Daily Archives: 23/01/2011

( We are self-aware beings and most of us would never be able to explain exactly what self-awareness really is.   We face the same problem when trying to understand just what the government is.  All of us have spent our entire lives living under governments.  And the education we received has entirely come from people (parents and teachers) who have also spent their entire lives living under governments.  We can’t step outside the government to see it – we accept it as we accept ourselves – without questioning.

Objectively you are a domesticated animal.  You have certain features that dogs for example do not – such as ability to browse the internet for, but fundamentally you are an animal.  You are self-aware in the same exact way as a dog is self-aware, and you don’t have a soul any more than does a rat or a cockroach.  That’s probably not how you have thought of yourself?  Your government is not what you think of it either.

While a human is an evolved animal, the government is an evolved MAFIA.  And while with animals the evolution tends towards greater intelligence with mafia it is towards greater tyranny.  The mafia to the government is what a mild benign growth is to a stage 4 cancer.  The government is a SUPER-MAFIA.  Modern governments are actually WORSE than the governments of the past.  Modern governments are “advanced” in the same way as a cancer can be “advanced” in other words – that is NOT a good thing.  Modern governments consume as much as HALF of ALL resources of the host on which they parasite – this is far beyond what any mafia or cancer could dream about.

We believe that the government “loves us” in the same way as a wife believes that her abusive husband BEATS HER because he loves her.  We believe that our government is “good” in the same way as hostages believe the terrorists who have kidnapped them are “good” ( this is known as Stockholm Syndrome ).  I could explain in detail exactly how the government accomplishes these feats of mind control but that is beyond the scope of this article.  In this article I am simply going to assume that you are currently at a point where you see the government as a “necessary evil”.  And the point of this article will be to show you that it is not necessary at all.

For more insight about the nature of government:

If you are not into metaphors a succinct way to define the government is an entity exercising A MONOPOLY OF VIOLENCE over a given territory.  The governments were responsible for ~ 200 million deaths in the 20th century alone, and that number does NOT even include wars – just the people directly murdered by their own governments.  Needless to say the governments are absolute CHAMPIONS when it comes to murdering people, making even the Church look like an amateur by comparison.

The question we ultimately want to answer is – is a monopoly of violence the only thing that can save us from each other?  Let’s start by asking a simpler question – is violence the only effective means of control?  The answer is no.  The real means of control is FEAR.  Violence is only a means to achieve fear, and whether it is the most effective means is open to debate.

Fear is entirely in the domain of the mind, while violence is entirely in the domain of the body.   Wouldn’t it be more efficient to induce fear by acting directly on the mind?  It would.  And that’s precisely the direction in which governments, as they are getting smarter, have steadily been moving through the course of history.  As Noam Chomsky has said “propaganda to a democracy is what violence is to a dictatorship”.

Humans are herd animals.  Humans will do just about anything simply to “fit in”.  Would you rather be tossed in prison or left all alone deserted on an island?  Most people would choose prison!  Being ostracized ( depending on how this ostracism was implemented ) could be very bit as devastating as being physically left deserted on an uninhabited island.  A physical prison with bars, or an island without a boat can be effectively replaced by …  a microchip.

An implantable microchip (or an equivalent information technology, such as iris scan etc) could ( and probably will ) realize the most extreme form of tyranny known to man.  No prisons, no cops, no guns – just sheer fucking terror that doesn’t let you sleep at night.  That’s the direction our government is going in.  While undoubtedly extremely dangerous in the hands of the government, these powerful technologies could be a blessing in disguise when you consider how they can be used not to strengthen, but to REPLACE the government.  It is about time we put governments where they belong – in the graveyard of history.

Suppose that there is a database storing ALL information about your life – every single thing you have ever done.  Suppose this database is public and linked to your implantable RFID chip.  Suppose also that this information can be instantly accessed from any iPhone – or for that matter that people have sunglasses with a built in heads up display and earphone that automatically gives them a readout summary for anybody who comes in their field of vision.

Now suppose that you are going on a date and your date gets a readout on her sunglasses that you murdered your first wife with an axe – do you think your date will go well?  Suppose you are applying for a job and your interviewer gets a readout that you robbed your previous boss blind – do you think your interview will go well?  Now suppose you are trying to rent an apartment and your landlord gets a reading that you have been evicted from your previous apartment because you never paid your rent – do you think you will be able to move in?

You see there is no need for prisons, cops or punishment of any kind in order to encourage people to behave in a manner that is best for everybody – all that is needed is access to information.  In other words KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

A government ( or Church for that matter ) is an institution which primarily manages information ( disinformation to be more precise ) and force is only employed when information management fails.

In the old days there was scarcely a way to manage information at all – so violence had to be used virtually 100% of the time.  Then came the printing press, then public schools, then television – these increased the powers of the government to manage what people think to such an extent for the most part it was possible to replace violence – and only use it when people fail to watch TV for 5 hours a day or fail to attend public school for 12 years or other such delinquents.  This is the paradigm in which we are now, and it has been the paradigm for the last ~50 years or so, and yet in the last 20-30 years there has been an EXPLOSION in information technology ( first internet, and then mobile internet ).

Every time the information technology advanced in the past society had to eventually restructure itself to cope with that shock.  Of course the powers that be tried to stifle new technology by burning books etc ( today by opposing net neutrality ) because they realized that new technology made old social order ( and therefore THEM ) obsolete.  But technology cannot be stopped – it always prevailed in the end – but not after some struggle.  The power does not willingly relinquish control – it fights to the death.

We are now in such a period where our current social order is light years behind our current technology because technology has in the past 20 years been evolving much faster than any society could.  WikiLeaks is just one example of the current social order colliding with the reality that it is already obsolete.  The reality is that a monopoly of force is no longer needed.  What we need is open, decentralized, peer-to-peer information sharing.

For example every individual could have a Wikipedia-style encyclopedia written about him and shared via a bittorrent-style technology.  His entry of course would be updtatable in real time.  Everything you have ever done would be in your record.  If you started getting in the red because of all the negative shit you have done and people started to increasingly avoid you – you would be more or less forced to make up for your tainted reputation by doing volunteer work, donating to charity ( such as education for kids, or health care for elderly ) or otherwise redeeming yourself somehow.

Technology could thus do away with not only government, but also with the church as well – because there would no longer be a need to fear the punishment in the form of prison OR in the form of hell.  Instead you would quickly develop a very genuine sense of morality and guilt, which you would share in common with your peers.

There would be no need for any laws as well, not even a constitution, or for that matter any enforceable rules – because there wouldn’t be any official body tasked with enforcing anything!  Instead the people would themselves enforce their own vision of morality on each other MOSTLY THROUGH BOYCOTTS and other forms of denial of service, although they would certainly be free to use lethal force if they felt their action was justified and wouldn’t reflect too badly on their wiki.

For example if somebody broke into your house you would simply shoot the fucker in the face.  Your wiki then would say that you shot in the face the fucker who broke into your house – that’s it!  It would be up to the people who do business with you then to decide whether they feel it was morally reprehensible on your part or not, or whether they want to do business with you or not.

What there would be is a document listing a set of theorems or axioms or priorities that every member of society is encouraged to understand.  It would state what is and isn’t desirable.  For example it would state that violence is “not desirable” however openness of information takes precedence so the use of force to enable the making of vital information public if necessary is justified.  These would not be rules or laws but merely suggestions designed to help people make up their own minds more rationally.  This document would then in a sense be like the bible.

Companies would be treated exactly the same way as humans – no more limited responsibility shit for corporations.  If a certain company for example dumps toxic waste in a drinking water supply – not only will that information be made available, but also if you choose to do business with this company it will also reflect on YOUR personal wiki that you have been doing business with polluters.  And it goes without saying that the CEO who made that decision wouldn’t live very long because anybody who whacked him would get a big credit on his wiki for being a vigilante.

Projects such as wikipedia have proven that a system can be highly organized and at the same time completely decentralized.  The power to make decisions as well as the power to use force can finally be given to its rightful owners – we the people – without descending into chaos.  These powers MUST be taken away from the most tyrannical institutions known to man – governments.  Don’t expect politicians to EVER admit that we don’t need them – use your head – it’s a choice you have to make for yourself.  We don’t need the government to spend our money for us and tell us how we should live and die – we can figure that shit out on our own.

by George Chkhartishvili



(Global Research) Hugo Chavez is a tireless champion of the poor and a committed Christian socialist. The only difference between Chavez’s type of Christianity and Barack Obama’s, is that Chavez walks the walk.

For example, on Tuesday, Chavez used his powers under the new “enabling laws” to enact the “Law for Dignified Refuge” a presidential decree that mandates “dignified and humane” housing for all Venezuelans. The Venezuelan parliament approved the controversial (and temporary) enabling laws because the country faced an unprecedented housing crisis due to the massive floods in December.

More than 125,000 people lost their homes in the disaster requiring a speedy response from the government. Chavez swung into action immediately turning the presidential palace into a homeless shelter and initiating a campaign to construct permanent housing for the victims. Now he has pushed through landmark legislation that will legally require the government to help the homeless.

Contrast Chavez’s response to Obama’s during the BP oil spill, where BP was allowed to wreak havoc on the environment and destroy people’s livelihood without any consequences. In fact, Obama even provided cover for the oil giant by appearing in public relations “I feel your pain” photo-ops on a beach in Louisiana that were intended to divert public rage away from BP. So, now the fishing and shrimping industries are devastated, sensitive estuaries and ecosystems have been destroyed, the level of toxins in the bloodstreams of people living in the region have skyrocketed and–worst of all–BP has gotten off Scot-free. Thanks, Barack.

Now imagine what would have happened if Chavez had been in charge. BP’s stateside operations would have been shut down, their assets would have been seized, and Tony Hayward and his buddies would have been thrown in the hoosegow. Got a problem with that?

Last week, while Obama was singing the praises of “deregulation” on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal (“.. the rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.”) and first lady, Michelle Obama was hawking “healthy foods” for food behemoth Walmart in the national media, Chavez was busy transforming shelters into “institutions of the state” to make sure that people had a place to stay while they get back on their feet again.

The new law stipulates that these people be provided with food and medical assistance (Venezuela has universal health care) as well as “scholarships, pensions and special allotments of resources” depending on their needs.

The new state facilities that are being set up by Chavez will focus primarily on “the most vulnerable population; the children, adolescents, seniors, people with disabilities, and pregnant women.”

“It’s not a question of the government wanting to do this or not,” said Chavez. “It is now a legal obligation.” (

Right on. And how has Washington reacted to Chavez’s emergency programs and new laws? Here’s an excerpt from a recent article by ex-pat Eva Golinger that sums it up pretty well:

“This week, (Venezuelan) opposition leaders will meet with their counterparts in Washington. They have already said their mission is to seek more aid to help remove President Chavez from power. Unfortunately, their undemocratic actions have already been welcomed in the US Capitol. Representative Connie Mack (R-FL), now head of the House Sub-Committte on Foreign Relations for the Western Hemisphere, announced on the first day of Congress that his one goal this year is to place Venezuela on the list of “state sponsors of terrorism”. And Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), now head of the House Foreign Relations Committee, has backed that objective, even going as far as to publicly state she would welcome the “assassination of Fidel Castro or any other repressive leader” such as Hugo Chavez.” (“Setting the Record Straight on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez”, Eva Golinger, Global Research)

Surprised? Don’t be. Any foreign leader who attempts to control his country’s resources, improve human rights, or distribute the nation’s wealth more equally among its people, is the de facto enemy of the United States. People thought that things might change under Obama, but they were wrong. He’s as bad as Bush.

by Mike Whitney
Global Research Articles by Mike Whitney


( ALGIERS — Algerian police clashed with pro-democracy protesters in the capital Saturday as they blocked a march on parliament amid mounting public grievances that have fuelled fears of Tunisia-style unrest.

Five protesters were hurt as riot police used batons to break up the demonstration according to the opposition party which organised the rally in defiance of a government ban. “There are several injured… and numerous arrests,” Said Sadi, the head of the opposition Rally for Culture and Democracy (RCD).

Seven police officers were also hurt in the clashes, officials said. Two of are in serious condition, a police source told the official APS news agency.

Five people were arrested, APS said, also citing a police source.

Among them was the head of the party’s parliamentary group, Othmane Amazouz, the RCD leader said.

Another of the party’s MPs, Arezki Aiter, was detained but released after an hour, the party said.

Around 300 people had gathered for the rally, intending to march from the city’s Place de la Concorde to the parliament building, but they were quickly blockaded by police armed with batons and tear gas, which prevented the group from moving for six hours before it dispersed peacefully. Sadi said his party’s headquarters in the city’s main avenue had been put under siege by police, describing himself as “a prisoner”. “We cannot wage a peaceful campaign when we are under siege,” he said, using a megaphone to address the crowd from a first-floor window. The protesters in the street below waved Tunisian as well as Algerian flags and shouted “A free Algeria, a democratic Algeria” in Arabic, and “Murder State”. An AFP journalist saw one of the party’s regional leaders, Reda Boudraa, bleeding from the head after being hit by a police baton. Boudraa was taken away in an ambulance with another injured protester. Said vowed the RCD would mount further protests, despite the government ban, saying his supporters were preparing “for the next demonstrations,” planned for February 9, anniversary of the state of emergency declared in 1992.

A government statement, carried by APS Friday, said: “Citizens are asked to show wisdom and vigilance and not respond to possible provocation aimed at disturbing their tranquillity, peace of mind and serenity.” “Marches are not allowed in Algiers” under the state of emergency, the statement warned, adding that “all assemblies on public roads are considered a breach of public order”.

The Algerian League for the Defence of Human Rights (LADDH) said Saturday the blanket government ban on peaceful protest could cause a social explosion in the North African country.

“The fact of banning peaceful marches undertaken by the parties and civil society is leading us towards an explosion,” the group’s president Mostefa Bouchachi told AFP.

The LADDH, the RCD, four trade unions and another party, the Socialist Forces Front (FFS), announced Friday the formation of a national movement for democracy. But the FFS said Saturday it was backing out of preparations for a further march. Mounting public grievances over unemployment and rising costs sparked protests in Algeria earlier this month which left five people dead and more than 800 injured. The government responded swiftly by reducing the prices of oil, sugar and other basic necessities which had risen sharply, while buying up a million tonnes of wheat amid assurances that subsidies on essential goods like flour would continue. Unrest still simmers, however, and within the past two weeks eight people set themselves on fire in Algeria, although some cases were deemed to be linked to mental health issues. Students at the Mouloud-Mammeri University at Tizi-Ouzou in the restive Kabylie region east of Algiers had said that they would back the protest.

In a statement the student leadership praised the Tunisian uprising which ousted president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali after 23 years in power and said it “inspired and motivated all the patriots of North Africa.”

Algerian commentators have said that more Tunisia-style protests could break out in Algeria, a country with similar social problems.

(Edited), Source:

(wired) … “Google has led the charge to adopt regulation to ensure internet openness, yet it has the ability and incentive to engage in a range of decidedly non-neutral conduct due to its control over so many aspects of the internet experience,” said one representative filing. “Google’s core search application relies on a pay-for-priority scheme that is squarely at odds with its proposed neutrality requirements for broadband-internet-access service providers.” (…) Read more…

( 2011-01-22 Reuters reported today on possible EU legal action against Hungary for its new media law passed in 2010 (reported here by WL Central). Hungary has two weeks to show that the new law complies with EU rules regarding free speech and media freedom, and with EU regulations on broadcasting. The report goes on to state:

The commission, which serves as the EU executive body, is concerned whether the new rules limit freedom of expression in Hungary by requiring all broadcasters to provide balanced coverage of news and to register with a state authority.

The full article can be read here.