Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Satan’s Little Helpers by Evan Palmer
This is “what if” time as in “what if they’re right?” and “if so, how can that be?”
Let’s start with “they” being the numerous sages who have claimed that what we see, hear, feel, smell & taste is an illusion. Note that it is not that it’s like an illusion or that it’s partly an illusion or that it’s often an illusion. It is completely an illusion.
Let’s add in the “they” who argue for the primacy of mind and theories about a holographic universe. Thought and feeling providing direction to the warp & woof of the world; providing impulse and fabric as well.
How does “god” or “true nature” or “supreme being” fit into this?
Here is a speculation based on various inputs & thoughts & intuitions.
Any name is too small to describe or contain or explain “true nature” and can only point at the inexpressible and ineffable suchness of it. It is all-encompassing, all-animating, all-sustaining, all-aware, all-knowing. It is beyond form and before form. It is everything and allows for everything. It is all forms yet it is no form. It gives rise to forms which is the appearance of forms which is what forms really are.
The creative force in any form (which includes energy and any created thing) is free will. The ability to choose and the fissioning of awareness gives rise to a universe. The power of individual minds to create singly or in consensus brings forth the forms of this universe. It is a dance, a concert, a choir. But none of the creation is “true nature”. It is all the will and thoughts of the numberless entities that chose this or that. Wanting and desire is a choice. Loving and hating is a choice. Stars and planets are a choice.
How big is a mind? How powerful can a mind be? If this universe was created by mind and sustained by mind, could it be under the direction of a mind immensely more powerful than any one of ours, yet less than “god”? Can an entire universe be the “creation” of an extremely powerful entity? Is it necessarily a godlike production?
Satan is supposedly an entity that has a lot of Earthly power & influence. But what if it’s much more than that? What if this whole universe is “his”? And we are here by our choice? And “the fall” is our decision to choose & cling to this universe & this world & this life. The problem being that while our minds & intentions drive the things of this universe, its entire substance & energy & being derives from “god” and our blindness & deafness of that is a lot of what traps us here and dumbfounds us.
So “god” is everything but demands that we create; we are the creators; “god” has no will – why would “he” or “she”? We think & intend & feel every form and relation and “god” actualizes it, becomes it. “god” gives us every single thing we want but we don’t see it because we see only the forms and not the essence and the source. And the whole trick of this dimension of reality is to entrap beings, us, with the panoply of causality & beauty & horror & afterlifes & always having something to discover. It doesn’t matter – the goal is to keep as many as possible for as long as possible. And to keep them thinking that this is the work of the supreme being. And to sing Satan’s praises as “god’s” – a beautiful sunset, a baby, a summer sky, birds on the wing, music, the stars. And to blame our own sins on “satan”.
What if each & every aware being is completely connected to “true nature” or “god” because that is the nature of existence but we are being convinced or tricked into pouring our creative force, our mind & intentionality, into this universe; helping to sustain it and expand it; in effect, increasing its hold on us and ours, adding to the prison that binds us all?
“Here is the secret principle, without equal, the principle that calms all suffering, the truthful principle: Homage to you, knowledge that has gone, Gone beyond and beyond the beyond.” — The Prajanaparamita’s Principle
Then this universe is the universe of the beings; this universe that we will & intend into existence is manifested by “god”; the evil in it is ours, the good as well, but “god” or “true nature” is beyond that, an infinite well of potential & form & relation, which we call up according to our motive & intent & understanding & wisdom.
With that view on things, a book like “Peter Pan” is a profound insight: “Think a happy Thought!”
Satan’s Little Helpers, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Artifacts of Vision by Evan Palmer
The greater the level of interaction we find we have with what we “see”, the greater the question is as to what we do not “see” and how and why we “see” the way we do.
The eye was the thing that most amazed Charles Darwin on his epoch-making sea journey and, indeed, this amazing organ is the gateway for some 80% of an average human’s perception. However, as magnificient as it is, the eye is only part of the visual cognition process. Additionally, there are the optic nerves, one per eye, and the brain itself. There is also a nebulous thing called attention which calls forth other phenomena like the “will” and emotions and beliefs that colour, even shape, what we see.
We “know” what we see because it’s been subtlely (and not-so-subtlety) explained to us until our agreement is effortless and unquestioned. Expectation plays a huge role in what we see; it does help us to process more quickly and more effectively, however, it can be more what we (think we) should see than what we consciously & unconsciously see.
The way vision is constructed, or our current understanding of it, is probably not what most of us thought. The understanding is still under construction but various surprising discoveries have been made over the last few centuries especially since the second world war.
For example, each of our eyes has an optic nerve at the back of the eye. This results in a blind spot where the optic nerve exits the eye on its way to the brain – there are no cones or rods. We don’t see this hole in our vision for two reasons: firstly, the optic nerve is not in the same position in both eyes so the blind spot of one eye is covered by the other eye; secondly, even if using a single eye, our brain (or our brain-mind) fills in the hole.
Or, we blink every 4 to 6 seconds; it’s very quick between 100-150 milliseconds. Why don’t we see darkness at that moment? Why doesn’t our vision appear as a series of snapshots? One theory was that a phenomenon called “persistence of vision” came into play – an afterimage stays on the retina long enough for the eye to blink and see again so we would in effect be seeing snapshots but not noticing it. A more recent theory is that part of the brain turns off during the eye blink and this is the part that would notice the darkness – so if we don’t notice it’s dark then as far as our vision goes, it isn’t.
Even if “persistence of vision” doesn’t seem to play a part regarding uninterrupted vision during eye blinking, it does allow us to see many flashing or discontinuous lights (and things illuminated by light) as continuous. If the light or image is sent at the correct speeds, our brain will intergrate them, it will make the discrete continuous . After light has hit the retina, chemical processes take over. A period of time, called integration time, is needed to process the image. More integration time is needed in low light.
A motion picture runs at 24 frames per second but by shuttering each frame 3 times, the flash rate becomes 72 times per second. That speed is faster than our brain can integrate so we do not see any flicker. Same thing happens with computer monitors which flash at some 75 times a second. Same thing happens with many regular lights especially fluorescent lights.
Another interesting vision-related phenomenon has to do with what light an average person can see. In our eyes, cones, which see colour, are able to detect within certain frequency ranges only. Rods detect lower levels of light. If a coloured light is dimmed, we will see it and its colour until it reaches the threshold for its frequency to be detected by our eyes’ cones and then it will be seen but as a grey light – no colour; unless it’s a red light, in which case, when it hits the threshold, the red light will disappear to our vision.
We have another blind spot which occurs at night. The center of our visual field is called the fovea – it contains only cones, no rods at all. Therefore, if an object is small enough to fit into that visual center and the light is low enough, we will not see it.
Many of the above visual artifacts have a strong physical component but there are other visual cognition phenomena that have much more of a mental aspect. One phenomenon is called “change blindess” and refers to how people can fail to notice significant changes from one scene to the next. Another phenomenon focuses on the role that attention plays in what you see but, more dramatically, what you do not see.
See http://www.aoa.org/x5352.xml
Or http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html
And http://www.viscog.com/index.html
For the beckman video, for your first viewing, your task is to count how many times the players with white shirts pass the basketball among themselves, only focus on them. Then watch the video again.
This does not touch on “vision” when we dream, reports of remote viewing or OBEs (out-of-body-experiences).
Artifacts of Vision, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
The Idea of the Vanguard by Evan Palmer
There are many questions that surround leadership. Who leads? How do they gain & maintain authority? How do they get people to follow & accept their orders? Or, more fundamentally, how do they assume power?
In the context of a social revolution, there are numerous steps: the building of a mythology, the laying of an organizational foundation, the cultivation or manipulation of the political & economic climate, the readiness to seize & exercise power, a convincing vision & plan and the means to effect a change in societal perception & control.
Key to all of the above is an organization, a political party, or more accurately, a vanguard within that party or movement. That is, a cohesive group who are determined & effective, who define & lead the transformation. And who are invariably small in number.
One of the most difficult challenges facing any leadership is effecting change. The challenge is only exacerbated by the fact that most change is ill-considered and wrong-headed. At least, most of the change that is proposed.
This naturally draws one towards the bedrock from which change should issue – accurate, valid analysis. Unfortunately, what often substitutes for it, is the spouting of charismatic or ideological leaders.
When the demogogues reign then the idea becomes that what gets done reflects the imposition of one group’s will on the rest of the masses and that this usurption of public discourse and diminishment of the ability to dissent or resist is the exercise’s true purpose. It is here that the idea of the vanguard – beloved of the old communist dictatorships – emphatically comes to the fore. The small group who leads. In some cases, it a small self-selected group; or, a self-selected leader and would-be high-office holders and flaks and fans and hangers-on but, most of all, the critical bolstering of the true believers who form the bulk of the vanguard, the true shock troops.
How Many Does It Take? The size of the vanguard is typically in the 5-10% range. That is, 5% of a given group directing the other 95%. Based solely on common experience, most of us would probably agree that 5-10% is a good number. Depending on the circumstances, we might even feel it could be lower – perhaps 1%. Certain conditions can act as multipliers so that smaller groups can act with the effective weight of a larger group.
But, the success of the vanguard dynamic depends on many factors, most of which are not commonly, or well-understood.
One noteworthy factor in this type of undertaking is whether a given vanguard can take advantage of any power or impact mulipliers. Typical multipliers are money, the ability to confer fame or honours or social access, the ability to provide sexual gratification, the ability to provide luxury & other physical gratifications including intoxicants, strong shared beliefs, strong bonds (familial, genetic, ..), control of media, control of production, control of wealth, willingness to be violent, kill or die, secrecy, control of social pressure, the ability to instill fear or awe or shock, social momentum, the ability to undermine a person’s freedom of action or financial status or mental stability including false arrest, an actual or apprehended state of seige or threat, well-based or baseless blackmail, hidden alliances or weapons.
It becomes evident as one goes through a list like this that a vanguard will quickly end up as a dirty amoral bunch of thugs for a cause. The cause is intended to cleanse them, if not now, then later when victory has been achieved or, perhaps, their redemption will have to be pushed onto future generations. But for now, it doesn’t matter and the job must be done!
All the usual suspects are potential vanguards including Jesuits, High-Financiers, Freemasons, NeoCommunists, NeoConservatives, International Criminal Syndicates, etc. etc. A truly effective vanguard must have a militant arm so it’s logical to demand that they must have solid links into the armed forces & the police & the intelligence services. The vanguard must also be able to reward its members which, among other things, means access to lots of money & influence. The vanguard must have a political dimension either as a full-fledged party or with members, or access to members, in the major parties.
When looking for potential vanguards especially hidden ones in operation today, it’s useful to search for somewhat cohesive groups that fall in the 5-10% range in any given region, social strata or community, profession or endeavour. For example, in some countries, homosexuals might be able to constitute a vanguard. Or, selected ethnic communities like emigrant Chinese throughout South Asia. Or, large prison populations as in the U.S.A. Or, university graduates who might be able to operate as a stealth vanguard? Or, special forces within the armed forces or police or intelligence services?
Of course, there can also be positive vanguards, filled with inspiring idealists who want to make a difference. These can be ecological groups, animal protection societies, anti-poverty and social action groups. These types of vanguards have been identified by some “intelligence” services as terrorists.
When it’s successful, any given group that was active enough and assumed significant power might be called vanguard in retrospect; but, it’s in the advance analysis where we want to be able to identify these potentially disruptive & destabilizing forces. Where are the vanguards?
The Idea of the Vanguard, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications. He may be contacted at evan.palmer@sympatico.ca
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Who really broke the Enigma code! by Evan Palmer
Who really broke the Enigma code!
You may have heard about Bletchley park. You may have also heard about Alan Turing and other British mathematicians who worked on Enigma. Since the secrets surrounding Enigma started emerging in the early 1970s, the main focus has been on Britian’s role in cracking this supposedly unbreakable code.
Rejewski. Rozycki. Zygalski.
It’s a rare person who will have any clue as to who these people are other than assuming they are Polish (they are).These are the Polish mathematicians who really broke theEnigma code along with the help of a small Polish contingent of about 60 persons including those who risked their lives to retrieve a broken Enigma machine from a German military vehicle accident.
The Poles worked with French intelligence and using their own data & the French information and advanced mathematical analysis, they broke the code prior to the start of the second world war. Constant effort was needed as the Germans kept refining the machine – adding rotors, adding other components, making the odds longer and longer at ever being able to crack it when its keys were changed every day.
The Enigma code machine had a long and convoluted history. Invented by Dutch naval officers in 1915, it was obtained by a German businessman who took out a patent on it in 1918 and began selling it. In 1924 the German military adapted it and began using it to encrypt military communications.
There has been a not too subtle campaign to minimize or ignore the Polish contribution. If mentioned at all, it’s as a footnote. The Poles while having a small team achieved breakthroughs in all aspects of the Enigma code machine. They acquired, often at great risk, the first Enigma machines not in German hands and built facsimiles. They devised the mathematics that assisted in cracking the early & later codes. They came up with the technique of running Enigma machines in series to speed up the deciphering process – which they called “Bomba”.
As Jozef Garlinski notes in his book “Hitler’s Last Weapons”, the Poles were officially working on breaking Enigma in 1932. They had their intelligence services collecting data, they were monitoring radio traffic and liasing with French intelligence. Poland was decrypting German military traffic by the end of 1937. Dabrowa provides other details on this momumental work at http://www.avoca.ndirect.co.uk/enigma/index.html
Of course, there was still tremendous effort and ingenuity required by the Bletchley folks to break the daily key setting and keep up with advances and in these efforts Turing and the others were outstanding – but how much easier their task was when it had been explained in detail by the Poles.
Rejewski. Rozycki. Zygalski.
They deserve our recognition and appreciation.
Who really broke the Enigma code!, Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications. He may be contacted at evan.palmer@sympatico.ca
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
The Abode of Consciousness by Evan Palmer
A key question regarding consciousness is if there is, in fact, an abode for it. Does consciousness reside in any one place? Another issue related to the abode metaphor is if there’s ever an overlap of consciousnesses. Is it proposed that consciousness is one entity’s perception and awareness of itself and its environs but that there is never a merging of one consciousness into another? Or, that if there is any type of merging that it’s rare.
Another way of approaching the mystery of consciousness is as a process like the shining of a light in the dark. The existence around us to be perceived and aware of is there and our consciousness is whatever part of that “is-ness” that we alight on. We’re consciously aware of that and nothing else. Our consciousness patches & remembers the various instances where our consciousness has alighted and that’s how we gain an impression of wholeness or movement or continuity.
Other potential aspects of consciousness revolve around different levels of awareness and consciousness and the layering or aggregation of them into “higher” or more complex consciousnesses. In the same vein, there can be aspects of consciousness that revolve around interactions which posit that consciousness, or part of it, is a “conversation” or a “dance” – the consciousness is in the exchange, say, between two consciousnesses as a conversation, or as a dance, say, when between a consciousness and an awareness or an object or a force.
There is a problem with the old dualism issue – either matter and mind are separate and somehow interact or don’t; or they are in reality aspects of each other. In most models, matter is primary and mind is an effect or process of it; in a very small number of other models, mind is primary and matter is an effect or aspect of it. From a consciousness perspective, this article will take the “mind is primary” route and see where that leads.
If the universe as we know it is “aware” either as a result of being created out of single indivisible supremely aware “substance” or as a result of awareness having an almost infinite range where even atomic interactions can be seen as representing a type of consciousness then we presented with a mind-boggling confluence of interactions and effects across all ranges of size and boundaries of space and time. It could be a place where everything from the smallest particles to the largest expanses of space to waves of every size and speed to “living” entities to memories of various types could form part of a consciousness spectrum. It’s not important that some of these forms of “consciousness” might be intensely foreign to us.
This would be a universe where many types of consciousness could inhabit, overlap and interact simultaneously. In such a universe could there be elemental particles or energies associated with consciousness? Perhaps, a “cogiton” to join other speculative particles like the “graviton” and the “chroniton”?
Consciousness is a tricky phenomena as it typically includes psychological constructs like the “unconscious”. This, however, opens up an important idea – the consciousness that we see and are somewhat aware of versus the vast underlying structure upon which it sits and interacts. This highlights that consciousness itself feeds from many tributaries, not all continuously or evenly interacting or available. The tributaries themselves are fed by various means. In the end, nothing is not touched or involved.
This view of consciousness may see it as an immense intricate “field” or “space”. A large part of it may consist of “potentials”.
In the Julian Jaynes book, “The Origin of Consciousness”, among other things he talks about consciousness as the result of a conversation between the two hemispheres of the human brain. To extend this approach at the human level, what if there are varying degrees of awareness and consciousness throughout the entire human body. What if all the cells have a cellular consciousness; the organs their own distinctive awareness and intelligence – where “going with my gut” or “following my heart” is more than merely an expression? Does the large percentage of the human body occupied by bacteria affect its consciousness? If accurate then a picture emerges of a dialogue (possibly an occasional debate) among all parts of a body and its environs.
In such a world, trees and forests can have a consciousness; rivers and seas and oceans; everything. Each thing aggregating upwards and outwards, vertically and laterally. All the consciousnesses of a single bird in a flock aggregating into the awareness of the flock itself, perhaps spilling over into the wind. Different levels and types of consciousness absorbing and interacting all the time.
Can consciousness aggregate? And, if so, how? Can a higher or greater consciousness emerge from the merging and interaction of various consciousnesses?
Inevitably, this leads us to the definition of who we think we are. If consciousness is a process which always represents an interaction and its memory trace then if we believe we are our consciousness, we only exist when we interact or remember. As was asked in an earlier article, is your voice and spoken words “you”? Yes and No. Similarly, is your consciousness and its memory “you”?
It sounds a lot like what the great sage Nagarjuna stated: “Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves.”
Can “awareness” exist if there is nothing to perceive? Or no-one perceiving?
The Abode of Consciousness, Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications. He may be contacted at evan.palmer@sympatico.ca
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Nothing to Choose From – The Infinitude of Discriminations by Evan Palmer
Probably the most fertile ground for discord in any society is that of treating one person differently from another because of what is construed to be an invalid, unjust or unfair reason.
This treatment can refer to a person to person exchange, or between a person and an institution or society or government and on and on. Once you start down the path of discerning discriminations, it really is boundless.
There you quickly find yourself at the threshold of having to have a valid basis for deciding against someone about anything. This is usually a good thing but it can become unmanageable and disorienting especially when it’s rarely discussed at any length or depth.
The “valid” in “valid basis” is a malleable word. It needs defining and examples. As does “construed” because that depends a great deal on who’s doing the construing.
We’re only going to scratch the surface although there may be a way to cut through the gordian knot of discrimination.
For any person in question regarding possible forms of discrimination, there are considerations about what roles that person is to play; what functions they are to perform; what authority they are to be to granted and are they able to grant; and what types of interactions & exchanges are they to be involved with.
These factors all involve treating persons in specified ways and usually affect decisions about how someone is to be considered or treated. Then if discriminations are to be consciously employed, valid reasons, if there are any, must be put out in the open. They are often couched in terms of personal or public safety questions, national security issues or religious or spirtual beliefs. The counters to discriminations work best when the distinctions in sight are unassailable like religious beliefs – how can anyone question religious beliefs? (That will surely come especially as some of the more egregrious tenets of various religions come to light in the Age of Internet)
How do we discriminate, let us count some of the ways.
By gender – only men can/should do this, only women can/should do that, only boys, only girls. It gets more graphic in some cultures/religions when menstruation is involved and prohibitions are invoked; or, genital mutilations (and this does include circumcision regardless of bogus health claims).
By religion – only persons of a given religion will be considered; only persons of a given religion will not be considered; persons belonging to smaller cult-like or “foreign” followings will be considered suspect.
By race – persons of a given race will be considered or accepted; persons of a given race will not be considered or accepted. In some cases, persons of a given race may not even be considered to be humans. They may appear human-like but by some magical stroke of illogic they are pseudo-humans, lower beings akin to dogs or horses, to be used by the master.
By age – persons of a given age range cannot vote; persons of a given age range can be drafted into the armed forces and forced to learn how to kill and be shipped off to wars they may not agree with or that may even be illegal. Persons of a given age range may be excluded from certain jobs or forced to retire/quit.
By sexual orientation – persons of a particular sexual orientation are accepted; persons of another sexual orientation are not accepted.
By physical appearance – persons who have deformities or handicaps are not accepted; persons who do not walk or talk or sit or stand a certain way will not be considered or accepted. Women whose breasts are too large or small are not accepted. Men who are bald or too short are not accepted. Or, no midgets or giants need apply.
By culture or ethnicity – persons who belong to a particular ethnic group or culture are not to be considered or accepted. In fact, we may actively seek to exclude them and they will be rejected if they somehow gained entrance to “our” group or company or club. Persons with the wrong names are to be excluded.
By language – persons who do not speak a given language at all or at a certain level of fluency are not to be considered or accepted. Persons who only speak a given language are to be excluded.
By wealth – persons who are poor are not to be considered or accepted; persons who are rich are to be given prefential access & treatment; persons who are rich are to be considered guilty or suspect. Only landholders can vote.
By citizenship – persons who are citizens of a given country are not to be considered or accepted; persons who are citizens of a given country are to be considered or accepted or given special treatment or access.
By genealogy – this was a bigger consideration earlier on with aristocratic bloodlines and the like; it ties in with race for some. All the “royal” houses carry this form of distinction – you cannot ascend to the throne now without the correct pedigree. The incumbents will search out for a suitable “outsider” to enrich the gene pool of a given blueblood line. This can lead to abusive forms of discrimination based on the humanity or lack thereof of different “persons” under consideration. Think slavery. Think genocide.
By social status – persons given or denied consideration or acceptance based on whether they are aristocrats, wealthy, famous, powerful. This would include types of caste systems and mandatory lifetime guilds based on crafts & skills.
By mental disability – persons given or denied consideration or acceptance because of perceived or real mental differences. In most cases, this is mainly focused on mental challenges that make one dangerous to others, but, often enough it’s just being different that’s the problem (It scares people).
By membership – persons given or denied consideration or acceptance because of their membership in a specified club or organization. One of the worries about this form of distinction is that some of these organizations are secret or have significant secret mandates; they often transcend national boundaries and laws and are usually not subject to any societal oversight. This would also include criminal syndicates and special extra-legal units of police, armed forces and intelligence services. And political parties both public and underground.
The fact that such and such a type of discrimination is less in force now than previously does not dilute the need for it being categorized. Any form can be revitalized in an instant given the right conditions.
The basic driving phenomenon is that anything that can distinguish one person from another can be used as a basis for discrimination. The discriminations we are most familiar with merely being the most obvious or easiest to detect or the ones that arouse the most fear or disgust.
Making distinctions is one of the primal talents of humans. Assigning judgements and emotions and attendant values and actions is typically when our problems ensue.
The countervailing human need is to be treated equally, justly & fairly.
The issue of discrimination is usually framed as a legal issue but it also reflects a society’s stance even if that society also has many conflicting opinions within itself.
Society as a whole would consider that requirements for education credentials are a legitimate form of discrimination. But there are constraints on this requirement – Is the education credential being requested relevant to the job function? Can restrictions be placed on whose credentials are accepted?
Some of the types of bias that are, or were, considered acceptable: for/against childless couples; for/against families considered “too large”; for/against fashionable or unfashionable persons; for/against artistic persons; for/against people who are considered attractive or unattractive; for/against persons considered healthy or unhealthy.
One of the most difficult discriminations to address are those against what are often referred as issues of character although some have been re-categorized as mental health or genetic pre-dispositions. For example, is it fair to discriminate against someone who has an addiction? Does the type of addiction matter? Are there limits on how a criminal conviction can be used against someone? The admission of a problem is typically a mandatory step in being considered along with seeking help and adhering to a rehabilitation program.
Then there are the complications of times of war & conflict when patriotism and accusations of collaboration enter the picture. Everything gets boiled down to the ultimate simplistic discrimination: “for us or against us”. It implies that the other discriminations have been surmerged by this new all-encompassing distinction but they always re-emerge after the conflict, sometimes during.
They never disappear because they are integral to the human makeup. It really is endless.
Wait until we encounter non-human sentient beings to see how powerful and resilent discrimination is and can be. There will be tsunami of it then.
Is there any way out or over, under, or through this morass? Perhaps.
The third Chinese Chen (Zen) patriarch, Hsin Hsin Ming, devoted a meditation/chant to the phenomena of discrimination. We’ll end with some of his observations & admonishments as translated by the Zen Centre of Rochester, New York: “even slight distinctions .. set earth and heaven far apart”, “discard opinions pro and con”, “our choice to choose and to reject prevents our seeing this simple truth”, “the more you talk and think on this the further from the truth you’ll be”, “this heavy burden weighs you down – O why keep judging good and bad?”, “if mind does not discriminate all things are as they are, as One”.
Nothing to Choose From – The Infinitude of Discriminations, Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
“300″ as Propaganda by Evan Palmer
Is it pure coincidence that of all the movies that could have been made, based on either fictional or historical stories or that often perplexing mixture of both, that we are now served up a cartoon-based version of the Battle of Thermopylae?
Can there be any doubt that by whatever various dark circuitous routes, the psych-ops folks of the American military and intelligence cyclops have managed to serve up a mass-market propaganda movie that helps prepare the American and world public for a war on Iran?
One of the effects of the world becoming a smaller place is that it is more difficult to get away with the subterfuge, claims or “stories” that you may have formerly gotten away with or to confine the “message” to its target audience.
The movie in question is “300″ which is a visually-riveting portrayal of the Battle of Thermopylae and particularly the 300 Spartans of King Leonides’ bodyguard. They, the only Spartans at the Battle, are treated as the real Greeks (and men) and the Persians are shown as a monstrous invading horde. For Americans, who are notoriously ignorant of both geography and history, perhaps this is as good as it gets. If so, then America and the entire world is in even more trouble than previously thought.
Military historians like the father/son Dupuy duo state that Xerxes’ army entering Greece was approximately 200,000 strong. The movie claims a million or more Persians attacked – allowing numbers from ancient sources to stand when it suits their one-dimensional characters & objectives – in this case, depicting the Persians as a terrfying horde and magnifying the heroic stance of the outnumbered Greeks.
The Persian army consisted of loyal troops from the 20 provinces of its empire and included Greek soldiers & mercenaries from Asia Minor. The Greek army at Thermopylae comprised 7,000 hoplites and archers including Leonides’ bodyguard.
“300″ strives to glorify war in a typically fascist manner – sacrifice, submission, military values and valour are in the service of the state, in this case, Sparta. A state out of step with the rest of Greece and where the majority of its populace was enslaved; when not engrossed in a military campaign, Sparta lived in constant fear of a slave (i.e. helot) revolt.
Is it also a coincidence that this propaganda piece was released on the eve of the Persian New Year? Probably, it’s doubtful the propagandists even knew there was a Persian New Year.
It would interesting to follow at the deepest levels all the money trails for this movie and the decision-making involved in seeing it produced and distributed. This research should go beyond the first line of companies and follow them to their “owners”. It must see past the “fronts” and “shells” and discern the hidden hands in helping it get into the mass market. The timing is too attuned to the imperialistic agenda to have just happened. It follows in the mould of the Lord of the Rings and its war-worship but is more specific and harder to treat as an allegory.
Another more ominous purpose in this “message” is in indoctrinating the masses to the idea of “300″ as in the “Committee of 300″ or the “300″ world ruling families. Be on the look-out for more advertising for the “300″ as saviours and heroes, a bulwark against the hordes, worthy recipients of dictatorial powers and the like.
300 as Propaganda, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Copyright 2007
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Why did Germany attack the USSR on June 22, 1941? by Evan Palmer
As has been said many times before, history is written by the victors; and, in those histories, some things will never get recorded while others will be recorded in a biased, often distorted, way.
In the post-war realm of courtrooms and the world stage, it is rare to see prosecutions of the victors for doing the same actions that see the losers jailed and/or hung. The crimes and indiscretions of the victors will likely stay secret for a long time. The new truths being delayed long enough so that all attendant benefits have been gained by various interested parties.
For example, many existing histories of the second World War make no mention of the breaking of the Enigma code and its immense role in the waging of the Allied western campaign. Its revelation is fairly recent. It is easy to assume that many other actions and records remain hidden? There’s no doubt that there will be numerous other revisions to the historical record but because each set of “facts” and attendant myths have their beneficiaries, there is always resistance to any substantive change to the historical record. Potentially, this is one such change.
On June 22, 1941, the German Reich launched a massive attack into the Soviet Union; within a short time, this became known in the West as the infamous “Eastern Front”.
There have been assertions as to why Germany would launch such an invasion at that time but they ring false given that Hitler and his General Staff were acutely aware of the dangers of a two-front war. Why with Britian & her colonies still resisting, and America leaning their way, would Germany engage another much more dangerous adversary? To try to pin the entire rationale for this stupendous decision on the meglomania of Hitler and his demand for “living space” at that particular moment seems to stretch our credulity to the breaking point.
Another aspect of the attack that causes one to wonder is the fact that German forces were not prepared for winter. To have expected the eastern war to have concluded before winter does not make any sense. The completeness and efficiency of the German staff would not have normally countenanced this lack of preparedness.
What does make sense, however, is that there was an over-bearing reason for Germany to attack at that time and no later. The attack date had already been delayed several times. The logical reason for the Reich’s invasion is that the Soviet Union was manouevering itself into an attack position and Germany could not allow that to occur. The longer the Reich delayed, the greater the danger became.
In fact, an expatriate Russian intelligence officer with access to Soviet era archives makes this very claim. In his book “Icebreaker” (and other books), Victor Suvorov states that Stalin had put the USSR onto a war footing in 1939 with plans to be ready to launch a Soviet invasion in 1941. Suvorov claims that the USSR was set to invade Germany and the rest of Europe a mere two weeks after Germany launched her own surprise attack. American historian Professor Stolfi in “Hitler’s Panzers East” also contends that Stalin amassed troops on his western border in preparation for a Soviet invasion planned for later that summer. Professor Albert Weeks in his book “Stalin’s Other War” makes the same point.
Evidence that Suvorov gives of the offensive nature of Stalin’s preparations include secret positioning of troops and munitions in forward bases near the border. The large number of paratroopers that were trained with gliders ready. The large number of fast attack tanks that were similarly ready and in forward positions. The Soviets also had produced more submarines than any other country. All of these developments and deployments were suited to an offensive operation.
These circumstances explain clearly and powerfully why the Germans launched their invasion when they did. They had to pre-empt the Soviet attack or face rapid and certain defeat. In fact, all of Europe would have been quickly rolled up. It also explains why the German advances were so startling and deep – the Soviets were positioned for offensive operations and could not switch to defense in time. Millions of Soviet soldiers were captured or killed. Soviet supplies and equipment were used by the Germans to continue their advance into Russia.
This scenario also fits in with Communist doctrine of the time – eventual world domination, using capitalism to defeat itself economically and through inevitable internal conflicts, using war to advance the revolution of the proletariet.
Time will tell if this version of this part of history gets validated. These events as with others have become heavily politicized and propagandized and mythologized to the extent that certain “facts” and interpretations are considered dogma and others heresy. It may be that another sixty plus years may be needed to gain an adequate distance for dispassionate and impartial investigations.
But, it is not surprising that two dictators would want to take over surrounding territories and would be willing to wage war to get them. It is not surprising since they shared common borders that they would eventually go to war with each other – each vying for the element of surprise. After all, by that date, the USSR had taken over the three Baltic nations and half of Poland, tried to conquer Finland and murdered millions of its own citizens. As with many things, the real question is in the timing.
Why did Germany attack the USSR on June 22, 1941?, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Copyright 2007
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
How To Make a Universe by Evan Palmer
It’s completely undefined and open. There is no thing. No time. No space. No existence. What is your starting point? Only the original being exists. The original will. The original intention which can manifest itself as you desire and purposefully think it.
You, as a co-creator, want to make a glorious creation. You want “creatures” in it. They will not only be “of” the original being but they will “be” the original being because everything anyone creates is made from and continues to be the original being. The original being has “free will” and therefore all creatures have it. This over time also makes them co-creators – they also make “creations” which can only exist of and from the original source, the ground of all being.
You as co-creator want your realm to be believeable for your creations, its inhabitants. You want your creations to be enraptured and enthralled by it. It might be good if the creations give thanks to their creator; but, it is redundant after all.
Some of the co-creators might be very powerful entities. They may “create” or “cause” vast realms of their “own” filled with every kind of creation. Works of Sublime High Art. Maybe this universe we find ourselves in.
The ideal situation in these realms is where the “creatures” are not aware that there is a creation, or not aware of its boundaries, or its true origin. To these circumscribed creatures, it just “is”.
But a realm such as this is more than just creations and creatures that are visible. Its framework is more than what’s visible or tactile or sensate in any way by any creature. A realm like this needs underlying laws and deep structure. It needs things like space and energy and time and fundamental forces and constants and a fabric. It needs information about itself in the form of codes and recordings and memories of every kind.
How do you as an immensely powerful co-creator involve your creatures in your creation? How does your realm become everything?
One of the best tools you discover to achieve this blinding, as it were, is causality. Causality is the apparent relation between one thing or action or force and another. It will underpin everything. It will conjure up “time” as a plane where “things” play out. It will conjure up “space”. It will be the most powerful of convincers and binders.
Your realm, this realm, will use marvelous stagecraft on a scale far beyond any petty creature’s imagination. Its magic will completely master misdirection on a galactic platform. It will be a magical architecture of the gods. It will feed delusions and nurture wrong conclusions. Here all assumptions, facts, correlations and deductions will be invalid. They will seem very right but they will in fact be utterly wrong.
To make the illusion of your realm seamless and as effortless as a vortex, you will intensify the experience of your creatures and creations. How? As much as possible, you will keep their focus narrow and short. You will speed their perception and existence up. You will raise the stakes for them to cloud their realm minds further. A barrage of details and facts and feelings and thoughts will help to anchor them firmly in your realm. There will be inducements to believe and accept. There will be a worship of form and ritual and symbols. The creatures of your co-creation realm will be aware of and mindful of the reactions of others and of themself. Continuity in this causal realm will become critical. Memories of this realm will become dear and will be preserved through further memories and actions.
Your co-creation realm cannot extinguish free will or choice but it can try to appropriate them and discount them. You will provide numerous possibilities for discovery and mystification and reward – this will entrance “your” co-creations (not really “your” creations). You will give them pain and pleasure. You will give them feelings and emotions. You will give them forbidden actions and things to tie them down more tightly. You will bind them further with horror and injustice. You will blind their inner truth with heaven and hell and demons and angels.
But your best encumbrance will be the worship of you as the “one” because of your magnificence and that of “your” co-creation realm. This will be so incapacitating that almost no-one will see past it.
The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer, How To Make a Universe
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Copyright 2007
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
More Big Lies by Evan Palmer
They lie softly, they lie boldly, they steal everything we own.
It’s called “globalization” but it could more accurately be called “gobblezation” characterized as it is by greed and waste and self-serving urgency.
gobble
to seize upon eagerly
To devour in greedy gulps.
To take greedily; grab:
To eat greedily or rapidly.
globalization
to extend to other or all parts of the globe
growth to a global or worldwide scale
make worldwide
gobblezation
To devour the world or its resources in greedy gulps
To greedily or rapidly grab & extend to other or all parts of the globe
It’s called “privatization” but it really should be called “piratization” because it is bold theft characterized by phony logic served with platitudes and violence or threat of violence.
pirate
any plunderer, predator, etc.
to commit piracy upon; plunder; rob.
One who preys on others; a plunderer.
privatization
to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise
changing something from state to private ownership or control
The conversion of a public enterprise to a private enterprise.
piratization
To plunder public enterprise while converting it to private ownership or control
To prey on public or state assets and take private ownership or control of them
The forces of gobblezation and piratization are rushing to prevail before the rest of the world wakes up and starts to effectively oppose them. Timing is crucial; once you lose the war, it’s typically a long time before you can again challenge the “winner” and then the challenge can be very costly and painful.
One of the key things to wake up to is the fact that all the official statements and pronouncements and rationales are a massive web of lies, each lie supporting the other in a vast edifice of misstatement, deception and amorality.
The misrepresentations are at the stage where they are collossal and continuous. World leaders are killed, some in broad daylight, and it’s explained away in a blizzard of officious half-truths and outright falsehoods. Billions of dollars is stolen or misappropriated and it too is explained away or covered up, ideally it never sees the light of day and stays unknown and hidden away. There’s no point in trying to pick out the bits of truth riddled throughout the rotting mass of falsehood. A truth that rests on a lie is a lie. A truth that is supported by a lie is a lie.
The first step in righting a society is in calling things by their true name – a lie is a lie, theft is theft, murder is murder. We have to start over from the beginning without preconceptions or stakeholders – just a pure intent and good will.
More Big Lies, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Copyright 2007
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
VA Tech Tragedy – More Guns is not the Answer by Evan Palmer
The American NRA vultures and their “cold dead” supporters have emerged again after the VA Tech tragedy to bruit their nauseating mantra of “more guns equals more safety”. Several of their mouthpieces and like-minded bloody-minded sympathizers have stated that all would be well if only everyone, or mostly everyone, was armed because then the VA Tech killer would have been shot outright.
It appears that it has occurred to no-one in the NRA movement that if this disturbed young man had not been able to buy a gun, let alone a high-powered Glock, then this tragedy may not have happened. He may have had time to be diagnosed and treated and the young people that he shot might be alive. What rational reason does a person have for buying a Glock?
The competence of the VA Tech administration (and possibly the campus & local police) is a separate matter. How what was initially reported as a single homicide can be treated as an event that would not interrupt the normal course of events at the school is difficult to understand? How the administration of that school can not know that there were actually two homicides in the first incident and that the killer was unknown and at large is also hard to fathom? Wouldn’t your first order of business be to positively confirm what happened and if there was a continuing danger? Wouldn’t you alert the whole school and search the grounds until you had either apprehended the suspect or ascertained that he was not on the grounds?
Everyone being armed and then having this threatening person shot almost right away is a fascist dream and just as realistic. Will everyone have their guns with them? Will they be able to pull the gun out properly and use it? Are the guns to be carried around fully loaded? Will their aim be any good? Will it be obvious to anyone who is the suspect when everyone is walking around with guns looking for him? It is likely they would shoot as many innocent people as gunmen.
What’s wrong with using pepper spray or other non-lethal weapons to stop these would-be or in-progress killers? Some of the dispensers have a good range and should work well in a building.
Even “official” armed groups are dangerous. Random reports suggest that six of the Columbine victims were shot by a SWAT team. The public won’t know about that though because the records have been sealed. And, while various police forces are known to be trigger-happy and have the wrongful death suits to prove it, they are trumped by the plague of heavily-armed SWAT teams roaming around the US at any given time. Some of the teams are well-trained, disciplined and effective but many are not, the modern-day equivalent of a posse, they often come in shooting whether they’ve got the right person or even the right house. More guns always equals more deaths.
The stats for the US is something like 30,000 deaths by gun a year with 250 million guns in circulation for a 300+ million population.
If one looks at any war zone, you’ll find a significant number of soldiers getting shot by their own comrades or allies or even themselves. And this is usually happening under a strict control regime for having a weapon and the ammunition for it and under the rules of engagement. Accidents with guns can be deadly – everything with guns can be deadly which is why society wants to control them and their use.
Potentially having everyone armed is a recipe for disaster and pleases no-one except the gun manufacturers and their fanatic followers because very quickly you’re into a full-fledged arms race – each person or side going for bigger guns, faster guns, more guns and then later, depending, they will want and acquire grenades, bombs, and missiles. Is the NRA a secret propaganda arm of the gun industry?
The same amoral “protection” logic is used in wars where one side, usually the losing side, will complain that if only they had dropped more bombs then all would have been well. This is part of the terrible logic of the Dresden or Tokyo firebombings. It spreads out to every type of ordinance – if only we had laid more mines; if only we had devastated the enemy more completely; if only we had used more of every weapon we possessed.
The arm-everyone logic is not consistent because we have the usual hypocritical governments pushing to stop certain countries from getting the same nuclear weapons they have. In the case of the US, they will state that they support the right of citizens to bear arms yet not certain countries. If citizens can bear arms then how much more can nations bear arms but to prevent our mutual destruction, the desired solution for nations is disarmament. Wouldn’t that solution be the same for societies?
The question is easily answered: if tomorrow there were no guns, bombs or nukes in the world, would it be a better place or not? Versus – if tomorrow everyone had guns and bombs and nukes, would the world then be better? The answer for any normal peace-loving, law-abiding, rational person is obvious – especially today in Virginia.
VA Tech Tragedy – More Guns is not the Answer, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Copyright 2007
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Colonel Westhusing, Jane Jacobs, & the Guardian Moral Syndrome by Evan Palmer
Death is an occasion for sadness. How much sadness will vary with how close one was to the deceased, the circumstances of their passing, and the character and charisma of the departed.
It is always more poignant when the person was young. or there was a miscarriage of justice or the person had special talents or genius such as in music or writing or, in the particular case I want to touch on, in philosophy.
The world is short of philosophers. It always has been and I think it always will be. If we had more philosophers, and we listened to them more carefully, the world would be a dramatically improved place. Every time a philosopher dies, there should be a pause in the life of a country and a summing up.
At age 44, Colonel Westhusing was found dead in Baghdad, It was ruled a suicide and appears to have been the result of deep depression and disgust brought on by the conduct of America as the occupation force in Iraq. Colonel Westhusing was a philosopher.
In 1992, the book “Systems of Survival” by Jane Jacobs was published. It is a book on the “Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics” and is done in the style of a Platonic dialogue which is appropriate because it was Plato who first elaborated on a society comprised of a Philosopher-King, Guardians and Producers. Jacobs has used this idea and infused with ideas from chivalry and the samurai and various caste systems, she has distilled the specific set of ethics & morals that guide the Guardian class versus the Commercial class. It is a remarkably powerful analysis and it clearly shows why Colonel Westhusing would so deeply feel the way he did.
Guardians are different from Producers. Throughout history, there has been a division between the two which is not arbitrary but based on the incompatibility of doing both jobs properly in a single person or a single occupation. For example, a society cannot have its police negotiating their services directly with the citizenry; where that happens, there will be a breakdown in the law and a diminishment of life & commerce. Guardians protect and maintain the framework of a society including its borders, its standards, & its laws. Loyalty, honour & prowess are watchwords for a Guardian while Service for the public good animates their actions.
Jane Jacobs outlined how problems arise when the ethics & morals from the Commercial syndrome are mixed or conjoined with the ethics & morals of the Guardian syndrome or vice versa. Society would see what she refers to as “monstrous hybrids”. Soldiers & Police for sale; bureaucrats well-schooled in rules & regulations and hierarchies trying to run businesses that need inventiveness, efficiency and initiative. Giant “managed care” corporations attempting to mix Guardian service to society and Commercial trying to maximize profits.
Mercenaries are also “monstrous hybrids” and one that Colonel Westhusing found particularly upsetting. The Colonel tried to fight the corruption and disreputable, even criminal, conduct he saw but he found that the bureaucrats were adept at ignoring his entreaties. Guardians are taught and believe in loyalty and respect hierarchy and this makes it especially difficult for a true Guardian to “treasure honour” and “show fortitude” when these values are being betrayed by rent-a-soldiers and disregarded or whitewashed by his own command. That the mercenaries make 2 to 3 times what regular soldiers earn makes it all the more galling.
The current American administration, chock full of strutting chickenhawks, is doing more than bankrupting America’s finances & reputation. They are destroying their Armed Forces morally. At some point, probably when most needed, these guns for hire will melt away and there will be precious few left to “serve”. The moral authority of the leadership will be gone with the whirlwind. When a nation’s moral compass is wrecked, it can take decades to recover.
Worse, when the Commercial sector is also corrupted with Guardian ethics, it no longer functions either. Vast government-largesse-dependent companies will quickly fail when their public tax-fed troughs are taken away. America will soon have its arms-makers as the only sizable domestic manufacturing it has left. That practically guarantees more war and eventual doom.
Maybe that is also what the good Colonel saw – that impending doom and a profound betrayal. Don’t let Colonel Westhusing’s death sink beneath the waves and out of memory. When a person of this calibre sees no way out, then this should be taken as seriously as possible by the rest of us because a philosopher can see deeper and better and farther than the rest of us. Read some philosophy, contemplate, and then take positive action!
Colonel Westhusing, Jane Jacobs, & the Guardian Moral Syndrome, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Copyright 2007
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Fruit Flies Have Free Will by Evan Palmer
If there is only one ultimate source, and the Theory of Everything has been trying to posit that for many years, then everything that exists is made of that “suchness”. In some cases, we may call it a substance but it is more than that. And if that source has awareness and consciousness then everything that issues from it will have awareness and consciousness. And if that source has free will and is the embodiment and enabler of free will then everything that issues from it will have “free will”.
In that context, the conclusion by a group of scientists studying fruit flies that they are manifesting free will is not unbelievable. In fact, it should follow that in every case where there are two or more possibilities then there is an opportunity for free will. It may be the case that even at the atomic level, we will find that the “choices” being made by the electrons and protons and other particles are not governed by purely stochastic processes.
At what point would the awareness or consciousness of something become observable to a person? Does aggregation plays a part in consciousness & awareness? Or interaction?
Perhaps consciousness is nothing more than a conversation between two awarenesses. In some instances, maybe the concept of a dance is more appropriate but where it is the interaction, or the feeling of interaction, that gives an impression of consciousness.
This can help explain the fleeting nature of consciousness and its specificity – you are consciously aware of only one thing at a time. It may be that humans may only observe consciousness at a certain level of aggregation or through interaction which may also be governed by the level of aggregation.
In that scenario, an individual bee has one consciousness, a hive has another. One person, one consciousness; a crowd of people, another.
Or within an individual – the organs themselves; for instance, a heart may have one consciousness, a liver or stomach another, a brain another; the whole organism another consciousness again; two people in love another, etc. etc.
A tree one consciousness, a grove another, a forest yet another. The Earth as a whole manifesting a whole Earth consciousness. Similarly for the Sun and the solar system.
Maybe fruit flies will help to lead us out of an “only humans have free will” ghetto and towards a deeper awareness & understanding of our bonds both imaginary and real.
Fruit Flies Have Free Will, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Copyright 2007
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Free Trade Lie by Evan Palmer
In the dogma of the marketeers, free enterprise and unencumbered trade is the elixir of prosperity and the guarantor of freedom. In reality, it is no such thing.
A great debt is owed to Chalmers Johnson in clearly and unequivocally exposing this truth in his book “The Sorrows of Empire”. As he points out, “… none of the world’s twenty-four reasonably developed capitalist nations… got where they are today by following… globalization doctrine.” (pg 262, Metropolitan Books, 2004)
In fact, those countries, led by the United States, preach and pontificate to the poorer nations, telling them self-serving falsehoods while denying them the same growth and maturation techniques that they used; what Chalmers Johnson categorizes as “kicking away the ladder”.
Yet, “between 1790 and 1940, the United States was probably the most highly-protected economy on earth” (pg 263).
Thus, for 150 years, with the multitudinous resources and advantages that the United States had, it still had to protect its industries and infrastructure.
The devastation caused by this facile false doctrine to countries like Argentina and Indonesia is appalling and criminal. Surely, the War Crimes tribunal should enlarge its scope to encompass economic war crimes as well because only the term “war” can adequately describe the malice and impact these “policies” have had. And it is very premeditated.
In 1981, the United States decided that action was needed to “discredit state-assisted capitalism” such as practised in Japan and South Korea. It was nothing more than ensuring subservience and economic peonage. At the same time, America embarked on a campaign to “weaken the sovereignity of Third World nations”. This is the type of aggressive war that was declared illegal at Nuremberg except that as an economic war, it is currently allowed.
“Economic war” and “trade policies” may sound clinical and somewhat harmless but in practice, it means grinding poverty for millions while vast wealth accrues to an ensconced elite and their minions. In addition, most of the people in the wealthy nations will not see any of these ill-gotten gains. Instead we see criminal overlords, skilled in subterfuge and misdirection, posing as cultured and educated, while stealing from and impoverishing hundreds of millions. We see speculation gone wild, infiltrating every facet of our economy, obfuscating every attempt at rational discourse as its purveyors create phony wealth and exchange it by whatever means necessary for real wealth.
The Free Trade Lie, Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Copyright 2007
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
The Blessings of Imprecision by Evan Palmer
It’s safe to say that many dialogues or debates would benefit from more imprecision. Imprecision aids in gaining a strategic perspective. It also aids in discarding less pertinent detail which can reduce clarity rather than enhance it.
Imprecision is the balm of diplomacy; the vital truth about diplomacy is that it is not war. So, when we see diplomats being demeaned and derided, particularly, for their imprecision, then we know we are on the way to conflict, the way of force.
Death counts is one area of public debate where imprecision will often help. Here, the numbering systems of primitive societies, that is, one, two, many, is more useful. Clearly, we still want people who are experts and can derive as objective and accurate an accounting as possible but we must acknowledge that many agendas drive these number counts. Not the least of which is how much reliable relevant information is available.
But, when the toll gets high, it is sufficient for most discussions to simply state that a very large number of persons perished. The indisputable reality is that such a loss of life is a massive tragedy and that “we” should respond as quickly and effectively as possible – to prevent, to detect, to protect, to prosecute. But for the public or the body politic, the fuzzy broad truth is enough, a morass of numbers and maps and charts will not enlighten the matter
The general how and why is useful to uncover but without getting bogged down in too many specifics. As in, at a high-level, a root cause for genocide is having a group, or groups, of people who are considered less than human. This can be from the point of view that a specific group is considered not fully human or a given group considers itself so superior to other groups as to render them subhuman by comparison.
Who feels this way and why or the merits of their arguments should not be part of this discussion which is that any diminishment of a person’s treatment and rights under the law and by society can, in a worst case scenario, lead to genocide or enslavement (which is a kind of “living” genocide).
Another powerful weapon in the arsenal of manipulation and victimization is fear-mongering. While wars have been waged purely for gain, wars can become virulent in scope and menace when fear is successfully invoked. When that happens, there will be many offerings at the temple of the Cult of the Enemy.
Also noteworthy, is an emphasis on differences, say ethnicity or religion or classes or castes, and a slew of associated, wide-ranging postulates which serve to create and maintain an adversarial stance between these groups.
Specificity is a hallmark of repression and arbritrary rule. It allows for the segregation and branding of society. It allows for the differential application of the law and its protections. It permits targeted sanctions based on involuntary membership. The imprecise way of categorizing people is merely to say they’re all humans. All. And further, that they have the same rights. Same. All.
It’s a necessary simplication which is closer to the true sense of what a majority want for our society than any of the various details that may be used to “clarify” society’s meaning but which instead confuse and detract and, ultimately, jeopardize our freedom and security – for a divided, hostile and suspicious world cannot have lasting peace.
The Blessings of Imprecision, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Copyright 2007
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The Urge to End History by Evan Palmer
The urge to end history gets posited in various ways, in isolation, in volleys, as ultimate desolation, as eden remade, but its main attribute is that the desired state we will find ourselves, if we’re alive, is one in which no appreciable change will any longer occur. Stripped of rhetoric, it’s a conclusion to the human journey on this planet, a solid self-sustaining stasis.
This resolution, which some fervently want, is the emergence of a national or global community where major sources of confrontation have been addressed or, more likely, negated.
They are Utopians and whether that Utopia is good or bland, it will be certain and orderly. And this is not a bad thing except for the fact that Utopians with power seem to differ from Utopians without power. Utopians with power seem to be revolutionists at heart and they are the ones who will make history even when they are seeking to end it… in their favour.
Most people are happy with steady, incremental progress and peace. The history they want is unspectacular. But the pushy people who inhabit the corridors of power and whisper in the ears of those who command the armies & the weapons are not satisfied with patience and peace, they seek advantage and they seek dominion.
These are the people who muse about a clash of civilizations or armageddon or startling new weapons that can assure full-spectrum victory. These are the people who constantly wage every kind of war, large and small, against everyone. The methods they use to attain the peace they envisage deforms society to the extent that what is protected in the end is a twisted perverse version of the peaceful community that we began with.
We have to be careful what we give to our leaders since they can fashion it into something quite different. It is safer and more accurate for us to agree that history will never end and that we must live together peacefully. It is much more dangerous to slide into the “dream” that we can somehow end history to our liking.
The Urge to End History, The Way It Can Be, Evan Palmer
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Copyright 2007
Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.
