History is written by winners, that's why Australian history starts with the time the first settlers arrived. Writing history after a conflict is usually straight forward: The own effords can be heroised, the enemy demonised, and another clean just war (with some unfortunate civilian causualties) is added to the collection of fairy tales, commonly called history book.
I encountered a more immediate rewriting of history when I participated the G20 protests last year. Ten minutes of escalation were exaggerated to "Melbourne's most violent day", and no mainstream medium offered "fair and balanced" coverage of this events.
However, Chomsky's propaganda model offers insights into the constraints of mainstream media, so it's not too surprising that representatives of corporatism get in line against the Global Justice Movement (which is what is widely called with the derogatory and misleading term "Anti Globalisation Movement").
Yet, not all sources of information and reference are traded, some of them are free. Although we are constantly reminded to by our tutors not to use Wikipedia in academic context, we all know (and probably use) it.
"It is entirely legitimate for your personal political staff to make changes of a factual nature, but to engage public servants to go out there and re-edit history, it strikes me as odd to say the least."
That's Kevin Rudd's comment on the war on history fought by the Howard government. I wouldn't call it odd, just a typical sign of a nominal democracy that lacks sufficient checks and balances.
Dr. Haneef lost his visa because he visited a distant relative. John Howard confers with the Exclusive Brethren, his mate sold visas for cash, but his "character" is not in doubt. Have fun electing your next master - it's not the person Howard, that is particularly bad, it's a system that allows the ruling class to get away with more than its populace ever would. Baaah
To me, the following piece is an indication that history might repeat itself.
Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. "In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation," assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, "because the government's established by the Lord, you know. And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith. That's what's stated in the scripture." Civil rights advocates believe the amount of public cooperation during such a time of unrest may ultimately depend on how long they expect a suspension of rights might last.
Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law is the title of the youtube clip below.
I realised that quite a lot of the Australian people are caught in a kind of hypnosis - with the keyword "terror" used to sell the abolition of civil rights. Yet, once you forget your fear for a short while and dare dealing with the topic "terror" in depth, with analysis instead of the fear-mongering offered by main stream media, you might be able change your attitude, and your habitual reaction the next time somebody tries to sell you fear.
The video is a snippet of the (imho) excellent BBC documentary The power of nightmares, which was shown earlier this year on SBS. With a broadband connection you might watch this on Google video, if you missed it on SBS. I happily burn you a disc containing the three parts, if you're interested and not scared about the brainwashing a BBC documentary might give you.
Nobody told the Germans that they were living in a fascist state while it happened. I encountered while travelling the globe that this 12 dark years of German history still dominate the opinion about Germany and Germans. Hitler is better known than Goethe, Beethoven, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger or Heine. I met more admirers of the Gröfaz (Grösster Führer aller Zeiten / Greatest leader of all times) outside Germany than inside. (That doesn't mean that there's no Nazis in Germany, just that people don't share there racist opinion as easily as elsewhere.)
Nobody told the Germans in East Germany that they were living in a totalitarian state (which was called "German Democratic Republic" (GDR) and had compulsory voting). However, in Nazi Germany there were people like Schindler, who didn't need historians to tell them that something is utterly wrong with the proceedings of their government, but hadn't lost their empathy for other human beings and endangered their life by acting against the "law", and weren't brainwashed by governmental propaganda.
No government ever spread the word that they wanted to screw their population as good as they could, though historians have no problem digging up examples when this happened. Nowadays, we are conditioned to believe in "experts", and unless experts have more airtime to state that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, we dare not to compare the current situation with what we could have learned in history.
Nazi Germany and the GDR used their secret services to suppress democracy, dissent and governmental criticism. Secrecy due to "national security" was the cornerstone of their tyranny, and empowered the Gestapo and Stasi to arbitrarily detain people. Probably that causes me to get suspicious when I hear Philip Ruddock talking, who thinks it's okay that people don't get presented any evidence when they are charged for major offenses. Or to keep them in prison without charges. Or to accept the jurisdiction of fascist courts under the Military Commissions Act.
Another cornerstone was surveillance. Without the support of IBM, the census required to determine the arian or jewish origin, would have been hardly sufficient to kill millions of innocent people. Providing unique identification, which is nowadays done by fingerprinting, DNA sampling or similar biometric means, helped the Nazis to identify their targets.
East Germany, however, wasn't as rampant as Nazi Germany to kill opposition. "Just" those who wanted to leave the country were killed by automatic killing machines or vigilant guards. East Germany didn't have the technology to trace anyone by their DNA, that's why their secret service collected sweat samples of each and every citizen to chase dogs on them when necessary.
My parents fled East Germany, when my dad rejected to pay the union fees. Flyers were distributed in the area they were living, claiming my dad was a traitor to the working class for asking what the unions did for him.
I'm happy that my parents didn't wait 30 years for the Berlin Wall to come down, but fled before this dreadful thing was build. Fighting the system in East Germany was virtually impossible. It didn't kill you (unless you encountered vigilant border patrols or killing machines), but it thoroughly destroyed your chances to participate in society.
My dad (may his soul have a pleasant life after death) didn't wait until historians analysed the mechanisms that created the unjust society that emerged in East Germany after the war, but interpreted the disparity between government propaganda and everyday experience in a rational way.
However, fleeing your home country is no longer an option. Even people from Iraq and Afghanistan are send home, no matter what dreadful fate is waiting for them. What has changed is the opportunity to access information and to organise resistance against ostensibly "democratic" governments.
Although I'm known to you as the "German anarchist", I think that democracy is something worth trying. I might know what makes me happy, but I'm simply not sufficiently arrogant to state I would know what "everyone" makes happy. Unfortunately, I haven't encountered too many politicians in socalled "democratic" societies that share this point of view.
Democracy needs participation, and most advances for the life of "common people", like universal suffrage (for non-property owners, women, native people) has been achieved by direct action. The greek model of democracy just allowed property owning males to vote, females are just allowed to vote since New Zealand introduced it about 120 years ago, less than half a century ago Aborigines were allowed to vote in Australia.
(West) Germany has a longer history of universal suffrage than the US or Australia, yet the legalized feudalism in the US is used as an impeccable example for "democracy". (Does anyone remember Rosa Parks?)
We, the people, have been withdrawn from power or influence for most of the time in history. Germany was happy to have exchanged monarchy for democracy after WW I, yet it just took 15 years, less than a generation, to convert democracy into fascism.
We, the people, have been subdued to unjust governments for most of history, yet my fellow students take democracy for granted, and ridicule those who engage in activism.
We, the people, are now asked to give away the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the rule of law and the right to strike. All of this for the phony "war on terror", which poses a lesser threat than to be killed by lightning.
Enjoy your unsubstantiated fear, or choose to think for yourself.
I took my pick. And I don't mind if you shout out loud: "Godwin's law!". History has repeated itself over and over again, and if you think "political correctness" prevents this, dream on. It is so comforting to forget that a nominal democracy (like in Germany after WW I) smoothly slid into fascism, and to assume that a nominal democracy is inherently safe from fascism.
(In Australia, Faheem Lodhi is imprisoned for a "thought crime" for 20 years. Lodhi was convicted on the basis of alleged future intentions. No actual plans for a terrorist act were uncovered.)
I don't want to convert you into any political camp, as I'm not adhering to anything that deserves this name. I'm more than happy to meet anyone who dares to think for themselves. Dissent is the essence of democracy, which prevents proselytizing. I'd just like to encourage you, if you have more than two brain cells, to assess for yourself whether "terrorism" is a big enough problem to give away the basis for any democratic system.
Jason Koutsoukis lobbies a lot for GM food in The Age lately. He quotes a governmental report that claims that GM food poses no danger to human health and the environment.
The US and Canada, two nations that engage a lot in producing transgenetically engineered food, don't label GM food as such, which makes it virtually impossible to determine which impact on individual health this food has.
Cross-pollination with conventional crop spreads the transgenetic material around - nature is no lab. Genetic material from GM corn in the US was already found in remote areas of Mexico, which has not allowed planting of GM crops.
Per definition, organic food can not make use of GM food, which means that there will be no more chance to produce organic food in the long run, or just on a very limited scale.
GM canola probably looks and tastes like conventional canola, but it is sufficiently different from it to deserve being patented. Basically, it is a new species. Australia has some experiences with introducing new species into its ecosystem, as far as I know hardly any positive experiences. There's lots of toads here naturally, so the cane toad can't harm.... There's lot of canola here, so GM canola can't harm...
The way Jason describes the customer's desire for GM food is quite interesting as well. The acceptance has risen, he states, but mentions no statistics. Was the rise from 10% to 11%? Leaving out precise figures nourishes the suspicion that most customers don't want GM food. Asking customers whether they would want to pay more for non-GM food is not really an objective way to find out about acceptance, and maintains the myth (also known as sales promise) that GM food can be produced cheaper, and the consumer would as well pay cheaper prices. Somehow this contradicts the capitalist mantra of maximising profits, but it nurtures the myth of benevolent corporations.
If you suspect that I don't want GM food to be introduced here, you are right. In Germany, illegally planted GM crops have already cross-pollinated adjacent crops, and thus destroyed the livelihood of organic farmers. Monsanto sued a farmer in Canada whose crop was affected by cross-pollination and made him pay for things he didn't want to have in first place.
Although I'm quite happy with your implicit consent to my prior postings, I'm curious about your thoughts about GM food.
Do you want it? Do you think the introduction of a new species into the Australian ecosystem is a good idea? If GM food isn't labelled, can we with certainty conclude that it has no health impacts? Isn't it a reduction of consumer's choice, if "the whole world" plants GM crop? Wouldn't there be an enormous advantage for Australia to be one of the few countries to still produce organic food?
A decent tyranny needs an evil family, willing keep the power in their hands, no matter what happens. Fidel gave his power to his brother Raoul Castro, Saddam Husseyn would have made one of his sons the next leader, and feudalism used inherited leadership systematically.
It comes as a bit of a surprise that in the US a single family got hold of the presidency twice. Yet, this will for power stems from the grandfather of the current US president, Prescott Bush.
Prescott Bush married into a wealthy family, which provided him with the job to organise financial support for Nazi Germany. At the end of the second world war he was found guilty of supporting the enemy, but was not penalised. The money earned in this nefarious activities built the basis for the wealth of the Bush family.
Prescott Bush's support for the Nazis was just consequential. A BBC documentary followed the traces of an attempt to assassinate Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. There are very familiar names among the conspirators that planned to turn the US into a fascist country like Germany.
GWB has created enough Presidential Orders and Directives to declare himself as a dictator (in case of a national emergency, which is anything the president defines as such). He cannot be reelected, but he might simply cancel the elections.
The reason could be a terror attack, this time certainly done by terrorists from Iran, maybe even nuclear or chemical, in a place like LA or San Francisco. While the inevitable nuclear retaliation annihilates Iran, going to vote is uncertainly impossible. I hope I'm wrong.
I just wonder whether you still think democracy is healthy in the US when the next elections get cancelled, or another country gets attacked.
