Israel and Lebanon were once allies

Share |

If you ever were unsure about who is the enemy in the Middle East, and wanted a good summary of how matters have come to pass, this is the video for you. This speech is very good. There are some errors. She blames Arab governments for mounting a great deal of propaganda against Israel. I would suggest that it was the liberals in the West whom are to be blamed for this folly. It ought to be as plain as day that even moderate Arabs are morally ambivalent or too scared to speak out against the actions of Muslim extremists. What the world needs is some courageous, honest Muslims to speak out against the Arab collectivists. In most Western countries there is a tendency for Arabs not to speak out. I can recall only one. This is not surprising. The Arab world is among the most collectivist countries in the world. It is even less likely to find an Arab who is critical of Fundamentalist Muslims than it is to find a Japanese national who thinks the US was entitled to bomb Hiroshima.

There is a series of these videos so I hope you go through the series. For the record, I repudiate all religion - Christianity and Islam included because they are a repudiation of rationality, egoism and individualism.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Middle East instability good for commodities

Share |

The West has long championed democracy. They want it for the West, and they want it for the Arab world. Careful what you wish for. The reality is that the Arab world is not ready for any form of moral political regime which will serve them. Anything they hatch will be a coercive system. There is the very real threat that any revolution in the Middle East will simply turn into a civil war, from which a jihad will be pursued by some populist with shallow ideals.

More importantly for the West....what about the oil? If there is any hint at all that further Arab nations are going to fall prey to revolution, then we are going to see gold and oil prices skyrocket. The US will be in the very awkward position of no longer being able to prop up a dictator, and also in the position of defeating a 'democratic shift' for these countries. Might it even resort to propping up the existing regimes?

The other possibility is that the US and Britain seek to protect their Middle East oil interests. We must remember that the US and British oil interests in the region were nationalised in the 1960s. Might they decide to belatedly seize them back, whether for their own sakes, or to act as a form of trustee for foreign and Arab interests, i.e. Savings scheme for Arabs.

These are very interesting times, and the prospects for political instability has escalated considerably... so this is a critical time to hold commodities such as gold and oil stocks. There are a number of reasons in fact:

1. Regional war in the Middle East - on many fronts as Iran is very unstable as well

2. North Korean threat - probably less of a concern

3. Financing issues for the West - there always seems to be trauma when the West has a financial crisis. Might the US monetary policy be causing 'cost-of-living' inflation problems for Egyptians?

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Is the next Chinese leader Evil?

Share |

What might we come to expect from China's new government? Apparently they have already selected the next appointee - Xi Jinping, China’s current vice president. This leaves us wondering what type of China can we expect.

In this post I want to use some NY Times media article as the basis for my moral criticism of this new appointee. We might also ask why is the media so reluctant to engage in moral judgement...or is the problem that media journalists are just bad at it. I want to comment on some excerpts I have taken from this article:

“Nor was Mr. Xi untainted by corruption scandals. One party investigation into bribe-taking in Ningde and Fuzhou, publicized years after he left Fujian, toppled two former city leaders whom Mr. Xi had promoted”.

We therefore know that there is a strong correlation between this new appointee and corruption. Critics might argue that China has always had a great deal of corruption. The issue remains though that such a 'strong candidate' might be a particularly risky candidate from this perspective. Might it also pose a problem in terms of aiding his capacity to centralising power. We might also expect his style to herald a different approach. I would not be surprised to see a tempering of the political power (welcomed by the West), but also an escalation in the financial expropriation of corrupt government.

“Since joining the inner sanctum in Beijing, Mr. Xi has reinforced his longstanding posture as a team player. As president of the Central Party School, Mr. Xi recently made a priority of teaching political morality based on Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideals, a resurgent trend in the bureaucracy”.

This quote suggests that there is still some sympathy for collectivism...so he is no advocate of capitalism. He has not simply preserved the status quo; he has reinforced the collectivist creed, regardless of whether its communism or fascism, its collectivism at heart. This highlights that China is veering in the wrong direction.

“He once told the American ambassador to China over dinner that he enjoyed Hollywood films about World War II because of the American sense of good and evil, according to diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks. He took a swipe at Zhang Yimou, the renowned Chinese director, saying some Chinese filmmakers neglect values they should promote”.

This is interesting because it invalidates his pragmatism, so he has a manipulative nature. He also expresses a strong coercive desire for power over people's values. This would of course be tempered by his pragmatism, however that is just a question of strategy. The implication is that the Chinese executive is supportive of a leader who is going to centralise power in coming years. He is also recognised as a very charismatic style of leader. Take note that his wife is a popular folk singer in China. So he is the style of leader who, unlike Putin, does not need to be taught charm, he has been faking it for years already.

This particular NY Times journalist suggests:

“His [Xi's] views of the West remain difficult to define”.

I don't think so. His style and values expressed by these comments suggest that he is a very dangerous and undesirable style of collectivist who is destined to centralise and affirm collectivist power in the Chinese executive. He displays signs of nationalism with racist overtones. There is not much evidence, but it is all consistently EVIL! Compare him to the former Japanese Prime Minister, Juniichi Koizumi, who also liked Hollywood movies. He I think liked the romance and charm of Hollywood movies, but this 'pragmatist' likes the schemes of 'good and evil'. He is a very dangerous man...and he chooses collectivism..That's evil. Anyway, he is probably going to bring civil war to China....but in all probability not for 2 decades yet...watch for a financial crisis ib China. It is some time off yet. The greatest fear though is that he will escalate nationalism and thus racial prejudice. Watch for those schemes. More importantly, the United States could actually play into his hands if it starts attacking China's policy over exchange rate regimes (i.e. calling for its deregulation) or if it engages in a trade war. This would of course allow the Chinese leader to deflect hostilities outwards. It is better to sell benefits behind the scenes.

If the United States escalated tensions with moral condemnation, where would China go? Probably nowhere. In fact, I think China would be worried about offending too many countries. Most particularly it will allow the leader to consolidate power and to simply be more corrupt than it already is. It will be power for the sake of money. I tend to think militarism is just a symbolic gesture these days. The nuclear age has pretty well placed major wars behind us.

The next question is whether he is an ardent nationalist. He made his remark:

“Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage in finger-pointing at us”.

This comment is not a compelling indicator of his nationalist values because it is in response to criticism. Certainly he is a collectivist, so we would expect a high level of national pride. It is a popular myth in China I would suggest that Westerners are indulgent, glutenous and decadent. Oh, who am I kidding...its all true for a great many of us...as the Chinese will be when they make a great deal of money.

He then makes the statement:

“First, China does not export revolution; second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it does not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?”

We must however remember that he has a pragmatic, collectivist "ideology", so what is true today need not be true tomorrow. That is what defines a pragmatist - 'flexibility of ideals' - not a lack of ideals, which you might consider an 'indulgence' in itself.. hehe. Well, Chinese philosophy was never very good. Just a lot of coercive, pragmatic, Buddhist/Taoist crap. Give it time, Western 'scientific' reasoning will take hold. Hopefully it will be a better version that the crap accepted as scientific reasoning today in the West, with its emphasis on empiricism.

Can we take some comfort in the acknowledgement by Hu that China could improve its human rights record". This statement from NZ Herald:

"Hu delighted Obama with an admission that China's human rights need improvement".

This is as good as empty rhetoric because few Chinese people are going to hear it; anyone on the home turf is going to be oppressed if they act upon it, and ultimately they only need to maintain a gradual trend towards rights to attain some legitimacy from the West. More problematic is that the West does not have a good track record. Everyone celebrates human rights in the West, but what good are political rights if you have no economic rights. i.e. The tax office can seize money from your bank account....for the same reasons China does, i.e. for the 'common good'...for the same reasons that Hitler did.

In conclusion, I would suggest that the West should not push policy on China, however it should continue to maximise the integration of Western and Eastern values. Ultimately if Chinese power is going to be tempered, it is going to be by internal dissent. I would also suggest that the greatest influence upon China is going to be Western values on the future Chinese leadership. It is indeed a positive step then that the future leader's children are studying at Harvard. So long as the West continues to occupy a 'vacuous space of moral scepticism', we weaken the prospect of China choosing the 'right path', that being an objective path consonant with human nature, i.e. The facts of reality. i.e. Based on a correspondence and coherence test of truth. More concerning to me is that we are becoming more collectivist (i.e. moving towards China) by allowing the trumping of common law by arbitrary statutory law.

------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Resource Rent Tax
Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Caution - democracy can kill you

Share |

Many would argue that democracy has served us well. They would argue that democracy has delivered hundreds of years of peace to many countries. I however question that assertion. I would instead argue that its folly to think as much because...contradictions do not exist...except in the minds of individuals. The problem with democracy is that, like fascism and any other form of collectivist power, it does not solve problems or conflict, it subjugates them. It says the majority is right, stuff the minorities.

The implication of the 'no contradictions' model is that when people cannot get access to principle, they accept that they do not have political power. It does not dispel their personal frustrations, it does not clarify the nature of their contradiction if they have one. It does not give them any recourse if they are right. What it does is shift their protest from a political context to a 'inner protest'. When a government repudiates our right to be heard; our right to a resolution on any grievance, then it causes us to repress conflicts. We can of course resolve our mistakes. But people are not inclined to do that. Why would they? Our entire system of public organisation is based on faking reality, i.e. perceptions, so why would we expect people to resolve issues inwardly? Why would we expect people to have such mental clarity when they are products of our education system?

Democracy is an assault on your mental health...but it is more than that. It is an attack upon science, and it is potentially very dangerous. The implications can be huge. Consider the current climate change issue. There are a great many scientists saying there is a human cause, then their are a minority of other scientists saying its just natural processes or cyclical variation.

These ideas have important political implications. But lets assume instead that the issue was more dire. i.e. Say we were dealing with a viral infection that could wipe out the human population? Or an imminent meteorite impact. Scientists were called upon to render an opinion. Would we want to sanction a 'popularity contest' in order to settle the matter? Well, this is how our science is being evaluated in our contemporary political landscape. Dubious scientists are being validated and applauded whilst the minority are being ridiculed for having a different perspective. There is no attempt to reconcile or resolve the issue by politicians. There is no attempt to pool these people. Instead they are allowed or encouraged to separate into 'schools of thought' and to lobby the government for a sanction. The government of course goes with the politically correct view, which is that humanity is a loathsome species who must renounce their greedy values and comply with government legislation.

In the case of global warming, this can cost a community a great deal of money....but it has deeper ramifications in terms of its impact upon lives. The way these decisions are handled will change the way people view science. Science will cease to be about causation, and it will be again be based on correlation..just as it was in the 'Dark Ages'. That is after all the distinction between Modern and Ancient Man...the propensity to strive for causation. Science is quickly descending into an era where 'animal values' will decide the fate of humanity.

This is not a new phenomenon. Read the 'History of Science' by John Gribbin. He documents numerous cases of scientists self-righteously retaining ridiculous positions....mostly because they were so impressed by the body of work of people like Newton. This is what prevented the advance of science for 100 years in one instance.

So I suggest eventually a plague or meteorite will eventually wipe us out....because we are not getting smarter. We will continue to stumble upon scientific 'wisdom' but we will lose our capacity to anticipate problems...which is a threat to our existence. It could kill more than you.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

India's democracy is corrupt - change the system!

Share |

An Indian man was killed by local government official after he used the very powerful Right to Information provisions in the law to challenge their right to exploit his land for limestone. The man was shot in a drive-by killing after writing a letter to the local newspaper. Death is a potential risk where corruption is involved.

"India may be the world’s largest democracy, but it remains dogged by the twin legacies of feudalism and colonialism, which have often meant that citizens are treated like subjects. Officials who are meant to serve them often act more like feudal lords than representatives of the people".

The problem however is that there is no such thing as representation as long as:

1. You do not have the opportunity to renounce your sanction. i.e. The requirement to wait for years until the next election is not good enough.

2. You do not have an effective choice when you are obliged to choose between parties. Worse still that you only are able to choose among several people you do not even know to any great depth because news media give you know analysis of their character.

3. Your sanction is collectivised through the electoral system, which is supposed to conjure up some fantasiful notion of 'the common good'. Where is the common good? If there is any such notion, it does not lie in a 'collective consciousness', since there is only a collection of specific individual consciousnesses. What plausibly could anyone person represent but an idea or a principle? But that is not the foundation of democracy. Democracy does not deal in ideas (i.e. debates). Not really. There is the facade of parliamentary question time. The real debates are not about ideas; they are not about education or learning, or persausion. They are about extortion. Numbers, whether votes or money. That is the nature of our democracy. That is why people get killed. You cannot kill an idea when ideas are respected. It only takes one person to raise an idea, it takes a majority to give ascension and credence to a good idea in a democracy. And yet you sanction this system in your name. You allow the government to show that you sanction this facade by voting for it each year. That is the true purpose of democracy...to sanction stability, allowing all manner of indiscretions to occur whilst you 'passively' think you are being represented. If you thought for a moment how fantasiful that notion is, you would realise it never works. Simply look at how many people vote in shareholder meetings, if not democratic elections...they don't because they know the process does not work for them. The only people to participate are either misguided idealists (and there are a few) and those for whom the system works. Change the system!

But be careful what you wish for. Accountability is not the issue. Accountability to what?

"The law was intended to be a much-needed leveler between the governors and the governed. In many ways it has worked, giving citizens the power to demand a measure of accountability from bureaucrats and politicians".

The law is not a rational standard of value. Over the last 900 years common law, which is our most logical law, has been displaced by arbitrary statutory law. The arbitrariness of statutory law is the reason why it cannot be trusted as a source of law. It has engendered all manner of loopholes which will allow the politician to escape accountability. You will be holding him to a standard which he constructed to serve him. After all, extortion (i.e. taxation) is legal under statutory law for politicians, but strangely it is illegal under common law. There are plenty of double standards like this under statutory law, which are intended to protect politicians from accounting. Their folly is that they don't realise that they ultimately can be held accountable to the standard which they invented, but which can change. Sadly, it might be some lynch mob...but they were the role models for such a system. My interest however is an objective standard. These politicians are a product of our education system...change the system from the top!

Mr. Socha, an environmental activist, said:

“Our hearts are broken after his death...You cannot fix the system. Everybody is getting money. If I give my life, what is the point?".

The system can be changed if people think. Encourage people to think. Email your friends this story. This is a very powerful example of the systematic flaw in our democracy. It starts with one person....and it builds. Cynicism and moral scepticism is as much the problem as corruption...it is a form of corruption.

You might think this is just ‘extreme’ Indian politics…it’s not…its Western democracy when the stakes are high. In Australia, a minority politician spent 3 months in jail because of the political pull of the major parties…before a judge overturned the decision. That is all it took to retain power for the main parties. They did not need to kill her, they just needed to discredit her…job accomplished. If killing is necessary, powerful interests will often do that.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The philosophy of lawyers needs rewriting

Share |

Reading this article “Iraq inquiry: we have every right to know why we went to war” by Michael Mansfield, QC in the Sunday Times, it is immediately apparent how naive lawyers are, and how much they need a conceptual grasp of law – call it ‘a philosophy of law’ This is just some of the damage caused by statutory law.

Michael Mansfield wrote ‘Memoirs of a Radical Lawyer’, published by Bloomsbury in Sept 2009. His argument is that

Mansfield asks: “How it was that a sophisticated, multifaceted parliamentary democracy failed to detect, let alone prevent, such a misconceived and costly military adventure? On this, there has been a singular lack of scrutiny and accountability”.

The answer is simply that our democratic, parliamentary system is none of those things. Our democracy is a fraud; a pretence of justice and leadership. The intent of parliament is to quash and placate your conflicts for the greater good of stability, and not to reconcile or resolve your conflicting values. The war was part of that charade. It was not a mistake...it exactly served their purposes. The public’s needs were never a consideration...neither were facts. The reason for people’s naivety on these issues is that they still possess some romantic notions of democracy, just as their parents held romantic notions about imperialism. People are struggling to recognise that all such follies are forms of collectivism. The contemporary democracy is leading us towards fascism and civil discontent, which stands a good chance of leading to civil war.

Mansfield writes: “The public, servicemen and women and thousands of dead, injured and displaced Iraqi citizens have a right to know, with a full public explanation and protocols for change”.

The reality is that they don’t have rights; they have only the pretence of them. Consider their political rights. What is the value of rights if the law is arbitrary? What is the point of political rights if you have no economic rights? Is it ok that the government can give you notional political rights, but at the same time plunder your wealth? There is no dichotomy between mind and body. If you have no economic rights; a right to retain your wealth; then you have no effective political rights.

It therefore does not surprise me that:

“ ...the Government has already imposed nine protocols for non-disclosure and secrecy”.

People however do not need to know whether there is some concrete evidence to justify war...the process by which all decisions are made is flawed. This system will not achieve justice....it’s just that people don’t grasp the nature of our political system. Why seek to persecute the politicians of the day, and then leave the system to exist as it is. Why live another day under such a bad system. The problem is not any person...its an idea. Unless people start thinking like humans – using causation – and not like animals – with correlation – we are simply going to make the same mistake...and fail to reform the system.

“The Iraq inquiry has resumed this week, promising crucial witnesses — Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Lord Goldsmith and possibly Gordon Brown. We have been told repeatedly what it is not: a trial, an inquest, an inquisition, a court, a statutory inquiry”.

There is a question of accountability; but are you going to hold politicians accountable for a system of ideas which they did not invent. Reform will go nowhere if there is any element of blame because the flaw does not lie with any one person; it is systematic and deeply embedded. We were all lied to as children; and our parents were lied to. They were not liars so much as products of their worse nature. Humanity had to discover what it means to be authentic, and it has been a challenge to change the system because we are corrupted to our core by entrenched subjectivism in our core political and educational institutions.

One of the problems is that too many people are going through life without questioning their most basic premises. They are living routines which they did not consciously choose, but which was subtly accepted in their cultural context. We need to challenge our most basic ideas if we are to progress. If a counterparty repudiates our ideas, we need to be open to all possibilities, with intelligibility or rationality and raw experiences as our only standard of value. We cannot allow any assumptions because they are a legacy of that era of collective delusion and self-righteousness.

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple but without it lessons will not be learnt, let alone remembered. This inquiry must ensure with all the means at its disposal that the truth is sought and found”.

What truth? That the existence of weapons of mass destruction was a fabrication? It would not be surprising...but that is not the message...that some ministers’ are flawed...the system is flawed. Irrespective of the reasons; it was moral for Britain to invade Iraq. The problem is the system which sabotages broader decision-making. This is not a crime scene...there is the prospect of a broader revolution in thinking and action. Education, crime, justice, health...these are all pertinent issues sabotaged by our system of government...which sabotages people’s thinking.

----------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

India a leader in putting laws to song

Share |

People really are not aware of India's role in reforming global democracy. This place is a hot-house of injustice simply because its more unstable than most other democracies. We have witnessed the capacity of democracy to whether all types of storms.

So far in India, we have seen judicial activism compel governments to reform. This has resulted in the judiciary taking a more active role in law making. People might spurn the idea of judges 'making the law' as opposed to 'interpreting' it, however the reality is that the dichotomy is a misconception. Interpreting law is making the law; its just making less fundamental law, as well as reconciling fundamental laws, as is often the case with High Court decisions.

Chief Justices don't argue this point for some reason. It is a pity...Good if we didn't have morally ambivalent Chief Justices.

So judicial activism is very a big undercurrent in India...but the other one is 'Bundarro'.

What the **@@@?? I have no idea what this is about, but it seems to be a grassroots political activism which places the laws of the nation into song. Can someone interpret this song for me. Anyway, I think its a great idea. Karaoke justice! Let's not fight wars; let's just dance. Problem is I guess - the Indians were never leaders in rhythm. If this gets to the ghettos - watch out!

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com