponsers many small “seedlings,” for the most part to academic labs, for new pathbreaking work.  seedlings are lucky to geta couple hundred thousand bux or so each.  later, depending on the success of the seedling, a “program” worth millions of dollars will be created with the intention of commerializing the research done in the seedling.  sometimes the original seedling academic researchers may branch out into industry with a “start-up” that capitalizes on their initial work to get that big-buck program money.

say, in either case, our cut of a grant is like, i dunno, a couple hundred thousand bucks.  from that, the university takes a cut, the faculty on the grant take a cut, and then the grad students and the post-docs get a cut. (for their stipend)  the rest is spent on equipment, manufacturing costs, etc.  seems pretty reasonable so far, right?  well, were the DoD to try funding this fully internally, they’d have to also spend money on:

  1. health care for the researchers (paid for by the university, partly with their cut from the grant, but mostly from private donations)
  2. the software (one particular cad software we use costs 100k/seat, with seat meaning 100k for every computer it is installed on, for a commercial company. we get it for free as a university.  there’s a bunch of shit we use like that)
  3. building maintenance and the amortized building construction cost (paid for by the university)
  4. postdoc/grad-student salaries would be much higher (for instance, my yearly stipend is under 20k and i’m not allowed to take any outside income except if i get some sort of fellowship)
  5. tabula rasa grant money, which usually goes towards strengthening existing projects (university)
  6. the full professor’s salary (big bucks, university)

in addition, since almost all research is geared towards the topics MICkey wants, then subsequently the whole damn education system is geared towards what they want too! so add:

  1. an undergraduate-level (loans/scholarships/parents(not me tho))
  2. a graduate-level engineering education (university)

that grant of a couple hundered k soon adds up to a few million once you add in the externalities, but noone counts this as part of the 3B that darpa “controls.”

Written by meowywowy

June 21, 2010 at 9:16 pm

Posted in propaganda

Tagged with , ,

“Jesus, that was terribly written”

leave a comment »

ramblin’ on, ramblin’ on, ramblin’ on. potpourri post here.  lotta different things going on, some new, some old.  just wrote this great troll of L&F (here ) its not interesting enough by itself to transcribe in its entirety, but the post that that i reference initially is really ownage, so check it out:

a brief summary:

the basic question is this: why does the tea party act the way it does, with all its insane rage and contradictory demands? its easy to see that they may be spooked by the economic slump and changing demographic shifts, but why then does it express itself as it does? the OPAA uses a hegelian dialectic to try to understand this rage and where it may be heading next.

d&d’s retarded response to the article, and the discussion i had with dm yesterday over hitler’s motivation for the holocaust, reminded me of that new atheism thread from a few months back: here is the article, and here are my posts. i cannot believe that i actually bothered to logically deconstruct that one dude’s Neo Atheist trash.  i’ll replicate it here:

in response to this rebuttal, in a thread about how Neo Atheism is actually devoid of logic and reason, i wrote (editing slightly to remove the  word filter that SA needs for google adsense):

that kinda shit is like what the first two dozen paragraphs of what hart’s essay is about, all this recent infantalized garbage without any substance. 3000 years of western tradition countered by “Of course God doesn’t exist. Don’t be stupid. You’re not stupid, are you? Do you think think there’s some sort of Flying Speghetti Monster up the the Sky? Don’t be stupid.”

like, here’s how the essay reads:

paragraph 1: I know You Are But What Am I

next we got a quote, which is then completely ignored except to attack Hart as if he were one of those God Damned Liberal Elites that ann coulter and sean hannity are always raving about. its an example of an ad-populist fallacy: “guh, he tried to write to his audience as if they were INTELLIGENT??? asshole didn’t dumb himself down even at the risk that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE might not get it? how offensive.” notice he doesn’t actually say what’s wrong with his quote, except that since Hart Wrote it, it Must Be Dumb. (ad hom)

then, another quote, which is also ignored, except to tl;dr it and to suggest that the reader tl;dr it as well. (an ad-ignorantium if there ever was one) why include a quote if you’re just gonna ignore it? because he isn’t interested in engaging the ideas in hart’s essay. the ad-ig is followed through doubly-so by suggesting that whatever aquinas (who isnt even mentioned in the OP essay at all) and nietzsche wrote are irrelevant to the discussion, and that hart is an asshole for even bringing them (him) up. then we have ANOTHER ad-pop attack, strengthened with appeal to authority (of dawkins and hitchens) that is also combined with a converse fallacy of accident: “people don’t see the way got hart does. they see it the way dawkins does,” by which he means as an image of God as The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

next he begs the question: “So: do the New Atheists recycle old arguments? Of course they do. But that’s not because they’re illiterate, it’s because those arguments have never been convincingly answered.” this is right after tl;dring four times, including one of the most famous atheists of all time, who tried to address some of them. notice again he doesn’t specifically give examples of questions that he doesn’t think have been convincingly answered, unlike hart, who does. he could have even specifically refuted the examples hart gives, or defended the arguments that hart attacks, but doesn’t.

i don’t really understand the point of the next paragraph. hart does not mention newton anywhere. and how does what a 400 year-dead man felt about the relative importance of his own life’s work have to do with anything? (and besides, the “christian mysticism” was deeply important to newton) the paragraph ends with a fallacy of composition in two different ways:  judging the worth of religion on the basis of one large Bad Thing against one Obvious Good Thing That Good People Would Do Anyways, and by then equating religion with oppressive class structure. notice that we’ve moved from faith in god to Organized Religion.
the whole thing reeks of a strawman built from misplaced concretion (e.g. replacing a defense of faith, which Hart wrote about, with Organized Religion).

we end as he begs the question: “To say merely that Christianity is comforting or practical — assuming you believe that — is hardly enough. You need to show that it’s true.” which imposes his own definition on the purpose of Christianity/Religion, that it must be true in the sense of empirically true: “And if you want to assert that something is true, the onus is on you to demonstrate it, not on the New Atheists to demonstrate conclusively that it isn’t.” of course, that *is* true – its not onus of the New Atheists to prove that religion is false – but that isn’t what Hart wrote about at all. (fallacy of affirming the consequent).

so this response is pathetic through and through. it does not cite any specific instances in the essay other than 2 quotes which are completely ignored, and furthermore does not address any claim about how the arguments propounded the New Atheist authors are logically and rationally unsound. which, of course, again, is the whole issue that hart had a problem with to begin with! that this movement thats supposedly built from logic and reason do not actually apply logic and reason to their arguments!

to address the OP as “content-less” while saying that this retarded response is anything worthwhile is just unbelievable (lol) to me. like it really does read like some big socratic manifesto, like as if this guy is adding all sorts of purposely contradictory shit and giggling to himself. (although, to that, i can relate…)

the best part of that thread was that i was able to troll this totally insane Neo Atheist dude named Sylph into trying to derive an empirical model for ethics.  insane as it sounds, here it is in its original form.  truly one of my greatest trolling accomplishments.  it is without a doubt one of the gooniest things ever written, and, as a bonus, totally implodes the neo athiest position with a far greater percussive force than anyone outside their dumb movement could ever write. i will preserve it here for all eternity:

Observed statistically significant number of people of different races to prove the experimental hypothesis “biological and potential mental differences between racial categories are negligible” The reason given for the Holocaust was contingent on the falsehood “Biological and mental differences between racial categories are significant.”

Behind the idea “equality” is the scientific fact “racial categories are spurious.” The equality of man is true. A Christian can hold the idea “All Men are Created Equal” which is a poor interpretation of an observation. “Men” exist, “Equal” is a strong approximation and “Created” is non sequitur “Jews should be killed” is a conclusion drawn upon a scientifically untrue statement, “The category ‘ethnic Jews’ is sufficiently biologically and neurologically different to permit moral judgements on the basis of race.”

“Racial categories are so biologically similar that the very idea is spurious” is Science, we know because men of science have met and examined other men. “All Men are Created Equal” is sentiment in part approximating reality and “Jews are a category of inferior men” is false.

I guess I’m defining “Science” and “True” in an ideological way. “Science” means “attempting strong approximations of reality through experiment” and Truth means “approximating reality.” Feynman’s “Science” and Dawkins’ “Truth” I suppose. Therefore to find a “Scientific Truth” is to approximate reality through reasonable conclusions drawn upon empirical observation.

I realise now I’ve been way too loose with those words and I really ought to have defined terms, also I’ve been taking the piss when I thought it might be funny, sooo yeah. Sorry everyone.

You CAN observe “a Jewish dude.” and disprove “Jews are inferior life”. That statement takes one good Jew to disprove. To disprove “Jews are inferior life” as an approximate, not a definite statement you would have to observe a statistically significant number of Jews.

Arbitrary meaning “Individually determined and divorced from reality”. I don’t have to define “Good” here except to say that “Good” necessarily approximates “true” in some sense whilst “Death” ends perception. “Good” is contingent on human experience of something while “brain death” precludes human experience of anything.

Causing death is not good because “good” pertains to human experience and a man’s murder entails the destruction of a capacity to experience. It cannot be “Good” to destroy “Good”.

“Pain”, when perceived, precludes a search for the good by limiting perspective. There are other vastly better ways of getting at the essence; “Pain is bad” but they all approximate in some way the truth “Pain is obscuring and obstructive.”

Nazi racial categorisations are not true because the biological differences do not correlate with the alleged categories. The differences are too superficial for the approximation “Jewish inferiority” to be in any way meaningful since “inferiority” is contingent on the falsehood “Jews are sufficiently biologically distinguishable from Aryans for a qualitative assessment based on an existing criteria to be possible”.

“Killing the ethnically Jewish is right” is factually wrong because killing prevents good and besides “ethnically Jewish” is a weak approximation. “Killing the ethnically Jewish is right” is not a matter of opinion because the men labelled Jews exist aside from the category as men biologically indistinguishable from non Jews and murder is a physical act, not a preference for one thing over another. A volitional act creates circumstances that exist as reality, not mental “software” simulations. Brain death is a factual and permanent state of thoughtlessness precluding all experience including whatever the good is.

Even if “Good” and “Right” are opinions, murder and torture are still “anti-good” because they are opinion annihilators. “thought” and “opinion” are at the least properties of the material arrangement called “the Brain”. Experimental observation confirms that “the Brain” is the arrangement of matter necessary for thought, because the empirical observation of neurological activity through machinery shows a factual correlation between brain damage and altered thought patterns.

If you believe that “the Good” is mere opinion, then on your own terms I reject your concept of “Good”.

I hope at least the loving hours this took to beat out of my aching head go some way to at least evidencing that Dawkins Atheists are not intellectually lazy.

he has a few other equally retarded posts in the original thread (i branched this into its own new thread because i was so wowed by it) which i quote in that other link above.

anyways, back to that first link i posted, it went over most ppls’ heads although Red Ken had this ownage response.  It looks like some d&d ppl just found it though, so we’ll see where it goes from here.

Update: ahahahaha a big retard d&d-er took my “Jesus, that was terribly written” thread seriously and tried to start flaming me as if i were a real mod imposing some draconian policy, and then started flustering after i said that i would ban him http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3318997&userid=16090

now this is one disjointed blog update!

Written by meowywowy

June 20, 2010 at 11:23 pm

Posted in propaganda, Trolls