Foreign

Guide to an insurrection

January 22, 2021 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Just when we thought 2020 was finished, 2021 got off to a foreboding start as Americans attacked their own capitol building in scenes reminiscent of some third world coup. Fortunately, it was completely unsuccessful. Trump has ignominiously left office with a whimper rather than any fanfare. Still, it is worth reviewing this coup/insurrection attempt by Trump and his allies, to understand both the depths of their treason and the legacy America has yet to deal with appropriately.

Long History

Percentages hide the depths of the problem in America that real numbers might reveal

America has been deeply embedded in rebellion from its inception, commencing with British setting fire to the U.S. Capitol in 1814 during the British invasion of Washington. By 1861 to 1865, the American Civil War tore the country apart, demonstrating internal schisms have a deep-rooted history. The end of the American civil war gave rise to the KKK and a growing racist and fascist movement in America. By the time German Fascists emerged in the 1930s, America had established its own fascist movement as manifested by Charles Lindbergh’s “America First” isolationists rhetoric. American support by corporate fascists for the German’s authoritarian efforts in WW2 are well known. Enabling corporations such as IBM, Ford, GM and industrialists like Fred Koch (father of the Koch brothers) enabled a fascist regime. They experienced no real reprisals for supporting the German’s murderous regime. The USA continues to breed fascists and racists and strengthen its growth within its borders. For all the Americans’ rhetoric that protests “this is not who we are“, they might consider a review.

Insurrection or Çoup?

The rest of the world recognising what happened.

These “movements” breed the insurrectionists amongst their constituents. Trump’s leadership encouraged their “activism” within America. I use the description “Insurrectionists” as defined under U.S. law to mean “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers.” However, the Capitol riot’s description as a “coup” by Fiona Hill of Politico is compelling. On Wednesday, 1 pm on the 6th of January 2021, America’s right-wing racist/fascist community descended upon Washington’s Federal Capitol building. They began climbing its walls and smashing into its doors and windows, beating – and in one case killing – Capitol police officers. All to gain access to modify the outcome of the Electoral count, due to be finalised inside what many other Americans, consider the epicentre of American democracy. The insurrectionists were driven by either/or Qanon conspiracy theories, white supremacist racism and a Trump glorifying conservative Christianity. Despite philosophical contradictions, one consistent belief shared by all who stormed the Capitol was a false idea that Trump somehow won the 2020 election. This, despite all the evidence in recounts, court cases and scrutiniser’s oversight evidence, that the opposite is true.

It has been described as a failed attempted coup, long-planned by the rioters and motivated by America’s white supremacist-in-chief, Donald Trump. A president who has now been impeached, yet again, and this time for “aiding and abetting” the insurrection. Accepted now even by his previously most fervent supporter amongst the Republicans, Mitch McConnell. What has become increasingly evident is that the most significant reason for its failure as a coup was the insurrectionist’s incompetence and imbecility.

Election countermoves

Not, although for the lack of endeavoured planning. It wasn’t until the 12th of November a little over a week after the 2020 election that Trump tweeted his alignment to a debunked Qanon claims about voter fraud connected to Dominion Voting Systems that makes voting machines. Having descended into that “rabbit hole”, the claims became more absurd over time. Unfortunately, too many Donald Trump followers began to believe the lies and follow him down that “rabbit hole“. On the other hand, these rioters-to-be had been preparing and training, as revealed in intercepted Zello conversations.

The fascists certainly advertised they were intending to do damage, but America didn't take them seriously. Any regrets now? — The fascists certainly advertised they were intending to do damage, but America didn’t take them seriously. Any regrets now?

Plans fermented over Social Media on sites such as Twitter and Facebook and later Gab and Parler. The consequences of which pushed Twitter and Facebook to crack down on QAnon and other conspiracy nonsense over the summer. Qanon followers frequently openly called for violence and an event known as “the storm“. Many expected January the 6th, was “the storm” although, given the way “after more than four hours, the mob was cleared” and subsequent protests fizzled away, it blew itself out as most storms do.

If journalists knew it then so did America's security apparatus but only 500 capital police were assigned to the Capitol Building — If journalists knew it then so did America’s security apparatus but only 500 capital police were assigned to the Capitol Building

By the 22nd of December, the media (social and otherwise) raised the alarm about January the 6th. Arieh Kovler Twitter thread expressing anxiety about that date also speculated about the 2200 Capital police officers’ inability to defend the capital.

Capital offences

Instead of a cast of thousands, the Capital police felt they did not need a full complement nor any extra support from the FBI or Pentagon despite foreknowledge by US Security services. Barely 500 Capital police without riot gear were deployed to defend the building against a cast of thousands. This failure of command led to U.S. Capitol Police Chief’s resignation, Steven Sund, as he fed his woefully equipped police force to the “lions”. Oddly the Capitol Police arrested only 14 people in sharp distinction to the 400 people arrested protesting Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, or the 181 people arrested in 2017 objecting to the GOP’s elimination of aspects of Obamacare or the 575 people arrested in 2018 while protesting the president’s immigration policies or … well it is a long list. The anomalous treatment of protesters gives credence to the idea that amongst the Capitol police were sympathisers to the “cause“. This was also evidenced by some police taking selfies with the rioters and providing unrestricted entrance to the Capitol while staff and lawmakers were still inside.

Accusations of complicity with the rioters were not isolated to the Capitol Police. Investigations into Republican lawmakers giving Capitol tours to insurrectionists in the week before the riots are being opened. Many events before January 6th prepared the insurgents, as Sandi Bachom, Video Journalist reported. Alex Jones (of Infowars) held a rally inciting crowds in preparation for January 6th where Donald Trump was scheduled to address the crowds at the Ellipse near the Washington monument. By Wednesday the 6th at midday, President Donald Trump in a recorded address encouraged thousands of supporters to march on the US Capitol to protest the election results. Promising to “be there with you” as they proceeded with his march on the Capitol, Trump had other premeditated plans. Trump travelled back to the White House to continue to view what he had unleashed, after having spent time in a Tent equipped with monitors, where his family had drank and watched the coup develop in complete safety.

Meanwhile, on Capitol grounds, some insurrectionists organisers armed with megaphones attempted to coordinate an orchestrated event with a coordinated plan. Many others had not been so well briefed or had the pre-riot tours. The results, although, were chaotic. As some called for peaceful protests, other demanded and exhibited violence dragging police into the crowd and beating them. What was ironic was the numbers of law enforcement and military personnel amongst the rioters and racist support staff amongst the Capitol Police. Eventually, Mike Pence authorised the National Guard to end the riots, as Trump had no stake in ending the chaos.

Aftermath

While Electoral Certification proceedings were halted when the riot began, they resumed at 8 pm. Despite ridiculous objections raised during the proceedings and the mass of Republicans who voted against the count, Biden was confirmed to be the next president. Thereafter the innumerable videos posted by the insurrectionists became the evidentiary material for their subsequent arrests. The FBI’s capacity to track the insurgents was aided by collected Parler posts’ depositories (including deleted entries), as used by the insurrectionists.

Despite whatever planning was put into the coup, it would seem they did not take into their considerations some features of telecommunications infrastructure unique to the Capital building. The Capital has it’s own “cellular and wireless data infrastructure of its own to make communications efficient in a building made largely of stone, and that extends deep underground and has pockets of shielded areas.” Hence every insurrectionist that entered the building were tracked and triangulated by their phones, that innumerable rioters were using to photograph and record. The computers that constitute that telecommunications infrastructure logged everything from their phone number to their location in the building.

The subsequent rebellion petered out in due course but not from a repentant intention but a desire to suppress their identity till another opportunity arose. They will be back in 2024.

Emboldened by the day, right-wing agitators planned further protests in the following days at other capitals. However, the turnout to these was classified as non-events by observers, as National Guard, and law-enforcement agencies were assigned to protect many other State’s capitol grounds.

Despite never winning the popular vote in either election, the twice impeached Donald Trump’s ascension to the president’s office was always supported by racism, religion and xenophobia. On page 13 in his book “Everybody Lies” by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, it was demonstrated that racist Google searches had the highest statistical correlation with support for Trump in the Republican primaries. Trump’s support amongst the bigots for whom racism, xenophobia and misogyny are psychological norms, I discussed four years ago, so I need not rehash that again. Nor do I need to discuss Trump’s relationship to Fascism which has apparently being rediscovered. The American’s support for this social dysfunctionality has not diminished, it has been – for now – merely suppressed.

The embers are still hot, & the passion for conspiracies, racism, and RW Christianity still smoulder.

The insurrection fire supporting installing Trump as president for an indeterminable further term of office cooled, spluttered, but has not died. They are repressed, not repentant. The embers are still hot, and the passion for conspiracies, racism, xenophobia and authoritarian Christianity still smoulder amongst the 74.222 million Americans who voted for Trump. God help America if they ever find a competent fascist to vote for in 2024.

[Correction: An earlier version of this article misrepresented the timing the events of the tent monitoring of the insurrection by Trump and his family.]

Save

Do unto refugees

June 23, 2018 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Australia, a world leader in child abuse.

Deterring and imprisoning asylum seekers is gaining popularity in the western world. Punishment by separation of children from parents now has occurred in both Australia and America invoking community backlash. Many are unaware such practices have a long history in both countries. America forthwith will follow Australia’s indefinite detention practices, even as Trump repudiates his policy on separation of children from parents. These practices contravene the Refugee Convention to which both America and Australia were signatories. Dutton’s commentary emphasised the desire to be rid of this troublesome convention. He commented, “I think there is a need for like-minded countries to look at whether a convention designed decades ago is relevant today”.

I want to examine the relevance of international principles that underpin our history of refugee conventions versus “deterrence” against refugees and their smugglers. As I write this, it is Refugee week, so it is an ideal time to investigate the principles behind “deterrence”.

Human Rights convention

On the 10th of December 2018, Democratic Nations worldwide will celebrate the 69th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Australia’s longest serving Prime Minister, Robert Menzies (a man no one will mistake for a soft-hearted humanitarian) signed the UN Refugee Convention on January the 22nd, 1954. Prime ministers that followed him, both Tony Abbott and John Howard spoke of him being the father of modern Australian Liberal ideology. The former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser would have argued that in the 21st century, the Liberal “apple” has rolled a long way from that “tree”.

As we recall Human Rights Day, we will have long distinguished ourselves as the least compliant signatory to the Human Rights convention amongst any western democracy. When even North Korea can legitimately accuse us of human rights abuses, you know we have moved to the “dark side of the Force.”

Internationally speaking, things have taken a turn for the worse since World War II. We have now reached a point where both America and Australia are actively abusing people, including children, who have fled from torture and prospective death in their own country. Some have even died within our offshore gulags and deaths have already featured in Trump’s “zero-tolerance” regime. I want first to outline some historical legal cases which illustrate how international courts have responded to the idea of subordinating human rights to achieve political ends.

The German Autumn

Following the days from 1970 to 1977 clashes between the Red Army Faction (RAF) with Germany culminated in the “German Autumn,” and the kidnapping and murder of industrialist Hanns Martin Schleyer. Brett Walker delivered a speech to the annual Dinner of the Civil Liberties Society on Friday the 24th of November 2017 in Sydney in which he described the events of the German Autumn. The Germans had resisted the kidnapper’s demands. Schleyer’s son after failing to pay the ransom privately in part due to both inadvertent publicity and the German government’s reluctance then sued the Government in an attempt to save his father. The principle invoked was the invariable nature of human dignity by which he called on the government to make an effort to save his father’s life. The specific implication was that nobody should use another, as an instrument or means, to achieve an end. This included hostage-taking with demands. The court rejected the son’s claim in less than a day, and within days, his father was killed. Standing up to hostage takers has consequences.

Aviation hostages

In 2006, the constitutional court in Karlsruhe received a complaint from flight crew staff about the decision that the government had justification in shooting down aircraft held hostage in the air under the ironically named “Aviation Security Act”. The Bundesverfassungsgericht declared that legislation which would have allowed the German Air Force to shoot down hijacked passenger planes was unconstitutional and as a counterproposal reinforced the constitutional right to life and human dignity.

In reviewing the decision, the court would not accept the argument by the government that the passengers were very probably soon to die anyhow. They instead held to another principle, that the State could not reduce passengers and crew to the status of “objects” they can kill at the pleasure of the State, no matter the amount of time the people, may or may not, have left to live. The court essentially held that human life should not be used as a bargaining chip or as instruments to achieve an end of preventing the possibility of further deaths. Presuming that one would then be as guilty of the Machiavellian principle that the “ends justify the means“, which is, of itself, the ploy of hostage taking.

Machiavelli versus the Golden Rule

The categorical imperative in a civilised society is that we should act in a manner towards others that we think can, and should be, applied universally. Brett Walker espoused the principle that one should “do as you would have, you and everybody else, done by.” To extend this principle, it would mean that one would never abuse fellow inhabitants of this planet as instruments for some political end or project. The welfare and dignity of people is an end, but never a means by which you should cause one person or group to suffer to produce some advantage for others.

Instead, an alternate approach has been pursued with vigour and enthusiasm by recent immigration ministers such as Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton. Successive Australian governments (supported by the electors who have repeatedly voted for them) have created policies, legislation, and facilities, which are deliberately designed to mistreat and hold refugees and asylum seekers in conditions that we would not subject criminals in our internal national incarceration system. All designed and executed for the declared purpose of “deterrence.”

If punishing the innocent is the law then the "law" is criminal. — If punishing the innocent is the law then the “law” is criminal.

Under criminal law, the idea of “deterrence” is to sentence a legally convicted person, in a such a way as to deter others from committing such crime. It serves idealistically to deter the convicted person from re-offending. What is not part of the principle, is the notion of taking people who are not guilty of a crime and have not been convicted of having acted criminally, and visit upon them adversity and punishments to deter and modify other people’s conduct. That is abuse to use innocents as a means and abrogate their human dignity as an end.

Other democracies handle refugees far more efficiently and with less abuse than we do. But this perversion of law, criminality, morality and deterrence did not merely begin here with the likes of Howard, Ruddock, Morrison and Dutton! In fact, they have refined the “art” of this deliberate moral bankruptcy to heights which previously only totalitarian dictatorships or regimes have practised. Our pathway to abuse instead began with far humbler utterances from the lips of Labor politicians.

Queue jumping

While Keating is often attributed with the “queue jumping” rhetoric, the source of this phrase came from Immigration minister, Michael MacKellar, in 1977 in a Radio Australia broadcast. While Malcolm Fraser was attempting to placate the fears that hordes of Vietnamese “boat people” were descending on Australia, the Labor Party was busily trying to capitalise on fears about this “unchecked invasion”. Herein lies the original authorship of the fear mongering, which was eventually to become the backbone of refugee policy in Australia. Back then, the Australian public’s reaction, though cautious, was a far cry from the response of this century.

Bob Hawke and Paul Keating continued Labor’s negative attitudes towards refugees when they decided to use mandatory detention for asylum seekers at Port Headland, WA. This deterrent detention was the next step in both perspective and action. That act being detention of Cambodian refugees who arrived at Pedder Bay in November of 1989. They were held till 1992 while the government tried in vain to exclude these asylum seekers from seeking justice and the rule of law in the courts.

Like most immigrants, once allowed in and embraced, they became highly productive members of the Australian community. Up until that time, the maximum period of detention allowed for refugees had been 273 days. That limit in the Migration act was removed in 1994, paving the way for the era of indefinite mandatory detention. Similarly Trump’s executive order on June 20th – presumed to be reuniting families – seeks indefinite detention of families as a challenge a 1997 law that limited immigration detention to 20 days. (See Flores v. Reno).

Racism as policy

The success of Pauline Hanson’s racism in 1996 and the rhetoric of Phillip Ruddock in treating refugees not just as “queue jumpers”, but as cunning manipulators of peoples sympathy with an evil intention; marked a change in Australian attitudes. [Pg 31] The implication is that refugees sought to reap the rewards of an Australian Economy, steal our jobs out from underneath Australians, and then use their consequential “enormous wages” to finance terrorist plots against our nation. Not only does Australia’s falling wage rates make this unlikely, but the patient absurdity of the argument that traumatised people fleeing for their lives – often with their children – were even capable of such manipulation, was surprisingly and naively accepted by the public.

The proposition that terrorists hide out in detention centres was absurd back then and still is. Myths like these grew in number over time. Until the emergence of Pauline Hanson, it had not dawned on the political party system that racism inherent in public policy was a vote winner. John Howard realised that he could leverage refugees to acquire political power, which he did as a boat named the Tampa approached Australia. In particular, his use of the meaningless phrase “illegal immigrants” helped reframed the public debate to John Howard’s advantage in August of 2001.

The Pacific solution.

The Pacific solution followed in September 2001 as Howard opened offshore gulags on Christmas Island, Manus Island, and Nauru. After Howard lost government to Kevin Rudd, that new government closed them down. When Rudd lost leadership to Julia Gillard, she reopened them, and once Tony Abbott became PM, he massively escalated the usage of offshore detention.

On his ascension, Malcolm Turnbull did little to change anything by way of policy; he did allow Morrison and Dutton to leverage legislative control of these gulags. The relish with which Dutton justifies the Government’s actions on Manus beggars belief. Given that even the vaguest sense of decency would suggest, “deterrence” ought only to be addressed, at least under the pretence of regret.

Drowning in moral ambiguity.

It's not that complex to support children — It’s not that complex to support children

If we did in any honesty, believe that preventing “drownings at sea” was a moral imperative, then indeed we would be doing what is being done privately by individuals with large boats in the Mediterranean Sea. We would be sending boats to rescue these people, rather than stopping their boats, turning them around and returning them to danger, which is what the Navy now does to prevent “drownings at sea”.

We should also most certainly be addressing the issue of why such people have a well-founded fear of persecution. One so strong, it leads them to seek protection on foreign soil in the first place. We would be spending money at the UN addressing the veto factor or refusing to engage in the sort of bombing and attacks on overseas middle-eastern targets that create push factors that generate asylum seekers.

The notion of leveraging human beings to achieve an end to stop the boats and prevent deaths at sea is comparable to the tactics of hostage-takers in the 1970s. Our government is holding an innocent population hostage to achieve a goal at which they are, evidently, unsuccessful. Claims of having stopped the boats have turned out to be exaggerations or spin. Boats filled with refugees seeking asylum are still “setting sail” to come to Australia as recently as last month. The illusion, however, created and maintained by the government’s response, is to either intercept the boats; pay off the “captains” to turn the boat around; or simply to declare that successful arrivals – when they do arise – don’t count as “arrivals“.

The End – does not justify the means.

The end is not justified by whatever means are applied to achieve it. Instead, it’s the acts of compassion that define a civilised society, when they are brought to bear as the means to address an issue and achieve a goal with justice. And that, Mr Peter Dutton, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, Mr Jeff Sessions and Mr Donald Trump, is something which benefits all members of a community, old and new, and which has never become outdated.

Save

Right or Left – the invasion of the neo-liberal agenda.

July 13, 2017 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Identifying bipartisan values within in our polarised political class is hard. Common ground is elusive not only because the values represented by politics have changed, but discerning the truth in an alternative fact world, filled with propaganda, is problematic. What values do our politicians really hold, as opposed to what they say, they do? What do our representatives really value and what leverage can we apply upon finding commonality between Liberal and Labor or Republican and Democratic representatives?

Our economic commonality

Once upon a time the Republicans stood against slavery, fighting a bitter civil war over it (even if the recently installed president Donald Trump himself, is not sure what that conflict was all about). But now, the red shoe is very much on the other conservative foot.

The American economy was built on slavery, but the emancipation of the black population forced America to reconstitute slavery, redefining it by way of contemporary political spin. The now changed and more authoritarian Republicans have achieved this by instigating the largest per capita incarceration rate in the world, where prisoners slave for the private industrialised markets. And attempts by previous President Barack Obama to curtail this “market” are now being undone by his successor’s moves to boost it.

There are striking similarities in the Australian experience. Although rarely recognised as such, our own initial economic growth was also predicated on slavery of the convict and pacific islander variety. So we can claim no high moral ground. Similarly with America’s passion for “rule of law” and the devising of ever more draconian reasons for increasing incarceration. By way of example, where drug addiction and mental health are succesfully treated as a medical issue in more enlightened countries like Norway, in America and Australia they are still legal issues used to feed prison populations.

Australia is also no stranger to political ideology (once foreign and abhorrent to party politics, but which is now being swallowed whole). Australia as one of the instigators of, signatories to and loud supporters of the UN refugee human rights platform, now holds refugees in foreign gulags across our oceans. Such treatment would have been unthinkable to foundational conservative stalwarts such as Robert Menzies, who in 1954 was amongst the first to ratify the Refugee Convention. Once we in Australia reached out to refugees and embraced them as new neighbours into our community, bringing food parcels and contact to strangers. Today we have the increasing fiasco of scandals and mistreatment of refugees, first by Morrison, and now by Dutton.

Once upon a time

Political relics change with time but society's memory is short lived — Political relics change with time but society’s memory is short lived

Looking back, we were less afraid, our news of the wider world more limited. Admittedly our situation was hardly perfect. We were more openly racist as evidenced by the White Australia Policy. But we were also less willing to lie and obfuscate to justify our injustices. We were also more courageous, a little less insular in some manner, and far more attracted to science, wonder, community, tribalism and extended “families”. Our societies here and abroad had a larger and more prosperous middle class. Greed was a vice, not a virtue. Class distinctions may have seemed more obvious, but now – when they are more prevalent – they are less discussed. We used to be about societies but now we are all about economies. Interesting reading on that subject can be found in “An Economy is not a Society” by Dennis Glover.

Left and Right wing politics, Democrats and Republicans, Socialists and Conservatives stood for different approaches to the politics of life. Distinctions that existed have disappeared over time. The middle classes are vanishing and now the real polarisations are the rich and the poor, certainly not left and right. Christ was right when he said “the poor you will have always“. One wonders if he actually realised just how vast the gulf would eventually become between the poor and the rich (whom he frequently addressed to do something about it)? Money and it’s influence have become the ultimate distinction in western society.

“Greed is good!”

It no longer matters if you are Democrat, Liberal, Labor or Republican, as the common thread that holds our politics in undivided loyalty is Greed. The sort that Gordon Gekko from “Wall Street” once famously declared was Good (although a lot of his speech was also about the complacency of the powerful).

Today our political class embraces greed and complacency without reserve or hesitation. Politics is a lucrative business, as the recent scandals from One Nation demonstrate. Lobbyists, corporations, developers, the rich and empowered all bandy both “sides” of the political spectrum with donations, lucrative “political retirement” jobs and financial funding access. The political arena is awash with nepotism to jobs for the boys. That is on top of the significant salaries, lifelong pensions, travel and security concessions, and business opportunities, which are the dividends of a career in politics. Though even in these shameless times, perhaps Mike Baird, could have spared a little more effort towards maintaining the illusion of some propriety, by spending a little more than six weeks with his “ailing family” (his avowed reason for suddenly quitting the hallowed position of NSW Premier), before taking up the far more lucrative banking industry role with the million dollar salary.

Helicopter scandals, perks & privileges should face ICAC

The “sides” that successful political parties hold to today, are small deviations from an overall shared conservative class of values, with greed always being at the center. The “left wing” parties follow the “right wing” parties who have a differential approach to following the money. The pursuit of that money is closely followed by corruption, as the NSW ICAC has repeatedly found on BOTH sides of politics. I attended a lecture by Dr Knox-Haly at the University of Sydney’s 5th floor Abercrombie Room on the history of ICAC on the 19th of May 2017. Also in attendance was Elizabeth Kirby, the longest serving State Democrat MLC (now retired). While asking questions afterwards, Elizabeth pondered why both parties avoid a Federal ICAC. Dr Knox-Haly speculated that the differentiation for corruption between our primary two parties, was while the Liberal’s entitled mentality has little insight into their own corruption, “The difference is, that Labor actually has some insight that what they are doing, might be corrupt“.

Electing democracy

The “left wing” stay just marginally behind their similar “right wing” counterparts, for the purpose of declaring their “distinctions” to attract a community of voters who will largely vote for the “lesser of two evils“. Unfortunately, clever gerrymandering, electoral colleges, systems of disenfranchising classes of voters, legal court challenges and strategic alliances more often than not, ensure the public majority will is ignored.

In the recent American presidential elections, the Democratic candidate (Hillary Clinton) received three million more votes than the Republican candidate (Donald Trump), but due to the electoral college system, the Republicans won the presidency. Dismissing 3 million people as an example of fraudulent voting is not just unproven, intellectually lazy, ludicrous, and credibility stretching. It is also an acceptable lie, which relieves the “true believer” from any intelligent engagement in politics.

Similary in Australia, according to the AEC 34.73% of the electorate voted Labor and 28.67% Liberal in the last federal election. But political alliances with the Nationals and preference systems ensure the Liberals currently hold power in Australia, although only by the majority of one seat. Adding all Liberal, National and LNP primary votes, only accounts for 41.80% of the 13.5 million voters in Australia. In France, the majority voted against National Front candidate Marine Le Pen, and yet with 21.3% of the vote, she was still one of just two finalists in the last round of French elections (which she lost).

Trump won the American presidency but not the popular vote, because of an historical, artificially weighted voting system. It is arguable that there may have been good reasons for such weighted voting systems historically. But as times and circumstances have changed, such electoral systems have moved from serving the common good, to more likely serving small select interest groups driven by avarice and greed. Gerrymandering has largely been discounted in Australia by non-partisan boundary selections, but it is rife in America, even though it loudly and proudly proclaims itself to be the longest lasting “democratic republic” in the world.

Neo-liberal agenda origins

None of these weighted electoral voting systems started out as corrupt. The rebalancing undertaken was merely meant to provide a more equitable representation of the will of all of the people in a polity. For example, to avoid giving greater or overwhelming national influence to more populous urban and coastal areas, over the needs and will of smaller regional inland populations. A reasonable proposition on the surface of it.

But societies and technology have changed slowly over time, and unfortunately that electoral system has simply not adjusted (enough) to the changing nuances and circumstances of contemporary life. As a result, the erosion of democracy did not occur suddenly. The rights of the majority were rather whittled away through successive governments from both “sides” of politics. Privatisation of Public assets in Australia did not start with Conservatives, it began with Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. The “socialist” Labor party divorced itself gradually from its roots in the Union movement and its support of the working class. Similarly, Trump is not a new phenomenon. The pathway there was laid by Democrats and Republicans equally.

Obama was not a “socialist” black man. He was a privileged, wealthy man complicit with the greedy, über wealthy class he mingled with and still does. Unlike Iceland, he did not jail the people responsible for crippling his country’s economy, he paid them off. That mistake has cost America dearly. A repetition of a formula that has never worked but is repeatedly applied. The gold coloured glasses of privilege and wealth screened out the faces of the poorer masses, who had otherwise hoped that because he shared a skin colour, his filtered eyes might see their plight. His foreign policy was deplorable when it came to the Middle East, when you consider that Obama bombed seven countries adding to an enormous refugee crisis in Europe.

While I am being harsh with Obama, there are many things that are commendable about his administration, not the least of which is the extraordinary efforts he made to create (the now endangered) Obamacare. To be fair to the balance of this article, you should read the Rolling Stone’s article in regards his successes and failures. The good that a man may do, whether it is Obama or Keating, is oft undermined by what they either failed to address, or any concessions that were made to not ruffle the feathers of the wealthy cocks in the hen house.

Inequality

European lighthouse warning Australian economic/policy shipping

Neoliberal politics from both the “left” and the “right” have had a debilitating effect on egalitarian democracies. Neither “side” of politics (Labor/Liberal or Republican/Democrat) have a policy platform designed to rectify inequality, or our increasingly controlling police state, or our endless pointless involvement in wars on the other side of the planet. The best we can hope for is to be a little less unequal, by choosing a candidate that leans towards helping the proletarians. Instead each “side” have internalised neo-liberal conservative values to a lesser or greater extent. Unless either side tailors a persuasive vision of real world solutions based on evidence – as opposed to ideology – from more successful democracies (i.e. Europe), the downward spiral of inequality and social class division will continue. Unless the “lefter” side of “right” begin to propose policy platforms that could achieve a shift away from what cripples our economies, then they will continue to lose elections and the public’s faith.

It’s just a step to the left.

Interestingly in Australia, both Labor and Liberal have begun leaning a little to the left (Labor in policy and voting history, and the Liberals with regards to the 2017 budget). A departure from previous history. Such wins are small and their longer term future uncertain. The positive aspects of the 2017 Liberal government budget and health reforms, still exist in context alongside other classic neoliberal policies, such as tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of the impoverished. Both Trump and Turnbull share the delusion that trickle down economics is a way forward, despite all the real world evidence that it has never worked. Wages and jobs remain depressed in both countries and unemployment is the only growth area.

Death by 1000 cuts.

Very few of the changes that harm our society are rushed, although the Rebublicans are certainly trying it with healthcare. Once suggesting the nascent beginnings of a possible policy paradigm shift – the very likely soon to be extinct Obamacare – has proven to be merely an ephemeral reform, yielding to an upsurge in the everlasting tidal vices of greed and self interest. Likewise, the increasing incremental attacks on Medicare in Australia are following a similar path by way of stealth such as freezes and coverage removals leading eventually to an American privatised style medical system.

Of course, even Trump recognises that Australia’s universal healthcare system is currently still a long way from being anything like what they have in America. However, the eventual dissolution of Medicare was never going to be a matter of outright overnight dissolution, in the manner that Trump and the Republicans are seeking to achieve with the dissolution of Obamacare. Rather, it will be the gradual death by one thousand cuts, with Australia gradually devolving to a system where big phama, hospitals, insurance, bio-medical and prosthetic companies garner huge profits at the expense of failing health and ageing demographics of our society.

Paths once trod we follow.

Are the Roman and American empires fates entwined?

With so little political differences in policies, how will any of this change? Being self-contented and tranquil is the domain of spiritual gurus, saints and philosophers, but many of us find our political plight disturbing and seek change. America, although, is as unlikely to change anymore than the Roman Empire once did. Only collapse or revolution ever bought about real change in the Roman Empire. Is America’s only hope therefore, its eventual collapse? And even if that occurs how will it ever satisfy its insatiable vice of greed? How much longer will it take for Australia to follow that path? Do we have hope of another, less-traveled path? Is there hope that we are not as America-lite as some dread? For example, if you have to go to the pains that Matt Wade did to assert our differences, is that because he is aware of how many similarities we have? How long will such differences remain? And if either nation changes course, for how long shall we stay that course, guided by the sort of people that are currently attracted to a polity where self aggrandisement and avarice takes precedence over leadership, governance and vision? Some vices transcend time, revolution and society.

Save

MOAB meets Afghanistan

April 21, 2017 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

America once again participates in its favourite past-time of bombing countries that can in no way retaliate. There is a word that describes people who act that way, but the name alludes me.

It’s not just Trump or republicans for whom this is an engaging “sport”, as the last few administrations have bombed the “proverbial” out of Afghanistan. Worth noting: The Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs in 2016 alone, although distributed unevenly across seven countries (and of course Afghanistan received some of that “rainfall”. The seven countries he did bomb were Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia and Trump’s national Muslim ban included 5 of these countries.

This time, however, America set about to destroy a facility they built in Afghanistan. At least you can assume that the MOAB bomb was dropped with pin point accuracy to cause the most damage. Especially since the CIA would have likely retained the blueprints of the facility they built in collaboration with Osama Bin Laden. Spending $314M building a bomb – that by itself cost $16M each – is an expensive way to destroy a constructed facility which had cost untold millions in the first place.

All this for a country that can’t afford the “horrendous expense” inherent in serving meals to the elderly, as Trump decides that Meals on Wheels is a burden the economy can’t afford. As many a pundit has observed, money to conduct war is always in plentiful supply. For example, here in Australia, $195B on defence is affordable, but increases in spending on health, welfare and education are not. The hypocrisy and bullying of nations previously beaten into submission to the point that – because of America – a violent caliphate arises called Daesh/ISIS. It has repeatedly been said “wars against states which do not pose an imminent threat to America’s national security increases the threat of terrorism“. Having done that, it doesn’t help if you start funding and supplying equipment to these terrorists as America did for a long time for ISIS.

The shock discovery for the American senate, for example, that Toyota appeared to be supplying ISIS with massive numbers of Toyota vehicles, was ultimately revealed to be sourced from the America US state Dept dropping crate loads of vehicles into Syria. Without America, ISIS would never have been as well armed, trained or supplied. It would have died as a movement in the Middle East without the American military education and equipment to support them. Presently America is bombing their creations in both the insurgency they funded and the facilities they build and funded, yet they apparently can’t spare to resolve the poverty of their own country.

Not unlike, in an obscure manner, Gerhard Richter taking to 60 of his photo-based paintings with a box cutter and matches. Odd coincidental numbering, but wasn’t that the number of Tomahawk missiles fired at Syria recently at an Airfield that was operational 24 hours later? OK, OK, I am stretching my analogues to the point of ridiculousness but perhaps my weird segues will induce you to remember the facts. The truth is that neither America or Australia should be putting air-force, troops, or bombs into the region. That is presuming we want to establish peace in the middle-east, which admittedly is probably an invalid assumption.

It is small wonder that when Wikileaks revealed this rampant corruption and hypocrisy by America that the CIA director, Mike Pompeo, branded them a “hostile intelligence service“. Odd change of face as Mike was apparently a fan when the information Wikileaks supplied suited his agenda. But for now, Julian Assange is the “bad guy”? Really? So what does that make America in the light of everything else!?

Cuba – farewell to Fidel

December 27, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The passing of Fidel Castro marks a change that a generation the grew up with the drama of the missile crisis through to the first visit by an American President to Cuba. A period of history of high drama and political upheaval, he will be remembered by a diverse range of opinions. This is just mine.

Dictator

Issues such as Fidel Castro are never black and white. Yes, he was a “dictator” in so far as he led his country for 47 years after overthrowing American backed Batista. Yes, people died, were shot or imprisoned during and after the rebellion, but no man is entirely one thing or another. His story need a few shades of grey. A grey not conceded when Mike Pence described him as a tyrant and suggested the Cuban people were oppressed and in need of freedom and democracy. An interesting take from his “democracy”.

Who bombed what?

I note that America has bombed 7 countries during the last president’s term of office which was a fraction of Castro’s presidency. Castro dropped doctors in third world countries while America dropped bombs. Mike Pence was very critical of Fidel on his death suggesting too that having been “starved of Democracy” that they might welcome it now. But America castigating Fidel is like the pot calling the kettle black. How many countries did Cuba bomb and what contribution to the worldwide mass movement of refugees displaced from their homes is Cuba responsible for? Did he jail and torture people to the extent America has? Guantanamo is run by which country? Which country has the highest incarceration rate in prisons on earth (including China) and despite falling crime rates? [I’ll give you a clue, it was imprisoning 2.2M in 2013] Which country created, funded and armed Isis? Which country has consistently undermined the Middle East?

Celebrations or mourning?

Thousands of people gather at Revolution Square Antonio Maceo during a public tribute to late Cuban leader Fidel Castro in, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba, 03 December 2016.

Why are Fidel’s own people people not celebrating his departure if he was so evil? Why are they mourning him in the thousands in streets where herds of people are so thick and miles in length for his funeral? Have a googled look at the crowds recorded in “Plaza de la Revolución Antonio Maceo en Santiago de Cuba” for his memorial service. That’s not what you’d think “oppressed” folk might do. When Thatcher died the country was positively jubilant. The upper class were outraged at how happy folks were singing “The witch is dead!“.

Children & Justice

Which is the only country in the Americas that is not only without child malnourishment but was described by the UNICEF as “the best example of protection of children” (by Juan José Ortiz) especially as it had the lowest child death rate and negligible homeless street children? Not so many homeless adults for that matter. People are accommodated because housing is kept cheap. Yet in America the number of foreclosed houses outnumber the homeless. Yes, I know some of Cuba’s accommodation has been in Jails for some. Arbitrary detentions and short-term imprisonments are far more prevalent in America. The citizens of Cuba walk the streets and have homes to go to. Incarceration even on a per capita basis compared to America (510 per 100K in Cuba verses 693 in America – and that does not include juveniles, inmates in US territories or American military facilities – have I mentioned Guantanamo? — Oh yes I have.). Political prisoners, restrictions on freedom of expression (i.e. Snowden) travel restrictions and prisoner conditions are criticisms that can be leveled at both Cuba and America. Who do you think is better or worse?

Health Care

Which country has had produced over 124,000 health professionals who have worked in over 154 countries since 1961, hosts 3432 medical students from 23 nations studying medicine and exports hundreds of them to fight diseases in foreign third world countries ? The US secretary of state, John Kerry, was praising which country for sending “165 health professionals and it plans to send nearly 300 more” in 2014 to fight Ebola in Liberia, Sierra Leone & Guinea? Just what did America send? Instead of Doctors, they sent troops. I get why civil control is important in an outbreak but what does it tell you about the differences in the countries when one sends doctors and the other troops? Which country developed 4 vaccines against cancers including lung cancer (but has all their pharmaceuticals blocked by the USA) and was the first country to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV as validated by WHO? Which country suffers from greater rates of obesity and diabetes? Which has the higher rates on drug and alcohol abuse? Which has the higher rates on School gun violence, rape on campuses, pollution, suicides, spousal abuse, etc … need I go on?

Education

With that health record, an education record that creates a Student:Teacher ratio of 12:1, and a youth illiteracy rate in Cuba is close to zero and is the best education system in Latin America, I have to ask, what does America offer in terms of Health and Education? Certainly not an education system that is 100% subsidised by the government. And Obamacare? Please don’t make me laugh. In Australia we have Medicare and it pi**e* all over Obamacare, even if our current neo-conservative government is trying desperately to dismantle it. Actually there are a lot of countries who’s health care systems could do that!

Democracy?

Instead the MSM’s coverage is insular & compliant with the “official narrative” story without a perspective on how the third world looked at Cuba. It’s a very first world capitalist perspective. Cuba has flourished in it’s own manner and even survived while under an embargo by the most powerful country in the world. As for Mike Pence hoping that Cuba would welcome “democracy” now, if he really thinks any country in the world wants your “democracy”, if the result is “Trump”, then he is delusional. Dude, you have no hope of installing “democracy” there, if America is the example!

Trump – fascist or fascistic?

December 5, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Philosophically changing landscape.

Just before the election, President elect Donald Trump, published his intentions for his first 100 days in office. It is insular and sequestered towards his take on focused American interests. From building walls to encouraging non-renewable pollution builders like shale, oil, natural gas and coal, which will result in undermining climate rectification. Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a boon many would welcome, as alternative RCEP will be far more beneficial to the Australian economy.

Post-Truth world.

Tony Abbott the masterful beguiler of the Aussie Punter!

Whatever your values on these intentions, what is emerging, is that since the election, he’s made statements that are at variance with the dialogue from his rallies and his initial plans. That “lies”, featured in Trump and Clinton’s campaign dialogue, has become par for the course for political bargaining with voters. This “post-truth” phenomena drew criticism that the Trump campaign countered with assertions that the media should not be ‘fact-checkers’. Since the election, building walls, the death of Obamacare, the mass deportation of illegal immigrants, and the demise of the Iran peace treaty are all being quickly watered down in Washington. At least Tony Abbott waited a few months before he instigated proposals to make cuts to education, cuts to health, change to pensions, increasing GST and cuts to the ABC and SBS. While the Senate foiled many of the LNP’s valiant efforts to break their promises, much of the public showed their willingness to ignore Abbott’s apparent about-face. But lies are a negotiation the public has struck with politics for decades. Unless one engages in extensive fact-checking and pragmatic reasoning, such lies remain unchallenged; and many can’t be bothered to do so.

Observations of Fascism.

Some folk listened to their Grandfather's stories — Some folk listened to their Grandfather’s stories

Trump’s plans or renegotiations (or “lies”) are admittedly not standard Republican ideology. His thinking is hard to pin down, echoing sentiments from across the political spectrum. Trump is something else altogether. An interesting observation was made by an American teacher, which has landed her in hot water. She was teaching students about the parallels between the rise of Trump and German dictator Adolf Hitler. It’s an observation that has also been made by veteran Jewish Americans who fear the rise of a “new Hitler”.

Gianni Riotta in the Atlantic disagrees with the assertion Trump is a fascist. She talks about a “brand of fascism” defined by Mussolini’s original Partito Nazionale Fascista rule. Being of Italian heritage, she is very wed to that being the only legitimate fascism. For folk like Riotta, unless they are goose-stepping down Broadway, it isn’t fascism. As though the final goal defines the process, but not, until you get there. Fascism deniers hold to the rather odd presumption that unless we have set up gulags in the manner that former Italian fascists did, then we are not there yet. Perhaps we should poll the unwilling residents of Guantanamo Bay, Manus and Nauru.

As Robert O. Paxton in his book “The Anatomy of Fascism” says, “Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. […] In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms,” the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name.” So Riotta attempt to define it as an elaborated philosophical system or fixed creed rather than a syndrome or a “beehive of contradictions“, lies on somewhat erroneous premises. Or as Nicholas Clairmont (also from “The Atlantic”) explained, “But the debate over the definition of fascism is much richer than Riotta covered.“

Jobs and Growth.

It is not an insignificant difference that America is a mature democracy, where Germany was not, at the time of Hitler’s rise. Hitler was elected Chancellor in January 1933 in what was a relatively new democratic system established in 1919. And in this latter American variation, there are both systematic differences and protections in place to stall degeneration into the Nazi’s historical outcomes. Nevertheless, striking similarities remain. Like America, the German economy had hit rock-bottom and was at the time recovering. Hitler also vowed to pull out of the Versailles treaty and repayments, much like Trump is pledging to renegotiate NAFTA and cancel the Pacific Trade Agreements. Both were promising to protect internal jobs and build infrastructure. In short, the familiar politico battle cry of “Jobs and Growth” was on both their agendas.

As Llewellyn Rockwell writes, “He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits.“

Can Trump can be similarly successful? Trump’s immediate promotion of jobs growth was very similar in manner to Malcolm Turnbull’s approach in providing jobs for unemployed friends. Trump has engaged the former mayor Rudy Giuliani (if you go to the link, note Rudy’s unusual nickname), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, retired Gen. Michael Flynn, and former federal prosecutor Jeff Sessions. Not unlike Malcolm Turnbull’s recycling of former MPs or George Brandis’s job stacking, Trump is “bringing jobs back” … to lobbyists and republican insiders. One of his more controversial “jobs for the boys” decisions has been the selection of Steve Bannon as Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon is the chairman of “Breitbart” the alt-right anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, misogynistic, racist, bigoted, conspiracy filled news site. No doubt some readers will find that description a little harsh, and I’d have to concede that “news site” is probably inappropriate. Trump’s choice of a strategist, is emboldening the rise of identity politics in America. Reminiscent of a familiar Nazi German salutations, “Hail Trump” echoed from attendees at Richard Spencer’s recent annual conference of the National Policy Institute in Washington.

Historical similarities & differences.

Like Trump, Hitler was not the popular candidate. Political machinations got Hitler into power, as he controlled the largest block of seats. For Trump, his path to power was winning the electoral college, not the popular vote. Both leaders lead a racist mass movement, along with being misogynistic and ultra-nationalistic, eliciting violent reactions from their attendees at national rallies. The difference in Hitler’s case was protesters who tried to shout him down, were ejected by Hitler’s army friends armed with rubber truncheons. Trump was not so organised, but his followers still ejected peaceful protesters, violently. Trump displays contempt for liberal democratic norms and has identified a class of people he is quite happy to direct blame for America’s failings. Muslims replace Jews as the preferred targets despite the unconstitutional nature of his desires. Hitler, equally, had contempt for the Weimar Republic Constitution which changed Germany from a monarchy to a parliamentary democracy. The original Nazi party was filled with disenfranchised youth as a movement, whereas the Tea party Republican adherents found their primary support from older white men. Trump represents an avatar for their anger, marginalisation and resentment. In both points of history, the people had lost faith in the ability of their government to look after them. Coupled with a loss of confidence in the civil system, they sought a political option that came from outside the “system”.

Precluding Minorities.

Neither Hitler, not Trump spoke about exterminating the ethnic minority they were using as scapegoats, in their pre-election period. Hitler only talked about expelling Jews and removing their civil rights. Trump’s platform was to deport 2 million illegal immigrants, to eliminate birth right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and keeping Muslims out of America. There are differences worth considering here too. In the 1930’s data retention machines were primitive, but still, IBM rose to the challenge with a punch card sorting/cross indexing system to evaluate the census data to locate, identify and catalogue Jews. Without IBM’s help, the mass extermination of the Jews would have been logistically impossible. Today’s technology is streets ahead of anything IBM had then. IBM’s census collecting apparatus is so more sophisticated and accurate now, despite the issues Australia suffered via IBM on their last census. The American government with access to the NSA’s extensive data records on Americans – as Edward Snowden has revealed – can so quickly identify ethnic minorities.

Hitler promised to make Germany great and restore national pride. In echoes of Charles Lindbergh‘s “America First” isolationists rhetoric, Trump claimed, “I promise to make America great” and then spoke of isolating America. Hitler threatened and did persecute his political opponents, and Trump threatened to jail Hillary Clinton during public debates. He has since reneged on that, but his earlier rhetoric was worrying. Honesty among politicians in a “post-truth” era is unexpected, but even in Hitler’s time, a former finance minister described Hitler as thoroughly untruthful. Washington Post gave Trump 3.4 “Pinocchios” (as compared to Hillary Clinton getting 2.2), and noted of the 92 Trump statements that were fact checked, only 11 were found to fall into the category of mostly true or neutral. Attitudes towards women by both Hitler and Trump were quite simply appalling and deeply misogynistic. Hitler and Mussolini declared themselves as opposed to feminism, while Hitler’s predominant offence was in objectifying women for reproductive purposes. As for Trump’s Billy Bush conversation, I am opposed to giving that any more oxygen than it already, by linking to it here. If perchance you don’t know to what I refer, then all I can say is, “Welcome back, I trust that your absence from civilisation over the last few months has not been unduly traumatic”.

The results of Fascism take time.

Under Hitler, unemployment figures began to drop. Public work schemes were introduced, and the German Labour Front was set up to “protect” workers. Measures to ensure the leisure time of the work force was entrenched. It was a good month after he was “elected” in 1933 before Hitler began suspending several constitutional protections on civil rights. Jews didn’t lose their citizenship until 1935; about the same time conscription was brought in. Government income increased to ℛℳ15 billion Reichsmarks by 1939 (from ℛℳ10B in 1928) but then spending increased too. The invasion of Poland didn’t occur till 1939. Hitler had been in “legitimate” power for seven years by then. If Trump stays in power for two terms, he will have eight years to bring to fruition what he desires and the fact that four of the last five presidents served a full eight years is not encouraging. If you hold to the belief that Trump isn’t intimately aware of Hitler’s strategies, then you don’t want to read this.

What have you done?

Of course there are subtle differences. It is 80 years later, after all. But in essence, how is any of this not similar in spirit (if not exact fact) to the rise of Hitler’s Fascist German Nazi Party? And on that point, I should acknowledge the impeccable research work of my wife, who provided me with far more comparative information than I could fit into this one article. Perhaps as Jeet Heer says, ”even if Trump is only fascistic rather than a fascist, that’s more than scary enough“. However you phrase it to make yourself feel more comfortable and sleep well at night, in the end the question remains, where will the rise of Trumpism take America and the rest of the world? Good luck America!

Violent Christian terrorist shoots innocent civilians!

November 29, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Robert Dear is yet another White Christian Extremist that joins the pantheon of former White Christian terrorists in the bombing and shooting civilians in America. In spite of all the anxiety permeating American (and most western societies), it is still true to say the largest terrorist threat that successfully carries out regular acts of terror in the United States and other similar western nations are White men.

The outcome of reports of shots fired on a Friday morning (27th Nov) in Colorado Springs was followed by a five-hour siege as the white gunman fired shots from a medical clinic. The deaths of two civilians and a police officer along with nine other people were injured have added to the toll these Christian extremists extract on law abiding communities. At least eight staff of clinics providing support services to Mothers-to-be (or not to be) have been killed since 1977 by similar attacks by white Christian extremists. Even the Christian temples have not historically proved to be a safe haven (as supposedly advertised) from these extremists, as Dr George Tiller showed when shot to death at a church in Wichita, Kansas by a Christian extremist in May of 2009. Equally unsafe was the church where two people were killed by a similar extremist, during a children’s play in the Church in Knoxville, Tennessee in July of 2008. Since these times, these medical facilities have reported over 7,000 forms of violence by way of incidents of trespassing, vandalism, arson, and death threats.

The real source of Terrorism in the West

The clinic in Colorado Springs that suffered this reprisal was undoubtedly surprised they were targeted because usually shooting by Christian extremists have not targeted medical facilities in a while. Typically these type of terrorist targets school children (from multiple American school shooting to Kenyan universities where 147 died), movie theatres (Rusty Houser & the Louisiana theatre) government civic buildings (Timothy McVeigh), and youth community facilities (2011 Norway attacks). It has been some years since the 1994 bombing by the fanatical Army of God member in Massachusetts and the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing by these Christian fanatics, so it was a little “right” of the centre for this violence to be reoccurring again at medical establishments.

Radicalised by predominately white Christian Tea Party movement adherents, these terrorists have developed revolutionary view from a background of religious hatred. These hate mongers have long been calling for action against Planned Parenting doctors, nurses and clients. Evidence of this support for the Christian terrorist was garnered by the tweets of sympathisers. They have expressed views such as :

“No sympathy for any pregnant female that was injured … She deserved it or
described this Christian extremist as a “brave hero” more than once. Investigations into these tweets reported that “none of these Twitter accounts belong to Syrian refugees“. Apparently no Syrian passports were found near the site or on the person of Robert Lewis Dear. He appeared quite evidently to be a white American national who has “apparently” indiscriminately killed three people in his “valiant” terrorist crusade into what he believed was unholy ground and unholy persons. (Even though the police officer he killed was not part of the medical facility). His passport and records will no doubt be scrutinised to determine if he holds any foreign nationality to which cultural causality can be attributed. DNA tests will undoubtedly be conducted in the hope of discovering any ancestry to persons of colour or foreign ethnicity. To date, hopes for this are considered bleak.

Curiously since the shootings there have been no reported harassment of Christians nor calls for their religious temples to be closed down or burnt to the ground. The authorities are appreciative of the restraint the public has been showing towards these fundamentalist temples and their extremist adherents that have spoken out against these medical support facilities. Previous responses to religious terrorism has been know to be misplaced, such as the Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, of the 5th of Aug. 2012, so the current show of restraint has the local authority’s appreciation.

If only he'd been armed they would have never taken him. — If only he’d been armed they would have never taken him.

President Obama expressed his continued frustration at his failure to get “common sense gun safety laws” to pass Congress. Tea Party adherents fearing Middle Eastern extremists and their own government on both sides, continue to lobby for continuance of weak gun laws so only Christian extremists will retain rights to legally procure firearms. Keeping Americans safe from over reactive government police and army and Saudi Arabian plane passengers with plastic knives – because you can’t carry any guns on Aircraft – continues to be a major concern to Republicans.

FBI and police continue to be alert to radicalisation in these religious temples and will be keeping a close eye on hate speech emanating from the pulpits of the more fundamentalist establishments. If you hear these Christian fanatics speaking out against legal medical practices and encouraging hate speech and active violence against doctors and nurses in our community, the relevant authorities would undoubtedly appreciate the opportunity to be alerted and prevent future tragedies of this nature. Forewarned is forearmed, as was the case this year (2015) in which Christian Terrorist Robert Doggart was indicted for amassing weapons to attack an innocent and peaceful Muslim community. Stay alert people!

911

September 28, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The “War on Terror”

The “War on Terror” conscripted Australia into a prolonged battle on the other side of the world which – despite the protests of thousands of Australians –our PM, John Howard, threw soldiers and armaments (often bought from America) into it. The mythology of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” – long since repudiated – was the justification for this expensive foray into supporting the American War machine. There were other reasons of course. Aren’t there always. <sigh> Australia under the next Liberal PM, Tony Abbott, once again commenced sending planes and weapons (bought from America) into an insanely expensive foray into attacking ISIS in Syria, yet again in support of the American War machine which generated the ISIS battle ground because of its initial war in Iraq. In a never ending circle, we will perpetuate this war mongering and create the next generation against which to fight the next war. The middle East has been a target for Western Democracies ever since supposedly they attacked our allies, the Americans, a decade ago. Though some would suggest, it goes back even further, for now, I will focus on the common perception. Interestingly, the attack of 9/11 was predominately carried out by nationalities of other allies of America – Saudi Arabia. Yet it was Iraq, Afganistan, and Syria that feel our guns upon their backs. There is much about the 9/11 story from start to finish (which I doubt we have seen yet) that is a story of considerable inconsistencies. As we have been instigators of and cooperative in, this “War on Terror” for the last decade, it behoves us to question the origins of this involvement in American propaganda and war.

Architects & Engineers

Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth logo

A decade has passed since 9/11, and yet now a vast number of Americans & others seek a re-evaluation of the FEMA & NIST Investigations into the incident. Some suggest public discussion of the destruction of the three Trade Center buildings did not occur in a scientific context, but in a highly charged political context. I spent time some months ago gradually watching an excellent documentary film by “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!”. It concerns itself with the scientific context and does not speculate on the who or why which I find pragmatically relieving. It examines issues with the FEMA & NIST Investigation reports. It’s a 2 hour documentary of interviews with engineers, architects, and at the end clinical psychologists because it inevitably needs to deal with the issues of cognitive dissonance that arise.

WTC

The direct and collateral damage zone of 9/11

Despite the publicity, the very public nature of the event, the film footage, the investigations officially and unofficially, it remains an event in which misconceptions exist no matter what side of the arguments is peculating around the event you sit on. For myself the scope of the destruction is intriguing. It is often discussed regarding the two buildings which were hit and not the collateral damage. Although Building Seven across the street from and separated from WTC 1 by yet another building, generates an enormous amount of controversy. The thing about it all was that a total of seven World Trade Center buildings were ultimately destroyed but only two hit by planes. Yes, there was “collateral damage”. Two planes ran into the 110-story WTC 1 and 2. The 47-story WTC 7 across the street was suddenly leveled to the ground in seconds after what appeared to be spot fires (depending on whom you talk to). It’s collapse, and the speed and nature of its collapse are the single most pointed exception that everyone brings up in defence of something dodgy being afoot, to the alternative being that this is merely collateral damage from the foreign attack. There are plenty of sites attempting to debunk the conspiratorialists claims about WTC 1 and 2. The 47-story WTC 7 collapse just doesn’t “sell” as well for they who justify it, having just happened to collapse naturally, despite never having been hit. It’s always the one the anti-conspirators shy away from or deal with in very perfunctory terms. In fact, it isn’t even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report. Collateral Damage to WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 was suffered as large portions of WTC 3, 4, and 6 were also crushed. Then there were the peripheral buildings outside of the “zone” that was damaged and subsequently torn down. The nature of which buildings fell or were later demolished is, in of itself, concern for much speculation.

Dodgy film?

Manipulated image or just poor inadequate cameras with a lossy compression algorithm? — Manipulated image or just poor, inadequate cameras with a lossy compression algorithm?

Having suggested there is a conspiracy afoot, it is also evident some of the conspiratorial claims are clearly more obviously nonsense. The one’s that immediately come to mind, from my perspective of a film maker. There is the folk who suggest it wasn’t a real plane based on footage presumably sourced from a consumer quality camera with undoubtedly a small CMOS chip and limited focus capacity, that was taken by folks in New York with a camera handy. The other claim is often that the footage was faked and not made by the citizenry. More likely the footage is probably real but suffers from the problem all such small consumer cameras suffer from – compression technology. A small lesson in the manner in which pixel capture occurs would be useful. The compression algorithm inherent in most consumer cameras from a decade ago explains more than an examination of each supposed frame of the collision does. Subsequent image frames from such cameras are never full frames. Sometimes only one frame in 25 might capture the full image as each subsequent frame captures only a fragment of what the lens sees to reduce the otherwise large file size nature of what the video file would otherwise be. When a camera only records limited pixels each frame and the only full frame capture being what is known as an “iframe” (or full frame) then what you play back, is inevitably not what happened. These cameras are not designed to be examined frame by frame because they don’t store data that way. They are intended to be watched as running moving images to fool the eye that we are seeing “moving full frame pictures” when we are doing nothing of the sort. Add to that, that you are filming through a tiny lens with a small charge-coupled device (CCD) or more likely CMOS chips for most consumer cameras. The CMOS converts the visual data via an algorithm/codec (generally DV, MPEG-2 or AVCHD) to be compressed before it’s recorded to whatever media the camcorder is using, be it tape, a hard drive, a disc, or a memory card. Most of the data collected by the CMOS chip of pixels on each frame is simply lost and never recorded, but enough is retained to create the illusions that you can look at each frame one at a time. Most of the picture is constructed from pixels taken several frames ago with the minimal amount changed to generate the illusion of movement. The plane doesn’t appear to explode at the exact microsecond of an impact because the pixels are not entirely updated till each iframe occurs. Instead what you are looking at is a mathematical extrapolation of changing pixels to generate several intermediary partial frames between each iframe. It’s called lossy compression. Inaccuracy of positioning of visual data is a reflection of weak or small lens (resulting in visual noise and refractive distortion) and CMOS quality (resulting in skew distortions – especially if the subject is moving fast) but not grounds for a conspiracy about absent planes, or badly video edited evidence for a plane’s non-existence or explosions that appear to be “off-centre”. It’s more about the extrapolation of data stored by the inferior camera than grounds for doubting the existence of a genuine film or plane or proof of bad editing. You can look this stuff up yourself. I am not even going to give it credit by providing links. Hardly good evidence to be used to claim conspiracy.

Forensic searching

On the other hand, more careful and rigorous science and the investigation is applied in “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!” and no speculation as to responsibility. There is no doubt they have speculated, as many have and still do. How can one not, when faced with the weight of evidence and the dubious way the FEMA & NIST investigation was conducted? There are innumerable videos and commentaries on that and entire lobby groups dedicated to questioning their procedure. Determining what might have happened is a forensic search of shifting through the dust of evidence and that is what this film attempts to do.

Tea Party

In the interest of never letting facts get in the way of a good story

Not that this proves anything or finds any specific group responsible, mind you. There is an entire community in America represented by the “Tea Party” adherents who believe half a dozen impossible things before breakfast. Often accused of lacking education and rational thinking, the Tea party lobby for “changes” in American infrastructure, medical care and politics based on presumptions about their government and culture outside observers here in Australia might suggest is based on dubious evidence. America abounds in “crazies” in rather unique ways. So if America is the land of the conspiratorial and the paranoid, does this, in itself, invalidate theories that suggest 9/11 is not what it is sold to us as? Logically not, but emotive reactions to the proposal that there might be something to the theories, usually sway one’s beliefs, to ignore evidence to the contrary. To put it in the terms of the classic cliche: “Just because your paranoid, doesn’t mean your wrong!”. The documentary is although worth looking at ( the link here again ), then by all means look at the claims from it’s detractors.

Consequences

It is unlikely that the truth will come out while the possible perpetrators are still alive and possibly are in position to ensure detailed investigations are “delayed” and obfuscated. Misdirection and misinformation are the tools of war as Sun Tzu pointed out and in the battle for the truth for 9/11 we are at war with an unknown enemy who knows this well. In the meantime, whatever your views, the event was a catalyst for innumerable crimes and illegal or dubious forays into the wider world by the American War machine. The death toll of 9/11 pales in comparison to the actions and deaths that were generated by these subsequent events. Irrespective of what you may believe or who you blame for 9/11, it is very clear who was responsible for it’s aftermath. “Truth” is the first victim in this form of war and that is the nature of the world we live in, sadly!

Aylan

September 4, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The fate of Syrian refugees if we continue our abuse, our wars, our justifications.

When will we understand?
Our gulags need be canned!
When will we open the doors?
And release the prisoners of wars!
When will we try to seek?
To raise our voice and speak!
When will we find the truth?
Hidden by lies uncouth!
When will we acknowledge our race?
Has to answer a criminal case!
When will we open our eyes?
To the damage, we cause with our lies!
When will we finally believe?
All people equally grieve!
When will we seek to strive?
To have love – our hearts – to drive!

Not today, not here, not now
Till we make compassion a vow!
When there is nothing left to defend,
Only then, will all of this end!

…

We need to change who we are!

… (continued thoughts) …

I first saw the actual photo of this child in the wee hours this morning, as I was finishing off another article. Confronted by it, I wrote the poem above completing it around two in the morning, as I could not sleep. Having in some manner expressed my feelings I eventually crashed to bed. I woke as my son as usual jumped into our bedroom, begrudging his enthusiasm for being awake and alive. The image of this boy a few years older than my son haunted me. Once my son was at school, I began to explore his story. The image had gone viral and the reactions diverse. Some understandable and others are perplexing.

One reaction, which I have only recently become educated about, appears to be one of regarding it as “emotional porn” or “clickbait” and that somehow just mentioning it or how it makes us feel or what his death represents, dehumanises the boy. I would have thought it was exactly the opposite. It is the tragedy, the senselessness, and the horror of this, that humanises him in a way that we have not done, for thousands of refugees who died before this little boy.

I admit to having difficulties getting my head around this idea, so I am quoting someone else to try to get a sense of it and understand the objectionableness. It’s the use of the image of the boy as “a tool for others to use to promote or condemn anything“. (I am quoting here) We use images, stories, allegories from innumerable sources joyful, sad, uplifting and tragic to “promote or condemn” everything. How else do we as human beings address issues, build relationships between ideas, talk about life if not to illustrate it with our experiences, images, fears, loves, gut-wrenching retelling (in this case)? It is people’s visceral reaction to these pictures and the lobbying it generated that have induced Britain to announce intent to admit thousands of Syrian refugees into their country. It’s how we communicate as human beings. Why is this off-limits? How does this fail to give “regard to him as a human being“?

I tried to draw a parallel with the way our news services regularly show no regard for privacy to families in various breakdowns, calamities and dramas, in what the media benignly calls “public interest“. Perhaps it is the perspective revealed from our society’s turgid appetite for virtual reality shows and the manufactured breakdowns within them because it brings out the ugly underside of humanity. I understand why someone might object to these. These aspects of human behaviour, example and imagery that rarely have outcomes or influences that might elicit higher morality, compassion, an end to bullying, violence, war and oppression, that this story will. In fact, the former example seems to bring to the surface the racism, bullying and dysfunctional responses. This story is entirely about our regard for him as a human being and the tragedy of it all. Perhaps, although, it is all a matter of personal psychology. People who are genuinely altruistic react to such images and want to engage with it.

Personalities who aren’t altruistic, want to put it aside, out of sight and avoid being confronted with it. Then there are folks who are incapable of understanding emotional reactions at all. Which is a good segue to the official opinion of our prime minister, Tony Abbott? The political discourse is eclipsing human emotional response as Abbott attempts to twist this into fitting his agenda of “Stopping the Boats”. He sees its use as an instrument of political justification. Now there is someone who “uses this child’s image without regard to him as a human being”. (I am quoting again here) Social media has been understandably hostile to this suggestion.

Aylan’s image is becoming one of those seminal images like that of little Kim Phúc from the village of Trang Bang in South Vietnam running naked amidst other fleeing villages. It changed a nation’s attitude to the Vietnam War. Already the British government is reacting. Abbott and company seem unable to respond similarly. So aside from them, the rest of us are human, parents, grandparents and many of us capable of emotion and altruism. We must be the conscience, our leadership isn’t capable of, and rise to embrace this for the sake of the “Aylans” that will otherwise wash to shore. If only to bring about the sort of change the very scared little girl, Kim once did for America. While there is little we can to for Aylan or his family, Aylan’s death can have the power of life for thousands of Syrian refugees and given Brittan’s reaction, he already has.

In regards to Abdullah Kurdi, the father of Aylan as a human being and in regards to the feelings and rights of his family, he at least knows his son will be remembered and honoured. This tragedy, although, does not end here. Abdullah Kurdi has discontinued his efforts to go to Europe. He has lost both his children and his wife. He simply wants to take his family’s bodies back into the danger-zone he left to bury his family in Kobani. He also has stated he wants to stay there now, after having spent so much time and effort fleeing from there. I don’t think he cares anymore if he lives or dies by returning there. Some might think his returning there is suicidal and he probably would agree. In fact, were I him, and I had lost what he has lost, I would probably thank the first I.S. fighter I encountered in his troubled land, who put a gun to my head.

Kobane, Syria after the U.S. & Arab coalition planes bombed and ISIS militants attacked — Kobani, Syria after the U.S. & Arab coalition planes bombed and ISIS militants attacked

Kobane in Syria before the bombing of the city — Kobani in Syria before the bombing of the city

—//—

Postscript 2020

It has been nearly half a decade since I wrote this and still, Australian’s continue to mistreat refugees escaping from the horrors from which young Aylan and his family fled. His image touched the world, yet the refugee situation has worsened. In the two years, that followed 8,500 people drowned in the Mediterranean, 1,150, were children “. In October of 2019, Reuters announced “More than 1,000 migrants and refugees have died in the Mediterranean Sea this year, the sixth year in a row that this “bleak milestone” has been reached, the United Nations said on Tuesday.” And what of the memory and impact of Aylan? I have only this illustration to say everything I need to.

Save