Media Mourns As Dr. Goebbels Steps Down

Today’s media is full of tributes and warm anecdotes about Alistair Goebbels. It’s commonly known that as well as being the lynchpin of the Ministry of Propaganda, Goebbels was Tony Hitler’s right-hand man, his true deputy.

“He truly was a master of distortion”, recalls Hugo Bootlicker of The Independent. “I remember the first time we met, he was kicking a small Iraqi child in the face. But the press coverage the next day painted him as the child’s avuncular saviour! Oh, how we laughed!”

“Say what you like about Ali”, says Hugo Lapdog of The Guardian,”but when it came to selling the idea that murdering 6000 Iraqis was in fact for their own benefit, Ali was the master. He had a great sense of humour – you don’t hear people talk enough about that. In our press briefings, he’d often make hilarious asides about the number of lives he’d helped take via his expert spin doctoring. He was a consummate professional at his job, which basically was to steer Britain into a course of illegal invasion and mass murder. I don’t think Tony could have done so well without him.”

Alistair Goebbels started life on the other side of the table, cutting a swathe as editor of Der Sturmer. It was his prominence in this area which eventually led to him being invited to work personally with Tony Hitler in his plans to popularise a policy of international pre-emptive invasion. Whilst on holiday with Hitler, it’s generally known that he came up with the catchphrase of ’45 minutes from attack’ which helped sell the invasion.

Says BBC political correspondent Hugo Quango, “Ali will be dearly missed by me and many other journalists. Yes, you could argue that the man was a cold-blooded murderer who helped justify, plan and implement the slaughter of thousands of innocent people. But I feel that’s being entirely too picky. Ali’s a good egg, basically. You should see him on the sidelines, cheering on his team. How can anyone dislike someone who loves football so much?”

More tributes to Goebbels can be found on pages 13-23. Due to lack of space, there will be no coverage of the situation in Iraq today.

A Letter (well, email) From America

On 29/08/2003 7:58 am, “Garold” wrote:

> I am sorry to hear your low opinion of the United States.

Ahh, nope! I love the USA, I love American culture, writers, films and of course music. And some of the nicest people I’ve ever met have been Americans. So I don’t have a low opinion of the US.

I have a low opinion of the US *government* which is a different beast altogether! US people = ordinary people, US government = ….well, as corrupt and evil as my own government. To check what I think of my own government, have a look here:

Knowledge or Certainty?

> I have to
> admit, I’m at a point to where I don’t know what to believe. May I
> please correct you on one thing. The United States has never had a
> strategy of ruling the world. I think the politically correct term is
> lead the world.

Hmmm…that’s a very minor semantic difference. Leader is another word for ruler. And the world doesn’t need “leading.” I prefer democracy 🙂

For another view, here’s an excerpt from an interview with Noam Chomsky which addresses precisely the point you raise:

________

ANDY CLARK
This email is from Don Rhodes, from Melbourne, in Australia, and he says: “I do not believe that the US wants to dominate the world. The Americans have been attacked on several fronts, 9/11 being only one of them. Someone has to bring into line rogue states and it is the USA alone that has the capability to do this. Without such a ‘world policeman’ the world would just disintegrate into warring factions. Look at history for examples of this.” What do you make of that sort of statement?

NOAM CHOMSKY
The first sentence is simply factually incorrect. The National Security Strategy states fairly explicitly that the US intends to dominate the world by force, which is the dimension in which it rules supreme, and to ensure that there is never any potential challenge to this domination. That was not only stated explicitly, it has also been commented on repeatedly, right away in the main establishment – the Foreign Affairs journal in its next issue is pointing out that the United States is declaring the right to be what it calls a “revisionist state”, which will use force to control the world in its own interests. The person who sent the email may believe that the US has some unique right to run the world by force. I don’t believe that, and contrary to what was stated I don’t think history supports that at all. In fact the US record, incidentally with the support of Australia, since the period of its global dominance in the 1940s, is one of instigating war and violence and terror on a very substantial scale. The Indochina War, just to take one example in which Australia participated, was basically a war of aggression. The United States attacked South Vietnam in 1962. The war then spread to the rest of Indochina. The end result was several million people killed, the countries devastated, and that’s only one example. So history does not support the conclusion and the principle that one state should have a unique right to rule the world by force. That’s an extremely hazardous principle, no matter who the country is.

Chomsky interviewed on the Amsterdam Forum, June 02, 2003. Radio Netherlands’ interactive discussion programme.

____________

Chomsky for President! 🙂

> I can’t say I’m happy with the true price of any war.
> But let’s get real, who in their right mind could defend Saddam’s
> dictatorship. and the evil he did. The main problem is Bush senior
> didn’t finish the job back in 1991.

Who would defend Saddam? Well, Rumsfeld, Bush Snr. et al who installed him for a start. Hussein is merely another US-govt.-installed/supported petty dictator who slipped the leash and bit the hand that bred him. The same as Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos…well, you get my point. It’s the very idea that the US government has a right to interfere and install regimes it prefers wherever it wants that created the monster of Hussein in the first place.

And now they’ve ousted him and installed yet another puppet regime which has no support from the people of Iraq. Ask yourself – would an army of liberation still be facing such hostility every day from ordinary Iraqis if they were truly seen as liberators? Look at the newsreel footage of how well the US army was received by the French after they ousted the Nazis – I don’t see the same joy and gratitude on the faces of the Iraqis. They see the US+UK forces as being new dictators. How long before Chalabi or some other US appointee becomes the new Hussein and starts killing his own people?

What I would like to see in Iraq is democracy. Hell, I’d like to see that in the UK.

> Bush junior is a far from perfect leader. I do think if somebody like
> Saddam was your dictator you would feel differently.

How would you feel if you were an Iraqi and suffered under Saddam and then *the very same people* who installed this brutal murderer and supplied him with chemical weapons invaded your country? Would you feel grateful to them for remedying their “mistake” (after years of support) or would you feel terrified as to who the replacement would be? After all, you know they don’t care about you or else they wouldn’t have applied the sanctions which starved your children to death. What else is in your country? Ahhh…oil…

There were no weapons of mass destruction. The invasion of Iraq was not to liberate the Iraqi people (as they well know, hence the continuing attacks on US forces). It was a first step in the implementation of the far-right National Security Strategy which baldly states that the the US govt. can do do as it pleases since it’s the biggest, toughest kid on the block.

> Peace,
> Garold

I’d like to thank you again for emailing. I hope my reply hasn’t seemed aggressive or hectoring – I’ve just tried to address the points you raised, as best I can.

Again, I am *not* anti-American, just as I am not anti-French, British or whatever. I am anti-government when that government does not represent the people but rather is the stooge of big business. I am pro-democracy and I feel what little freedom and democracy we have in the West is being ripped from our hands by the actions of our respective governments and the corporate media hounds,
love and kisses,
Jyoti

Knowledge Or Certainty?

The title for this rant is stolen from Jacob Bronowksi. In his 1973 programme, The Ascent of Man, he said:

“There are two parts to the human dilemma. One is the belief that the end justifies the means. That push-button philosophy, that deliberate deafness to suffering has become the monster in the war machine. The other is the betrayal of the human spirit, the assertion of dogma that closes the mind and turns a nation, a civilisation, into a regiment of ghosts.”

These words, from thirty years ago, could not be more appropriate today.

This morning Tony Blair gave evidence at the Hutton Inquiry. This inquiry is basically a huge exercise in whitewashing: a well-respected scientist has died and there has to be something seen to be done about it. Of course, nothing will come of it. Alistair Campbell, Geoff Hoon, Tony Blair and all the other neo-Stalinists of New Labour will face no consequences.

Blair said this morning:

“It is one thing to say we disagree with the Government, we should not have gone to war, people can have a disagreement about that … but if the allegation had been true, it would have merited my resignation.” (Source: The Independent)

Just consider that statement for a mintue. Blair is saying that if he had “sexed-up” the dossier, that would merit his resignation. Distorting evidence he presented to Parliament would merit his resignation.

What about the pile of bodies in Iraq? What about the 6000+ civilians slaughtered as a direct consequence of his actions and orders? These deaths were a means to an end, unfortunate of course and deeply regretted by Blair (who’s a committed Christian, after all) but totally necessary.

After all, without those thousands of deaths, how would the brave liberators of Iraq have removed those burgeoning stocks of Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Oh, I forget. They didn’t. There weren’t any. Nothing at all. Just the corpses of Iraqi children, or, as the peace-loving US Army call them, collateral damage.

Apparently, Blair and Bush thought it was justified to bomb Iraq flat because they were planning to build WMDs. Well, of course! Killing innocent people because you suspect that they may, sometime in the future, attack you is entirely logical, moral and Christian.

Tony Blair is huffing and puffing, behaving like a slighted prima-donna over the irrelevant allegations of mendacity. The Hutton Inquiry is merely a sideshow, a Moscow show trial where the end is known before the first gavel strike. It won’t magically bring Dr. Kelly back to life and neither will it punish anyone in this corrupt, smug, regime who is responsible for his death.

Blair and his cohorts have now got a taste for evil and it shows in their posturing. They’ve managed to illegally invade a non-aggressor nation and massacre its population with nary a squeak out of our yellow press. Look at the way Alistair Campbell practically strutted into the Hutton Inquiry. I’m sure he’s seen all the pictures of Iraqi babies he’s helped to murder but they simply don’t bother him. Blair, Campbell, Hoon – these men are architects of mass-murder. Do they look worried? Do they look hunted? No, they look arrogant and secure. They have cultivated “that deliberate deafness to suffering” with a zeal that would make Mengele proud. To them, Iraqis aren’t humans. They don’t exist: they’re merely pawns to be bombed, strafed, shot, starved, imprisoned and, when inconvenient, forgotten.

But Tony – what about the weapons “45 minutes from launch” pointing at Britain that you spoke of? What became of them? Either you were lying (which means you’re evil) or you were mistaken (which means you’re criminally stupid). Which one is it? Either way, you’ve slaughtered thousands of ordinary people for no visible reason at all. Oh, but you knew, didn’t you? You have superior knowledge that us poor commoners are denied. We are too simple to understand the mind of a great statesman like you, we haven’t got your view from the moral high ground where human life becomes a trivial commodity.

I’ll leave the last word to Bronowski, speaking whilst visiting the site of Auschwitz concentration camp:

“Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas, it was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave.”

What Did You Do In The War, Grandad?

What did you do in the war, Grandad?

Err..what war?

You know, when evil America invaded Iraq and got Britain to side with them. In my history lesson, they call it ?the 21st Century Vietnam.? They say it?s what lost Bash the next election.

Bush, dear, his name was Bush.

Ahhh?yeah, Bush! Aaaanyway?we watched all the video clips of the protests. They were AMAZING! All those millions of people, joining up around the world and protesting against the North American Union.

US, dear, it was the United States of America back then.

I know, I know?before it broke down like the USSR did, I?m not stupid, y?know. But the protests, they were great. The biggest ever in British history! One and a half million people, shutting down London. Did you go on those protests?

Ummm?no. I was going to go but they kept having them on the wrong day.

Wrong day?

Yep ? I was always busy.

But I thought you were anti-war?

Oh, I was, I was! Believe me, when people started saying stuff about Iraq, I?d always leap in and correct them. Bloody Americans, thinking they could rule the world! I was into my politics, me! I did a degree in politics!

Sooo? did you go on the little local protests instead then?

Er, no?no point! I wanted to go on the big ones, they?re the ones that get on the telly. I was going to go on one, I remember, but my mate came round with some great weed and we ended up getting stoned instead. But we had a really good discussion about how evil the war was and how much we hated Blair. The bastard! Here, I’ve got some weed here now, do you fancy a spliff with your Grandad?

Eeeewww! No thanks! It smells like old socks… Anyway, what about when that scientist was killed by the government?

Scientist? Oh, you mean Kelly! Well, that was a right bloody scandal at the time. It was such an obvious government cover-up. I was up in arms about it, let me tell you!

So you went on the protests about that?

No, dear. I just didn?t have the time. What you have to remember, a lot of those protesters, they were on the dole.

What? All those people around the world, all those protesters were all on the dole?

Well, maybe not?but they weren?t as busy as I was. Easy life! Swanning down to London at the drop of a hat. Some of us have to work, you know!

Work? But weren?t you a student back then?

Er?yeah. That?s what I meant. I was doing my Politics degree and it was very hard work, not like the degrees nowadays. Piece of piss now! Back then, we had to work solidly for three whole years, no messing about!

But Dad says you nearly didn?t get your degree because you were drunk all the time?

Ahhh..ha ha! He?s just joking with you, love. I got my Politics degree! That?s why I can have these great conversations with you about political history. I wasn?t just some muppet out in the streets with a placard ? I know the THEORY behind political movements. Have I ever told you about the Chartists? Now, the Chartists ?

Yeah, yeah, but I want to know about the Iraq War, that?s what we?re studying now. I thought I could get some first-hand stories from you?

Well, I did loads of cool stuff with my band back then. We were great! We had this song called ?Fuck The US!? and it was a really heavy, political song.

Riiiight, so you must have played that at some anti-war shows or something?

Naaah ? I didn?t get on with the bloke who booked all that stuff. It was a trendy little clique. We were way too hardcore for them! Losers!

But I still don?t get why you didn?t do anything?

Hey! I did loads, you cheeky little bleeder!

Like what?

I?er… well, I was the only one of my mates who bothered to read about the war. I read all the Michael Moore and Chomsky books! Great stuff, really empowering! I?ll have to lend them to you.

Oh, I know them, they?re required reading now. But isn?t that stuff all about getting out there, protesting, making a difference?

Yeah, in theory, you?re right. But things aren?t so simple in the real world, darling.

Ermm…yeah?I think I?m beginning to see what you mean?

Hawnay Troof, Sin O The East, In Event Of Neo Tokyo, Dr. Cocacolamcdonalds

Hawnay Troof played a stormer at Bunker Hill, Notts last Thursday. They made the crowd go wild with their demented gymnastics and crazy-ass sex-rapping. Lovely!

Support was from Sin O The East, In Event Of Neo Tokyo (I think that’s their name, I got it off the Killrockstars gig list) and the efficiently corporate Dr. Cocacolamcdonalds.

Click here for photos!

It’s About Time

On 10/08/2003 7:49 pm, “Paul Sellars” wrote:

> “Importantly, Lynds claims his theory solves Zeno’s paradoxes, which have
> frustrated creative brains for millennia…”
>
Yahoo Article
>
> Any offers?
> Paul Sellars

Ahem! Leaving Tralfamadorians aside….

Quote:
One implication of Lynds’ work is a really hard to wrap a mind around. If he’s right that there are no instants in time related to physical processes, then there is no such thing as a flow of time, because such a flow inherently requires progression through definite instants — exactly what Lynds forbids.
Endquote

So… Quite a bit like Julian Barbour’s concept of time as expounded here?:

The End Of Time

Quote:

The End of Time is a fascinating contribution to physics by a scholar and thinker who is taken seriously by physicists of the calibre of Wheeler and Smolin. But he has pursued a career outside the mainstream, living on a farm and refusing to get involved in traditional teaching and research. He argues that time is a purely local phenomenon, a way of seeing things, rather than something that actually meaningfully exists at the core of the Universe. This consists of a vast agglomeration of Nows, single moments whose relationship with each other is intimate, but not intrinsically one of causation.

“If time is removed from the foundations of physics, we shall not all suddenly feel that the flow of time has ceased. On the contrary, new timeless principles will explain why we do feel that time flows. The pattern of the first great revolution will be repeated. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler taught us that the Earth moves and rotates while the heavens stand still, but this did not change by one iota our direct perception that the heavens do move and that the Earth does not budge.”

The many worlds hypothesis is also true and the worlds that derive from alternate possibility exist alongside each other moment-by-moment. Seeing things in this way solves the more recondite problems of quantum physics–Schrodinger’s Cat is both dead, and alive, and never in the box in the first place and at a time before the box was thought of, and long dead all in a set of Nows that sit alongside each other in the Platonic realm which is underlying reality. There are no paradoxes because Sequence is an illusion: this is philosophical physics for those of you who like to have your brains hurt – Roz Kaveney
Endquote

It’s a great book and it hurt my brain very much the first time I read it. The big leap is of course abandoning a priori notions of causality. Once you’ve done that, Barbour’s schema seems to be patently logical. It also dovetails beautifully with Everett’s Many Worlds model of quantum theory because it is based on the illusion of continuity of consciousness: I assemble myself from Planck time to Planck time not through any continuing “flow” of time but simply because I am, in that shard, that being which remembers other shards of time *in a certain order.* There is no unique, prime “I”, I exist as a foam, smeared across the universes.

Thus, consciousness is nothing more than a stochastic assemblage, self is a collage stitched out of all the time moments (which, of course, have no intrinsic “natural” order in and of themselves) in which appropriate selves exist.

Two things leap to my mind, both of them notions by “fiction” authors. The first is Billy Pilgrim, unstuck in time. But perhaps he isn’t unstuck – he’s actually just abandoned the consensual illusion of causality, the comfy narrative we need to weave in order to escape the men with the large nets. Billy Pilgrim sees the truth about time: it’s all out there, there’s no flow.

The second is Greg Egan’s notion of entire universes, teeming with sentient beings found inside the noise of a de-tuned TV screen (also a Rudy Rucker fave).

If Barbour or Lynds is right, and one could view our universe from “outside”, it would appear to be noise, pure and simple. All times, all places, all coexisting. The only structure being those tiny worms winding through it which we call consciousness.

Anyway, I’m knackered so I must drag the cloud of atoms I call a body and the questionable fabrication I call myself off for some kip,
love and kisses,
Jyoti