The subversion of complex systems
Chaos and catastrophe are intrinsic attributes of complex systems. Structure and organization involve a significant cost overhead, an investment of energy proportional to the complexity of the system.
From the macro scale of galactic clusters to the micro scale of subatomic particles, order and chaos dance a dynamic duet of destruction and creation, expansion and contraction.
Civilization is a complex system of the highest order. Society must invest an enormous amount of energy and resources to maintain control and provide for the population.
But there is always a limit to the availability of energy and resources. There inevitably comes a time in the development of a complex system where the available energy is insufficient to maintain order. At that point, chaos and catastrophe strike.
Chaos theory provides a host of mathematical and conceptual tools for the study of complex systems. Social activists can gain insight and guidance by learning from the science of chaos.
Order and stability are characterized by small incremental changes against a backdrop of seeming continuity. Conditions of equilibrium dominate complex systems. The very laws of nature, their constancy and invariance, enable the development of complex systems.
But these constant incremental changes generate tensions within the system as a whole that eventually exceed the constraints of stasis. At some point, organization fails and order gives way to chaos.
Throughout the history of life on earth, evolution has been sporadic, long periods of little change interrupted by mass extinction events and the rapid proliferation of new life forms. Evolutionary ecologists call this pattern “punctuated equilibrium”.
The imperceptible movement of tectonic plates creates tension that can trigger devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. The accumulation of ions in a thunderhead produces sudden dramatic bolts of lightening that rent the air and strike the ground at random. Open too many windows on your computer and the system becomes unstable.
In each example, the accumulated tension generated by “normal” processes precipitates a catastrophic event. This cataclysmic disturbance acts, in a way, to reset the system.
A key feature of complex systems is “sensitive dependence on initial conditions”, which gives rise to the phenomena known as the Butterfly effect. Small and insignificant perturbations in the system can, over time, lead to major ructions.
This attribute is of particular interest to social activists - it underpins the power of “memes”, movements like “critical mass” and the concept of “morphic resonance”. It reveals the importance of small actions.
Another striking characteristic of complex systems is the appearance of self-similarity across orders of magnitude. This phenomenon is best illustrated by fractal geometry, but it can be observed all around us in the real world, from the jagged appearance of the coastline, whether viewed from near or far, to the convoluted texture of vegetation or the grainy structure of rock.
This pattern of self-similarity is equally evident in human society. Political divisions exist within all levels of social organization, from the supra-national to the local, within tribes, families and the individual. While the issues and customs may vary, the degree of divergence remains constant across all levels of organization.
This aspect of complexity is particularly useful for activists who seek to bring about change at a grass-roots level. Such activity correlates with broader social movement in various ways. Grass-roots activism seeds the population with the impetus for change and energizes society.
Resistance and dissent are natural responses to excessive control and oppression. Civilization is the inevitable consequence of rising social organization, but somewhere along the way, it begins to sacrifice individual freedom for the sake of order.
At this point, individuals face the challenge of reshaping their reality, sowing the seeds of revolution, preparing the ground for changes yet unseen but well underway. As complexity multiplies, the system groans under its own weight, and people sense calamity brewing.
The most effective strategy in such circumstances is one that employs the creative power of chaos. By tweaking the system in small ways, like a butterfly beating its wings, original ideas can produce extraordinary results.
Whether an activist chooses the path of “subversive compliance” or “disorganized resistance”, working alone or in small groups, spreading memes or fostering alternatives, their efforts are part of a much grander scheme, barely perceived by most.
Lao Tzu said, great acts are made up of small deeds. And so it is for the activists, quietly, steadily working toward enlightening and transforming their world.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
The pattern of war crimes in Iraq
Coalition forces are committing war crimes in Iraq. Several soldiers from the US Army’s 41st Regiment appeared before a military court in Baghdad last week, charged with murder. One of the soldiers, Sgt John Horne, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison for killing a wounded Iraqi child.
Other members of the Regiment face charges arising from excessive and indiscriminate use of force in the suburbs of Sadr City, where US troops have been fighting Shiite militia. And two members of the 41st face murder charges for killing two fellow soldiers.
But it’s not just individual soldiers losing their grip in the heat of battle. War crimes in Iraq reveal a pattern of widespread, systemic contempt for the laws of war and fundamental human rights.
In Samarra, bodies littered the streets, untended because of the fear of snipers. Families tried to bury their dead, but the road to the cemetery was blocked off by US troops. Witnesses said many civilians were killed. President Ghazi Yawar called the assaults “collective punishment”.
AFP and Channel 4 both report that troops in Fallujah were given orders to shoot all males of fighting age, armed or unarmed. Article 48 of the Geneva Conventions requires that “Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants”.
US forces have bombed hospitals, shot ambulances and prevented medical aid from reaching Fallujah. They refused to let men flee the kill zone. The Geneva Conventions require that hospitals, their staff, the sick, wounded or infirm, are all afforded protection and respect.
More than 200,000 people, forced to flee Fallujah when US troops attacked the city last month, now face the trauma of returning to their shattered homes. The city remains without power and water, its antiquated infrastructure has been ruined and hundreds of buildings have been destroyed. The stench of death still lingers in the air.
Tom Lasseter, a reporter embedded with the 1st Infantry Division’s Alpha Company, described the attack on Fallujah with intense detail. Phosphorous shells released bouncing white orbs of smoke. “We’re going to destroy this town” one soldier said, “I hope so” replied another.
Lasseter recalls Alpha Company occupied an abandoned home. They urinated in the corners and defecated on the floor. Many of the men wore skull and crossbones patches sewn onto their vests. One marine said it felt like the enemy was everywhere. “So we just went ape shit with the cannon, shooting everything,” he said.
General Natonski said “We had the green light, we went all the way.”
Foreign Minister Downer told ABC Radio the assault on Fallujah was necessary “to dig out and defeat the terrorists” and “to ensure that the Iraqis can have an election”. He said the carnage would give Iraq’s new government “democratic legitimacy and the support of Iraqi people”.
John Burns, reporting for the New York Times, said the “Marines envision a huge effort of social and physical engineering, all intended to transform a bastion of militant anti-Americanism into a benevolent and functional metropolis.” There are plans to rebuild the city and an American corporation has a contract to repair a wastewater treatment plant damaged by American bombs.
But Dahr Jamail found that many Iraqis don’t appreciate the West’s benevolence. “They are all liars, the government and the Americans,” one resident said. “The mujahedin didn’t hurt us. They helped us.” A grieving mother weeps, “This is the third of my kids to be killed. The Americans are savages. They do nothing but bring injustice.”
Meanwhile, the Boston Business Review reports that Raytheon, a US weapons company, has developed a new Humvee mounted ‘heat beam’ weapon which they hope to test in Iraq. Charles Heal, a former Marine who advised Raytheon on the beam’s development, said “It’s ready, it will likely be in Iraq in the next 12 months.”
From the lies told about WMD to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the fifty failed attempts to murder Saddam, the desecration of holy sites, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the willful killing of wounded and unarmed individuals... Howard, Ruddock, Hill and Downer have all knowingly conspired with the Bush regime to commit just about every war crime imaginable.
These creeps don’t care about the Geneva Conventions, and why would they - as elected representatives of a “civilized democracy” and allies of the United States, they can defy international law with impunity.
Other members of the Regiment face charges arising from excessive and indiscriminate use of force in the suburbs of Sadr City, where US troops have been fighting Shiite militia. And two members of the 41st face murder charges for killing two fellow soldiers.
But it’s not just individual soldiers losing their grip in the heat of battle. War crimes in Iraq reveal a pattern of widespread, systemic contempt for the laws of war and fundamental human rights.
In Samarra, bodies littered the streets, untended because of the fear of snipers. Families tried to bury their dead, but the road to the cemetery was blocked off by US troops. Witnesses said many civilians were killed. President Ghazi Yawar called the assaults “collective punishment”.
AFP and Channel 4 both report that troops in Fallujah were given orders to shoot all males of fighting age, armed or unarmed. Article 48 of the Geneva Conventions requires that “Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants”.
US forces have bombed hospitals, shot ambulances and prevented medical aid from reaching Fallujah. They refused to let men flee the kill zone. The Geneva Conventions require that hospitals, their staff, the sick, wounded or infirm, are all afforded protection and respect.
More than 200,000 people, forced to flee Fallujah when US troops attacked the city last month, now face the trauma of returning to their shattered homes. The city remains without power and water, its antiquated infrastructure has been ruined and hundreds of buildings have been destroyed. The stench of death still lingers in the air.
Tom Lasseter, a reporter embedded with the 1st Infantry Division’s Alpha Company, described the attack on Fallujah with intense detail. Phosphorous shells released bouncing white orbs of smoke. “We’re going to destroy this town” one soldier said, “I hope so” replied another.
Lasseter recalls Alpha Company occupied an abandoned home. They urinated in the corners and defecated on the floor. Many of the men wore skull and crossbones patches sewn onto their vests. One marine said it felt like the enemy was everywhere. “So we just went ape shit with the cannon, shooting everything,” he said.
General Natonski said “We had the green light, we went all the way.”
Foreign Minister Downer told ABC Radio the assault on Fallujah was necessary “to dig out and defeat the terrorists” and “to ensure that the Iraqis can have an election”. He said the carnage would give Iraq’s new government “democratic legitimacy and the support of Iraqi people”.
John Burns, reporting for the New York Times, said the “Marines envision a huge effort of social and physical engineering, all intended to transform a bastion of militant anti-Americanism into a benevolent and functional metropolis.” There are plans to rebuild the city and an American corporation has a contract to repair a wastewater treatment plant damaged by American bombs.
But Dahr Jamail found that many Iraqis don’t appreciate the West’s benevolence. “They are all liars, the government and the Americans,” one resident said. “The mujahedin didn’t hurt us. They helped us.” A grieving mother weeps, “This is the third of my kids to be killed. The Americans are savages. They do nothing but bring injustice.”
Meanwhile, the Boston Business Review reports that Raytheon, a US weapons company, has developed a new Humvee mounted ‘heat beam’ weapon which they hope to test in Iraq. Charles Heal, a former Marine who advised Raytheon on the beam’s development, said “It’s ready, it will likely be in Iraq in the next 12 months.”
From the lies told about WMD to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the fifty failed attempts to murder Saddam, the desecration of holy sites, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the willful killing of wounded and unarmed individuals... Howard, Ruddock, Hill and Downer have all knowingly conspired with the Bush regime to commit just about every war crime imaginable.
These creeps don’t care about the Geneva Conventions, and why would they - as elected representatives of a “civilized democracy” and allies of the United States, they can defy international law with impunity.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Nonreciprocal Mutual Obligation
The Howard government is an advocate of “personal responsibility” and “mutual obligation”, but only for Centrelink customers. Tax payers, they say, expect welfare recipients to work for their benefits.
There is widespread concern, as Kim Beazley put it, that “an awful lot of Australians have security in their unemployment payments, and that gives a mind-set to keep away from the work force”.
Senator Jocelyn Newman claims an “entrenched culture of welfare dependency has meant that certain members of our community are not only prepared, but feel entitled to exploit the social safety net.”
The unemployed are routinely denounced as “work shy”, “job snobs”, “dole bludgers” and “welfare cheats” by politicians and media shock jocks. This attitude appears to resonate with the broader community.
Portraying unemployment as a matter of choice rather than circumstance places the blame for unemployment squarely on the shoulders of the unemployed. This way the government negates its obligation to ensure an equitable distribution of prosperity and opportunity for all Australians.
According to the government, poverty and unemployment are caused by individual attitudes toward work and welfare. The only way to deal with the unemployed, we are told, is to grab them by the scruff of the neck and force them to work for nothing.
To implement this strategy, the government introduced “Work for the Dole”. Tony Abbott’s website claims “Work for the Dole is providing hope, experience and opportunity” for the unemployed. But an independent study commissioned by the government found that “Work for the Dole reduces the job prospects of unemployed people”.
The report, which was suppressed by the government, concluded that Work for the Dole did not develop skills, was not aimed at finding work and was not linked to continuing employment.
ACOSS has criticised the program for lacking an adequate training component and failing to provide experience in real jobs. Anglicare described Work for the Dole as “fundamentally flawed”.
The real effect (and perhaps the purpose) of Mutual Obligation is to punish and discourage the unemployed, while at the same time, undermine workers’ rights.
Apparently, Centrelink is not obliged to provide Work for the Dole participants a fair wage or safe working environment, Work Cover, Superannuation, sick leave or any of the protections and entitlements of employment required by Industrial Relations legislation.
Centrelink informs job seekers that “Your mutual obligation responsibilities are spelt out in your Preparing for Work Agreement. This Agreement is negotiated between you and your Centrelink contact officer”. The fact is, this legally binding “agreement” is not “negotiated” at all, it is imposed upon participants who have no choice but to accept, or starve.
The late great philosopher, John Rawls, explained that “obligations arise only when institutions are just and individuals are able to freely accept social benefits in a context of meaningful alternatives.” But the government’s concept of Mutual Obligation is far from just, and for most recipients, Centrelink payments are a necessity, not a choice.
As Pamela Kinear from The Australia Institute wrote about the ethics of Mutual Obligation, “Australia’s system of economic management has relied on creating joblessness to sustain economic growth ... policies to promote economic reform have created structural unemployment in order to strengthen the economy as a whole. Unemployed people have therefore made an involuntary sacrifice for the economic well-being of employed people. As a result, the starting point for obligations to accrue is not just.”
The imposition of Mutual Obligation requirements on the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society, the young and unemployed, single parents, people with chronic illness or disabilities, suffering difficult life circumstance or employment discrimination, creates a pool of cheap labour to compete with low paid workers, especially in the community services sector.
This practice, like industry downsizing and deregulation, produces labour market conditions that favour management, and disadvantage workers. While productivity and company profits have soared, wages have remained steady and workers are expected to work harder.
According to Princeton University economist Paul Krugman, over the past three years, wage and salary income grew less than in any other postwar recovery while profits grew at more than ten times that rate, the fastest growth in company profits since World War II.
The official unemployment rate is a statistical device designed to obscure the true state of the labour market. It grossly misrepresents the extent of under-employment and falling workplace participation.
A surplus of cheap labour and the stigma of unemployment keeps workers worried about their job security and allows management to resist demands for higher pay and improved working conditions. The worse life gets for the unemployed, the better it is for capital.
Such inequalities are emblematic of neoliberal free market ideology. People are viewed as resources to be exploited for private profit, their intrinsic value discounted. Notions of social justice and equality of opportunity have no place in the modern economy.
The onerous requirements of Mutual Obligation imposed on the unemployed, combined with a punitive system of “breaching” and cancellation of payments, affect over 200,000 Centrelink customers and saves the government more than $170 million dollars a year.
Given that simply arriving late for a Job Network interview can result in a “breach”, effectively a fine of $1000, the system is obviously intended to make life as hard as possible for the unemployed.
But it's not just the unfortunate individual who suffers, this money would normally flow directly into the local economy, sustaining shop keepers, service providers and small businesses, not to mention the 10% that flows straight back to the government in GST.
The government’s rhetoric of “mutual obligation” does nothing to address the deep-seated structural causes of unemployment, it merely shifts blame to the victims and conceals the fact that this government has failed to implement a comprehensive labour market strategy.
As an ethical argument, it rings hollow. While the government demands mutual obligation for the disadvantaged, it waives such requirements for the privileged. Government and businesses are free from any obligation to create and maintain adequate employment.
Moreover, corporate welfare remains sacrosanct. According to the Productivity Commission, industry received more than $10 billion in government assistance last year, mostly with no strings attached. The beneficiaries of this largesse are company shareholders, not obligated to contribute anything in return. And to top it all off, our politicians lie and defy international law with impunity.
The Howard government has a clear strategy for political success - patronize the privileged and demonize the disadvantaged. Obligation and responsibility, it seems, are for Centrelink customers only.
There is widespread concern, as Kim Beazley put it, that “an awful lot of Australians have security in their unemployment payments, and that gives a mind-set to keep away from the work force”.
Senator Jocelyn Newman claims an “entrenched culture of welfare dependency has meant that certain members of our community are not only prepared, but feel entitled to exploit the social safety net.”
The unemployed are routinely denounced as “work shy”, “job snobs”, “dole bludgers” and “welfare cheats” by politicians and media shock jocks. This attitude appears to resonate with the broader community.
Portraying unemployment as a matter of choice rather than circumstance places the blame for unemployment squarely on the shoulders of the unemployed. This way the government negates its obligation to ensure an equitable distribution of prosperity and opportunity for all Australians.
According to the government, poverty and unemployment are caused by individual attitudes toward work and welfare. The only way to deal with the unemployed, we are told, is to grab them by the scruff of the neck and force them to work for nothing.
To implement this strategy, the government introduced “Work for the Dole”. Tony Abbott’s website claims “Work for the Dole is providing hope, experience and opportunity” for the unemployed. But an independent study commissioned by the government found that “Work for the Dole reduces the job prospects of unemployed people”.
The report, which was suppressed by the government, concluded that Work for the Dole did not develop skills, was not aimed at finding work and was not linked to continuing employment.
ACOSS has criticised the program for lacking an adequate training component and failing to provide experience in real jobs. Anglicare described Work for the Dole as “fundamentally flawed”.
The real effect (and perhaps the purpose) of Mutual Obligation is to punish and discourage the unemployed, while at the same time, undermine workers’ rights.
Apparently, Centrelink is not obliged to provide Work for the Dole participants a fair wage or safe working environment, Work Cover, Superannuation, sick leave or any of the protections and entitlements of employment required by Industrial Relations legislation.
Centrelink informs job seekers that “Your mutual obligation responsibilities are spelt out in your Preparing for Work Agreement. This Agreement is negotiated between you and your Centrelink contact officer”. The fact is, this legally binding “agreement” is not “negotiated” at all, it is imposed upon participants who have no choice but to accept, or starve.
The late great philosopher, John Rawls, explained that “obligations arise only when institutions are just and individuals are able to freely accept social benefits in a context of meaningful alternatives.” But the government’s concept of Mutual Obligation is far from just, and for most recipients, Centrelink payments are a necessity, not a choice.
As Pamela Kinear from The Australia Institute wrote about the ethics of Mutual Obligation, “Australia’s system of economic management has relied on creating joblessness to sustain economic growth ... policies to promote economic reform have created structural unemployment in order to strengthen the economy as a whole. Unemployed people have therefore made an involuntary sacrifice for the economic well-being of employed people. As a result, the starting point for obligations to accrue is not just.”
The imposition of Mutual Obligation requirements on the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society, the young and unemployed, single parents, people with chronic illness or disabilities, suffering difficult life circumstance or employment discrimination, creates a pool of cheap labour to compete with low paid workers, especially in the community services sector.
This practice, like industry downsizing and deregulation, produces labour market conditions that favour management, and disadvantage workers. While productivity and company profits have soared, wages have remained steady and workers are expected to work harder.
According to Princeton University economist Paul Krugman, over the past three years, wage and salary income grew less than in any other postwar recovery while profits grew at more than ten times that rate, the fastest growth in company profits since World War II.
The official unemployment rate is a statistical device designed to obscure the true state of the labour market. It grossly misrepresents the extent of under-employment and falling workplace participation.
A surplus of cheap labour and the stigma of unemployment keeps workers worried about their job security and allows management to resist demands for higher pay and improved working conditions. The worse life gets for the unemployed, the better it is for capital.
Such inequalities are emblematic of neoliberal free market ideology. People are viewed as resources to be exploited for private profit, their intrinsic value discounted. Notions of social justice and equality of opportunity have no place in the modern economy.
The onerous requirements of Mutual Obligation imposed on the unemployed, combined with a punitive system of “breaching” and cancellation of payments, affect over 200,000 Centrelink customers and saves the government more than $170 million dollars a year.
Given that simply arriving late for a Job Network interview can result in a “breach”, effectively a fine of $1000, the system is obviously intended to make life as hard as possible for the unemployed.
But it's not just the unfortunate individual who suffers, this money would normally flow directly into the local economy, sustaining shop keepers, service providers and small businesses, not to mention the 10% that flows straight back to the government in GST.
The government’s rhetoric of “mutual obligation” does nothing to address the deep-seated structural causes of unemployment, it merely shifts blame to the victims and conceals the fact that this government has failed to implement a comprehensive labour market strategy.
As an ethical argument, it rings hollow. While the government demands mutual obligation for the disadvantaged, it waives such requirements for the privileged. Government and businesses are free from any obligation to create and maintain adequate employment.
Moreover, corporate welfare remains sacrosanct. According to the Productivity Commission, industry received more than $10 billion in government assistance last year, mostly with no strings attached. The beneficiaries of this largesse are company shareholders, not obligated to contribute anything in return. And to top it all off, our politicians lie and defy international law with impunity.
The Howard government has a clear strategy for political success - patronize the privileged and demonize the disadvantaged. Obligation and responsibility, it seems, are for Centrelink customers only.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Violence, Religion and the Media
Apologists for state sanctioned violence were busy this week casting aspersions against the Muslims of Indonesia and Islam in general.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a government funded public broadcaster, was at the forefront of a media beat-up comparable to the current harangue against Iran and reminiscent of the smear campaign that preceded the attack on Iraq.
True to form, ABC News and Current Affairs journalists and editors dutifully purveyed the neoconservative interpretation of an opinion survey conducted by the US-backed Freedom Institute in Jakarta.
ABC’s morning news program, AM, which was publicly attacked by the Howard government for being insufficiently supportative of the illegal invasion of Iraq, has obviously learnt to oblige the Liberal party hacks that control the ABC’s purse strings.
On December 6, ABC reporter Tony Eastly led a news item about the International Dialogue on Interfaith Co-operation held in Java this week, with the following comment...
Palmer added that “The motivation spelt out in the surveys suggests American foreign policy, particularly in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is feeding the numbers supporting radicalism. ”
Furthermore, we are told, “Details of the negative attitudes to America and Australia revealed in the survey have been held back by the US Embassy in Jakarta, which funded the poll. But those figures reveal negative sentiment towards Australia. ”
The same day, ABC News Online published a news item with the headline “Support mounts for Indonesian Islamic extremists”, which basically recapped Tim Palmer’s report.
Two days later, on December 8, the ABC Religion Report made its contribution with a discussion about the International Dialogue on Interfaith Co-operation.
The program began with the comment...
Stephen Crittenden, compere of the Religion Report, wasted no time in debunking the notion that western secular democracies actually support or promote violence. Guest speaker, the Reverand John Baldock from the Anglican Church in Melbourne, a self-described sceptical realist, dismissed such criticism of the West as merely an attempt to shift blame.
Rev. Baldock said it was
I can just imagine it, Cardinal Pell, the haughty, ultra-conservative Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, a stalwart of the Prime Minister, John W. Howard, and an outspoken critic of secular democracy, agitated and defensive, chastising a Muslim leader who dared to criticise Australia’s support for US military aggression.
Of course, Pell is considered a moderate in today’s Australia. His recent remarks likening Islam to Communism barely raised a murmur from the pallid Australian commentariat.
But why would Australians criticise their own religious and political leaders when it’s so much safer to criticise those of others?
Stephen Crittenden again ...
What would Crittenden know about Muslims?
For most Australians, safely cocooned in a zone of artificial wealth and prosperity, well-fed, well-housed, well-educated, the reality of life in a foreign land is simply incomprehensible.
Over-weight, ill-informed, complacent, uncaring, racist, homophobic. A majority of Australians support a government that shamelessly championed the unlawful invasion of Iraq.
They don’t care a damn about the effect our military adventurism has on the rest of the world, just so long as interests rates stay low, property prices appreciate and credit remains cheap.
It’s all very well to criticise and condemn extremist groups that advocate violence, but until we acknowledge and address our own extremist tendencies, our own reliance on the threat or use of violence, our willingness to slavishly emulate US interventionism and happily hitch our guns to the US war machine — until we accept responsibility for promoting horrendous carnage in the name of so-called Western values, our carping will remain little more than useless, irrelevant, self-serving hypocrisy.
Let’s not imagine that we are so bloody wonderful we can afford to gloss over our obvious shortcomings. The crimes and scandals that make the headlines are barely the tip of the iceberg. Insularity and contempt for others contaminate every aspect of our society.
Our treatment of child refugees contravenes international law, our complicity in the invasion of Iraq was in defiance of the Security Council. Our politicians lie and twist in the wind, they cover-up and deny any evidence against them, they bully the media and do secret deals with powerful businessmen.
And let’s not pretend that Islam is the only religion that promotes violence and conflict. The Christian Science Monitor published an article on December 10 entitled Marines talk of guns and God on the front lines. According to CSM, Corporal Milholin, a 21-year-old marine, “is as well-versed in the King James text as he is in the killing potential of hollow-tipped bullets”
Another such enlightened soldier, Lt. Col. Gareth Brandl, told the BBC “The enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He lives in Fallujah.”
We’re not a model of the moderate, tolerant society we champion.
If we want the high moral ground, we need to clean up our act.
No good blaming the Indonesians.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a government funded public broadcaster, was at the forefront of a media beat-up comparable to the current harangue against Iran and reminiscent of the smear campaign that preceded the attack on Iraq.
True to form, ABC News and Current Affairs journalists and editors dutifully purveyed the neoconservative interpretation of an opinion survey conducted by the US-backed Freedom Institute in Jakarta.
ABC’s morning news program, AM, which was publicly attacked by the Howard government for being insufficiently supportative of the illegal invasion of Iraq, has obviously learnt to oblige the Liberal party hacks that control the ABC’s purse strings.
On December 6, ABC reporter Tony Eastly led a news item about the International Dialogue on Interfaith Co-operation held in Java this week, with the following comment...
The conventional belief that Indonesian Islam is a particularly tolerant and moderate form is being challenged by a new survey showing sympathy for the murderous activity of bombers like Imam Samudra, and intolerance for other religions, as well as some anti-Australian feeling.According to the ABC’s Indonesia Correspondent, Tim Palmer, “the latest research on attitudes of Indonesian Muslims suggests a far greater acceptance of the extremists than previously thought.”
Palmer added that “The motivation spelt out in the surveys suggests American foreign policy, particularly in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is feeding the numbers supporting radicalism. ”
Furthermore, we are told, “Details of the negative attitudes to America and Australia revealed in the survey have been held back by the US Embassy in Jakarta, which funded the poll. But those figures reveal negative sentiment towards Australia. ”
The same day, ABC News Online published a news item with the headline “Support mounts for Indonesian Islamic extremists”, which basically recapped Tim Palmer’s report.
Two days later, on December 8, the ABC Religion Report made its contribution with a discussion about the International Dialogue on Interfaith Co-operation.
The program began with the comment...
In response to Alexander Downer’s call for religious leaders to denounce terrorism from their pulpits, the leader of one of Indonesia's largest Muslim organisations accused Australia of backing state sponsored US terrorism in Iraq.But to hope this intro might lead to some fair and balanced commentary would be to hope in vain.
Stephen Crittenden, compere of the Religion Report, wasted no time in debunking the notion that western secular democracies actually support or promote violence. Guest speaker, the Reverand John Baldock from the Anglican Church in Melbourne, a self-described sceptical realist, dismissed such criticism of the West as merely an attempt to shift blame.
Rev. Baldock said it was
a little bit disturbing, you know, some people simply shifted the blame elsewhere, that it’s "all the product of colonialism", or "all the products of globalisation", or "the interference of the US", or in fact with others, even a denial that a problem existed, as though a particular religious tradition could never sponsor terrorism, or our adherents simply don’t behave in that way, they couldn’t be those kinds of people.Crittenden noted that
Cardinal Pell on the Australian delegation, made a very interesting and perhaps important intervention on just that question. There was a suggestion about State-sponsored terrorism and everything being the fault of the West, and he came in very strongly I understand, and sort of said that you know, there were very specific things that signified a terrorist.Yeah right... like their religion I s’pose.
I can just imagine it, Cardinal Pell, the haughty, ultra-conservative Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, a stalwart of the Prime Minister, John W. Howard, and an outspoken critic of secular democracy, agitated and defensive, chastising a Muslim leader who dared to criticise Australia’s support for US military aggression.
Of course, Pell is considered a moderate in today’s Australia. His recent remarks likening Islam to Communism barely raised a murmur from the pallid Australian commentariat.
But why would Australians criticise their own religious and political leaders when it’s so much safer to criticise those of others?
Stephen Crittenden again ...
One of the things that came out even on the first day of the conference was a great reluctance on the part of Muslims to be self-critical...Oh, really, is that so?
What would Crittenden know about Muslims?
For most Australians, safely cocooned in a zone of artificial wealth and prosperity, well-fed, well-housed, well-educated, the reality of life in a foreign land is simply incomprehensible.
Over-weight, ill-informed, complacent, uncaring, racist, homophobic. A majority of Australians support a government that shamelessly championed the unlawful invasion of Iraq.
They don’t care a damn about the effect our military adventurism has on the rest of the world, just so long as interests rates stay low, property prices appreciate and credit remains cheap.
It’s all very well to criticise and condemn extremist groups that advocate violence, but until we acknowledge and address our own extremist tendencies, our own reliance on the threat or use of violence, our willingness to slavishly emulate US interventionism and happily hitch our guns to the US war machine — until we accept responsibility for promoting horrendous carnage in the name of so-called Western values, our carping will remain little more than useless, irrelevant, self-serving hypocrisy.
Let’s not imagine that we are so bloody wonderful we can afford to gloss over our obvious shortcomings. The crimes and scandals that make the headlines are barely the tip of the iceberg. Insularity and contempt for others contaminate every aspect of our society.
Our treatment of child refugees contravenes international law, our complicity in the invasion of Iraq was in defiance of the Security Council. Our politicians lie and twist in the wind, they cover-up and deny any evidence against them, they bully the media and do secret deals with powerful businessmen.
And let’s not pretend that Islam is the only religion that promotes violence and conflict. The Christian Science Monitor published an article on December 10 entitled Marines talk of guns and God on the front lines. According to CSM, Corporal Milholin, a 21-year-old marine, “is as well-versed in the King James text as he is in the killing potential of hollow-tipped bullets”
"I pray earnestly every day, and believe that God puts his angels out before us, to protect us," says the marine. "The big thing is the spiritual battle going on in our lives - the fight we're fighting is good against evil."
US marine, Corporal DeBlanc, easily reconciles war with the biblical commandment against killing. "Doesn't the Bible say: 'There is a time to pick up the sword, a time for peace, and a time for war?' " he asks. "I can pull the trigger here and have a clear conscience."
Another such enlightened soldier, Lt. Col. Gareth Brandl, told the BBC “The enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He lives in Fallujah.”
We’re not a model of the moderate, tolerant society we champion.
If we want the high moral ground, we need to clean up our act.
No good blaming the Indonesians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)