The cyclic nature of man....

I teach history to kids in the tenth grade. I rarely use textbooks but instead rely on material such as personal narratives, articles written on perspectives of catastrophic or spectacular events, collective testimonials, and the vast accumulated knowledge I have amassed through my travels, my readings, my experiences etc. I have read hundreds, if not thousands of books, on the fallibility of man as manifested from individual acts (from Eugene Debbs to Peter the Great) to organized genocides (Pol Pot, Rwanda, etc) and pass the knowledge onto my kids, desperately trying to inject a new understanding of what man really is. I organized a principle of the cyclic nature of human history, and the implications about said human nature that it entails. Some of these points have been made by philosophers before--none of them I would imagine are completely new. However, I am trying to interlock them into a unified theory.

1. Man is inherently petty and selfish individually, usually too much so to be very seriously good or evil on a grand scale; however, groups of human beings are far more likely to unite for the purpose of furthering their baser, more evil qualities than their virtues, especially if said group is a organization with great influence on the world, such as a government or an organized Church (Please note that I said organized _church_, nor organized _religion_. There is a difference.) This last phenomenon is due to my next point.
2. The most potent corrupting influence known to man is the ego which is a direct result of any kind of power, especially governmental power.
3. Extreme distinction of conditions between the various classes of a society is a goal, pursued actively if often unconsciously, of civilized societies. The premise involved is that to perpetuate the hardships of the downtrodden is to also perpetuate their ignorance and distract them from any interest in government, prevent them from taking any degree of power and control from the rich and powerful. By definition, it is the rich and powerful that truly make the decisions on the progress of their society, and in their minds it is preferable that millions should starve than that they should lose any degree of their power.
4. Most evil acts on a truly grand scale are done by leaders who do not actually believe them to be immoral. This is usually at least partly a result of the fact that the more atrocities that are committed, the more moral barriers are removed, and over time such monsters become far more tolerant concerning the horrors they themselves commit. Stalin himself is quoted by historians as stating (concerning his own political liquidations), "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic."
5. The reason for the previous phenomenon is that, while morally reprehensible deeds can be and are constantly done with the usual human petty selfishness of intent and personal as well as (secondarily) collective gain, truly great and terrible evil deeds with repercussions that affect entire countries or even the whole world, the kind that are recorded in history , often require both the lack of conscience and mercy that comes of not realizing one’s own evil, and an attractive cause that draws fanatical loyalty in its followers, because such people always do their evil by inducing others to obey and follow them. In most, but not all cases, the symbiosis of escalating technology and violence are entwined to serve the purposes of the few. Nazi Germany is a prime example in which ideological motives infused with violence produced the most advanced society seen at that time.(A good example of a leaderless society which added an asterisk to this clause would be that of Rwanda, who not having a charismatic leader because of a recent assassination, induced tens of thousands of normal citizens to participate in the mass killings by distributing millions of machetes to every township with the added compulsion of pain of death if they did not participate, making indiscriminate killing an everyday function of survival).
6. A great leader who rules and acts on a truly grand scale up to his death will almost invariably die in violence, especially in the modern era where disease is less rampant and life expectancies are longer. A perfect example of this rule is illustrated by the shocking number of Roman Emperors who were murdered, up to Hitler, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceausescu, etc.
7. Most great leaders, not merely the worst but all save the very most altruistic, are actually pathetically insecure men that are acting out personal power fantasies to boost their self-esteem and reassure themselves of their worth, although, as I mentioned above, they are often unaware of this due to their own rationalization. The insecurities that have fueled racial and religious hatred are inextricably tied to regimes ruled by insecure, weak men who use their insecurities as a lightening rod to induce violence or to further mask attempts to consolidate their power base and rid themselves of rivals (something inherently shared by all repressive regimes throughout history, without exception).
8. Most revolutionary political movements, good or bad, are brought to fruition by one man with a mission, proving that the individual is as important as, and in actuality surpasses, society in instigating change, whether good or bad.
9. If reason six is true, then these individuals are, generally speaking, affected by the inherent selfishness of humankind, the corrupting influence of power, and the insecurities that probably inspired them to seek power and rise above the crowd to begin with, making the prospect of a true change (for the better, at any rate) dubious indeed.
10. What then proposes true change and improvement? There lies the mystery......

There it is, keep in mind that I am a Christian and I look at the world as inherently evil. That of course is not to say that there is not good in it either, I am arguing for a generalized view here..... I know that some of you are not Christians, I am interested in any comments, be they constructive or not, agree or disagree.

As for me I think that Christianity, that is true Christianity as taught by Christ is the only way out of the cycle. For hundreds of years the "church" (especially the Roman Catholic church throughout out the last 1000 years have fueled much hate and greed, this is true of some protestant ones as well). After all did not C.S. Lewis state concerning the role of religion within the Irish conflict of his day "that there were many Protestants and many Catholics in Ireland but very few Christians?"

Lately I have been thinking about the existence of ghosts and the problems therein. In a recent poll in England, one out of every three people claim to have seen a ghost. This is a staggering twenty million people, yet if only one individual actually saw something and the rest were under illusion, then we still have a verifiable phenomena that needs explanation. I propose the following three explanations: scientific, psychological, spiritual, each not necessarily exclusively incompatible one with the other.

Scientific explanation: Arthur Clarke has a theory in which he believes that "ghosts" or physical manifestations could be the possibility of visual recognizance being reversed on occasion. For example, when we see any image, such as a friend, relative or acquaintance, we immediately process that image in correlation to what the brain deciphers. This is about as far as Clarke will go in explanation. However, building on this construct one could deduce the following:

The visual image being observed is recognized and processed immediately. This is the way that all information is visually processed and identified. However, Clarke believes that on occasion, the process is reversed and a visual image is thrown back into the sensory apparatus within the eye (cornea) by the brain. Somewhat like watching a movie from the other side of a theater screen. The image then corresponds to a preconceived rotary action as the info is processed and distributed. This would explain most of the sightings of apparitions in that most sightings are linear (they always seem to be in motion, walking or traveling in some way from point A to point B, or as the info is quickly deciphered and recognized, the image will then fade, also explaining the sudden disappearance of the ghostly image that many people report). This could also explain why in the majority of cases involving sightings, the ghosts are not observed as interacting with their environment because they are merely by-products of information dispersion as visually distributed by the brain; in fact most sightings of re-current ghostly appearances follow the same patterns, i.e. a ghost is always seen walking down the same stretch of road, appearing in the same window, etc. Once again we have the analogy of a film being re-wound and then shown again and again.

However, as temptingly satisfactory and compelling as this explanation might initially sound, I reject it for the following reasons: 1) This would only explain apparitions that the observer recognizes. Clarke states that "ghosts" of dead relatives, friends and acquaintances are merely as explained above. Having observed prior relatives, friends, etc in their living state, it would then fit within his explanation that visual information stored in the brain could be then processed within the sensory apparatus in the backward fashion he suggests. The trigger for such actions he does not address, possibly a traumatic loss that could alter or significantly increase the neurological chances of such action being generated (somewhat like the physical circumstances that accompany the rush of adrenaline; one's physical state can be altered in some way, it leads one to believe that correspondingly, one's metal state can undergo significant, if only temporary changes that occur because of a neurological trigger). This explains sightings of ghosts of individuals in the observer's past but does not explain random sightings of apparitions that the individual does not recognize. For Clarke's theory to work, the visual information processed must be an inherent memory (i.e. the memory of a dead brother who is recognized as a apparition). In many ghostly sightings, the image observed is not recognizable to the observer as anything other than a paranormal anomaly, a mysterious individual, so therefore his argument fails to satisfy the criteria that the images must be visually recognizable to the observer as they are inherent memories from the observer's past; for how else can the information "thrown" back upon the eye be anything other that a stored visual memory? 2) Secondary disputations could include why only living entities are observed as opposed to non-organic observations (such as material objects). Why could not the process involve the informational transfer of other apparitions such as a horrible vehicular accident that the observer suffered from in the past (surely these incidents are traumatic and would satisfy the basic requirements of a neurological trigger as discussed above)?

There are numerous psychological explanations as to the manifestations of apparitions but the one that holds validity in the physical world is that of sleep paralysis. People on occasion have difficulty in transitioning from deep unconscious stages of sleep to being fully awake, somewhat like sleepwalkers do, when they combine several stages of somnolent consciousness. The vast majority of the population has at one time or another had a powerful dream that affected him/her for several hours upon awakening, however some individuals have experienced a far more traumatic episode of sleep paralysis in which the nightmare they are having can at times suddenly manifest itself while in a semi-rational state, causing the sufferer to actually "see" the apparition before him/her. This theory though would only explain sightings at night when the individual is in one of various stages of sleep. This obviously does not account for the many witnesses who are outside these parameters.

We come to the final and most convincing explanation: the spiritual. By the very nature of the subject at hand, it begs to be explained by inference to the spiritual realm. It is the only one of the three explanations that I have offered so far that purports to fit within what we know of the spiritual realm and that is by the very inclusion of the matter at hand. To be honest, I waver between two positions concerning my Christian beliefs about ghosts. They are either demonic manifestations, and if this is the case, then what purpose does it serve the dark realm to impersonate the recently deceased? To convince man that there is an alternative explanation to the afterlife? But there is no clear declaration concerning motive in attempting this (at least to me). There is ambiguity here concerning true intentions. However almost all of the primary accounts of people who witness or encounter these manifestations report a feeling of uneasiness or trepidation, if not outright fear; emotions that would be indicative of demonic activity.

Secondly, I have often thought that ghosts could be aural remnants of traumatic episodes, that maybe the victims of some horrible catastrophe left a spiritual "imprint" at the scene of expiration. For surely if physical actions can leave traces of evidence (an explosion equals a crater) then surely spiritual incidents may leave consequential actions.

Interestingly enough the Book of Enoch has a compelling explanation in chapter 15 verses eight and nine; and though the Book of Enoch is not included in the Biblical cannon, both Peter and Jude allude to it. Is it a possible explanation of paranormal activity in this day and age? I simply do not know.
 

Russia is at a crossroads, and at a dangerous one at that. This forked path though is different than from what she faced while under the sway of Marxist ideology. No, this road has a hundred years of moss and undergrowth obscuring the vision of one man: Vladimir Putin. Only the ghost of Tsar Nicholas knows the hesitant uncertainty that this road entails.

While the West agonizes and frets over militant third world powers who announce their presence within the orchestrated language of despots, the real struggle has yet to be seen. One that is being played out within a small group of men huddled within the dark walls of the Kremlin. Which path will Russia tread? The one leading to Pan-Slavic imperialism or the one to Western integration?

Putin has lead his country for five years, enduring a slowly collapsing economy, lengthening a war he cannot win, and offering his countrymen a secure stability that is neither. His previous background in Soviet intelligence has already bred and cultivated a zealous cautiousness that envelopes his every move. Not fully knowing who his allies or enemies might be, and trusting very few, he goes slow-delaying decisions, seeing how events play out and thus paralyzing government. Everything in Russia increasingly depends on one man: Putin. He often appears unsure how to read the politics of his own government and country. He has increasingly leaned on a handful of supporters to counter his ever-growing paranoia, which is ironically fed by these same individuals. His circle of advisers has narrowed to two tiny groups, each numbering about six members-three of them belonging to both. One group gathers on Mondays to weigh economic and social policy, and on Saturdays the other discusses national security. In Putin's case, the inner circle is split into two feuding factions: the siloviki ("men of power") and the "liberals." The siloviki are a tight-knit band of mostly military and KGB veterans who dominate the country's security and intelligence ministries and believe, more or less, in state control of the country's political and economic life. The liberals believe more in Western-style market reforms, though politically they are far from progressive. They include the likes of Vladislav Surkov, who is said to be a leader in efforts to fix the Constitution so Putin can rule the country indefinitely. Neither faction has any love for democracy, which to their mind only makes it more difficult to govern a country that is already hard enough to rule. To put it simply, there are no insiders within the circle of power at the Kremlin who believes that democracy is a viable form of government. Ironically, the only individual who seems to give democracy a fighting chance at success is Putin himself.

Putin though is more isolated than the West knows. To the outside world, Putin looks all-powerful. He has consolidated more and more state control in his own hands. The Duma has become his tool, dominated by his party, where personal loyalty counts among all things. But this Russian president, like the tsars of old, is also a prisoner of court politics. And it can be a dangerous game, with modern barons powerful in their own right vying for his backing for policies and interests they hold dear.

The West though is adding to his paranoia and further strengthening the push for Pan-Slavic hegemony by interfering too quickly in areas within the Russian sphere of influence such as the Ukraine and lower Asian-Caucus provinces previously under Soviet control. These actions only re-enforce the paranoia and insecurity inherent in every Russian leader of the past one thousand years, the fear of isolation and containment by the West. This position is not without legitimacy though, in the past one hundred years she has been attacked by the United States, Germany and Austria (twice) Turkey and Japan, nations that border in varying degrees from the east, west, and south. For literally centuries Russian policy has been dictated by this fear, one only need look at Moscows inept bumbling in attempting to put the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych in power during the last Ukrainian election to see that this fear is a dominant and determining factor in Russian foreign policy.

Putin though knows this, and he recognizes and even fears the power given to him. He once stated in an interview he thinks of power as a "razor in the hands of a drunk, who, flailing around, risks doing damage he can neither predict nor undo". He also knows the two conflicting forces that are attempting to each shape Russian destiny and that the only individual who keeps both the aggressive siloviki and liberal factions from clashing is he, and he fears that responsibility. He also knows that the Russian populace is easily manipulated into accepting state policy in exchange for security.

Very few people realize that sanity comes in numbers when dealing with cases of extremist and irrational views. If I were the only person to believe something strange then I get locked up, but if 70 million believe it then it must be "sensible" state policy. When Russian extremism puzzles the West such as the ranting of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who heads the third most popular political party in Russia, the West should remember that extremist views gain credibility simply by expanding the number of adherents to that particular view, no matter how absurd the view may entail. One should only look at Hitler for an example of how one man went from a perception of a jailed lunatic in 1923 to dictating state policy a mere ten years later and fooling sixty million Germans into believing that genocide was a viable option; merely by propagating his view through numerical support.

So what can we expect? My personal view is that the West-East dynamic is the key to forging a clear and reasonable path for Russia. One only needs to look at the four threats (United States, China, Japan, Latvia) that a recent poll among the Russian public has revealed to see that the ancient Tsarist paranoia is still there. Once again we have a clear indicator that Russia fears nations in every direction who express views of autonomy beyond their borders, whether reasonable or not. The West is not helping matters by meddling needlessly in the affairs of those that are or were part of her sphere of control/influence. The West needs to be much more supportive of Russian internal problems, especially with her own struggles with terrorism (Chechnya). We can still apply pressure in obtaining concessions concerning Democratic and economic reform but we must be careful in that we do not force Putin into the imperialist camp. 

Well this week the European Union has failed to create a plan in ending the misery in Sudan. Certainly not surprising, after all the United States and Europe (the Western world) did not lend a hand in Rwanda; why should they start now? Let us though take a look at the Sudanese genocide that is taking place and how it came into being.

In 1989, a coup d'etat by Arab Muslim extremists gained control of the government of Sudan. Soon, the government was dominated by members of the Iranian-backed National Islamic Front, and was engaged in a bloody jihad against African non-Muslims in the south, all directed by the Sudanese government at Khartoum. Because of their imposition of sharia (Koranic law), the rebel group in southern Sudan (the Sudan People's Liberation Movement) has been fighting a long civil war that at this time has been negotiated into a cease-fire, allowing the Khartoum government to engage in ethnic cleansing in Dafur the western region of Sudan. The Janjaweed, a traditionally nomadic group of armed Arab militias, is doing the majority of killing. In Dafur, over three hundred thousand people have been killed (murdered) while an additional 2.5 million have fled the region. By burning fields and grain storage silos in non-Muslim areas, and then blocking international aid to the starving population, they have used starvation as a weapon resulting in the deaths of over two million in the last two decades.

Learning their lesson from previous American reluctance to get involved with the Rwandan crisis in 1994, the Bush administration has labeled the Sudanese crisis as genocide. This was quickly followed by the U.N. assessment of the situation as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. The Americans have responded by drafting a U.N. resolution with the intent of slapping sanctions against Sudan's oil industry, an assets freeze and travel ban targeting government and janjaweed leaders, and enforcement of a no-fly zone over western Sudan in order to get them to buckle under the pressure and stop arming the Janjaweed. Sounds great except for one problem, the security council turned it down and by doing so have condemned tens of thousands of people to their deaths. And which nation led the charge to overturn the resolution? France followed by China, Russia and a host of other European nations. Incredible.

Let us see why, starting with France; you remember, the country who stated that we were wrong in attacking Iraq and have condemned it as a moral transgression. Well it seems that Amnesty International has reported that the French have sold large quantities of bombs, grenades, ammo, and other military items to Sudan in recent years. In addition to this the French petroleum corporation Total Fina holds the rights to an oil concession in southern Sudan. According to the Institute on Religion and Democracy , France has been continuing its alliance and support of the goals of the Sudanese government, currently by lobbying to remove Sudan's designation as a "human rights problem." We will never get anything passed because France is one of the big five in the Security Council and will always veto any resolution that threatens their oil interests. Joining France in their efforts to extend the misery in Sudan are Germany, Russia and China
In the mid-1990s Clinton administration noticed the mounting evidence of Khartoum's sponsorship of international and domestic terrorism. The American response was immediate. The U.S. government declared Sudan to be a terrorist state. It sponsored strong resolutions at the UN Commission for Human Rights condemning Khartoum for slavery and a host of other crimes. Strict U.S. economic sanctions were quickly imposed.

What did the Franco-German duo do? It led the EU in the opposite direction. France provided Khartoum with military intelligence for the prosecution of the jihad, while French and German helicopters have been used for ethnic cleansing in southern Sudan's oil fields. Driving black, non-Muslims out of their homes creates greater security for the investments of oil firms like Total Fina (France/Belgium) and the German engineering giant Mannesmann.

The Sudanese government's role in the revival of the country's once-dormant slave trade formed the greatest single political obstacle to legitimizing the EU's appeasement policy. France and Germany therefore spearheaded a UN whitewash of this crime against humanity. With the rest of the EU and their new East European satellite states in tow, they overcame American objections and easily persuaded the UN Commission on Human Rights to censor any use of the word ''slavery'' from official documents on Sudan and replace it with the euphemism ''abduction'' -- a lesser offense. This makes it easier in the French fight to remove the Sudanese as a human rights violator.

This is amazing to me. For centuries, European spheres of control have only led to misery and war whenever encountered. The hypocrisy being displayed by their leaders is so transparent as to be shocking in nature. Recently Chirac denounced the questionable regime in the Ivory Coast and has since slapped embargos on the country and invaded with thousands of French troops, which have since destroyed the entire air force of the Ivory Coast. This coming from a man who stated that America had no right to invade Iraq, who just last week stated, in complete contradiction to what he tells us, that we do not want to allow a system to develop that would lead only to anarchy or a regime of a fascist nature, ensuring that the French will not allow a government that is not to their liking (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6404613). Sounds familiar does it not?

Hollywood is awash with the creation of their movie Hotel Rwanda in which genocide is presented as a deplorable action by an evil regime over ten years ago. We should all learn lessons the film teaches us, its adherents tell us, all the while the killing continues in Sudan while we lament over our inactivity during the Rwandan crisis. I cannot wait until the film Hotel Sudan comes out ten years from now, where we will wonder why we didn't do anything to stop the killing and nominate this actor or that because we feel bad....

A view from within......

In 1767 the innovative economist Adam Smith advocated the use of an "impartial selector" which he believed was inherent within each of us.; the ability to analyze and critique a position or issue without any emotional attachments that would involve personal feelings. In this way one could be assured of an objective viewpoint free of any emotional or inter-personal restraints. A novel idea that could change how we view the world. I will not go so far as Smith and advocate that this system be the arbitrator of moral and ethical issues, for me God (in the definition of the Judaic-Christian God) is the final arbitrator and judge. Interestingly enough we can look at Smith's proposition of such a selector as well as other manifestations of objective reasoning and conscience as signs of the existence of God, who has fingerprinted us all with the ability and obligation to make moral decisions.

So, having said that, what exactly are my intentions with this blog? To show the hypocrisy in international relations and policy both in other countries as well as within our own. To show that the world is not rational in the way that we think it to be and in fact is in need of change, radical change, in which self-interests are replaced by a common denominator: the common respect and preservation of life. Other primary interests would be personal introspection and interaction with the world as I see it; personal reflection seen from an objective/truthful view.

It might strike some as being odd that I now lay claim to being impartial as well as a Christian, that there may be a contradictory notion in that the two can exist together. I disagree that they are mutually exclusive for if you affirm that morality is objective and that absolutes and truth do exist, then you must posit a moral law giver in order for objective morality to come within being. After all did not Christ say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life"? Either you believe it or you do not dear reader, however one must agree that there are moral underpinnings to every issue, that every scenario confirms or denies a moral quandary; as to who or what provides this moral foundation in which decisions and evaluations must be made is up to you. For me I have already decided.