Summing_It_Up

Гены и Мемы

2005-02-16T14:40:00.000-05:00

Концепция Tabula Rasa, как первоначального состояния человеческого мозга, впервые введённое в философский обиход Джоном Локком (John Locke) и популяризированное Жан-Жаком Руссо, была опровергнута дальнейшими исследованиями, особенно в области эволюционной биологии. Пандиты и гуру, эти приводные ремни, передающие движения научной мысли маховикам общественного сознания, осмеяли Tabula Rasa так давно и так прочно, что возвращаться к этой теме сегодня можно только под страхом экскоммунникации из порядочного общества. И тем ни менее я попытаюсь показать, что ничего не пропадает в кухне Матери Природы бесследно и черпать из океана неведомого можно как напёрстками, так и стаканами, а то и ведрами. Отдельные умы ухитряются черпать целыми бочками. Словом, черпай чем есть – на всех хватит. Не старайся только подвести всех черпающих под свой особенный наперсток.
">Link
Submit your site to 300 search engines free!

OneLiners

2004-12-29T16:59:00.000-05:00

I may look unshaved but hidden in my mind I keep an Ockham's razor at ready.

Do not like to get old? Don't get born.

Политическая Генетика

2004-12-19T19:14:00.000-05:00

При чем здесь лавины?

Москва словам не верет! А Вашингтон?
Народная русская поговорка эпохи глобализации.

Кто не помнит гигантского полотна Василия Сурикова «Боярыня Морозова»? В самом центре её, в санях сидит старуха с яростно горящими глазами непреклонного фанатика; за её спиной– нездешняя красота Василия Блаженного; а вокруг - пестрая толпа как таких же яростных сторонников, так и равнодушных зевак. При таком напряжении великой исторической, религиозной и, главное, моральной темы, где уж зрителю заметить чёрную ворону, невозмутимо гуляющую по клочку грязного, затоптанного московского весеннего снега, прямо под санями, увозящими раскольницу в далекую ссылку.

А между тем, именно контраст черной вороны с ярким московским весеннем снегом настолько поразил художника, что, по его собственным воспоминаниям, запавшая в душу сценка сделалась тем ядром, вокруг которого нарос весь шедевр. Так одна соломинка может сломать спину верблюда. Так легкий хлопок, выкрик зачастую обрушивает гигантскую снежную лавину. Так такие незначительные для современников события, как выстрел из пистолета или хлебные очереди, вызывают сметающие всё на своем пути лавины войн и революций. Напряжения внутри будущей лавины растут скрыто и незаметно, пока легкий толчок не сдвинет с места уже готовые массы.

Такой соломинкой, таким хлопком, таким выстрелом из пистолета, явилась для меня статья Виктора Вольского «ЛЕВЫЙ КРЕН и либеральные воззрения».

Какой ветер вызывает ЛЕВЫЙ КРЕН и выдувает либеральные воззрения?

Чтение этой статьи не оставляет ни малейшего сомнения в том, что автор её, мягко говоря, не любит либералов. Тут, конечно, спорить не о чем, если бы речь шла о поваренных рецептах: как говориться, на вкус и цвет – товарищей нет!

Но г. Вольский не пишет поваренные книги – он пишет передовые статьи о политике в общественном журнале и, следовательно, может, и даже должен, быть вызван, как когда-то говорили, на суд общественности. Тем более, что в нелюбви, и даже в ненависти к либеральным воззрениям и лично к либералам Виктор Вольский отнюдь не одинок. Скорее напротив, его чувства широко разделяются не только большиством наших амерканских сограждан, но и многими одиозными фигурами из всем нам знакомого прошлого, о которых мы поговорим ниже. Пока мы ограничимся тоном статьи, поскольку с тона начинается музыка.

Тон определяет музыку

Начнем с того, что тон г. Вольского неотличим от тона, который звучит сегодня на многих ТВ и, особенно, радио-станциях. Этот тон, тон бескомпромиссного обличения, имеет своих первопроходцов или, если позволите, отцов-основателей. В первую очередь на ум приходят, Савонарола, а также наши современные соотечественники Rush Limbaugh и Bob Grant [1]. Если читатель хочет подтвеждения, начном с нескольких образцов, чуть было не сказал образчиков, выражений по отношению к либералам: «Со всех сторон раздается дружный вой», «Джон Эдвардс — тихо и незаметно протирал штаны», « пресса впадает в полуобморочное состояние от восторга», «горстки грандов, витавших в эмпиреях», « «умеренные» среди пишущей братии — это те же либералы, но только стесняющиеся так себя именовать», «измазанные чернилами бедолаги», и даже «Люди с песьими головами». Тон этих выражений не оставляет сомнений в том, что их автор – назовём его сборным именем VV, ДаблВи, W или просто Дюбуа – ведет не допускающую никаких сомнений праведную войну НАШЕГО ДОБРА против ЧУЖОГО ЗЛА. Тон обращаясь к непосредственно подсознанию, немедленно проясняет, что индивидуальные герои – наши, тогда как нечто неопределенное, безличное, лишенное всего человеческого – это чужие.

Так наш Дэн Куэйл, обессмертивший себя поправкой правильной орфографии слова «картошка», улыбается ясной и открытой улыбкой, в то время как чужой Джон Эдвардс, вылядищий дураком с отвисшей челюстью, известен только протиранием штанов. Так наш Судья Борк, обессмертивший себя своевольным увольнением Арчибальда Фокса, назначенного Конгрессом вести Уотергейтское дело, глядит с портрета всезнающим мудрецом, в то время как чужой Эван Томас, с тем же видом раззявившим рот и размахивающем руками идиота, этот измазанный чернилами бедолага осмелился, подумать только, вместе с другими истинными «пролетариями умственного труда» — неумеренно пьющими (в том числе и при исполнении) сквернословами и циниками, никаких факультетов журналистики не кончавшими и выбравшими газетное поприще по зову сердца, посмел даже стать заместителем главного редактора журнала «Ньюсуик»! Как тут не воскликнуть Слушай Израиль! Тем более, что по зову сердца!

Замените слова «левые и либералы» в стенаниях о засилье в американских СМИ, на слова «безродные космополиты», а ещё лучше на сами знаете кого, и тон этот станет ещё более знакомым, особенно старшему поколению Новых Америсанцев. Конечно, сегодня всем хорошо известно почему тогда и там был выбран подобный тон, кто заказывал музыку и кто дирижировал оркестром! Потому нам особенно важно понять, кто сейчас и здесь старается внушить, что потеряй только бдительность, как попрёт, организованная в роты, батальоны, полки, и целые дивизии, «пишущая братия», захватывать почту и телеграф, последние два Нью-Йоркских вокзала и все Гудзоновские мосты и туннели. И давит кошмаром СТРАХ, повсюду мерещется Невидимая Рука, но не доброго нашего рынка, а чего-то чужого, инородного, вроде бы уже не Москвы, но кто его знает? Не БУКИ ли, зверя без СПИНЫ, которого и вообразить нельзя. Что и говорить, техника давно испытанная и прекрасно знакомая всем читателям ленинской Правды и сталинского Крокодила. Хотя тем, кто Правду не помнят, я вполне искренне завидую, продолжим наши усилия и постараемся за какофонией слов распознать, кто сейчас, здесь и, главное, зачем заказывет музыку и кто дирижирует оркестром.

Кто заказывает музыку?

Как это кто? Да кто платит, тот и заказывает, вот кто! А что же по этому поводу говорят Дюбуа? А ничего, их роль только шуметь. Просто отмечает, что «Еще 15 лет назад в американском информационном пространстве монопольно царила «прогрессивная» идеология. Три телевизионные сети, Служба общественного радиовещания NPR и главные газеты и журналы дудели в одну дуду, время от времени снисходительно пуская на экран, к микрофону и на газетно-журнальные полосы носителей чуждых взглядов — пусть, дескать, порезвятся, не страшно. Зато всем видно, как взвешены и сбалансированы наши передачи!»

Попробуем всё же разобраться с этим длинным предложением фраза за фразой и посмотрим, что из этого выйдет. 15 лет – это приблизительно правильная цифра: как мы помним, в 1987 году с отменой Доктрины Справедливости исчезло главное препядствие к монополии идеологической определенности. Что же ещё произошло примерно в то же время, последние годы Рейганомики? А вот что: были обезврежены анти-трестовский акты, которые были введены ещё в 1890 г. Республиканским Сенатором Джоном Шерманом в ходе борьбы против монополий, и дополнены в 1911 г. Республиканским президентом Тафтом.

Как и следовало ожидать, пронеслись цунами слияний и консолидации корпоративной Америки и от Большой Тройки не осталось и следа: попробуйте купить на фондовой бирже акции CBS, NBC или ABC – на вас посмотрят, как на только приехавшего из Советского Союза, если только не от Короля Артура! Все они потеряли свою независимость и перешли в полное владение своих новых хозяев: Disney, Time-Warner и General Electric. Что же касается NPR, то после обрезания публичного финансирования, знаменитая своими программами и журнализмом, она не только не повзрослела, а полностью повисла на помочах своих рекламодателей. И поскольку мы выяснили, кто платит за музыку, то пора уже задать следующий вопрос.

Зачем заказывают музыку?

Теперь поробуем спросить какую долю бюджетов Disney, Time-Warner и General Electric составлют бюджеты отделов новостей CBS, NBC или ABC? Боже упаси даже задавать такой вопрос. Это все равно, что спрашивать Ротшильда, есть ли у него деньги на трамвай. Тем не менее, отделы новостей, особенно заграничные бюро, были резко сокращены. Здесь простая логика отказывается отвечать. Покупать новости, что бы их сокращать? В голове это не укладывается. Все равно, что купить скрипку Страдивари, с тем, что бы выбросить её на помойку. Если только не затем, чтобы положить скрипку в банк, чтобы на ней больше никто никогда не играл. Для музыканта дико, но для инвестора вполне понятно.

Особенно для такого инвестора, как General Electric, акции которого могут сильно упасть, и фактически частенько падали, каждый раз, когда разражался скандал по поводу того, что люди вокруг реки Гудзон продолжают отравляться химическими отходами, спускавшимися в реку Дженерал Электрик в течении многих десятилетий. И какая удача привалила Дженерал Электрику, что все эти скандалы по отравлению химическими отходами людей, за лечение и похороны которых надо было так дорого платить, поднимались или либералами, или такими адвокатами, как тот же либерал Джон Эдвардс! Не одним ли мирром они все помазаны, ату их! Но, как любил говаривать генералиссимус Суворов, удача-удачей, да, помилуй Бог, когда-то же нужно и уменье! Начитавшись Суворова, Дженерал Электрик немедленно купил ABC и дело сразу пошло, как по маслу. Либералы по-привычке продолжали судить Дженерал Электрик, но уж выступать в открытую – Боже упаси! Там где-нибудь в виртуальном кибермире, но уж никак не в нашем. Ах, кто-то там брякнул про радиоволны, принадлежащие народу? Да вы что, с Луны свалились? Мы с этой либеральной доктриной давным-давно, ещё в 1996 году, разделались с помощью заклятого либерала Клинтона! Сразу же после Уайтуотергейтского дела и как раз перед Моникой, взяли его голубчика в этакую коробочку, как выражаются хокеисты. Вот и получается, что покупка ABC оказалась для Дженерал Электрик настоящей манной небесной, а что при этом «лучшие новости – это отсутствие новостей», так то каждый школьник знает. Еще лучше бы, просто закрыть отдел новостей, так ведь нельзя – что, если Яшка-Шесть-Банок догадается? Гони как можно больше порнухи, в ней-то самые большие деньги, те самые, которые ничем не пахнут.

Что же касается NPR, то она просто транслирует на США новости BBC, иностранная организация, существующая на деньги британского налогоплательщика.

Давай-те же подведем первые итоги: пока были либералы и их Доктрины Справедливости и анти-трестовских законов, не могло быть монополии ни в содержании программ, ни во владении ими. После отмены анти-трестовских законов, естественно, образовалась монополия и на владение программами и, конечно, на их содержание. Иначе для чего надо было покупать такой неспокойный бизнес, как бизнес новостей, ведь прибыли от него всегда было мало, а хлопот много. Не верите, спросите у Никсона и Спиро Агнью и многих, многих других. Да и куда сподручние: чем подавать на СМИ в суд на клевету, что стоит громадных денег и подмачивает репутацию так, что можно плавать, куда проще закупить все СМИ в целом. Оптом-то дешевле, чем в розницу! Обо всём вышесказанном не найдешь у наших Дюбуа не только слова, вздоха даже не услышишь. Однако, прежде чем покончить с тоном, перечитал я свой собственный текст и только диву дался: тон-то, тон-то какой! А слова? Тут тебе «заклятый либерал Клинтон», и «каждый школьник знает», и восклицательные с вопросительными знаками, и прочая барабанная риторика. Совсем как у Дювуа, хоть призывай брать Дженерал Электрик на абортаж! Зато хоть какая-то информация есть и при этом с настоящими ссылками, а не просто с угрозами на таковую. Так что решил я оставить тон какой есть. Пусть, думаю, читателю, как говаривал Михаил Зощенко, веселее будет.[2] Пора, думаю, переходить к фактам, а точнее к их подтасовкам.

Подтасовка фактов

Читаем сначала, что «лишь 7% репортеров и редакторов придерживаются консервативных взглядов, а в целом по стране 35% населения разделяют консервативные взгляды» , из чего делается вывод об «огромной пропасти, образовавшейся между СМИ и общественностью». Что и говорить – потрясающе. Иной Иннокентий остался бы довольным, да я, на свою, конечно, беду, не могу прожить без счета. Как говориться, бумага, которая всё стерпит, мне друг, но счетчик – дороже. И сразу выясняется, что приведенные цифры описывают не пропасть, а замечательное единодушие СМИ и общественности. Вычитая из 100% пресловутых 35% консеваторов и 18% либералов, мы удостоверимся, что 47% умеренного населения вполне соответствуют 54% «умеренных» журналистов, по-крайней мере, в пределах 3-4%, допустимых при опросах. И при этом без всяких унижающих кавычек, просто и мило. И при этом самый главный, вынесенный в первый абзац, аргумент о «засилии либералов в прессе» немедленно повисает в воздухе. Будь я на месте каждого школьника, знакомого со знаменитой фразой «что и требовалось доказать», я бы уже мог пойти играть в футбол, поскольку в докозательстве от противного дольше уже делать ничего не полагается. Но мне уже трудно остановиться даже перед противным, так что пора приниматься за связь между причиной и следствием: что было раньше – яйцо или курица? А раньше, как утверждают, всё было. В том числе, и свобода прессы.

Что такое свобода прессы?

В основу объснения, что такое свобода прессы, возьмем сначала утверждение того, что «переломным моментом и величайшей трагедией в истории американской журналистики стало Уотергейтское дел,[когда] два молодых репортера из «Вашингтон Пост» — Боб Вудворд и Карл Бернстин — фактически произвели государственный переворот, свалив президента Никсон» . Ясное дело, что такая мелочь, как Биль о Правах, не увидишь в указанном тексте даже в самый сильный мелкоскоп. Также ничего не видно и не слышно о том, что будущий экс-президент Никсон нарушил не один, а целый ряд американских законов, которые Никсон присягнул исполнять и проводить в жизнь. Ничто не намекает на то в те времена в стране всё ещё существовал Конгресс; что Конституция налагает на Конгресс долг не только бдительно следить за исполнительной властью, но также, в случае необходимости, немедленно пресекать её; и что этот долг и был исполнен большинством Конгресса, большинством, которое состояло как из Демократическим меньшинства, так и Республиканского большинства.

Здесь следует кратко остановиться на том, о чем я собираюсь говорить более подробно ниже, а именно укорененности Уотергейтское дела именно в Американской Конституции. Дело в том, что Основатели, как это было зафиксировано ими самими, больше всего опасались возрождения тирании в какой бы то ни было форме, не в последнюю очередь тирании большиства. Поэтому они постарались заложить в придуманную ими систему САМОУПРАВЛЕНИЯ всевозможные защитные механизмы, в том числе контроль и равновесие между всеми тремя ветвями правительства, исполнительной, законодательной и судебной. Но самой главной защитой молодой Республики против тирании, они считали хорошо информированных и, главное, образованных и умеющих думать избирателей. Свобода прессы, трактуемая не столько как привелегия, сколько как обязанность, и была призвана обеспечить правильное функционирования самоуправления.

Именно по этой причине, в то время, как президент Никсон нарушал Американскую Конституцию, и Конгресс и, главное, журналисты Боб Вудворд и Карл Бернстин просто-напросто выполнили свой профессиональный и гражданский долг, налагаемых на всех без исключения Первой Поправкой к Конституции. Именно по той же причине, инвективы г. Вольского против прессы в данном случае не столько не уместны, сколько представляют собой попытку в нарушении долга (dereliction of duty). И не знать этого не разрешается ни одному уважаемому журналисту, как впрочем, и ни одному уважаещему себя читателю.

Что такое доктрина Справедливости в СМИ?

Далее г. Вольский рисует невероятно неприглядную картину почти тоталитарного контроля за информацией в нашей, якобы, демократической стране. Давайте послушаем, что он говорит: «Три телевизионные сети, Служба общественного радиовещания NPR и главные газеты и журналы дудели в одну дуду, время от времени снисходительно пуская на экран, к микрофону и на газетно-журнальные полосы носителей чуждых взглядов — пусть, дескать, порезвятся, не страшно. Зато всем видно, как взвешены и сбалансированы наши передачи!». Однако, при быстром взгляде реальную ситуацию и её предисторию, что невероятно легко сделать в наше время Интернета, раскрывается совсем другая картина. Оказавается то, за что так благородно борется наш борец за справедливость, было уже давно осуществлено в 1949 году, когда была принята т.н. Доктрина Справедливости. В мандате Конгресса по этому поводу так и сказано: «обеспечить освещение всех противоречивых проблем всеми широко-вещательными станциями со всех сторон и по-справедливости». Кто же посмел так опередить нашего Дон Кихота? Кто это диктовал Конгрессу, что ему делать? Кто позволил? Да посмотрите кто в 1949 году сидел в том замечательном Конгрессе? Правильно, вы угадали, те самые либералы, против которых сегодня ломают столько пик, и сидели. И заставили Нью Йорк Таймс печатать Уолтера Липпманна, того самого «измазанного чернилами бедолаги»[3], не вместе с такими же неумеренно пьющими (в том числе и при исполнении) сквернословами и циниками, никаких факультетов журналистики не кончавшими и выбравшими газетное поприще по зову сердца»[4] журналистами, а с такими доверенными лицами как Уильям Сэфайр [5] и Дэвид Брукс [6]. Как говорят в Одессе, нехватало бы мне столько до Ротшильда, сколько моему образованию нехватает до Липпманнского. Смех, да и только, как сказал бы тот же Михаил Зощенко.

Увы, сколько демократической сказочке ни виться, а уж республиканский конец для неё всегда найдется! Спустя больше трёх десятилетий, назначенный президентом Рейганом новый председатель Федеральной Коммуникационной Коммиссии, Марк Фоулер, поклялся покончить с Доктриной Справедливости. Она тихо скончалась своей смертью весной 1987 года, после того, что Конгресс отказался продлить её мандат в широких рамках Рейгановской программы дерегуляции. Исчезновение всякого контроля над широковещательными программами, привело к взрывообразному распространению радио-вещательных станций с необычайно разнообразным репертуаром. Опять это бесполезное увы, но благодаря всё той же идеологии разрегулирования, все эти т.н. папа-с-мамой радиостанции попали в руки считанного числа гигантских корпораций, с их характерными чистыми руками, горячими сердцами и холодными головами. Естественно, что хотя холодные головы думали в основном о горячей прибыли, горячие сердца не забывали о холодном расчете, т.е. о том, как расчистить дорогу к еще более горячем доходе. Одним словом, как в той песне о доме который построил Джек. Или, ещё другими словами: какую музыку надо заказывать.

Время разбрасывать факты и время обобщать факты

Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 1798.

Факты, факты везде, но в них ни капли смысла.
Вольный перевод на русский язык.

На этом месте мне пора поставить точку, а точнее, двоеточие, и начать прощаться с нашим новым анти-героем Дюбуа: свою службу он худо-бедно отслужил. Почему именно на пятой страннице, а не на какой бы то ни было иной? Почему бы мне было не сократить текст, или, наоборот, не прибавить новой информации? Да просто потому, что я сам не Дюбуа.

Потому что для Дюбуа, каждая музыка – это новая и единственно правильная музыка. Они не знает то, что знаю я: что несмотря на то, что все богатство музыки составлено всего из двенадцати тонов, организованных в четыре такта, восемь октав, и 64 длительностей, это богатство – неисчерпаемо за всю оставшеющуюся жизнь Вселенной, даже если бы композиторы заселили всю её с плотностью населения в Гулаговского барака. И даже если бы Дюбуа знали эту истину, которую немногие из них конечно знают, они должны тщательно скрывать эту опасную истину, что бы не оказаться на улице – их нанимают не за ум, а за производимый ими шум.

Потому что никакие миллионы новых жертв в миллионах новых войн не добавят убедительности то истине, что человек смертен. Метод индукции в доказательстве этой истины – бессилен.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]Этих радиовержцев я частенько слушал в машине, тем самым обнажив свои мазохические извращения, т.к. грешить садизмом сидя за рулем, скажем прямо, трудновато.
[2] Порывшись в исчезающей, как улыбка Чеширского Кота, памяти, обнаружил, что эти слова написал не Михаил Зощенко, а вовсе и Александр Архангельский, который кончает свою пародию Баня следующей фразой: «Не смешно, говорите? А мне наплевать!» Ко мне, конечно, такая концовка и в голову бы не пришла.
[3] ЛЕВЫЙ КРЕН и либеральные воззрения.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Прежде чем стать журналистом, Сэфайр писал речи для Richard Nixon и Spiro Agnew; первый подал в отставку, чтобы не попасть под суд, тогда как второй, объвиненный в неуплате налогов и получении взяток, подал в отставку на год раньше своего босса. Свое вечное место в истории, однако, заслужил не своим еженедельным толкованием слов, а тем, что он первый начал пропагандировать якобы ему одному известные связи между Саддамом Хусейном и Аль-Каэда и призывать к войне с Ираком. Погибшие в Ираке должны быть благодарны ему по гроб своей жизни.
[6] Либерал, который стал вновь родившемся консерватором после беседы с Норманом Фридманом, экономическим отцом Рейгановской революции, направленной на процветание фондовой биржи за счет вывоза отечественной индустрии заграницу. Редактор журнала Еженедельный Стандарт, которым владеет media могул Руперт Мёрдок.
">Link
Submit your site to 300 search engines free!

Open Letter to Eric Margolis of Toronto Star

2004-11-29T13:14:00.000-05:00

Mr. Margolis:

If “Ukraine [is] Flirting with a Civil War”, then you are flirting with the Ukraine's Cossacks. You call them “this feisty people with a fierce love of freedom, a rejection of authority, a profound romanticism”, rather than the most obnoxious anti-Semites and mass murderers of Jews! Where did you get that “Ukrainians, at least western Ukrainians, are a distinct, effervescent people of high culture that brought civilization and Christianity to Russia”? Do you really mean those civilized western Ukrainians, the most willing Hitler's executioners? Where did you get that Ukraine's Cossacks are “more French than East European?” Do you really mean those Cossacks, dressed in Turkish shalvars and shaved as Mongols, with only forelock left, are more French than robbers? Where did you get your fantasies you share so generously with your readers? Do you really mean those readers are an undereducated bunch, not to be respected at all? Did you really read at least one book on history of Ukraine, Cossacks, or Russia for that matter, or you rely only on wishful thinking in your utterances? I would be more then pleased to provide you with some elementary information on the topic, which you can use for your next column.

Meanwhile, I advise you to stay away from this conflict. There is no better gift for the United States geopolitics as to insert Ukraine into European Union, the best Trojan horse to deadly poison the whole thing. On the same token, there cannot be any worse scenario, not only for the European, but also for the world community, than to repeat Versailles experience on much greater scale. Greediness and extreme shortsightedness has led in 1919 to humiliation of vanquished on the battlefield. By cutting off millions of Germans from their home, victors created the fertile ground for Hitler. Russia, a.k.a. the Third Rome, a.k.a. Soviet Union, was not vanquished on the battlefield and she still keeps intact her nuclear arsenal and all modern means of delivery.

You, and your fellows from Brussels and Washington, are playing with nuclear fire. So please come to your senses, Sir.

Fears of a World Divided

2004-11-24T15:06:00.000-05:00

Maria Margaronis
London
Disillusionment is the most painful of emotions. For many Europeans who wanted to see George Bush's first presidency as an aberration in America's history, his win on November 2 will confirm a frightening truth: More than half of US voters really do wish to live in a fortress of solipsism, a faith-based bubble indifferent to the rest of the world except insofar as America needs it to maintain its oil-based lifestyle. If, as some people suggested, all of us out here whose lives will be affected by the US election had had a chance to vote, the outcome would have been quite different. A couple of weeks before the election, a newspaper survey of public opinion in ten countries, including Russia and Britain, found that respondents, by a 2-to-1 margin, wanted a Kerry victory. In Europe, only the Poles hoped to see Bush elected. (Of course, many Israelis are also happy--to quote Sharon, "Bush is the best friend Israel ever had"--although few Palestinians had any illusions about what they could hope for from the Democrats.)
Inevitably, the postelection media were full of tactful equivocations, brave faces and the search for silver linings. Perhaps G.W. Bush II will be different from G.W. Bush I; perhaps he will see the need to heal the rifts he has opened up, in the world as well as in America; perhaps a concern for his place in history rather than the next election will induce him to take global warming seriously. But as they talk about their hopes, the radio pundits--conservatives as well as social democrats--sound as if they're still rooting for Kerry, for a President who, in the words of one British Foreign Office insider, would change, if not the policies, at least "the atmospherics."
But if most of Europe's people are depressed and disappointed, some of their leaders are privately relieved. Germany's Gerhard Schröder and France's Jacques Chirac will not now have to figure out how to say no to Kerry when he asks for help in Iraq. Tony Blair will not be the last of the Iraq triumvirate in power, and seems to imagine that he can cash in his chips with the White House to restart the Middle East peace process. There are signs that, having paid his dues in Washington, he may try to mend fences in Europe: Britain is already in talks with France, Germany and Iran about Iran's nuclear program and will probably side with Europe against the United States on a French push to lift an EU arms embargo against China. But Europe itself is riven with disagreements on everything from finance to foreign policy, and those who hope to use Bush's election as a catalyst for unity will have their work cut out for them.
From here, the most frightening thing about Bush's victory is the prospect of a world divided between warring fundamentalisms, with Europe in the middle struggling to hold on to its Enlightenment legacy. On the day after the US election, the second-biggest story in several European newspapers was the murder in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh, a deliberately provocative filmmaker whose latest work dramatized the abuse of a Muslim woman. The film was scripted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who has become a right-wing, anti-immigrant MP; van Gogh's killer was a young man with dual Dutch and Moroccan nationality. The messianic clash-of-civilizations rhetoric coming from the White House only sharpens tensions like these. On the morning after the election, Sir Christopher Meyer, former British Ambassador to Washington, spoke with undiplomatic plainness on the BBC: "If I was Osama bin Laden, which fortunately I'm not, I would be wanting at this moment to help Bush."

Open Letter to Thomas Friedman

2004-11-21T13:48:00.000-05:00

Mr. Friedman, why cannot you make your mind at the long last? During last 2 years, as a reputed columnist, you were playing Prince Hamlet, by asking his question ‘to be or not be’ the war in Iraq.
There is a big difference though between you and Hamlet. The latter asked about, and ultimately took, his own life, whereas you were asking, and ultimately having indirect control of, tens of thousands of other people’s lives. Your speculations about ‘shining path’ to greater global democracy, propagandized by Cheney-Bush presidency, make everybody sick, especially those, familiar with the real Sendero Luminoso. Many years prior to our fanatics, Maoists in Peru had preached that social justice emanates from the barrel of the gun. Since ‘social justice’ is dirty words in post-New Deal America, ill defined ‘freedom and democracy’ will do as well for domestic Neo-Trotskyites, who penetrated upper echelons of our government. As seemingly educated man, Mr. Friedman, you ought to know better that when some words are overused at the expense of others, all words loose their meaning and become counterfeit. People, who had ceased power on November 2, 2004, might use novell counterfeit currency of ‘American national interests’, ‘patriotism’, ‘national security’ et cetera, but it is still counterfeit currency nonetheless and you cannot pretend not to know it. You also cannot pretend not to know their not that much hidden agenda, which has very little to do with the traditions left to us by our Founding Fathers in such overused and undervalued documents as the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.

Their agenda cannot be democracy in Iraq because they despise democracy, or whatever left of it, in the US.

Their agenda cannot be about Middle East oil and oil companies’ profits, as some superficial people on the left would like us to believe. Just divide $450 Billions of protection money, paid to Pentagon annually, into 4 billion barrels a year imported into this country, and you will find $100 premium we all pay for our oil with our taxpayers’ money. Theirs is the almost open agenda to puppeteer Europe and China by strings of global oil production and distribution.

Their agenda cannot be a war in Iraq as openning salvo to warn the European Union never even to think of real sovereignty and closing off the American friendly bases that dot the continent. Theirs is an open agenda of pre-emptive strike, be it nuclear as it may.

Instead, their hidden agenda is the preservation of ownership of this country and the rest of the world by shrewd few over duped and/or conquested many. Mr. Friedman, if you still claim your innocence and deny all of the above, my advice is to you - ‘Read more books’, especially books about Bolshevism and National-Socialism. You see, in the concept of National Capitalism, which is what current ideology of GOP is all about, word ‘National’ defines the essence of the regime, whereas word ‘Capitalism’ represents just a sugar coating to enthuse masses. It is an old story and the story had repeated itself time and again with the same unhappy endings: destruction of those few along the suffering of those many. History also has shown to us that time and again those fellow travelers, who were trying to navigate between Scylla of evil and Charybdis of lesser evil, usually end up their lives in disgrace. As a famous columnist of New York Times fame, you are unlikely to follow Karl Radek, a famous columnist of Moscow Pravda and 1937 purges fame, but one never knows.

Rectify or Die.

2004-11-15T08:34:00.000-05:00

In the Analects (25:13:3) the Prince of Wei asks Confucius what his first priority in administering the country would be, and Confucius replies by articulating the theory that has come to be known as the "rectification of names": Tzu-lu said, "If the Lord of Wei entrusted the administration to you, what would you carry out first?" Confucius said, "It would be necessary to rectify names. ... If names are not rectified, then what is said will not make sense, and if what is said does not make sense, then affairs cannot be successfully concluded. If affairs cannot be successfully concluded, then rituals and music will not flourish. If rituals and music do not flourish, then punishments will not fit crimes. If punishments do not fit the crimes, then people will be at a loss as to how to act. Therefore, the Noble Man applies names so that he can speak sensibly so that he can act successfully. Or, as Ekiken rephrased it, "If various phenomena are not comprehended in terms of rational principle, knowledge would lack a solid foundation." Is not it grave irony that what was crystal clear to Confucius 25 hundreds years ago, is lost on about 51% of American people; those very people, on whose whims depends the final decision of whose finger will push the nuclear button. In short, an existential question for the whole of humankind, whether it will be or will not be', is placed in the hands of people, among which decisive portion does not use rectified words and, therefore, does not know, that "If various phenomena are not comprehended in terms of rational principle, knowledge would lack a solid foundation." Is it this state of affairs in our country and this state of minds of our people that constitute the pinnacle of the progress of the American republic so far? And if it is the pinnacle of the progress, then is there any way to describe our situation other then catastrophe? The next question, of course, would be ‘What we shall all do to avoid that catastrophe?’ My answer to the last question would be to follow wise advice of Chinese sage and start the long way of rectifying words, which after much abuse and overused became nothing but counterfeits the same way as gold coins lose their values and become counterfeits after long use and abuse.Let me start listing of those words that beg for rectification from the Decalogue.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shall not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbor’s.
1. Unity
2. Religion
>Link

The Bell Tolls for Us

2004-11-15T06:55:00.000-05:00

After November 2, 2004 elections, the date, which will live in infamy, do not ask for whom the bell tolls: it tolls for all of us.

Open Letter to Senator John F. Kerry

2004-11-04T20:16:00.000-05:00

Mr. John Forbes Kerry:

I have voted for you only because you are not Mr. Bush and so did majority of your so-called base.
Yes, you are not George W. Bush but you managed to become not John Forbes Kerry as well.

You are not John Forbes Kerry, who went to Vietnam to fight for your country the way you believed to be right at the time when your mind was closed.

You are not John Forbes Kerry, who came from Vietnam to fight for your country the way you believed to be right after reality helped to open your mind.

You are not John Forbes Kerry, who then traded his privileged position for service to your country and high ideals it represent.

You are calculating John Forbes Kerry instead; and you have calculated poorly.

What kind of calculation will cancel your unwise voting for War Resolution in October 2002? I have sent you numerous communications to alert you and begged you to accept that act as unfortunate human error. You ignored it as it turned out to your peril.

What kind of calculation will cancel your smirk that ‘French are French’, when asked by one-dimensional reporter about your take on French position with regard to Iraq war? Obviously it would not help with French, hence with all of the Europe; and it will never help you with your enemies either.

What kind of calculation will cancel your effort to side with morons? For a moron pretending to be an intellectual is nothing but joke, while an intellectual pretending to be a moron is committing worst than high treason: it is admitting your own foolishness, to cite one of the French greatest statesman.

What kind of calculation will cancel your insistence on continuation of Bush’s policy in Iraq? What kind of person, if not totally out of mind, may want to turn clock back to imperial adventures in our era of instant global telecommunication and reality of instant nuclear annihilation? Only shallow intriguers can gamble with the lives and deaths of millions, for know not what are they doing! You should not be one of them.

And after all what you have failed to do, you have left American people with the only one uninspiring calculation: to vote either for oilman or for ketchup-man. You deserted your supporters without giving a fight. What a travesty on top of tragedy!

">Link
Submit your site to 300 search engines free!

A Date Which Will Live in Infamy

2004-11-03T20:35:00.000-05:00

November 2, 2004, a date which will live in infamy, is the date when the phrase 'innocent Americans' has become oxymoron. At this date, we started our march from City on the Hill to Fortress in the Hell, that will be surrounded from the rest of the world by barbwire and hi-tech protection. At this date, we started our march from freedom of hope to slavery of fear. At this date we gave our approval to become the nation of aggressors and hence have legitimized insurgency against us. At this date, from being glorious beacon of hope for other nations to follow, we have started our march to becoming pariah nation, armed to the teeth but despised pariah nonetheless.

Vitaly Purto
11/03/04

What good may come out of Bush's Victory

2004-11-03T15:57:00.000-05:00

Kerry’s victory might have caused world’s demobilization while most likely than not, he would continue in the same vein as Bush. Sometimes clarity of bad choice may be more beneficial than uncertainty of slightly better choice. Bush has been given clear mandate for more misdeeds by His Majesty American Moron class. This fact leaves no choice for the rest of the world but to initiate the first priority actions before it is too late. World’s mobilization, which had started the day after Bush’s Doctrine was announced in 2002, now is in as full swing as it is possible without alerting Dogs of War. In essence, George W. Bush in 2003, without proper mandate, did what Joseph V. Stalin did in 1947 with full mandate of his victorious Red Army: Bush had dismissed international order for the sake of ambiguously defined 'national interests' the same way as Stalin had dismissed meaningful participation in post-war restructuring. Stalin put all his eggs in the basket of unilateralism, thereby mobilizing the United States the policy of containment, a.k.a. the Cold War, with devastating results for both countries. The reverse cause-effect link is possible as well. Lost were both Soviet Union and the North American Republic.

Now, 50 years later we have the rule of anarchy in place of the Empire of Tsars and rule of cronyism over overblown military-industrial empire in place of former State of Law. Mandate of 'victorious' Cold War was too big a temptation to be ignored by nearsighted policymakers: instead of sharing peace dividends among American people, unilateral actions were chosen and mobilization for policy of containment was triggered for real. This time, the United States has found herself standing alone with U.K. against the rest of the world. With European Union, China, India and many more other countries on the rise, while the United States, with its hollow industrial base and broken finances, on its way down, such a containment may work sooner than 40 years that took to undo Soviet Union. So morons might be happy, provided that on one perfect day they would not open their eyes to realize that they were taken to the cleaners. Such a moment of truth might prove to be very damaging for shrewd manipulators.

Great Russian poet Alexander Pushkin once noted 'God forbid to see Russian riot, senseless and cruel'. One is welcome to apply his warning to the country with 170 millions guns in private possession.
">Link

For Whom the Bell Tolls: It Tolls for Bush

2004-02-01T22:22:00.000-05:00

Today we arrive at the eve of war on Iraq. To understand monumentality of this moment, we need to go back in history and trace the most important milestones that marked our journey so far, to this moment in our collective life.On the eve of World War 1, Kaiser Wilhelm II, whose arrogance played no minor role in creating Gordian Knot that led to that catastrophe, had warned his generals ‘You will live to regret your decision [to go to war]’. Uttering these prophetic words may be the most important he will be remembered for: dead locked to their contingency plans, German General Staff had immediately taken the full command of Reich, subordinating all state political and economical functions to serve military ends. Monarchical principle in politics, as well as principle of private property in economics was suspended de facto, if not de jure, to fit mandate of Total War. Four years and tens of millions lives later, citizen Wilhelm Hohenzollern expired in exile, as powerless witness to his own prescience. No matter how bad was devastation by his death, the powerful chain of events unleashed by August 1914, kept unraveling through years 1932, 1945 and 1989. It is reaching us now, in year 2004, and will cast its deadly shadows well into our future. Why, then, year 1932 is relevant today? Because of all other dates, number 1932 is the most congruent with number 2000. Besides both being leap years, both dates mark inconclusive elections: less than a half of German electorate in 1932 has voted for the candidate representing highly radicalized party and so did the American electorate in year 2000. Having legitimate but uncertain mandate of election, fearing ever-increasing noise emanating from unruly Storm troopers, and using behind the scene machination, few respectful German statesmen, led by Franz Von Papen, installed Hitler as a German Chancellor in the vain attempt to retain full control over a unsophisticated, down the earth folksy simpleton. The Magnificent Five of the US Supreme Court’s fame, who installed Candidate Bush as a new American President, filled old Franz Von Papen’s shoes. Yet other parallels between 1932 and 2000 came to through with direct Divine Intervention, or so both of them were quick to claim. Within less than a year, on February 17, 1933, an opportune moment had arrived: Reichstag was set on fire. Seeing this dramatic even as almost divine intervention, Hitler lost no time: immediately he had asked and received unlimited emergency powers to ensure public safety. Sunset provision, attached to the bill, has assured Germans that in 4 years, when live will return to normal, emergency powers will rescind as well. It never happened. Historial records inform us that once at the top of the power, only exceptionally wise people, surrounded by people with exceptional integrity, have chosen to part with exceptional power after need in such power is no more. Hitler and his party have neither wisdom nor integrity, they have their own agenda instead. Though openly proclaimed in many speeches and publications, such as Mein Kampf, Hitler's agenda was taken at its face value neither by electorate at large nor by their corporate sponsors.

Attack on September 11, 2001, not unlike fire in Reichstag 68 earlier, had furnished Bush with almost paralleled opportunity, although unparalleled in American history in peacetime; both leaders had used fear and panic to achieve their preconceived goals, of which both did not make much of the secret; both also knew that in order to justify unjustifiable, they should provide for real cause, even if as an after-fact. Therefore, both leaders used artificially created panic to get conditional emergency power and then used power thus acquired to create state of permanent panic by putting their respective countries on the warpath. Unsophisticated as it was, such stratagem was working well in both cases.

Yet, strange as it may, April 2002, the eve of the War on Iraq, may constitute even greater deviation from normalcy than either August 1914 or September 1939. Why is that? For one, the Great War came as the result of malfunction of the European system of balance of power: leaders of individual member-states tried mightily to avoid catastrophe of modern industrialized warfare, of which they have little life experience. They have failed miserably, straitjacketed by layers upon layers of outdated antiquities, those ancient regimes that survived in Europe from time immemorial. Pull of secret treaties, multiplied by rather novice force of nationalistic frenzy, faded memory of previous cataclysms, undid efforts of wise men. Even direct phone calls from one crowned head of state to another, could not overwhelm dumb force of modern state machinery: once turned on, confronting machineries proceeded to move by inertia until their own destruction. Another powerful factor in unleashing dogs of war was arrogant sense of superiority of modern rational man comparative with his savage predecessor. Calls of few to cleanse sins of decadence with bloodbath did not register with many; at most, they were met by ironic disregard. September 1939 was not exactly déjà vu, there were some differences: such relics as Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman Empires, were fragmented into pieces. More up to date but still old fashioned Russian and German Empires, grossly trimmed, has turned into egalitarian democracies only to be transformed into totalitarian structures. Instead of quite a few fringe groups, spread all over Europe, especially within such relics , and calling for justice and/or revenge, this time situation was much simpler. Two pariah-states, Bolshevik Soviet Union, which had emerged from debries left by the most thorough clean up of Russian Revolution, and Nazi Germany, both product of greed and power lust of tragicomedy called Treaty of Versailles, were centers of instability in the West. In the East, Empire of Rising Sun has been readying itself to set an account with European and American arrogance, which for almost half-of-millennium treated Asia with nothing but contempt. This time the stage was set, the threat to world peace was real, whereas memory of recent carnage was too fresh to allow preliminary actions. World War 2 has been nobody’s mistake; it has been everybody’s payback for too long a chain of transgressions. World War 2 rolled over the planet like steamroller, leveling playfield and bringing about that utmost symbol of egalitarianism, the A-Bomb.
By contrast, the incoming Iraqi War is the result of malfunction of the single but omnipotent state that is of the United States of America. Malfunction compounded and magnified by malfunction of a single individual occupying the most powerful office in the world, far more powerful than Founding Fathers could possibly imagine.

Yes, malfunction of individual in position of power greatly worried our Founding Fathers. In their prescience, they were well aware of man’s follies and fallibilities. They tried to embed into our Constitution as much protection against human malefactor as possible. Yet they understood perfectly well that any system functions as long as people believe in it. All people, from the grass roots level to the very top, are to be bound by total faith in justice imposed by that piece of parchment we call American Constitution. We call it the system of checks-and-balances; it is better to call it American Civil Creed. That is why Americans are lucky that their first President tried very hard to prove each his step to future generations, much more so then to people who voted for him. Thereby, George Washington has established precedent, tradition and provided for continuity. Compare Mr. Washington with Mr. Lenin, who believed in neither precedent, nor continuity, and you will see difference of results. So we need no further prove as to conclude that malfunction of Iraqi war came as result of the deepest malfunction within our Republic. We all got enough hint at that unfortunate presidential debate, when questioned about philosopher who had the most influence over him, Republican nominee George W. Bush named Jesus Christ. Philosopher Jesus would never disqualify any of his followers, whereas philosopher Christ-Messiah is and always be in direct contradiction with American Civil Creed. Those who do not see it are helpless not because they are not smart or ignorant people, not at all. They are simply not trustworthy as citizens. They have different agenda and they are of not this world and, therefore, not of this Republic. And they know it; they do not hide it; they openly try to substitute American Civil Creed with theirs. It reminds me a story when listener asked Louis Armstrong to explain what jazz is. His response was, ‘Young lady, if you ask this question, you will never know’.
We may live along with people who do not understand jazz. We are doomed as civil society if we do not separate from people who do not believe in it. On December 2000 and then in October 2002 we failed on both counts. Both the US Supreme Court and the US Congress, two legs of the tripod supporting the whole edifice of the USA and, by now, of the world stability, failed to serve us. Suddenly, an unguarded system fell pray to ill will of a simple-minded individual, driven by small claque of the ‘strategic minority’1. This fact, unfortunate as it is, had uncovered tragic secret for everybody to see: the only Superpower is long on power to destroy the world, but short on protection against itself. Designed 225 years ago by Virginia gentlemen, Pennsylvania Quakers, and New England Pilgrims in the Age of Reason, it fits poorly in post-deconstruction era. The American system of government is silent on political parties, the way they are known around the world, with their programs more or less fixed for long time, to carry through many election cycles. For example, all Socialist or Social-Democratic Parties currently in control all over the Europe may trace their official programs for more than 150 years2. Hence, the American system of government allows not for the vote of confidence, the tool of last resort to maintain public control of Executive Branch in between elections. With broken checks-and-balances, the American President is the Autocrat, though elected for 8 years at most but Autocrat nonetheless. The Bush’s phenomenon illuminated another handicap of the American system: the ‘winner takes all’ mentality. While in not so good olden times, the US Congress more or less successfully managed to keep bipartisanship alive, the advance of Radical Revolution of 1994 has changed it all. The bipartisanship dropped dead and the only recourse to restore lost balance, which is left under our Constitution, is an impeachment. Traditionally an impeachment was used to protect against violation of law, abuse of power, and to avoid incompetence. I strongly believe we case for all of the above.

1. The last press conference is a showcase of abuse of power. President Bush had invoked his oath of office to ascertain as his duties, to defend this nation and to punish perpetrators of 9/11. Failing to prove direct and immediate threat to this country presented by Iraq and to show alleged links between Iraq and 9/11, President Bush intend to violate the United Nations Charter, which after ratification by the US congress more than 50 years ago, became the law of this land. His next assertion was that this obligation is unconditional, granted to him as to every leader around the globe. The soar fact that such a stand is supported by 50% of Americans speak more about the scope of disinformation campaign in this country and does not absolve Mr. Bush from his responsibilities. The purported link between 9/11 and Iraq is either delusion or deception. If the former is the case then Bush should be removed from office as incapacitated, otherwise the impeachment is in order.

2. As the French Foreign Minister put it, the problem is not Saddam3 or any other petty dictator. The problem is whether the problems in the nucular age are solved by the decision makers of the single country, no matter how good intentions they may have, or by representative world body, the precursor of the Global Government if you will. Unfortunately for the Reason, Frenchman’s statements fell on deaf ears and only helped to fan up the monster of Francophobia, which turned out to stay very much alive and well in the deepest reptilian foundations of Anglo-Saxon mentality. So Eurasian land mass globalists, after 6000 years of bloody human history and in lieu of destructive power of the modern weapons, hold optimistic view that rule of law with consent of governed is the only way to avoid Doomsday scenario. Whereas, globalists from both Big and Small islands, contrary to the explicit guarantee spirit of the American Constitution, pessimistically insist on governing without consent of governed, by application of pure might, this time around on global scale. In short the choice to make is between Law and Bully. Any bully, unchecked and unbalanced, armed to the teeth with nukes and 20,000 pound bombs, incinerating everything within 1 mile radius, such a bully is perceived by people around the world as the gravest menace because he is. Therefore, the French Foreign Minister has put all of us on notice: as a nation you, Americans, cannot avoid your responsibilities. It is your President, even if voted into the office by mere 50% of electorate, who is turning United States into aggressor-nation in spite of another 50% who oppose it. With system of checks and balances broken; with many a Congressman showing openly their surprise at President’s tour-the-force and as well as their own powerless to prevent the disaster; with fading support of President’s policy within his own Party; with the growing evidence that events are now driven by military calendar only, it is United States, which presents a ‘direct and imminent threat’ to the rest of the world. Hence, Bush Doctrine, in its intention to affect the most profound changes in the current world order without open debates, both in Congress and public forums, constitute clear cut violation of public trust. If it is not a violation of the oath of office, then what is? President Bush is either under delusion that maintaining of public trust is outside of his job description or he intentionally conspires to violate it. If the former is the case then Bush should be removed from office as incapacitated, otherwise the impeachment is in order.

3. The Bush Doctrine had already run out of barn. Insistence on the war with Iraq, a country without the nuclear weapons, while providing food basket to the North Korea, which already has the nuclear weapons, send an unambiguous signal to the fellow nation-states: obtain nuclear weapons unless you do not want to be bombed into Stone Age at the whim of the most secretive order disguised as the US Government. If this signal is not an invitation to the open season of global nuclear armament, then what is? President Bush is either under delusion that he can stop such fire-sale proliferation or he is totally free of historical perspective and, thus, incompetent to hold office. If the former is the case then Bush should be removed from office as incapacitated, otherwise the impeachment is in order.

4. The trust once broken will take generations to repair – remember Moses’ 40 years of drifting in desert to restore trust in Israeli’s will to become free? The repair would not be complete unless the American Government unequivocally denounces the Bush Doctrine. Due to the stream of incompetent utterances coming from President Bush, his Vice-President and Secretary of War, all in blatant violation if not the letter but the spirit of the diplomatic etiquette, even our friends are afraid of us now. With no mechanism left to protect the world against arrogance of power, their concerns are more than valid. I challenge the Administration to show the American public at large what is really in the books of nuclear engagement. For the time being the world’s indignation is directed not against Bush’s Administration rather than against American people, but the clock is ticking. The moment international TV screens will be filled with grisly scenes of human tragedy, American complicity in crime against humanity will become a historical fact. No amount of ‘good intention’ excuses will annul this fact: unusual cruelty and/or incompetence. The only way to limit consequences is the impeachment.

As Colin Powel put it before UN – ‘The clock continues to tick’4. He might have meant Iraq, but deep inside his soul he could mean himself and his boss, as well. For the clock continues to tick, and to tick loudly. The war with Iraq may safe Bush’s face but it cannot safe his rear: clock of impeachment will keep ticking. It is in the interest of Democratic Party to stand tall on this issue, to prepare grounds for impeachment. It will be important to drive the notion that the whole hysteria and paranoia of Radical Right about President Clinton is finally brought to the broad daylight. The ‘right wing conspiracy’ rumors turned out to be the cold facts. As we know it to day, Al Qaeda used impeachment time for planning of, and preparing their people to, the 9/11 attack, for even Bill Clinton in his too human frailty could not watch TV and chew pretzel at the same time.

Now I want to bring some good news. The Pope John-Paul II has sent his nuncio to American Prince of Darkness to appeal for global solidarity. It is good to remember that the same Pope made the previous appeal to solidarity to Solidarity with capital S in his native Poland. Appeal was not lost and ancient regime of Soviet Union is no more. Our task is much more modest: we have to do away with regime of George W. Bush and radical fraction of GOP, opposed even by Bush the Elder. And we have all tools necessary for such an achievement:

Impeach George W. Bush!

1 The phrase was used by Arianna Huffington, who took it from no lesser authority on technology of power than V. I. Lenin was. This gives strange context to the call to World Capitalist Revolution coming from Mr. Schwartz, one of the neo-cons, affiliated with American Enterprise Institute, the podium for President Bush’s ‘regime change’. Very strange indeed.
2 Social-Democratic Party of Germany was founded by Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864), friend of Karl Marx, and retained its Marxist program well into 1960s.
3 Omission of last name, Hussein, now accepted even by French gives some Freudian undertones to Bush’s rhetoric. Coupled with personification of America as Great Satan, institutionalized by Muslim fundamentalist movement, personification of cosmic Evil with Great Saddam became sad indication of how far away resident of Oval Office has traveled from the Age of Reason toward convergence with the darkest forces now playing everywhere.
4 Colin Powel in his speech at United Nations

Bush the American

2003-04-29T21:32:00.000-04:00

Attila the Hun, infamous Scourge of God, tarnished his people reputation for millennia to come. Vandals, who few years later had “liberated” Eternal City from the tyranny of corrupt Roman Emperors in 455 CE, were immortalized by hordes of imitators, individuals, tribes and nations alike. In 1258 CE, Hulagu, the grandson of Genghis Khan, sacked Baghdad and thereby ended four millennia of uninterrupted life in what used to be called Babylon. Hulagu since then has become for the Muslim world what Attila the Hun and vandals were, are, and will be for Christendom: a generic name for barbarity. He even outdid Attila and Vandals: Mesopotamia, the cradle of our civilization, was never to reach its former heights. Some short excursion into historical perspective of that unhappy episode will be helpful to shed a little light into our current murky situation. Like today American military, the Mongols had superb achievements in military and logistic technology: they created rapid transportation system covering the major part of the Eurasian landmass, maintained postal service second to none, and introduce firearm into warfare business. They were organizational giants of their time on par with American organizational genius in our own time. Building on the shoulders of the most ancient civilizations, they had built the greatest Empire ever, by commanding relatively small but professional army far superior to their opponents. With mere 90,000 warriors, General Subedei trashed almost half a million strong armies of Khwarezm-Shah Mohammed. The same Subedei with only 20,000 troops to trounce 80,000 heavy-armed Russians and to establish the 250 years long Mongolian Yoke. Few years later, he repeated his fits with Hungarians and German knights as well. Unlike Grenada and modern Iraq, everywhere they went, Mongols met adversary of the highest caliber. The ratio of inflicted casualties and their own was 4 to 1, not unlike the similar ratio for the German Werhmacht.

Yet now, almost 800 years later, only few experts give Mongols credit for their technological and military prowess. Theirs is a record of utmost destruction, leveled cities and small towns, pyramids built of sculls. Some of their action might be seen as logical and even justifiable: few moderns would disagree with Mongols that killing messengers is not only act of high stupidity but also utmost betrayal of mutual trust. If city’s rulers following an ancient tradition would order murder of Mongolian ambassadors, Mongols would level the whole city and murder the whole city population even if that population never consented to the act of rulers. Sucking of Baghdad, 1258, is still reverberating most loudly in the region populated by 1.5 billion people. In our American English, we might call it ‘collateral damage’, yet History imposed so harsh a judgment on the overall Mongol enterprise that in spite of their great overall achievements, we can perceive them only as historical losers.

It would be unwise for us not to draw lessons from history and yet Mr. Bush seems to be in total vacuum about it. The destruction of Mesopotamia’s Museum, the depository of 7,000 years of our collective history, and Baghdad Library, with its troves of the original manuscripts on history, economics, geography, and medicine &c, while European part of Ancient world was in its Dark Ages, that destruction cannot be forgotten neither by Arabs nor by the rest of us. The vindictive finger of every future historian and man of letters will be directed squarely for millennia to come not only on Bush the American and his claque, but on our nation as well. Excuse of ignorance cannot be used as in the Mongol case, for Bush was specifically warned about protection of cultural treasures, guaranteed by The Hague Convention even if it was signed neither by the US nor by U.K. The least thing we can do as American citizens is to disassociate ourselves from a pariah status rightly bestowed on Bush and his lieutenants for their reckless disregard of established International Law and abrupt turn of traditional American policies without proper consultations with American public and their Representatives. We have to demand the most thorough investigation of perpetrators of devious crime against humanity and impeach all of them.

While nothing will restore the Loss of Millennia, we may hope to restore respect to our values among the rest of humankind and our posterity. For those who still do not get it, I advise to consult with German experience. When in 1933, after Reichstag was set on fire, German Chancellor succeeded in creating of atmosphere of fear and panic, thereby convincing substantial portion of German population that the only solace they can seek is under his Divinely inspired Leadership, the future of multitude of German generations was sealed. It took tens of millions of lives and utmost destruction in mere 12 years before Reality Check finally stepped in. Those 12 years is still casting and will continue to cast long shadows on many more generations of Germans to come, as shadows of Attila the Hun, Vandals, Genghis Khan, and now Bush the American cast. It might become the sorrow shadow of whole of American people if we chose not to stop our Commander-In-Chief before it will be too late.

Copyright © 2003 by Vitaly Purto. For generous permission to reprint or link, click here.
April 2003

The Clock Continue to Tick, the Clock of Impeachment

2003-03-07T22:20:00.000-05:00

On August 1914, on the eve of the Great War, Kaiser Wilhelm II had warned his generals, ‘You will live to regret your decision [to go to war]’. His prescient remark had run against the wall of contingency plans, designed by those very generals at the request of their master. Within those plans was also a provision to delegate supreme authority in wartime Reich to Chief of German General Staff, thereby leaving Kaiser de jure incapacitated. So four years and tens of millions of lives later, stripped of his hereditary title by November Revolution, citizen Hohenzollern, although proven right, had expired in exile as broken man. How ironic it is that today, when we arrive at the eve of the war on Iraq, they are generals like, but not limited to, General Eric K. Shinseki, already former Chief of Staff of United States Army, who warn our selected Caesar George II to think through his decision and its most likely unintended consequences.

Alas, our current leader, selected after losing November 7, 2000 election in the United States, has striking resemblance with another Leader, selected after lost November 6, 1932 elections in Germany. Besides losing majority vote in elections, fate dealt to both leaders unexpected opportunities, which they masterfully exploited. On February 27, 1933, Hitler got his defining event by Reichstag fire, while Bush got his decisive moment on September 11, 2001 attack. Whipping up fear to the level of nation wide panic, both leaders has shown remarkable abilities to subdue opposition and voice of reason, while advancing their premeditated agendas. They both used the same recipe:

1. Create sense of victimhood of your own nation, which is unconditionally good, yet universally hated by scheming foes, and always betrayed by thankless friends. Lift up us, and put down them.
2. Find or create easy to hate enemy (symbolic Jew for Hitler, symbolic Arab for Bush), individualize him, lionize him, and then demonize him.
3. Switch direction of argument into the most sensitive area. People are afraid of WMD in the United States (Communists in Germany), so keep talking them to death about it, lie and repeat lie at nauseam.
4. Put yourself into morass, tie as strong as possible the whole nation with your own crimes and then quietly suggest that there is no way out of morass without just retribution.

The problem with this recipe is that the price tag for the brew has no limit and is payable mostly in blood.

Too much at stake now not only for the United States of America, but also for the whole of international order the way we knew it before. Let me enumerate few major issues that are standing in front of us that ought to be taken into consideration, so let me start from the last press conference:

1. President Bush asserted that it his duties, as imposed upon him by the oath of office, are to defend this nation and, therefore, to punish perpetrators of 9/11. His next assertion was that this obligation is unconditional, granted to him as to every leader around the globe. Therefore, President is going to declare war on Iraq based on full support of American people with total disregard to the world public opinion. Whatever fate will fall upon United Nations and may be NATO as well is beyond his and this nation concern. Such Bush’s assertion in view of the fact that more than 50% of Americans hold Iraq responsible for 9/11 attack is irrefutable. Or is it? Since no proven links exist between Iraq and 9/11 attack, there are only two options on the table: either to remove current electorate and to find another one, or to remove perpetrators who constantly lie to pure souls with one-minute attention span. I am at loss as how to choose between these two options.

2. As French Ambassador put it, the problem is not Saddam or any other petty dictator. The problem is how we are going to solve our problems in the ‘nucular’ age. Any bully armed with nukes and uncontrolled by his own Government with neither checks nor balances is perceived by people around the world as the grave menace that he is. Therefore, as a nation we cannot avoid our responsibilities. US Congress abdicated its duties as guard of American system of government in its infamous vote in October 2002. Single individual, President Bush driven by the small clique of radicals has brought the whole world to the brink of catastrophe. The damage, already irreparable, to American and World security is already done by unambiguous signal to the international community of nation-states that it is a free will of American President that life and death questions for any country of his choosing. If this signal is not invitation to global nuclear armament, then what is?

3. The Bush Doctrine, besides being threat to national security, also constitutes the most radical deviation from traditional American foreign policy, not warranted by overwhelming public support. It may be very much constitutional since proportional representation is nowhere to be found in American Constitution and ‘winner takes all’ is deeply embedded in national psyche, but such a situation is intolerable in nuclear era. For President Bush, if one compares his campaign promises with grim reality, most definitely violated public trust and, therefore, violates oath of office, especially in lieu of half-truths, half-lies and outright lies - like insisting on Al Qaeda – Iraq links. If later lie is less impeachable than Clinton’s lie, then what is impeachable?

4. The trust once broken might take generations to repair. In our case, the repair would not be complete unless American Government unequivocally denounces the Bush Doctrine and the time is now. The time is now, while indignation of the world community is directed against Bush personally as selected President, and not yet against the United States as a nation. The moment the international TV screens will be filled with grisly scenes of human tragedy, the American nationals around the world will be well advised to start packing. It is obvious to any rational observer by now that Bush’s presidency had stripped old masks and opened well kept secrets: namely, that dedicated ‘strategic minority’, as V.I. Lenin, the father of all terrorists, succinctly put it, a group of people, unconstrained by party discipline might, and eventually do, orchestrate the implementation of the most radical policies without any regard to public opinion.

As Colin Powel put it in his speech before United Nations – ‘The clock continue to tick’. He might have meant Iraq, but deep inside his soul, he could mean himself and his boss. For the clock is ticking, it is ticking impeachment. In seeming irrationality of intermittent voting blocks within US Congress, the main reason of world’s anxiety lies in mistrust to the whole of American system of government. Denunciation of Bush Doctrine is necessary, if not sufficient, to restore trust in American good will, to show the apprehensive world that it is safe from abuse of military power by the fluctuations. Since American system of Government does not allow for the vote of confidence, there is only one path left to right wrongs wrought on international position of the United States by clumsy and reckless policies of this Administration. This path is to start impeachment process of President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney and Secretary of War Mr. Rumsfeld. It is in interest of the Democratic Party to stand tall on this issue, to compare aforementioned profound grounds for impeachment with those trivia, which disrupted Clinton’s presidency at the time, as we know it to day, when Al Qaeda was busy with preparing 9/11.

Since US Congress abdicated its right to stop insanity, Whoever is above us in the Heavens, we pray to Thee to save us from simpletons who play with nuclear button, but most of all we pray to Thee to save us from ourselves, will Thou please?