Thursday, 26 November 2009
we don't need left or right, we don't need ideology, we need the right policy for the job.
and that's about it about it.
Friday, 30 January 2009
It takes more courage not to believe in gods.
This is because religions promise an after-life, and human's most major fear is fear of death. Give him a pill that takes away fear of death and they will follow you everywhere.
This is why you haven't seen a belief system that makes success without promising life after death.
Really, take a look it, all belief systems that make popular have one main common characteristic. They promise life after death, or more precisely, the destruction of the idea of death itself (in the minds of the followers).
But it takes way more courage to manage without that pill. And actually not courage only, it takes wisdom. It's not necessary to be a struggle to do it after some wisdom is gained.
To say to a 5-year old death does not exist is easy, but to be an adult and a reasonable individual it takes wisdom, strength of character, to not be afraid of death and still not thinking you'll live forever.
Cause after all, wanting (and attempting) to live forever is the ultimate selfish act.
This is why you haven't seen a belief system that makes success without promising life after death.
Really, take a look it, all belief systems that make popular have one main common characteristic. They promise life after death, or more precisely, the destruction of the idea of death itself (in the minds of the followers).
But it takes way more courage to manage without that pill. And actually not courage only, it takes wisdom. It's not necessary to be a struggle to do it after some wisdom is gained.
To say to a 5-year old death does not exist is easy, but to be an adult and a reasonable individual it takes wisdom, strength of character, to not be afraid of death and still not thinking you'll live forever.
Cause after all, wanting (and attempting) to live forever is the ultimate selfish act.
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Lies don't make the "best" Propaganda
It's done with hiding part of the truth.
When Clinton was to bomb Serbia for Kosovo, he cited the Serbian side committing atrocities. He was right. What he failed to mentioned was that atrocities were committed by the other (Albanian) side too.
So you see, rarely propaganda is done well with lies, half-truths are usually less easily detected.
Bush had a lot to learn from his predecessor.
.
.
When Clinton was to bomb Serbia for Kosovo, he cited the Serbian side committing atrocities. He was right. What he failed to mentioned was that atrocities were committed by the other (Albanian) side too.
So you see, rarely propaganda is done well with lies, half-truths are usually less easily detected.
Bush had a lot to learn from his predecessor.
.
.
On the "benign" purposes of America
I hear right-wing Americans - in their attempts to justify how something like Iraq is going to turn OK - stating how America gave peace to Europe out of the warmth of their heart and they spend money for it and they protected it with nothing in return.
I'm probably too polite here. It's really not just right wing Americans. The majority of Americans are indoctrinated with views portraying them intervening in Europe purely with benign purposes and nothing to gain "and look now how ungrateful they are".
The fact is America started becoming a World Power right after they intervened in WWI. The European powers lost power and the US started getting the upper hand. Who cares who would win, they were protected in that distant part of Earth and would get out more powerful whatever the outcome.
WW2 was another excellent opportunity. They in fact came out not just more powerful but *THE* most powerful entity on the planet. They really didn't care who would win. Europe would be devastated anyway whatever the outcome, and let's face it, who seriously thinks Hitler's "European Government" would survive more than 2 years. Europeans are not cavemen, they would depose him if only by popular movements. Let alone, whatever the dynamics of WW2 strengths, europeans fighting in WW2 are usually forgotten by Americans, occasionally throwing a "The French were Cowards". I don't know what the French did, but for example Greece not only fought the Fascists and Nazis but they also won the battle against he Fascists. Let alone the British were obviously present with an impact throughout the events. Besides, even if Europeans in WW2 needed Americans' help the question in this article is not whether that was true but whether the US intervened "out of the warmth of their heart".
It was also an excellent opportunity to test their new toy, the atomic bomb. Children were slaughtered in their playgrounds for Americans to test their new tool. It is now documented the Japanese were losing anyway but the propaganda at American schools about how it was "necessary" keeps going on.
They were later in a cold war with the Soviet Union and also found ways to gain a world-class military advantage any chance they could. They established military bases literally everywhere they could. The whole of Europe was full of military bases; simply everywhere they were allowed to, or found it easy, they made a military base. Many of them were dismantled by local governments in recent years. Some of them came with CIA operatives on top. There is an official policy of the EU nowadays to dismantle CIA operations over governments of the EU established at that time, and rightly so.
Simple colonial/imperial tactics, similar to what European empires were following before (and part of) the 20th century.
For example, Greece had a military dictatorship between 1967-74 that was supported by the US (as it is documented, and as Clinton as President said sorry about it publicly a few years back). The excuse that could be used to support that action is that the country was aimed to be protected from communism, but that's a ridiculous argument since the fear they had was against a person called Papandreou that his son later did make a government which was just leftist. Nowadays that party is purely pro-free market and pro-democracy. It was in fact government for several years without turning Communist or anything romantic like that.
The simple fact is that that dictatorship was just an easy solution to them. No complications, not having to deal with the "idiosyncrasies" of democracies. Just put the Brutal regime on top that is just pro-US and leave it there. Who cares about the people under them, as soon as they keep being anti-Soviet.
Same story with governments like Iraq's in the 80s, support a dictator because it's convenient at the time; if you find that a headache in the future, conceal the fact you supported him, produce propaganda out of this concealment and go against him.
I'm probably too polite here. It's really not just right wing Americans. The majority of Americans are indoctrinated with views portraying them intervening in Europe purely with benign purposes and nothing to gain "and look now how ungrateful they are".
The fact is America started becoming a World Power right after they intervened in WWI. The European powers lost power and the US started getting the upper hand. Who cares who would win, they were protected in that distant part of Earth and would get out more powerful whatever the outcome.
WW2 was another excellent opportunity. They in fact came out not just more powerful but *THE* most powerful entity on the planet. They really didn't care who would win. Europe would be devastated anyway whatever the outcome, and let's face it, who seriously thinks Hitler's "European Government" would survive more than 2 years. Europeans are not cavemen, they would depose him if only by popular movements. Let alone, whatever the dynamics of WW2 strengths, europeans fighting in WW2 are usually forgotten by Americans, occasionally throwing a "The French were Cowards". I don't know what the French did, but for example Greece not only fought the Fascists and Nazis but they also won the battle against he Fascists. Let alone the British were obviously present with an impact throughout the events. Besides, even if Europeans in WW2 needed Americans' help the question in this article is not whether that was true but whether the US intervened "out of the warmth of their heart".
It was also an excellent opportunity to test their new toy, the atomic bomb. Children were slaughtered in their playgrounds for Americans to test their new tool. It is now documented the Japanese were losing anyway but the propaganda at American schools about how it was "necessary" keeps going on.
They were later in a cold war with the Soviet Union and also found ways to gain a world-class military advantage any chance they could. They established military bases literally everywhere they could. The whole of Europe was full of military bases; simply everywhere they were allowed to, or found it easy, they made a military base. Many of them were dismantled by local governments in recent years. Some of them came with CIA operatives on top. There is an official policy of the EU nowadays to dismantle CIA operations over governments of the EU established at that time, and rightly so.
Simple colonial/imperial tactics, similar to what European empires were following before (and part of) the 20th century.
For example, Greece had a military dictatorship between 1967-74 that was supported by the US (as it is documented, and as Clinton as President said sorry about it publicly a few years back). The excuse that could be used to support that action is that the country was aimed to be protected from communism, but that's a ridiculous argument since the fear they had was against a person called Papandreou that his son later did make a government which was just leftist. Nowadays that party is purely pro-free market and pro-democracy. It was in fact government for several years without turning Communist or anything romantic like that.
The simple fact is that that dictatorship was just an easy solution to them. No complications, not having to deal with the "idiosyncrasies" of democracies. Just put the Brutal regime on top that is just pro-US and leave it there. Who cares about the people under them, as soon as they keep being anti-Soviet.
Same story with governments like Iraq's in the 80s, support a dictator because it's convenient at the time; if you find that a headache in the future, conceal the fact you supported him, produce propaganda out of this concealment and go against him.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)