CNN) -- The United States offers millions for information leading to the capture of the world's most wanted terrorists.
A Somali militant group has purportedly countered with an offer of camels for U.S. officials.
Al-Shabaab has placed a bounty of 10 camels for President Barack Obama and two camels for information on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
An audio statement posted on jihadist websites purportedly from Al-Shabaab jeered news that the United States is offering millions of dollars for information on seven key members of al-Shabaab through its Rewards for Justice program.
The battle against al-Shabaab in Somalia
New push against militants in Somalia The man on the audio claimed to be Fuad Mohamed Khalaf, considered by the State Department to be Al-Shabaab's leading fundraiser. The United States has offered $5 million for information of his whereabouts.
"Whoever brings the mujahidin information about the whereabouts of infidel Obama and the lady of Bill Clinton, the woman named Hillary Clinton, I will give a reward," the man said.
A study by Galkayo University, which looked at the effects of drought on livestock, said the average cost of a camel in Somalia is $700.
CNN can not independently verify the authenticity of the audio recording, which was purportedly made by Khalaf during a speech to followers in the southern port city of Merca.
The U.S. State Department's Rewards for Justice program is offering $7 million for information on the location of Ahmed Abdi Aw-Mohamed, the founder of the Islamist group in Somalia.
This year, he and al Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a joint video formally announcing a merger between the terror groups.
In announcing the bounties on Mohamed and his key associates Thursday, the State Department called al-Shabaab "a threat to the stability of East Africa and to the national security interests of the United States."
The State Department said it is also offering up to $5 million each for information leading to the location of four of Aw-Mohamed's associates, including Khalaf. In addition, it is offering up to $3 million each for two of the terror group's other leaders
Sunday, June 10, 2012
박정희의 딸
그는 아버지의 정치적 과오를
손톱만큼도 인정하지 않고
모든 것을 긍정하는 딸이기에…
오는 12월 대통령선거에서 극보수 새누리당이 다시 집권하든 민주통합당과 안철수를 아우른 중도세력이 정권을 되찾아오든, 민중 생활에 커다란 변화는 없을 것이다. 어려운 사람들의 기대와 환호 속에서 태어난 노무현 정권 아래서 사회양극화가 되레 심해졌다는 사실은 이런 예측을 슬며시 정당화한다. 남북관계가 더 나빠지지도 않을 것이고, 외교가 미국에 더 종속적이 되지도 않을 것이다. 새로운 새누리당 정권이라 해서 전쟁을 각오하지 않는 한 남북관계를 지금보다 더 악화시키지는 않을 테고, 유권자들의 자연스런 민족주의 감정을 거스르려 작정하지 않는 한 지금보다 더 친미적인 스탠스를 취하기는 어려울 테다. 다만 중도세력이 집권하면 이명박 정권이 크게 훼손한 시민적 정치적 자유를 제자리에 되돌려놓으리라는 예측은 가능하다.
이런 예측을 바탕에 두고, 좌파 정치권 한켠에서는 정권교체가 중요한 게 아니라 계급투쟁이 중요하다고 힘줘 말한다. 한정된 정치적 도덕적 열정을 정권교체 같은 허깨비에 쏟을 게 아니라, 민중 생활 개선을 위해 쓰자는 얘기다. 일리가 없지 않다. 나 역시 지난번 대선 땐 그런 생각으로 민주노동당 후보를 지지했다. 그러나 이번 대선은 다르다. 왜? 새누리당 후보로 나올 것이 거의 확실시되는 이가 박근혜이기 때문이다. 왜 박근혜는 다른 새누리당 후보들과 다른가? 그가 박정희의 딸이기 때문이다. 낡아빠진, 위헌적인 연좌제라고? 결코 그렇지 않다. 박근혜가 아버지의 모든 것을 긍정하는 딸이기 때문이다. 그는 아버지의 정치적 과오를 손톱만큼도 인정하지 않는다. 아버지가 불법으로 빼앗아 지금 그가 움켜쥐고 있는 엄청난 재산을 본디 주인에게 되돌려줄 생각도, 나라에 헌납할 생각도 없다. 따라서 박근혜와 박정희를 구분하는 일은 쉽지 않다.
박정희는 누구인가? 온 겨레가 일본 제국주의의 강압적 식민통치에 신음하고 있던 시절, 만주군관학교와 일본육사를 졸업하고 일본 관동군 장교로 복무했던 사람이다. 그는 일본의 괴뢰국가 만주국의 ‘국군’에 들어가기 위해 “만주국과 조국(일본-인용자)을 위해 ‘한 번 죽음으로써 충성을 다하겠다’”는 혈서를 쓴 사람이다. 그가 관동군 장교로 복무하면서 조선인 항일투사들에게 총 한 발 쏘지 않았다 하더라도, 그는 이미 민족을 배신한 사람이다. 민족반역자라는 말도 걸맞지 않을지 모른다. 스스로 썼듯, 그의 조국은 일본이었으니까.
박정희는 누구인가? 해방 뒤 좌익 세상이 이내 올 듯하자, 군대 안의 남로당 세포들을 거느리고 대한민국의 전복을 꾀하던 사람이다. 그 일이 발각돼 군법회의에서 제게 사형이 구형되자, 군 수사당국에 동료들을 모조리 밀고하고 제 한 목숨 건진 사람이다. 동료들을 배신한 거야 박정희의 개인윤리 문제니 그렇다 치자. 그보다 훨씬 더 중요한 것은, 그가 군부 내 남로당 프락치로 암약하며 제 새로운 조국을, 대한민국을 배신했다는 사실이다. 요즘 ‘종북’, ‘종북’ 하지만, 박정희야말로 원조 정통 종북이다.
박정희는 누구인가? 학생과 시민들의 피로 이룩한 저 빛나는 제2공화국을 군사반란으로 무너뜨리고 18년간 이 나라를 철권으로 옥죄었던 사람이다. 그 시절, 헤아릴 수 없이 많은 사람들이 애매하게 빨갱이로 몰려서 죽고 다치고 갇히고 망가졌다. 그 당사자들과 유족들은 지금도 따돌림과 가위눌림 속에서 지옥 같은 삶을 살아가고 있다.
대한민국 시민들이 누려야 할 복지는 꼭 물질적인 것만이 아니다. 정신적 복지가 외려 더 소중할 때도 있다. 그 정신적 복지 가운데 으뜸가는 것이 긍지일 테다. 민족을 배신하고 조국을 배신하고 민주주의를 파괴한 사람의 딸이, 더구나 아버지가 한 짓은 뭐든 잘한 일이라고 우겨대는 딸이 공화국 대통령이 된다면, 대한민국 시민들의 긍지는 심각한 손상을 입을 수밖에 없다. 밥 세끼 입에 들어간다고 공동체의 긍지를 포기한다면, 사람이나 짐승이나 다를 게 뭔가? 그것이 박근혜가 다음 대통령이 돼서는 안 될 이유들 가운데 하나다.
고종석 언론인
손톱만큼도 인정하지 않고
모든 것을 긍정하는 딸이기에…
오는 12월 대통령선거에서 극보수 새누리당이 다시 집권하든 민주통합당과 안철수를 아우른 중도세력이 정권을 되찾아오든, 민중 생활에 커다란 변화는 없을 것이다. 어려운 사람들의 기대와 환호 속에서 태어난 노무현 정권 아래서 사회양극화가 되레 심해졌다는 사실은 이런 예측을 슬며시 정당화한다. 남북관계가 더 나빠지지도 않을 것이고, 외교가 미국에 더 종속적이 되지도 않을 것이다. 새로운 새누리당 정권이라 해서 전쟁을 각오하지 않는 한 남북관계를 지금보다 더 악화시키지는 않을 테고, 유권자들의 자연스런 민족주의 감정을 거스르려 작정하지 않는 한 지금보다 더 친미적인 스탠스를 취하기는 어려울 테다. 다만 중도세력이 집권하면 이명박 정권이 크게 훼손한 시민적 정치적 자유를 제자리에 되돌려놓으리라는 예측은 가능하다.
이런 예측을 바탕에 두고, 좌파 정치권 한켠에서는 정권교체가 중요한 게 아니라 계급투쟁이 중요하다고 힘줘 말한다. 한정된 정치적 도덕적 열정을 정권교체 같은 허깨비에 쏟을 게 아니라, 민중 생활 개선을 위해 쓰자는 얘기다. 일리가 없지 않다. 나 역시 지난번 대선 땐 그런 생각으로 민주노동당 후보를 지지했다. 그러나 이번 대선은 다르다. 왜? 새누리당 후보로 나올 것이 거의 확실시되는 이가 박근혜이기 때문이다. 왜 박근혜는 다른 새누리당 후보들과 다른가? 그가 박정희의 딸이기 때문이다. 낡아빠진, 위헌적인 연좌제라고? 결코 그렇지 않다. 박근혜가 아버지의 모든 것을 긍정하는 딸이기 때문이다. 그는 아버지의 정치적 과오를 손톱만큼도 인정하지 않는다. 아버지가 불법으로 빼앗아 지금 그가 움켜쥐고 있는 엄청난 재산을 본디 주인에게 되돌려줄 생각도, 나라에 헌납할 생각도 없다. 따라서 박근혜와 박정희를 구분하는 일은 쉽지 않다.
박정희는 누구인가? 온 겨레가 일본 제국주의의 강압적 식민통치에 신음하고 있던 시절, 만주군관학교와 일본육사를 졸업하고 일본 관동군 장교로 복무했던 사람이다. 그는 일본의 괴뢰국가 만주국의 ‘국군’에 들어가기 위해 “만주국과 조국(일본-인용자)을 위해 ‘한 번 죽음으로써 충성을 다하겠다’”는 혈서를 쓴 사람이다. 그가 관동군 장교로 복무하면서 조선인 항일투사들에게 총 한 발 쏘지 않았다 하더라도, 그는 이미 민족을 배신한 사람이다. 민족반역자라는 말도 걸맞지 않을지 모른다. 스스로 썼듯, 그의 조국은 일본이었으니까.
박정희는 누구인가? 해방 뒤 좌익 세상이 이내 올 듯하자, 군대 안의 남로당 세포들을 거느리고 대한민국의 전복을 꾀하던 사람이다. 그 일이 발각돼 군법회의에서 제게 사형이 구형되자, 군 수사당국에 동료들을 모조리 밀고하고 제 한 목숨 건진 사람이다. 동료들을 배신한 거야 박정희의 개인윤리 문제니 그렇다 치자. 그보다 훨씬 더 중요한 것은, 그가 군부 내 남로당 프락치로 암약하며 제 새로운 조국을, 대한민국을 배신했다는 사실이다. 요즘 ‘종북’, ‘종북’ 하지만, 박정희야말로 원조 정통 종북이다.
박정희는 누구인가? 학생과 시민들의 피로 이룩한 저 빛나는 제2공화국을 군사반란으로 무너뜨리고 18년간 이 나라를 철권으로 옥죄었던 사람이다. 그 시절, 헤아릴 수 없이 많은 사람들이 애매하게 빨갱이로 몰려서 죽고 다치고 갇히고 망가졌다. 그 당사자들과 유족들은 지금도 따돌림과 가위눌림 속에서 지옥 같은 삶을 살아가고 있다.
대한민국 시민들이 누려야 할 복지는 꼭 물질적인 것만이 아니다. 정신적 복지가 외려 더 소중할 때도 있다. 그 정신적 복지 가운데 으뜸가는 것이 긍지일 테다. 민족을 배신하고 조국을 배신하고 민주주의를 파괴한 사람의 딸이, 더구나 아버지가 한 짓은 뭐든 잘한 일이라고 우겨대는 딸이 공화국 대통령이 된다면, 대한민국 시민들의 긍지는 심각한 손상을 입을 수밖에 없다. 밥 세끼 입에 들어간다고 공동체의 긍지를 포기한다면, 사람이나 짐승이나 다를 게 뭔가? 그것이 박근혜가 다음 대통령이 돼서는 안 될 이유들 가운데 하나다.
고종석 언론인
Friday, June 1, 2012
My Country, right or wrong!!
Were Nazi Soldiers Heroes?
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Have you ever noticed that Nazi soldiers, especially those who died in World War II, are never celebrated as heroes? Why is that? Didn’t they answer the call of their government in time of war? Didn’t they serve their country by loyally obeying the dictates of their government? Weren’t they patriots for their willingness to fight and die for their country?
I’m not talking about soldiers who committed war crimes or who participated in the Holocaust. I’m talking about ordinary German soldiers, many of whom were civilians before the war started, who fought Allied forces in North Africa, at the Battle of the Bulge, on the Eastern front, and elsewhere.
Why aren’t those Nazi soldiers treated as heroes? Didn’t some of them fight as courageously and heroically as British, Soviet, or American soldiers? Why are they not honored as heroes as much as Allied soldiers are?
Indeed, why aren’t German citizens during World War II honored for having come to the support of their government during a time of war? Didn’t the German people do what citizens are supposed to do? Sure, Germany ended up losing the war but no one can say that the average German citizen didn’t do everything he could to win the war.
Yesterday, the Washington Times went on the attack against MSNBC host Chris Hayes for questioning the automatic invocation of the term ‘heroes’ to describe American soldiers who have died in America’s many wars. The Times wrote:
The word “heroes” has been used to describe America’s fallen for more than 200 years. It’s not “rhetorically proximate” to justifications for war but a traditional mark of gratitude and respect for the sacrifice made by the person who was killed and the family members left behind. It’s a way of recognizing that regardless of how a person died, he did so in service to the country. It’s not a glorification of war but a solemn acknowledgment of sacrifice.
What’s not clear from the Times’ position, however, is whether the principles it enunciates apply only American soldiers or to soldiers in every country. Applying the standard set forth by the Times, would it be appropriate for Germans to use the word “heroes” to describe Germany’s fallen in the many wars in which Germany has been involved, including World War II? Could it be said that describing Nazi soldiers killed in World War II as “heroes” would not serve to justify World War II but instead serve simply as a mark of gratitude and respect for the sacrifice made by the German soldier who was killed and the family members left behind? Could it be said that this would just be a way to recognize that regardless of how the Nazi soldier died, he did so in service to his country? Could it be said that describing the Nazi soldier as a hero would not be a glorification of war but rather a solemn acknowledgement of sacrifice?
In other words, would the Times apply its principles regarding war, soldiers, heroism, and patriotism only to the United States or universally?
Or do they apply only to the winners? Do they apply, for example, to the Soviet Union, one of the winners of World War II, which was governed by a brutal communist regime during the war and for decades afterward, a regime that oppressed Jews and others and kept Eastern Europe under its iron boot for decades after the end of the war. Were communist soldiers opposing Nazi soldiers heroes for serving their government during time of war? Were they heroes for their willingness to die to ensure that their country remained under communist rule rather than Nazi rule?
Indeed, how would the Times apply its principles to the Vietnam War, a war that the United States lost? Surely, it would say that American soldiers who served in Vietnam or who died there were heroes, except perhaps for the ones who committed war crimes. Would it say the same about North Vietnamese communist soldiers or about the Viet Cong?
It seems to me that the reason that Nazi soldiers have never been honored as heroes is because the world has long held Germany to a different standard than the one that the Washington Times applies to the United States. Both German soldiers and the German citizenry should have made a critical examination of what their government was doing and realized that their government was in the wrong. On reaching that determination, it was the duty of the individual soldier to refuse to participate in the military, and it was the duty of the citizen to oppose his government, even in time of war.
Obviously, the Nazi government didn’t take that position. Its position was that it is the solemn duty of the citizen to come to the support of his government in time of crisis or war. The Hitler regime viewed the citizen who joined the Nazi armed forces as a hero for his willingness to fight and die for his country. The German people who supported the troops and the rest of the government were looked upon as patriots.
Isn’t that the same standard adhered to by many Americans with respect to America’s wars, soldiers, and citizenry?
There were some German citizens who said no. Among them were Hans and Sophie Scholl and the members of a secret organization called the White Rose. Their position on patriotism was entirely different from the official one. They felt that it was the duty of a citizen to make a critical examination of his government’s policies. That’s what the White Rose members did, and they concluded that the Nazi government was in the wrong. Thus, the White Rose group not only opposed their government in the middle of World War II, they also exhorted the German citizenry, including German soldiers, to rise up and overthrow the Hitler regime.
Not surprisingly, the German authorities considered the White Rose members to be bad people and unpatriotic Germans, which is why they executed them. Personally, I happen to believe that they were among the most courageous and heroic people in history.
In 1951, during the Korean War, Leonard E. Read, the founder of The Foundation for Economic Education, wrote one of the most thought-provoking essays ever written, entitled. “Conscience on the Battlefield.” In that essay, Read stated that from a moral standpoint, no soldier can ever escape the consequences of his individual actions during war simply by later telling God that he was following orders or loyally serving his government during time of war. It was incumbent on each soldier, Read stated, to make a personal determination as to whether the killing he was ordered to do was morally justified and could be reconciled with the soldier’s individual conscience.
In my opinion, Read and the White Rose people had it right. The genuine patriot stands and fights for his government when it is right and he refuses to support it and even opposes it when it is in the wrong. That’s the type of courage and heroism that enlightens a country, not the blind type of “my government, right or wrong” type of patriotism and heroism that afflicted Nazi Germany and that continues to afflict people in many other countries today.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Have you ever noticed that Nazi soldiers, especially those who died in World War II, are never celebrated as heroes? Why is that? Didn’t they answer the call of their government in time of war? Didn’t they serve their country by loyally obeying the dictates of their government? Weren’t they patriots for their willingness to fight and die for their country?
I’m not talking about soldiers who committed war crimes or who participated in the Holocaust. I’m talking about ordinary German soldiers, many of whom were civilians before the war started, who fought Allied forces in North Africa, at the Battle of the Bulge, on the Eastern front, and elsewhere.
Why aren’t those Nazi soldiers treated as heroes? Didn’t some of them fight as courageously and heroically as British, Soviet, or American soldiers? Why are they not honored as heroes as much as Allied soldiers are?
Indeed, why aren’t German citizens during World War II honored for having come to the support of their government during a time of war? Didn’t the German people do what citizens are supposed to do? Sure, Germany ended up losing the war but no one can say that the average German citizen didn’t do everything he could to win the war.
Yesterday, the Washington Times went on the attack against MSNBC host Chris Hayes for questioning the automatic invocation of the term ‘heroes’ to describe American soldiers who have died in America’s many wars. The Times wrote:
The word “heroes” has been used to describe America’s fallen for more than 200 years. It’s not “rhetorically proximate” to justifications for war but a traditional mark of gratitude and respect for the sacrifice made by the person who was killed and the family members left behind. It’s a way of recognizing that regardless of how a person died, he did so in service to the country. It’s not a glorification of war but a solemn acknowledgment of sacrifice.
What’s not clear from the Times’ position, however, is whether the principles it enunciates apply only American soldiers or to soldiers in every country. Applying the standard set forth by the Times, would it be appropriate for Germans to use the word “heroes” to describe Germany’s fallen in the many wars in which Germany has been involved, including World War II? Could it be said that describing Nazi soldiers killed in World War II as “heroes” would not serve to justify World War II but instead serve simply as a mark of gratitude and respect for the sacrifice made by the German soldier who was killed and the family members left behind? Could it be said that this would just be a way to recognize that regardless of how the Nazi soldier died, he did so in service to his country? Could it be said that describing the Nazi soldier as a hero would not be a glorification of war but rather a solemn acknowledgement of sacrifice?
In other words, would the Times apply its principles regarding war, soldiers, heroism, and patriotism only to the United States or universally?
Or do they apply only to the winners? Do they apply, for example, to the Soviet Union, one of the winners of World War II, which was governed by a brutal communist regime during the war and for decades afterward, a regime that oppressed Jews and others and kept Eastern Europe under its iron boot for decades after the end of the war. Were communist soldiers opposing Nazi soldiers heroes for serving their government during time of war? Were they heroes for their willingness to die to ensure that their country remained under communist rule rather than Nazi rule?
Indeed, how would the Times apply its principles to the Vietnam War, a war that the United States lost? Surely, it would say that American soldiers who served in Vietnam or who died there were heroes, except perhaps for the ones who committed war crimes. Would it say the same about North Vietnamese communist soldiers or about the Viet Cong?
It seems to me that the reason that Nazi soldiers have never been honored as heroes is because the world has long held Germany to a different standard than the one that the Washington Times applies to the United States. Both German soldiers and the German citizenry should have made a critical examination of what their government was doing and realized that their government was in the wrong. On reaching that determination, it was the duty of the individual soldier to refuse to participate in the military, and it was the duty of the citizen to oppose his government, even in time of war.
Obviously, the Nazi government didn’t take that position. Its position was that it is the solemn duty of the citizen to come to the support of his government in time of crisis or war. The Hitler regime viewed the citizen who joined the Nazi armed forces as a hero for his willingness to fight and die for his country. The German people who supported the troops and the rest of the government were looked upon as patriots.
Isn’t that the same standard adhered to by many Americans with respect to America’s wars, soldiers, and citizenry?
There were some German citizens who said no. Among them were Hans and Sophie Scholl and the members of a secret organization called the White Rose. Their position on patriotism was entirely different from the official one. They felt that it was the duty of a citizen to make a critical examination of his government’s policies. That’s what the White Rose members did, and they concluded that the Nazi government was in the wrong. Thus, the White Rose group not only opposed their government in the middle of World War II, they also exhorted the German citizenry, including German soldiers, to rise up and overthrow the Hitler regime.
Not surprisingly, the German authorities considered the White Rose members to be bad people and unpatriotic Germans, which is why they executed them. Personally, I happen to believe that they were among the most courageous and heroic people in history.
In 1951, during the Korean War, Leonard E. Read, the founder of The Foundation for Economic Education, wrote one of the most thought-provoking essays ever written, entitled. “Conscience on the Battlefield.” In that essay, Read stated that from a moral standpoint, no soldier can ever escape the consequences of his individual actions during war simply by later telling God that he was following orders or loyally serving his government during time of war. It was incumbent on each soldier, Read stated, to make a personal determination as to whether the killing he was ordered to do was morally justified and could be reconciled with the soldier’s individual conscience.
In my opinion, Read and the White Rose people had it right. The genuine patriot stands and fights for his government when it is right and he refuses to support it and even opposes it when it is in the wrong. That’s the type of courage and heroism that enlightens a country, not the blind type of “my government, right or wrong” type of patriotism and heroism that afflicted Nazi Germany and that continues to afflict people in many other countries today.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
Friday, May 25, 2012
We, humans are the most deceitful creatures on Earth
Friends, humans are the most deceitful creatures on Earth.
Other species are what they are. They are not devious in anyway.
They do what they were programmed by nature to do: find food, kill enemies or drive them away, protect their young and teach them survival skills.
Humans find excuses to kill millions of their own kind using pretexts that are fanciful and full of lies. Wars are fought by nations that loudly proclaim that they care about human rights, about freedom, about democracy, about equality, while they trash all four!
Humans dress themselves in fancy clothes, fancy up their bathrooms to hide the ugly reality of their toiletry activities, strut about thinking that they are handsome or beautiful, strongly believe that, individually, they are the centre of the universe, create all manner of Gods and theological fantasies and then foolishly believe that, unlike other lifeforms, they will live forever.
The true reality of humans is well-hidden. We don’t get shown scenes of torture especially the hideous kinds of torture carried out on those who have been rendered to distant countries that condone torture.
We don’t get shown images of people being blown up in war zones or dead children being burned by phosphorous munitions or having their limbs blown off by cluster bombs or land mines.
No, the MSM, in league with armament manufacturers and warmongering Governments, keeps us peasants permanently in the dark.
And when someone like Julian Assange releases the truth about certain warmongering nations, he is hounded and pursued and treated by the authorities as a dangerous enemy.
And we don’t get shown footage of incest or priestly child molestation or the trafficking of women and girls for prostitution or the results when acid is thrown in the faces of Pakistani women accused of infidelity or standing up for their rights.
Friends, if we don’t face up to and accept the existence of our dark side, we will never be able to change it. Each human has a dark side.
Whether it emerges depends on the circumstances we find ourselves in and the strength of what morals and values we have.
Of course, remember the old saying that: Every man and women has their price!
We need to take the lid off our dark side. We need to expose the ugliness that resides within all of us. Perhaps exposing it to the light of truth might cause it to wither and die rather than fester deep within us.
Accept your demons then learn to control them. In that way, humans, eventually, may be able to find the way to universal peace and love.
If we can’t or won’t, then extinction awaits us!
Monday, May 14, 2012
Idiocy as WMD
by LINH DINH
Borges writes, “dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy.” As a preeminent mind, Borges rightly considers the mind to be a man’s greatest asset, for without mind, a man is nothing. The more oppressive a political system, then, the greater its assault on its subjects’ minds, for it’s not enough for any dictator, king or totalitarian system to oppress and exploit, but it must, and I mean must, make its people idiotic as well. Every wrongful bullet is preceded and accompanied, then followed up by a series of idiotic lies, but we’re so used to such a moronic diet by now, our trepanned intelligentsia don’t even squirm in their tenured chairs.
Sane men and women don’t consent to kill, rob and rape, much less be killed, robbed and raped, least of all to enrich their masters, and that’s why their minds must be molested as early and as much as possible. Hence our nonstop media brainwashing us from the cradle, literally, to the grave. Fixated by flickering boxes, even infants are now mind-conditioned to become scatterbrained idiots before they stagger into kindergarten, to begin a lifelong process of becoming docile and slogan-shouting Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, savages killed, but, like apes and monkeys, our ancestors, they mostly tried to intimidate and trash talk their way out of conflicts. There wasn’t a lot of murdering after the haka, frankly. They didn’t wipe out entire cities by defecating exploding metal from the sky, nor sit in a brightly lit and spic-and-span office stroking a joy stick to ejaculate missiles half a planet away. Drone hell fire for y’all, with sides of bank-sponsored debt slavery and austerity, plus an unlimited refill of American pop bullshit. Would you like a public suicide with that? No, sir, these savages need to take webcast courses from us sophisticates when it comes to genocide, or ecocide, or any other kind of cides you can think of. When it comes to pure, unadulterated savagery, these quaint brutes ain’t got shit on us plugged-in netizens chillaxin’ in that shiny upside down condo on da capital-punishment-for the-entire-world, y’all, hill.
You’d think that a government with absolute power would not bother with expensive parades and elaborately-staged rallies in stadia, as are routine in North Korea, but such is the importance of propaganda and mind-control. America has gone way beyond Kim Jong-Un and his Nuremberg-styled pageantry, however, because the Yankee Magical Show is relentlessly pumped into our minds via television and the internet, at home, in office or even as we’re walking down the street, so that we’re always swarmed by sexy sale pitches, soft and hard porn, asinine righteousness and imbecilic trivia. All day long, we can stuff ourselves with unlimited kitsch. Today’s urgent topic, “Sylvester Stalone Spotted in 16th Century Painting.” Yesterday’s, “Tom Cruise’s Daughter Gets Inked.” Imagine a triple-amputee Iraq vet or an unemployed mother, sitting in an about to be foreclosed home with unpaid bills scattered across her kitchen table, staring at such headlines. At 48, I’m old enough to remember when it wasn’t this overwhelmingly stupid, though the dumbing down of America will only accelerate as this cornered and bankrupt country becomes ever more vicious to its citizens and foreigners alike.
Not content to kill and loot, America must do it to pulsating music; cool, orgasmic dancing; raunchy reality shows and violence-filled Hollywood blockbusters, and these are also meant for its victims, no less. In a 1997 article published by the US Army War College, Ralph Peters gushes about a “personally intrusive” and “lethal” cultural assault as a key tactic in the American quest for global supremacy. As information master, the American Empire will destroy its “information victims.” What’s more, “our victims volunteer” because they are unable to resist the seductiveness of American culture.
Defining democracy as “that deft liberal form of imperialism,” Peters reveals how the word is conceived and used these days by every American leader, whether talking about Libya, Syria, Iran or America itself. Recognizing that the lumpens of his country are also victims of empire, Peters frankly acknowledges that “laid-off blue-collar worker in America and the Taliban militiaman in Afghanistan are brothers in suffering.”
Much has been made of the internet as enabling democracy and protest, but whatever utility it may have for the disenfranchised and/or rebellious, the Web is most useful to our rulers. As Dmitry Orlov points out in a recent blog, the internet is a powerful surveillance tool for the state and, what’s more, it also keeps the masses distracted and pacified. Echoing Queen Victoria’s remark, “Give my people plenty of beer, good and cheap beer, and you will have no revolution among them,” Orlov observes that virtual sex thwarts rebellion. In sum, while the internet may empower some people, as in allowing John Michael Greer, Paul Craig Roberts or Orlov to publish their unflinching commentaries, the same internet also drowns them out with an unprecedented flood of drivel. Defending the empire, Ralph Peters cheerfully agrees, “The internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and community.”
Though our only hope is to be expelled from this sick matrix, many of us will cling even more fiercely to these illusions of knowledge, love, sex and community as we blunder forward. A breathing and tactile life will become even more alien, I’m afraid. Here and there, a band of unplugged weirdos, to be hunted down and exterminated, with their demise shown on TV as warning and entertainment. Inhabiting a common waste land, we can each lounge in our private electronic ghetto. Until the juice finally runs out, that is.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Why North Koreans Aren’t Allowed to Launch Rockets
A Critical Appraisal By Kim Petersen April 16, 2012 --
Young Sam enters the living room where his father sits in a reclining armchair with newspaper. The plasma TV is on and the news is discussing the failed launch of the North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile. Sam knows that the United States and many other countries also launch missiles and rockets, so he cannot understand why it is so terrible when North Korea does so. He pauses thoughtfully and turns to his father.
“Dad, why is the government so upset about North Korea launching a rocket?”
“Well, son, our government says it threatens regional security and violates international law.”
“Why isn’t regional security threatened and international law violated when we launch a rocket? I mean how would we have gotten to the moon if we hadn’t launched rockets?”
“Why so many questions? Have you finished your homework already?”
“Finished Dad. Our teacher taught us that we should ask questions and develop our critical thinking ability. I’m trying to do that.”
“Didn’t your teacher teach you to respect your elders? We have to trust our leaders because we are the good guys. We are fighting for democracy, and the North Koreans are Commies.”
“So being a Commie means they are bad guys?”
“That’s right, son.”
“So we can launch rockets because we are good guys, and they can’t launch rockets because they are bad guys?”
“That’s right. Just think, the North Koreans are wasting money on weapons while their own people are starving.”
“But I heard that we are cancelling our food aid to those starving people. Is that what good guys do, Dad?”
“Look son, if we give food aid to the North Korean people, their dictators will use money to build rockets instead of feeding the people.”
“Have they ever used their rockets against us?”
“No, but they might.”
“I learned in social studies that we bombed them in the Korean War, but they’ve never come over here and bombed us, so I don’t understand why they are the threat and why we are not a threat. I guess it is just because we are the good guys. If we launch rockets, it must be okay because we are the good guys. If they launch rockets, it is a bad thing because they are the bad guys?”
“Now you are getting it.”
“That must be the same reason we can have nuclear weapons but the Iranians can’t: because they are the bad guys, and we are the good guys.”
“Now you are thinking critically, son.”
Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. He can be reached at: kim@dissidentvoice.org.
This article was first published at Dissident Voice
Young Sam enters the living room where his father sits in a reclining armchair with newspaper. The plasma TV is on and the news is discussing the failed launch of the North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile. Sam knows that the United States and many other countries also launch missiles and rockets, so he cannot understand why it is so terrible when North Korea does so. He pauses thoughtfully and turns to his father.
“Dad, why is the government so upset about North Korea launching a rocket?”
“Well, son, our government says it threatens regional security and violates international law.”
“Why isn’t regional security threatened and international law violated when we launch a rocket? I mean how would we have gotten to the moon if we hadn’t launched rockets?”
“Why so many questions? Have you finished your homework already?”
“Finished Dad. Our teacher taught us that we should ask questions and develop our critical thinking ability. I’m trying to do that.”
“Didn’t your teacher teach you to respect your elders? We have to trust our leaders because we are the good guys. We are fighting for democracy, and the North Koreans are Commies.”
“So being a Commie means they are bad guys?”
“That’s right, son.”
“So we can launch rockets because we are good guys, and they can’t launch rockets because they are bad guys?”
“That’s right. Just think, the North Koreans are wasting money on weapons while their own people are starving.”
“But I heard that we are cancelling our food aid to those starving people. Is that what good guys do, Dad?”
“Look son, if we give food aid to the North Korean people, their dictators will use money to build rockets instead of feeding the people.”
“Have they ever used their rockets against us?”
“No, but they might.”
“I learned in social studies that we bombed them in the Korean War, but they’ve never come over here and bombed us, so I don’t understand why they are the threat and why we are not a threat. I guess it is just because we are the good guys. If we launch rockets, it must be okay because we are the good guys. If they launch rockets, it is a bad thing because they are the bad guys?”
“Now you are getting it.”
“That must be the same reason we can have nuclear weapons but the Iranians can’t: because they are the bad guys, and we are the good guys.”
“Now you are thinking critically, son.”
Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. He can be reached at: kim@dissidentvoice.org.
This article was first published at Dissident Voice
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Are Koreans Jewish in fervent nationalism?
By Kim Tae-jong
Many Koreans believe that Jim Yong Kim will bring great benefits to Korea in case the nominee for president of the World Bank wins, shown by the heroic welcome shown to him.
When he recently visited Seoul, President Lee Myung-bak as well as Minister of Strategy and Finance Bahk Jae-wan and Bank of Korea Governor Kim Choong-soo met him to officially express their strong support while saying he is the “right person” to lead the World Bank.
Observers point out, however, that his success has little to do with Koreans and add that underlying the cheerleading by Koreans, there might lurk some aspects of nationalism, which Jim Yong Kim might not share.
In fact, upon his nomination last month, local media generated much-hyped anticipation that the nation will have a Korea-born individual at the helm of another international organization, another leader similar to United Nations (UN) Secretary General Bank Ki-moon.
But the question is, should such Korean-Americans be considered Korean, although they have American citizenship?
Actually, Jim Yong Kim is not the only person who makes Koreans confused about nationalities and “bloodlines.”
Koreans have a strong tendency to link an individual’s achievements with nationalism, especially true when it comes to those of Korean descent.
“I think Koreans are emulating the Jewish people in some way,” Lee Yeon-ho, professor at Yonsei University, said. “Korea’s whole population is so small and not many people have advanced into renowned international organizations.
So, they tend to support those with Korean descent, as shown in the case of Jim Yong Kim.”
One of the most obvious cases in such tendencies can be found in Korean-American sports stars such as golfer Michelle Wie.
Wie is an American of Korean descent, but Koreans seem to claim her as their own, counting her two wins at LPGA Tour as victories of a Korean golfer.
But sometimes, such an attitude is criticized by those who think that they are too nationalistic.
Time wrote an article about Korea’s collective guilt, when the Virginia Tech massacre took place in 2007, killing 32 people and wounding 25 others.Koreans, who were more shocked by the fact that the perpetrator Cho Seung-hui was a Korean-American, expressed a sense of public shame.
The Korea government even convened an emergency meeting to consider possible ramifications.
A candlelight vigil was held outside the Embassy of the United States in Seoul.
President Roh Moo-hyun expressed his deepest condolences.
However, international media simply called such collective action as defensive nationalism.
In an op-ed piece, the LA Times wrote, governments and ethnic organizations should not “endorse this sort of stereotyping.”
“Ultimately, though, any reaction that reinforces primitive notions of racial or ethnic collective responsibility is headed for absurdity,” it said.
“But the truth is that Cho was an American kid. He had lived in the United States since he was 8, and he was clearly immersed in the dark side of U.S. popular culture.”
Experts say that Koreans have long developed severe nationalism, which could have a negative impact in the global arena.
“Koreans tend to expand the concept of family when they think of Korean-Americans or other nationalities with Korean decent,” Kim woo-seon, professor at Sogang University, said. What’s more important now is to embrace those who become Korean citizens and live here as Korea is becoming more multicultural, he said.
Many Koreans believe that Jim Yong Kim will bring great benefits to Korea in case the nominee for president of the World Bank wins, shown by the heroic welcome shown to him.
When he recently visited Seoul, President Lee Myung-bak as well as Minister of Strategy and Finance Bahk Jae-wan and Bank of Korea Governor Kim Choong-soo met him to officially express their strong support while saying he is the “right person” to lead the World Bank.
Observers point out, however, that his success has little to do with Koreans and add that underlying the cheerleading by Koreans, there might lurk some aspects of nationalism, which Jim Yong Kim might not share.
In fact, upon his nomination last month, local media generated much-hyped anticipation that the nation will have a Korea-born individual at the helm of another international organization, another leader similar to United Nations (UN) Secretary General Bank Ki-moon.
But the question is, should such Korean-Americans be considered Korean, although they have American citizenship?
Actually, Jim Yong Kim is not the only person who makes Koreans confused about nationalities and “bloodlines.”
Koreans have a strong tendency to link an individual’s achievements with nationalism, especially true when it comes to those of Korean descent.
“I think Koreans are emulating the Jewish people in some way,” Lee Yeon-ho, professor at Yonsei University, said. “Korea’s whole population is so small and not many people have advanced into renowned international organizations.
So, they tend to support those with Korean descent, as shown in the case of Jim Yong Kim.”
One of the most obvious cases in such tendencies can be found in Korean-American sports stars such as golfer Michelle Wie.
Wie is an American of Korean descent, but Koreans seem to claim her as their own, counting her two wins at LPGA Tour as victories of a Korean golfer.
But sometimes, such an attitude is criticized by those who think that they are too nationalistic.
Time wrote an article about Korea’s collective guilt, when the Virginia Tech massacre took place in 2007, killing 32 people and wounding 25 others.Koreans, who were more shocked by the fact that the perpetrator Cho Seung-hui was a Korean-American, expressed a sense of public shame.
The Korea government even convened an emergency meeting to consider possible ramifications.
A candlelight vigil was held outside the Embassy of the United States in Seoul.
President Roh Moo-hyun expressed his deepest condolences.
However, international media simply called such collective action as defensive nationalism.
In an op-ed piece, the LA Times wrote, governments and ethnic organizations should not “endorse this sort of stereotyping.”
“Ultimately, though, any reaction that reinforces primitive notions of racial or ethnic collective responsibility is headed for absurdity,” it said.
“But the truth is that Cho was an American kid. He had lived in the United States since he was 8, and he was clearly immersed in the dark side of U.S. popular culture.”
Experts say that Koreans have long developed severe nationalism, which could have a negative impact in the global arena.
“Koreans tend to expand the concept of family when they think of Korean-Americans or other nationalities with Korean decent,” Kim woo-seon, professor at Sogang University, said. What’s more important now is to embrace those who become Korean citizens and live here as Korea is becoming more multicultural, he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)