Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts

24 October 2018

Buying a Robot Army: are drones the future of defense?


This essay argues that there is a path to the replacement of armies with a national defense system consisting entirely of automated responses and weapons. Based on the future many national armies already see in unmanned weapons, this culmination of military evolution may be closer than it seems. Should we continue reacting with horror to unmanned weapons? They may be inevitable, and we could hope they will form part of a strong deterrent structure that minimizes violence and helps push us to pacifism.

It is well-known that many countries manufacture and operate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as weapons,[1] and this is leading to an interest in solutions to guide similar armed drones without the need for remote control by humans. We can see this already in the concept of "drone swarms", groups of semi-autonomous drones that could participate in battles.[2] Weapons equipped with artificial intelligence (AI), are pursued by the US, Russia and China.[3] Russia's military chief Valery Gerasimov considered in 2013 that "a fully robotized unit will be created, capable of independently conducting military operations."[4]Taken together, such news reports suggest the seemingly fictitious pursuit of robot armies by states is real.

Relying mostly on news reports, this essay will consider the merger of two different areas of military technological innovation. The first is the development of reliable unmanned aerial, naval and ground combat units. The second is the more hypothesis-laden topic of military artificial intelligence (AI), which may be applied to coordinate individual combat vehicles and eventually entire units on at least a tactical level. Military experts have not suggested the breakthrough of artificial general intelligence referred to by AI experts[5] is necessary to hit targets or outperform a human tactician, so that concept will be irrelevant here. This essay will be new in its attempt to make possible the concept of a complete national defense system that can consist wholly of automated units, reliant on automated responses and measures, to entirely replace a manned army. In doing so, this essay will address some military and political challenges such a national defense system could face and argue that its creation is achievable.

Before addressing the present direction of the two major areas of innovation concerned, we can consider an example of a similar defensive initiative. Unmanned defenses and automated retaliatory measures are not new ideas, although similar projects have never been seen as desirable. Nuclear weapons in Russia have been considered as possible components of an automated retaliatory system, in response to the close proximity of NATO forces to the Russian capital. In such a system, launches of the opposing (US) side's nuclear missiles would be detected and automatically trigger a retaliatory strike from Russia without requiring any human authorization.[6] If such powerful weaponry can be launched automatically, why not much less drastic military options deployed in a purely defensive manner?

On the less ambitious end of the spectrum, automated defenses including self-aiming stationary defenses like turrets with machine-guns already exist[7] and intelligent mines have already been advanced as ideas.[8] What seem to be persistently absent from this mix are unmanned anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) launchers and other towed or man-portable launchers. Even the most advanced such weapons known to exist only gained "fire-and-forget" technology and still require crews exposed to danger[9] to perform loading and firing. If better types of stationary defenses were to be relied on more heavily in future wars, they could significantly reduce the need to endanger human personnel with the low-value task of guarding a single point and help deter the most common low-tech threats.

Beyond stationary point defense is the adoption of mobile unmanned weapons. Russia,[10] China,[11] the US,[12] the UK[13] and others[14] all fund programs that consider drones as essential players in the future of warfare. Unmanned weapons such as these are best examined when divided into the different domains of ground, naval, aerial, and space combat and will be addressed in that order here. For a state to fully automate its defense, it would need to have capable responses to threats in all military domains.

The biggest current obstacles to unmanned warfare exist on the ground. Hostile personnel, being flexible and fast, can present a never-ending source of confusion and challenges to drone tanks. Such remote-controlled tanks, called unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), have been trialed in combat by the Russian Federation but are hindered by difficulties in signal,[15] cheap and unreliable design features,[16] and optics.[17] One summary of such problems may simply be that engineers have so little historical experience of creating full-scale unmanned vehicles, in contrast with manned vehicles, that almost all the problems are new and the solutions are still decades away.

Plans to overcome signal problems and the threat of jamming by making drone tanks drive autonomously may be complicated by the "cluttered and unpredictable" nature of battlefields.[18] Whatever targeting software is involved also appears to be too simple to deal with the huge array of threats from a speedy and proficient enemy.[19] The answer to such problems seems to lie in machine learning analogous to the same elusive way image recognition bots are developed.[20] For weapons, that would mean testing them repeatedly with the help of massive volumes of recorded data from real and simulated combat situations until results are promising enough for them to learn in real situations.

Done tanks appear to be the most challenging of all types of military robot to develop. Commercial self-driving cars are likely to remain drastically ahead of them for the foreseeable future. Due to their relationship, advances in self-driving car software can be expected to result in successes that filter down into the technologies carried aboard drone tanks.[21] The weapons will become more reliable as this happens. Self-driving car software appears to already be based on the same machine learning mentioned previously,[22] verifying that this is the likely route that will be taken to create smarter autonomous weapons. Machine learning used for image recognition should be just as applicable to all other data, including audio, radar and sonar, that may be recorded and acted upon in a combat situation.

The future of naval drones shows promise, with the adoption of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).[23] With the most concerning challenges to armed drones arguably existing in the domain of ground warfare, potential dangers to naval drones are not as significant. Naval armed drones are being trialed in various countries,[24] including a Russian drone torpedo called the Poseidon that acts as an autonomous nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered torpedo[25] and has strengthened Russia's nuclear deterrent.[26]

UUVs may have some of the best prospects as unmanned weapons in actual combat, since a non-operating drone underwater could at least be difficult for an enemy to locate. Such a drone could lose signal and be useless for a time, but not be truly lost or surrendered like its air and land counterparts. It can be hypothesized that an underwater drone could be created with the option to remain inert on the seabed, in order to gain an opportunity to reactivate and attack when the enemy is not ready.

Air-to-ground drone warfare is often thought to be fully developed already, but is totally ineffective in contested airspace.[27] Present technology appears to be inadequate to challenge a human pilot. Air-to-air drone warfare may remain too difficult at present, but development in that direction does seem to be of interest to China.[28] The most common use of lethal drones so far seems to be in ethically questioned assassinations by the US.[29] Because these are aimed at non-state targets, with the expectation that they will be undefended and unaware that they are being targeted, the effectiveness of drones as front-line weapons remains untested by the US. What is clear is that current drones and other unmanned weapons are effective only when acting in uncontested and remote spaces. It can be concluded that current unmanned weapons are very far from being flexible enough to compete with enemy manned weapons or enemy personnel in direct combat. Just as with drone tanks, however, this would be overcome by making the weapons autonomous and capable of learning.

Space warfare can already be considered entirely unmanned, because all space objects with potential military value are unmanned satellites[30] heavily dependent on computers and mission control centers on Earth. The fact the only presence held by states on other planets is robotic, too,[31] warns us that robots will be central to space militarization if and when it speeds up. Creating a "space corps", meaning military combatants stationed in orbit,[32] could prove to be a catastrophic mistake while space flight continues to be such a fragile task. This is because opposing states may instead solely focus on robotic satellites[33] that are much less vulnerable and much more menacing in the vacuum of space than any pressurized vehicle or suit. Small satellites, new missiles,[34] and intentionally placed debris[35] created by a desperate enemy could easily inflict overwhelming losses on a space corps and bring them burning down to Earth. Unmanned craft could also survive longer away from the Earth without resupply. Of all the different areas of warfare today, therefore, space warfare would be the most likely to see effective dominance of unmanned weapons, and that is because personnel would be too hard to sustain there. Space is already favorable to the non-living.

Lack of autonomy in drone weapons is their greatest handicap. They are little more than oversized remote-controlled toys in their present form, not much different than their World War 2 era predecessors, remote-controlled "Goliath" mines.[36] They may be even more vulnerable because signals can be disrupted and jammed[37] and obstacles can block signals,[38] potentially surrendering vehicles and their armaments to the enemy or leaving aerial drones vulnerable to interception by a much cruder enemy aircraft.

We can see the creation of lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) is being pursued by states despite the push for international prohibitions against them.[39] Engineers are likely to consider autonomy important to overcome aforementioned problems inherent to remote-control by human operators, especially in the case of drone tanks. Given the current situation, military competition between states can reasonably be expected result in significant strides in the development of autonomous drone weapons in coming decades, possibly as commercial self-driving software filters into military software.[40] If Russia's military chief is correct,[41] this will lead to robotic units that can continue to carry out decisive combat actions even when their signal is severed, and perhaps fight to restore their connection with their commanders. These designs could, we can speculate, be able to defend their own technology from capture and even self-destruct when parts of their casing are opened by unauthorized personnel. Whether this is possible or useful will have to be explored by the relevant professionals.

Beyond the future engineering breakthroughs in lethal autonomous weapons, it is predictable that a whole different form of warfare will emerge in the long-term. This form of warfare will be the result of artificial intelligence continuing to be incorporated onboard military drones[42] or in the signals infrastructure used to control them from afar, or both. Although a completely automated army is not a stated goal of any country, evidence of amazing military engineering will make it increasingly plausible to propose much heavier funding for such projects in the future. It may not even emerge as a specifically funded project at all, but a simple reorganization of robotic forces and integration of future weapons and other systems into that national defense system once the machines are reliable.

Whether leadership of tactical-level decisions for drones could be handed over to a form of artificial intelligence like a robot general is a much more difficult topic to address than the drones themselves, so the following is highly speculative. The breakthroughs to artificial general intelligence and "super" AI[43] are almost certainly not necessary, although the state achieving these first may have a big advantage.[44] The success of computers in chess[45] and various games[46] can be viewed as precedent they can already make swifter and superior decisions than a human expert, but we must respect the fact real wars are much more complicated than any game.[47] It is possible some biological elements of creative thought and aggressiveness are required to act decisively in the fog of war and turn the tide of a battle, but it is not clear if these require anything like a human mind. What is clear is that, because war is so complex, it will be hard to maintain the flow of sufficiently detailed data between drones and an artificial general to allow it to make the type of fast or well-informed decision it would make in a game. This brings us back to the issue of maintaining signal. Whereas food and medicine would never be issues, a whole set of new baggage and responsibilities would drive the actions of an army consisting only of robots.

The biggest engineering problem, even in the exceedingly hypothetical idea of a fully automated military, may not be the creation of competent artificial generals to manage artificial armies but the already discussed problem of maintaining communication in a chaotic environment. It makes sense that such a problem would only be further compounded if a remotely-based artificial intelligence was giving instructions to robotic units and waiting for their feedback. The data being transmitted to and from the units would be immense. Time delays would exist. However, it is possible that the challenges would then be overcome simply by building ever more specialized and larger drones. Antenna-carrying models could be assigned to carry signals over buildings and other troublesome objects and overpower jamming attempts. These hypothetical vehicles may need to be very large, costly, and high-powered to provide maximum coverage. They would become high-value targets that require significant protection from other drones. Other types of supporting drone could be created specifically to attack sources of interference detected by them. Some drones could be adapted to act as commanders by interpreting many signals from lower-ranking drones and issuing orders back to them.

What is not speculation is the way funding and policy preferences of governments are going to be the deciding factors in whether defense becomes more automated, and to what degree. Current military robots and drones can be accurately described as being of limited variety and low cost,[48] indicating governments fund them grudgingly and wait for results before deciding what to do next. The production of war machines capable of acting autonomously and being led by other machines will likely depend on the creation of many more ambitious variants of military drone, with ever increasing size and cost. Whether this is purely science fiction talk or the next big revolution in warfare will depend on the choices of political leaders in the country prepared to take that leap.

The crossover from human warriors and their horses to machines as the main agents of warfare has been in the works for hundreds of years already, but may be close to its ultimate conclusion. It can be argued that drone armies and AI will eventually overtake humans in their ability to win wars. The end result, although still remote, may be that humans become obsolete in all domains of war. Over sufficient generations, it can be hoped that this reduces the militaristic upbringing and values of much of the population and reduces warlike sentiments and policies. Whether that is a helpful prediction has not yet been discussed in any literature so far and is worth further inquiry.

Harry Bentham


Exclusively for The clubof.info Blog

[1] Dillow, C., "All of These Countries Now Have Armed Drones", http://fortune.com/2016/02/12/these-countries-have-armed-drones/, Fortune, 12 February 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[2] Lendon, B., "U.S. Navy could 'swarm' foes with robot boats", https://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/06/tech/innovation/navy-swarm-boats/index.html, CNN, 13 October 2014, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[3] O'Connor, T., "Russia's Military Challenges U.S. and China By Building a Missile That Makes Its Own Decisions", https://www.newsweek.com/russia-military-challenge-us-china-missile-own-decisions-639926, Newsweek, 20 July 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[4] LaPointe, C., and Levin, P. L., "Automated War", https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-09-05/automated-war, Foreign Affairs, 5 September 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[5] Dickson, B., "What is Narrow, General and Super Artificial Intelligence", https://bdtechtalks.com/2017/05/12/what-is-narrow-general-and-super-artificial-intelligence/, TechTalks, 12 May 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[6] Bender, J., "Russia May Still Have An Automated Nuclear Launch System Aimed Across The Northern Hemisphere", https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-dead-hand-system-may-still-be-active-2014-9?IR=T, Business Insider, 4 September 2014, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[7] Parkin, S. "Killer robots: The soldiers that never sleep", http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-soldiers-that-never-sleep, BBC, 16 July 2015, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[8] Bergstein, B., "'Smart' land mines, with remote control", http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4664710/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/smart-land-mines-remote-control/, NBC News, 4 April 2004, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[9] "Antitank guided missile", https://www.britannica.com/technology/antitank-guided-missile, Britannica.com, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[10] Majumdar, D. ,"Russia Is Developing a Mysterious Unmanned Strike Aircraft", https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-developing-mysterious-unmanned-strike-aircraft-23941, The National Interest, 4 January 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[11] Huang, K. "The drones that have become part of China’s military strategy", https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2161354/drones-have-become-part-chinas-military-strategy, South China Morning Post, 26 August 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[12] "Predator C Avenger Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)", https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-c-avenger-unmanned-aircraft-system-uas/, Airforce Technology
[13] "Taranis", https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/taranis, BAE Systems, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[14] Dillow, C., "All of These Countries Now Have Armed Drones", http://fortune.com/2016/02/12/these-countries-have-armed-drones/, Fortune, 12 February 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[15] Mizokami, K., "Russia’s Tank Drone Performed Poorly in Syria", https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21602657/russias-tank-drone-performed-poorly-in-syria/, Popular Mechanics, 18 June 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[16] "Russian Uran-9 unmanned combat vehicle tested in Syria", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MiiUOjmqLo, Binkov's Battlegrounds, YouTube, 20 July 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[17] "Combat tests in Syria brought to light deficiencies of Russian unmanned mini-tank", https://defence-blog.com/army/combat-tests-syria-brought-light-deficiencies-russian-unmanned-mini-tank.html, Defence Blog, 18 June 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[18] "Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology Issues", Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations, The National Academies Press, 2005, pp. 148-153
[19] "Russian Uran-9 unmanned combat vehicle tested in Syria", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MiiUOjmqLo, Binkov's Battlegrounds, YouTube, 20 July 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[20] "What is the Working of Image Recognition and How it is Used?", https://www.marutitech.com/working-image-recognition/, Maruti Techlabs, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[21] Wall, R. "Armies Race to Deploy Drone, Self-Driving Tech on the Battlefield", https://www.wsj.com/articles/armies-race-to-deploy-drone-self-driving-tech-on-the-battlefield-1509274803, WSJ, 29 October 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[22] "What is the Working of Image Recognition and How it is Used?", https://www.marutitech.com/working-image-recognition/, Maruti Techlabs, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[23] Rees, M., "General Dynamics Demonstrates Naval Unmanned Systems C3 Capabilities", https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2018/09/general-dynamics-demonstrates-naval-unmanned-systems-c3-capabilities/, Unmanned Systems Technology, 11 September 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[24] "Unmanned Warrior", https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/unmannedwarrior, Royal Navy Website, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[25] "Russia Begins Sea Trials of Nuclear-Capable ‘Poseidon’ Underwater Drone", https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia-begins-sea-trials-of-nuclear-capable-poseidon-underwater-prone/, The Diplomat, 21 July 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[26] "Russia’s new weapons, nuclear parity and arms race: What’s going on?", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4LejOtYiyw, RT, YouTube, 26 March 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[27] "NATO report highlights drone limitations in 'contested environments'", http://www.natowatch.org/newsbriefs/2014/nato-report-highlights-drone-limitations-contested-environments, NATO Watch, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[28] Axe, D., "Dark Sword: China's Mysterious (and 'Robotic') Stealth Fighter Has Arrived", The National Interest, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/dark-sword-chinas-mysterious-robotic-stealth-fighter-has-26175, 8 June 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[29] Masters, J. "Targeted Killings", https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/targeted-killings, Council on Foreign Relations, 23 May 2013, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[30] Adams, D., "Weaponized Satellites and the Cold War in Space", https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/weaponized-satellites-and-the-cold-war-in-space/, Digital Trends, 1 May 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[31] Mindell, D. A., "Robotic exploration of Mars is equivalent to human presence on Mars.", http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/10/robotic_exploration_of_mars_is_equivalent_to_human_presence_on_mars.html, Slate, 23 October 2015, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[32] Gould, J., "US Space Corps could launch in 3 years, key lawmaker says", https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/28/2021-a-space-odyssey-space-corps-could-launch-in-three-to-five-years-key-lawmaker-says/, Defense News, 28 February 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[33] Gertz, B., "China’s Space Weapons Threaten US Satellites", https://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinas-space-weapons-threaten-us-satellites/, Washington Free Beacon, 26 February 2015, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[34] Erwin, S., "U.S. intelligence: Russia and China will have ‘operational’ anti-satellite weapons in a few years", https://spacenews.com/u-s-intelligence-russia-and-china-will-have-operational-anti-satellite-weapons-in-a-few-years/, SpaceNews.com, 14 February 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[35] Stenger, R., "Scientist: Space weapons pose debris threat", https://web.archive.org/web/20120930100948/http://articles.cnn.com/2002-05-03/tech/orbit.debris_1_low-earth-orbits-space-junk-international-space-station?_s=PM:TECH, CNN, 3 May 2002, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[36] "Back to the Drawing Board – The Goliath Tracked Mine", https://www.military-history.org/articles/back-to-the-drawing-board.htm, Military History Monthly, 12 July 2012, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[37] Kube, C., "Russia has figured out how to jam U.S. drones in Syria, officials say", https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/russia-has-figured-out-how-jam-u-s-drones-syria-n863931, NBC News, 10 April 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[38] Mizokami, K., "Russia’s Tank Drone Performed Poorly in Syria", https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21602657/russias-tank-drone-performed-poorly-in-syria/, Popular Mechanics, 18 June 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[39] " Pathways to Banning Fully Autonomous Weapons", https://www.un.org/disarmament/update/pathways-to-banning-fully-autonomous-weapons/, UNODA Website, 23 October 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[40] "Russian Uran-9 unmanned combat vehicle tested in Syria", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MiiUOjmqLo, Binkov's Battlegrounds, YouTube, 20 July 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[41] LaPointe, C., and Levin, P. L., "Automated War", https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-09-05/automated-war, Foreign Affairs, 5 September 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[42] Lee, P., "Drones will soon decide who to kill", http://theconversation.com/drones-will-soon-decide-who-to-kill-94548, The Conversation, 11 April 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[43] Dickson, B., "What is Narrow, General and Super Artificial Intelligence", https://bdtechtalks.com/2017/05/12/what-is-narrow-general-and-super-artificial-intelligence/, TechTalks, 12 May 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[44] Allen, G. C., "Putin and Musk are right: Whoever masters AI will run the world", https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/05/opinions/russia-weaponize-ai-opinion-allen/index.html, CNN, 5 September 2017, Retrieved 5 October 2018
[45] Gibbs, S. "AlphaZero AI beats champion chess program after teaching itself in four hours", https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/07/alphazero-google-deepmind-ai-beats-champion-program-teaching-itself-to-play-four-hours, The Guardian, 7 December 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[46] McConnell, M., "The AIs Are Winning: 5 Times When Computers Beat Humans", https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/ais-winning-5-times-computers-beat-humans/, MUO, 10 May 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[47] "What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peNU5EffPYU, Military History Visualized, YouTube, 22 November 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[48] Mclean, W., "Drones are cheap, soldiers are not: a cost-benefit analysis of war", https://theconversation.com/drones-are-cheap-soldiers-are-not-a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-war-27924, The Conversation, 26 June 2014, Retrieved 3 October 2018
Read More »

12 August 2016

Opinion: NATO "ought to be disbanded"

The Blog


US presidential candidate Donald Trump thinks NATO membership costs should be paid by European states rather than the US. Sheldon Richman reminds readers that NATO serves US goals, not European goals, in the first place.


NATO is often taken as some kind of protector of Europe, with American soldiers acting as knights in shining armor who do nothing but make Europe safer. This myth captures the imaginations of some European puppets eager to please their masters in Washington, despite the fact the US troops are the targets of Russian nukes in the first place.

Commenting on the misconception at the center of Trump's views regarding NATO, Richman noted in a recent analysis published by the Center for a Stateless Society that "NATO is America’s tool. The member states don’t need it". Rather, Richman says, "America’s ruling elite does. That elite got rather upset in 1966 when French President Charles de Gaulle, resenting US overbearance, withdrew his country from NATO’s military structure".

Richman concludes NATO should be disbanded. "Of course, the US should not really pay NATO’s members. Rather, the alliance ought to be disbanded", he wrote, "It was never just a defensive alliance, and the defensive mask fell away entirely when the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union disbanded. Since that time it has been openly aggressive".


Obviously referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin's military preparations against NATO, Richman notes "any sober Russian leader" would be concerned by the constant aggression, despite it being sanitized in the media as the act of concerned democracies worried about human rights.

US presidential candidates have been unable to resist the fact that the US is in decline against Russia and China and have been constantly referencing the 'old days' when the US was not weak. Richman offers the view that "American strength" has killed enough babies and a weakness would be better.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

19 July 2016

The West should end its own terrorism

The Blog


Rejecting the notion that the West is simply a helpless victim of murder and mayhem committed by radical (and usually Muslim) groups, Garrison Center director Thomas Knapp gives a useful reminder.


From his article, posted on 15 July in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Nice, France:

Western (including American and French)  troops have killed hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, in the Middle East and Central Asia just since 1991.  Many (maybe most) have been innocent civilians. Their families, friends, countrymen and co-religionists have, unsurprisingly, responded in kind. We should stop supporting military adventurism not just because it inevitably results in “blowback” and dead bodies back home, but because it’s as wrong when “we” do it as it is when “they” do it.

It is indeed a hard heart that kills. Tools are mere distraction. Hearts — and minds — are where change begins."

With yet another atrocity occurring in the defenseless and open EU (many people forget the dates of individual terrorists acts now, as terrorism becomes a fact of life within the failing EU), Knapp expects more ridiculous measures by states. They may include "no drive lists" to prevent anyone with possibly radical views from driving heavy trucks, the Garrison Center director wrote on Friday.

Indeed, one consistent behavior of Western states seems to be increased monitoring and bans aimed at previously innocuous devices.

Pressure cookers, vehicles, and possibly even metal bars can expect to be deemed "weapons of mass destruction" in future, as politicians want the whole population in padded cells to enjoy "freedom and democracy".


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

28 June 2016

EU breakup predicted to follow Brexit

The Blog


With the shocking, rebellious decision of the British people to leave the European Union in a recent referendum, analyses predicting the European Union's breakup should be revisited.


Describing the potential "leave" vote as a big loss for Britain's financial elite, on May 15 2015, historical expert and sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein had stated (as reported at this blog), "public opinion in more countries than Great Britain has become less and less enthusiastic about the EU and parties calling for a withdrawal are gaining strength."

Wallerstein wrote, also, "the EU is divided about how to respond to Russia’s reaffirmation of its political role in Europe, especially in relation to Ukraine. Adding a Brexit to this mix of difficulties might be just too much for the EU. The EU and the eurozone are a house of cards, which might simply collapse".

The EU is now in an economic and political war on two fronts, much as Hitler and Napoleon faced. With the loss of Britain, further political pressure on the EU over the Ukrainian crisis would be extremely demoralizing for remaining EU countries like Germany and France, who remember bitter historic defeats at British and Russian hands. It could be too much, with the EU overwhelmed by the economic and political consequences.

Such an analysis, however, was prior to the "Grexit" vote on Greek withdrawal, which had resulted in Greeks voting to remain in the European Union. The financial effects of a UK withdrawal, meanwhile, are potentially more extreme than Grexit due to Britain's eminent position in the EU and the world economy at large.

Also successfully predicted by Wallerstein was that Cameron would regret his electoral successes, which would ultimately strand him in failures and defeats even despite Scots voting to preserve the Union. With Cameron's resignation now certain, Wallerstein's brutal assessment of 2015-2016 political turbulence has proven true, just as his prediction of growing antistatism and regime collapse in the United States will come true.

Analysis by a different author at the US-based Stratfor intelligence firm just two days before the June 2016 referendum predicted:
If Britain leaves the European Union, it would throw the Continent into yet another political and economic crisis, giving Euroskeptic forces greater ammunition against the bloc and voters fewer reasons to defend it... regardless of what happens June 23, Britain has set a precedent that Brussels cannot stop other EU members from following.
While the French President, for example, has already rejected a request to hold a "Frexit" referendum, it seems abundantly likely that demoralized French and German officials will eventually have to agree to similar votes. With the loss of the second biggest economy in the EU already decided, any departure of its remaining big economies will simply caused the bloc to collapse.

The EU's failures to arrive at any common ground to save relations with Britain could signal greater problems in western supranational organizations and lead to the eventual dissolution of NATO.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

17 May 2016

Mont Order-related research available

The Blog


Research into the writings of Jean-Paul Marat in 1774  and their possible reapplication in the modern world has been made available at Dissident Voice and other websites and pages of the Mont Order society.


Quoting Marat's 1774 book The Chains of Slavery at length, the L'Ordre essay relates strongly the origins of the Mont Order's legendary name in the chaos of the French Revolution. As such, it is an attempt to guide the Order and keep its overall philosophy in concert with its origins and associations.

Some conspiracy theorists believe the Mont Order and the Montagnards who created the French Republic and executed Louis XVI before apparently disappearing into the chaos are one and the same.

Theories aside, the L'Ordre essay is an authentic Mont Order document at the Dissident Voice publication, and does express great interest in the revolutionary rhetoric responsible for inspiring the French Revolution. It calls for this to be reapplied in the modern world, with western democracies having gone astray and failed to accomplish what the French and American Revolutions hoped to do.

Jean-Paul Marat was a French physician, journalist and key influence on the "Mountain", who became a martyr of then-new liberal nationalist ideas following his assassination in 1793. Marat lived with a debilitating skin disease, often in exile and hiding in sewers to escape persecution during his political life, while he ran the dissident newspaper The People's Friend.

In its conclusion, the Mont Order essay asks the Order's members to emulate Marat. "Being strongly related to the Mont Order association's own name and hopes, Marat is an ideal role model", L'Ordre argues. Dissidents should therefore be encouraged to be powerful, awe-inspiring individuals who "act bravely against the unproven government and international system" and in Marat's words, "bring the ax to their root" when it comes to dealing with injustices.

Notable differences between the Mont Order and the French Revolutionary thinkers include a lack of interest in patriotic nationalism, with this being archaic in a high-tech modern environment with everyone connected through the internet.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

27 November 2015

France to exploit terror for censorship

The Blog


France and other Western countries will conflate terrorists with critics and dissidents and use the ISIL-inspired attacks in Paris as an excuse to target their own people.


This is the prediction of journalist Geroid O'Colmain speaking to the RT network, as shown in the embedded LiveLeak video below.



Members of the Mont Order society of dissidents and writers were recently interested in the video and discussed it as a model interview.

O'Colmain named alternative media as a likely target of Western governments' measures supposedly aimed against terrorism. The "established order" will be defended, he argues, by going after people who tell the truth about the state's domestic and foreign policy atrocities and mistakes.

The prediction given is similar to that of other analysts, who have quoted the British regime threatening to silence its citizens if they believe conspiracy theories or try to point out British and American crimes in Iraq. Such critics, the regime reasons, need to be silenced because offer a narrative that indirectly supports terrorist groups such as ISIL.

UK Prime Minister Cameron wants to silence "extremist" speech in the UK. Meanwhile, the British regime and its allies are directly arming ISIL by parachuting weapons into the Syrian battlespace for supposed "moderate" terror.



The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

20 November 2015

Russia to carpet-bomb ISIL out of Syria?

The Blog


What will the Russian Federation's new deployment of strategic bombers to the battlefields of Syria mean for the war?


Russia's fighter jets have already been rolling back territorial gains by terrorist groups including the so-called Islamic State (ISIL, ISIS). But these inflict only piecemeal losses on the militants, compared with the area-bombing capabilities of aircraft like the Tupolev Tu-95 and Tu-160. Such strategic bombers are capable of leveling entire towns and destroying whole armies single-handedly.

The efficiency of all airstrikes against ISIL has been suspect. The US-led coalition has been striking ISIL positions for over a year with almost no effect. In fact, the terrorist group has actually gained more territory throughout the US-led air campaign in Syria, as is demonstrated by maps of the conflict so far. The Russian-led airstrikes have been somewhat more effective, clearing key highways and fortifications for the advancing Syrian Army - a force the US refuses to acknowledge or work with, in the belief that it is not "legitimate".


However, the course of the war is still slow, and thousands continue to face torture, genocide and persecution at the hands of the many sectarian militias supported by the West to take control of the country. Russia has compared ISIL with Nazi Germany, with no illusions about how the group should be dealt with and the kind of firepower that might be necessary to defeat it.

In an analysis for the Beliefnet website all the way back in June, it is advocated that strategic bombers are used instead of mere fighter jets (although in that case it was supposing the US would be doing all the bombing). The bombers should be used with the aim of wiping entire ISIL-controlled towns off the map and making it clear that this so-called "state" will be destroyed at all costs by the most powerful weapons available.

The analysis noted that the goal of such bombing is to put the enemy on the run, making them reactive rather than active, which will enable them to be fought on better terms. They will be drastically weaker on the battlefield, as they will be unable to hold any base or position for long.

ISIL has made no secret of the fact that it is in a state of war with Russia, the US and other major powers. It's recent attacks on Paris, and on a Russian airliner over Sinai, have been described as acts of war. France and Russia now not only say ISIL is intolerable and must be destroyed at all costs, but that they will do it themselves if the US is not capable.

World powers accept that ISIL is a significant military opponent. They want to eliminate  ISIL's capacity to wage war, which means they won't hesitate to use their most powerful weapons. Such weapons will be determined by the size and nature of military targets, as they were in the Second World War, and not by moral concerns about how such strikes may later be perceived.

The more civilians are killed by ISIL, the more the case for 'pinpoint' strikes against ISIL weakens and the stronger the case for indiscriminate area-bombing of ISIL becomes. Russia's movement of strategic bombers to the battlefields of Syria might mean they are moving to apply exactly this ruthless approach to warfare.


If used to its greatest extent, such a weapon will batter ISIL's already ruined territory into craters, and demolish any semblance of "state" in the "Islamic State". If Russia and its allies intend to treat ISIL like Nazi Germany, the geopolitical analysts comparing Russia's involvement with the Soviet War in Afghanistan are far off the mark in their historical comparisons.


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

4 August 2015

"Muslim" bikini attack story "selective"

The Blog


News headlines discussing the recent story in France of an attack by "Muslim" women against a girl wearing a bikini were "selective" and discriminatory.


As explained in a recent post at the L'Ordre blog on Beliefnet:
We are told stories such as the recent one in France, where a girl in a bikini was assaulted by apparent Muslim women attackers offended by her choice of dress. However, we are not told of the comparable stories of the Muslim women threatened and attacked by racists in France or Britain even though we know such attacks are equally real. 
Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/lordre/2015/08/islam-is-part-of-the-west-now-live-with-it.html#ixzz3hfqrgobN 
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/lordre/2015/08/islam-is-part-of-the-west-now-live-with-it.html#6OdJZLIBPMT1UBHO.99
The blog further argued that Muslims are part of Europe, and that arguments for discrimination against Islam on the grounds that it is "not a race" forget that neither are Jews or homosexuals a race. In fact the very argument that Islam is not a race is consistent with arguments employed by racists throughout history and it only serves to prove that the people using it are racists.

Beliefnet's L'Ordre blog argued that proponents of the argument that "Islam is not a race" actually "know nothing about why racism is wrong in the first place and are likely to justify segregation or even killing for the same reasons applied by racists in the Twentieth Century". According to the blog's analysis, racism is wrong not for attacking races per se but for being a form of discrimination, much as discrimination against religious and sexual minorities is also wrong despite these not being races.


The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

28 April 2015

France censors kids who are not Charlie

The Blog


The attack on Charlie Hebdo was exploited as an excuse by the French government to crack down on freedom of thought and expression.


In an interview transcript published at Counterpunch, Saïd Bouamama, one of the co-authors of the book Fuck France, described Charlie Hebdo's history of support for US-led aggression in the Middle East. He characterized the publication as being obsessed with justifying imperialism and arrogant ideology responsible for causing wars that have cost the lives of millions of innocent people.

More disturbing, especially to many readers who may have initially favored Charlie Hebdo for apparently expanding the frontiers of freedom of expression, is the extent to which the French government now opposes criticism of Charlie Hebdo. This has led to a staggering form of blatant hypocrisy, in which anyone deviating from an idiotic regime's supposed commitment to "freedom of speech" is going to get censored.

The crackdown on freedom of expression led to police interrogations of children - a moral crime that stoops even lower than attacking journalists or cartoonists. From the interview:
A first consequence was to impose a minute of silence in every school, around the slogan “Je suis Charlie”. Of course, a whole wide range of pupils (not to say too many of them) could not say “Je suis Charlie”, and then they expressed their opinion. They were told that it was a debate and that they could speak up, so they gave their opinion, but when they did then they were summoned to report to the police, some of them are now facing legal proceedings… France considered that not being Charlie implied an apology for terrorism. Eight-year old children were summoned to the police station to be audited for terrorism apology. The first reaction to have if we want to go further in the future, is not to leave these children alone, and to organize solidarity so that this offense against freedom of speech comes to an end, since they say it’s about freedom of speech… These pupils expressed themselves, and instead of getting an educational answer, instead of getting an answer in terms of debate, we get an answer in terms of repression. This is really the first step: when human beings are attacked you have to defend them. In the longer term we have to build popular unity to confront the national unity. Which means that in front of the national unity we could put forward again those who share a same interests. And it is absolutely essential to fight everything that divides the popular classes. What divides them today is an Islamophobia secretely planned and broadcasted from the top.
Such findings indicate that the the vision of nationhood now being adopted by "liberal democratic" regimes like France appears to be about defending constitutional freedom from actual freedom: in essence, defending your freedom to obey government from the anarchy of your own dangerous ideas. One is free under a constitution, but using freedom to subvert that constitution or defy the government and its morals will be demonized as an attack on freedom itself.
Do you have "freedom of speech" only to agree with moral narcissists and dunces lucky enough to own the government and the press - the propaganda machine of "values" - but if you say anything you're not allowed to say, you're called a criminal and taken away to prison?

Is freedom to be cheapened to an idol, the altar upon which the true freedoms of the citizen are sacrificed in defense against the specter of terrorism, and only the freedoms of the rulers and their courtiers in the press (and yes, at Charlie Hebdo) have any value?

The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

10 April 2015

Warmongering for US supremacy

The #LOrdre Blog


The US longs to start a world war that will allow it to relive its "glory days" as a superpower, the L'Ordre blog writes at Beliefnet.


The post made reference to Immanuel Wallerstein's theory of US hegemony to explain US actions:
It is also consistent with Immanuel Wallerstein‘s account of US hegemony, which informs my own view on the matter. Wallerstein argues that the United States was the single global superpower – the hegemon – in 1945, being the only power in possession of a nuclear weapon and the premier cultural and ideological master of the world-system. It was also accepted as the guarantor of global security after the Second World War, being the primary power that came out on top of the global conflict. As the traditional European powers were reduced to rubble and rendered unimportant, they became reliant on the American Marshall Plan to reconstruct Europe – be they Germany, France or Britain. They also needed America as a military and economic guarantor against any possible plans of the Soviet Union to turn Western Europe to socialism. 
Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/lordre/2015/04/the-us-and-nato-are-like-withering-vampires-hovering-over-europe.html#ixzz3WRRvyyGz
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/lordre/2015/04/the-us-and-nato-are-like-withering-vampires-hovering-over-europe.html#7thBY2MDU1ou2A9v.99
The blog was throwing its weight behind another article at Counterpunch, which in turn was quoting at length from a Der Spiegel article to explain the German foreign policy establishment's growing skepticism towards Washington and its NATO alliance (particular scorn being reserved for the NATO military chief General Breedlove) over the Ukraine crisis.

The consensus of all three pieces was that US leaders are beginning to realize that their country's reputation and power have been in continuous decline since 1945, and that their country's role in "rubblizing" and rebuilding Europe was the key to their country becoming a superpower. Realizing that this role is now unacceptable and unjustified because the Second World War is now very old history, the US may be seeking a pretext to destroy Europe again in a new kind of world war, which explains its desperate attempts to lure European countries into conflict with Russia over the Ukraine crisis.

The best strategy to reverse US superpower decline may be to get European countries to sacrifice themselves against Russia, thus destroying their own ability to question American global hegemony again as Germany and France did in the 2003 Iraq War. This would allow the US to return to Europe as a pretentious and arrogant "savior", restoring it to its post-war glory and allowing it to once again declare itself as the arbiter of international law and order and the protector of Europe.

US foreign policy in Europe is based on preventing the emergence of the EU as an independent actor in the international system. Russia is used as a bogeyman to this effect, as the US tries to convince European countries that they are too weak and require American patronage if they are to survive against Russian "aggression".

European countries increasingly demonstrate that they do not share Washington's priorities, as they would prefer a permanent peace in Ukraine rather than a policy of confrontation with Russia. German and EU officials have also made remarks signalling that they are not confident in the NATO alliance and would prefer the establishment of a European army to defend their own interests. Such a move would eject the United States from Europe in disgrace, discrediting it as a military power in Europe and achieving the highest desires of French and German foreign policy thinkers to restore their countries' independence from the US.

The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

27 January 2015

“#Terror” as Victim Rhetoric

@RcLibertine .


The entire purpose of the language of terrorism is to cloak the sentiments of war in a victim rhetoric. You see, France isn’t “at war,” they’re merely responding to “terror” attacks. Those wretched, vile gunmen are not warriors or soldiers, they’re madmen, lone wolf terrorists.


The attack on Charlie Hebdo‘s office on January 7 might otherwise be considered an invasion, an attack from outside forces France has declared war on. But war is far too brutish for the 21st century, where of course violence is on an inevitable downturn and world peace is just around the corner if not for a few meddling terror cells.

Calling such events “terrorism” is just a way of defamiliarizing people with the concept of war. No matter what, an attack on any western nation’s soil is terror, wholly undeserved, never the result of an ongoing worldwide conflict but merely the work of crazed individuals.


Delude yourself no longer with these politically correct terms. There’s a war, many western nations are involved in it, and attacks on your home turf are a result of it. Maybe the neocons would be a little less annoying if they stopped trying to dress this up as something else. Maybe people would be more hesitant to simply pick a side and declare the other side nothing more than barbarous lunatics if we actually talked honestly. It would at least do us all the service of clearing up people’s intentions and allow those around us to judge the situation more accurately.

All acts of war involve terror. The horror of war is not a byproduct, it is the intention. One cannot divorce terror from war anymore than one can divorce pleasure from sex. Treating an entire side of a conflict as the mere triggering of emotions among a geopolitical constituency reinforces that society’s self-righteousness and blinds them to the environment of terror present constantly throughout middle eastern nations that the west has established.

Perhaps this victim rhetoric has been generated by western militaries and media mouthpieces because they know the painful truth: Islamic terrorists are simply more efficient in provoking a feeling of helplessness. While the psychological effects of the west’s war of terror on the Arab world (and beyond) cannot be overstated, it is not difficult to notice just how much more reactive and frightened westerners get when these attacks occur, because they have been sheltered from the results of war for so long.

This is not to say their panic is not without justification. It is perfectly normal to become fearful and aggressive when you realize that no public space is safe, that a group of extremists could, at any moment, decide to make you a target of their violent political agenda. But since theirs is an act of terror and ours an act of defensive war, or more sickeningly twisted, a humanitarian intervention, we as a civilization do not have to come face to face in our discourse on this most horrifying of realities.



Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

Missing Comma: The Pen and the Sword

@illicitpopsicle .


This morning, there are twelve people who are dead who should not be.


Nine journalists, a maintenance worker and two police officers were killed at the Paris headquarters of French satire newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday. Eleven more were injured; four are still in critical condition as of this writing.

Here is a list of the dead (source: The Guardian):

Stéphane Charbonnier, 47, cartoonist and publisher of Charlie Hebdo
Jean “Cabu” Cabut, 76, Charlie Hebdo’s lead cartoonist
Georges Wolinski, 80, Tunisian-born artist
Bernard “Tignous” Verlhac, 57, a member of the group Cartoonists for Peace
Bernard Maris – known as “Uncle Bernard”, 68, economist and Charlie Hebdo columnist
Philippe Honoré, AKA Honoré, 73, Charlie Hebdo cartoonist since the paper’s founding in 1992
Michel Renaud, former journalist and political staffer, visiting Charlie Hebdo
Mustapha Ourrad – Algerian copy editor at Charlie Hebdo
Elsa Cayat – Charlie Hebdo analyst and columnist
Frederic Boisseau – building maintenance worker
Franck Brinsolaro – 49-year-old police officer appointed to head security for Charb and father of a one-year-old girl
Ahmed Merabet – 42 and a French Muslim police officer and member of the 11th arrondissement brigade.

*

This morning you will read countless editorial boards repeating the line about freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Even my local state newspaper, The Oklahoman, has seen fit to take a break from its usual fare to publish an editorial cartoon in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo.

You will also read plenty of pieces of analysis from commentators of all stripes — worrying about the fuel this will add to the fire of French nationalism and anti-Muslim sentiments, incensed that journalism has been attacked, perhaps even adding some of that Islamophobic fuel themselves.

All of these columnists, from the left to the right, from the libertarian to the statist, will miss the point.

For all the talk of Charlie Hebdo’s anti-authoritarianism, commitment to freedom of expression, their courage and bravery in the face of Islamic fundamentalism, their “equal-opportunity” sartorial stance, what everyone seems to fail to recognize is that the attack on Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with Islam, or indeed, religion to begin with.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo was as political as the statements Presidents Obama and Hollande made condemning the actions.


*

Vaneigem once wrote: while it flays us alive, power cleverly persuades us that we are flaying each other.

Charlie Hebdo sometimes mocked French heads of state, sometimes laughed at power, but it never openly challenged it. It was, by all accounts, a paper perfectly willing to engage in satire only so long as it could be allowed to blindly fire in any direction. To this end, it was a useful tool of power.

This should not be taken as a showing of disrespect for the dead. Any time a journalist, or an editorial cartoonist, or a photographer is killed, it is a deep, searing tragedy that fills my — and every fellow journalist’s — heart with rage and anguish. This time is no different. We are an industry that takes to heart “An injury to one is an injury to all.” Recognizing that an outlet — that Charlie Hebdo — serves the interests of power does not reduce the pain or lessen the loss. Even, in this instance, are the deaths of the police officers that were on the scene tragic. That does not change the universal purpose of the police: to serve power.

According to the Guardian, one of the primary suspects in the attack, 32-year-old Chérif Kouachi, was imprisoned in 2008 on terrorism charges for “helping funnel fighters to Iraq’s insurgency. He said at the time he was outraged at the torture of Iraqi inmates at the US prison at Abu Ghraib, near Baghdad.”

Eyewitnesses said one of the suspects proclaimed that they were from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. AQAP is based in Yemen, which has, in recent years, been subject to numerous American drone strikes, resulting in the death of numerous men, women and children. If Kouachi and his brother, Said, are in fact the gunmen, and did end up in AQAP, then it is certainly reasonable to surmise that American/coalition foreign policy up to and including drone strikes may have been a motivating factor for them. Of course, this is just an assumption. For now, the gunmen’s motivations are “whatever we write them to be.”

*

Yesterday Laurent Joffrin, the publishing director of Liberation, a French left-wing paper similar to the Guardian, remarked, “The terrorists have not attacked the ‘Islamophobic’ as the enemies of Muslims, those who constantly cry Islamist wolf. They targeted Charlie.”

And yet, today the reactionaries, the National Front and other right-wing nationalist groups, are making their bid for the highest political offices in France, using the Charlie Hebdo attack as their springboard. Did the paper speak for them?


The latest cover of Charlie Hebdo is a lampoon of French author Michel Houellebecq’s upcoming novel, which imagines a France run by a “Muslim Fraternity.” By all accounts, Charbonnier had been attempting to pull the paper back towards its left roots, especially after the 2011 firebombing of their offices. If this is true, then why would the National Front try to use the attack as an electoral boost?

Because the images that Charlie sometimes published, the ones that many label as Islamophobic and racist, have just as much of an audience as the images that attack the rich, powerful, bigoted. Because when something like this happens, it somehow justifies all the twisted logic of modern-day Nazis.

This attack took place in a country whose last several presidents have signed laws into being that actively ban aspects of Muslim life and freedom of expression. It took place in a Europe that has seen increasingly vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment, and where, as recently as this month, the state has actually ordered pre-school and daycare teachers to spy on Muslim toddlers. It took place in a world that has been at war for the better part of two decades. Charlie’s work was not being done in a vacuum. It served, and continues to serve, power.



Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

23 January 2015

#ISIS: the Envy of NATO

@hjbentham .


When it comes to powerful military alliances, the one grabbing the headlines today is not NATO but what could soon be its new global nemesis, ISIS.


Ironically, both names resemble anagrams of capricious Pagan deities when written in English and French, but let's not be distracted by their games. I am not a friend of the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL, by any means. This is clear in my work with the influential Iranian media station Press TV.

However, I cannot dismiss the political and military performance of the Islamic State. Its survival in the face of the US Air Force and Navy's most powerful weapons has been breathtaking.

Even I am beginning to think the Islamic State will prevail.


We are misled in all the media, including some for whom I write, into believing this is a mere hate group or terrorist band. What we are dealing with is a State - a Caliphate - and it could be one of the major candidates for a future form of government unlike anything ever seen before in modern politics. We must not underestimate its power. Even those of us who would prefer to dismiss it as a rabble and move on with our plans must, at the very least, listen to what I have to say here.

We have lost our way. The liberal democratic model of state, which we are hugging tighter to in our misguided sense of security that we are better than the Islamic State, is militarily and morally stunted and will never overpower the Islamic State. While France could barely muster fifty combatants to fight the Islamic State in Iraq, the Islamic State recruited well over a thousand soldiers from France's own so-called nation.

Our governments cannot save us from the Islamic State because they have lost the ability to wage war, or even conduct politics adequately. Other than occasional air strikes aiming to "influence" or "tip" the outcome of conflicts that are nothing to do with us, the armed forces of so-called Western democracies are now completely emasculated and will never carry out a successful ground war again.

A large part of this is the "ageing" or "greying" of Europe and North America, as our populations are reduced to isolated, frustrated, delusional Daily Mail readers whose future has long since been lost to the growing migrant populations now inhabiting Europe and North America. These migrant populations, who are an integral part of the so-called nation, do not and cannot share the old-fashioned nation-state allegiances that our governments relied on to survive. This is why there is so little will to war, such poor armed forces recruitment levels in Britain and other so-called nations, and now ever more impressive numbers from our own population flocking to join the Islamic State.

That latter point cannot be reiterated enough because it is so important. Our populations are now more prone to travel to Iraq to join the Islamic State than they are to support an overseas war against such a regime. With figures such as this, we must face the fact that we have already lost the so-called war on terror.



These events all correspond EXACTLY with the predictions of US social theorist Immanuel Wallerstein, whose work has been a great influence on me. In works such as Utopistics as early as 1998, he predicted that as the "white" world becomes, "de facto, less white", and borders, security and intellectual property barriers are increasingly circumvented, states will lose what he called their "social cohesion". The result is that the government will cease to function, leaving our rulers open to be slaughtered and a vast power vacuum where the "West" used to stand - possibly as soon as the year 2050. This will not be a pretty period in history. It will be "hell on earth".

We must not obfuscate our understanding of what is beginning to happen. Those of us who profess to have alternatives to the failing state and the unjust destitution of most of the world must not salvage the so-called nation.

We must help the nation die, and part of this revolutionary act of euthanasia is that we should not worry for our nation's reputation, military prowess, or symbols, but urge these to be destroyed and urge our own countries to allow themselves to be defeated.

The Islamic State is no worse than our own governments. If the Islamic State reduces our governments to ashes and slaughters our rulers, we should thank them.

Let us throw open the gates of our decadent countries and allow our old regimes to be crippled and defeated. The existing authorities and elites will have to lose legitimacy in time, so that a more just and rational alternative system can be passed through and take their place.


Image via Twitter user @Umm_Anaas J

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

16 January 2015

It’s Only Censorship When They Do It

@jfrost. #WikiLeaks. #CharlieHebdo. #journalism. #JeSuisCharlie.


Racist cartoon used by the controversial magazine Charlie Hebdo

The deplorable attack on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, in which terrorists killed 12 and wounded 11, incited several reactions from the public, the sensitized media, and heads of state who hope to extract political gain from the matter. Amidst the generalized panic, Islamophobia has risen once again (due to the religious motivations of the attack) and Charlie Hebdo has been raised to icon status — contra the newspaper’s celebrated iconoclasm — with the #JeSuisCharlie campaign.

The human tragedy here, however, tends to multiply manyfold with its political exploitation by western governments, which have already started agitating their propaganda machines to foster a civilizational clash. French president Francois Hollande states that the attack was an act of “exceptional barbarism” against “a newspaper … in other words, an organ of free speech.” According to Hollande, it was an “act against journalists who had always wanted to show that in France it was possible to defend one’s ideas.”

US president Barack Obama doesn’t forget to highlight the obvious fact that terrorists, in sharp contrast to the state he represents, “fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press.” According to him, terrorists nevertheless will not be able to silence the fundamental idea shared by French and American peoples, “a universal belief in the freedom of expression.”

UK prime minister David Cameron reinforces that Britain stands “united with the French people” in opposition to terrorists and in defense of free speech. To German chancellor Angela Merkel, the shooting was also an attack against the “freedom of the press.” Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, not to be left out, declared the shooting an “unacceptable attack against a fundamental value of democratic societies: the freedom of the press.”

Despite the barbarism and extreme violence of the attack on Charlie Hebdo, it’s not surprising to find that western governments are absolutely ecstatic with this event, which easily lends itself to their narratives of intrinsic western superiority relative to Muslim backwardness. Maybe they’ve waited for this all along: Something that makes their “they hate our freedoms” rhetoric sound less puerile.

After all, none of the countries so collectively outraged are prime examples of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Charlie Hebdo itself adopted its current name in the 1970s to sidestep a ban on the newspaper put in place by the French government. France today occupies the unenviable 39th spot in Reporters Without Borders’s World Press Freedom Index, which highlights the weak source confidentiality protections in the country and steps the French government took to censor corruption-related recordings. The French state’s reiterated attacks on the Internet slide into the path of handing over total power to bureaucrats.

The USA, always looking after western freedom, apparently has no problems with suppressing information, seizing journalistic institutions’ phone records without warrant or due process, and arresting whistleblowers and journalists themselves. Not to mention the draconian and frankly ridiculous “intellectual property” laws used to silence dissent and maintain the corporate status quo.

We should ask ourselves if the UK’s new pornography censorship laws would allowsome of Charlie Hebdo‘s covers to be published. Germany’s politicians can barely control their happiness in censoring the Internet. And if Charlie Hebdo’s political cartoons appear harmless, what should we say about the extensive modification and mutilation of video games to match German bureaucrats’ sensibilities?

It is true that terrorists hate freedom of speech. But in that they differ little from western countries. They only employ different methods.

By Erick Vasconcelos - More articles by Erick Vasconcelos

Originally published at C4SS on 9 January 2015

Image credit: not required. To avoid hypocrisy, please do not censor.

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

Featured

From Hormuz To Malacca: How The Iran War Is Reshaping The Indian Ocean

From Hormuz To Malacca: How The Iran War Is Reshaping The Indian Ocean By Uriel Araujo The crisis around the Strait of Hormuz and the US-Ira...

Follow Me on Twitter