Advertisement

L'Ordre

L'Ordre

Citizens of the world, citizens of what?

posted by Harry J. Bentham

On n’enseigne pas l’intellectualisme en une école.

Intellectualism is not taught in school.

Jules de Gaultier


The idea that countries should welcome everyone and citizenship should be charitably extended to everyone also gives rise to the idea of “citizens of the world”. But is this idea noble, or even necessary?

The hardest part of humanity’s change to a more humane future, as I explain at TVP Magazine in this screen capture

Advertisement

If applied correctly, this would be a doctrine stating that being a member of the human family is enough to give someone political rights. Not simply human rights, but an ability to participate in governance – perhaps governance of the whole world, as the term implies.

People may also call themselves citizens of the world simply because they have multiple nationalities or they do not feel attached to a single nation-state, but in their case it is only rhetoric. It is the idea of giving everyone the same global political rights that I want to address in this post.

To say national citizenship should be eschewed in favor of global citizenship, in an actual political sense, makes less sense than basically calling for the abolition of citizenship altogether. Similarly, if someone told you that everyone should be given the same amount of money, the best response would be that it makes more sense to abolish money.

Advertisement

Perhaps it is simply more appealing for people to believe that nothing needs to be abolished, and it only needs to be made more inclusive, but in reality, making something inclusive or more equal usually just negates the reason for its existence in the first place. If everyone had the same political rights, if everyone was considered equally a member of each nation-state, or if everyone was considered equally a member of a single global state, hypothetically, then there would be no need to categorize anyone as a citizen. Everyone would fit into the category, making it meaningless.

Citizenship as an idea is inimical to equality and inimical to the idea of a common human heritage. The basis of citizenship, as it was first conceived even in Ancient Greece and in every single regime since, was always racism, bigotry and the idea that one group is more deserving than another.

Advertisement

It is a strange fate now that – while governments universally preach human rights and the elimination of hate and killing – they perpetuate the institutions of the nation-state that are responsible for all the violations of rights, all the hate, and all the killing of our time. They still speak the name of some nationality with pride, as if those who belong to it are somehow more deserving than those who don’t belong to it, and they still pledge to defend these people more than other human beings, using violence.


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Advertisement

Turkey joins anti-ISIL coalition and bombs anti-ISIL fighters

posted by Harry J. Bentham

La pensée ne doit jamais se soumettre, ni à un dogme, ni à un parti, ni à une passion, ni à un intérêt, ni à une idée préconçue, ni à quoi que ce soit, si ce n’est aux faits eux-mêmes

Thought must never submit, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, nor to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, nor to whatever it may be, save to the facts themselves

Henri Poincaré


Turkey is a rogue state in the truest sense, and its behavior in Syria and Iraq proves this.

Advertisement

Turkey chose to bomb Kurdish militias at the worst possible moment, when much of the world is relying on them to fight back against ISIL/the “Islamic State”

If the US was truly committed to its strategy to support Kurdish fighters against ISIL, it might have chosen to bomb Turkey. This is because Turkey is using its military power not to stop ISIL terrorists, but to kill off the Kurdish fighters doing much of the fighting against ISIL. Such fighters are the primary forces being relied on by the US and its allies to fight on the ground against ISIL.

About a day after Turkey supposedly joined the US-led anti-ISIL coalition backing up the Kurds, Turkey started blowing up Kurds instead of targeting ISIL. Prior to this, commentators had begun speculating that Turkey was adjusting its strategic priorities to become a full-fledged member of this international coalition against ISIL, and that perhaps Turkey might have decided to end its obsessions with eliminating Syrian President Assad and attacking Kurdish fighters. Some even speculated that Turkey was going to reach out to the Kurds and form an alliance with them. In reality, Turkey was only trying to deceive its allies and gain some political cover to start killing the very Kurdish fighters that the Americans have been training.

Advertisement

Turkey has proven that it has no interest in the security or success of other countries or even the NATO alliance that it is a member of, and is driven by selfish nationalist interests that conflict with other NATO members and with the interests of the Syrian and Iraqi peoples including all the Kurds. Ironically, Turkey kept calling for a no-fly zone in Syria, which it believed would allow Turkey to have more cover to meddle inside Syria’s politics and security and give Turkey carte blanche to bomb Kurds in a large strip of territory in northern Syria.

The situation in Syria and Iraq now is absurd. The alliances between states and factions have become so complex and tangled that no party can coordinate any effort without undermining their own allies’ efforts. The US can’t defeat ISIL because its own NATO partners are more interested in defeating the Kurds whom the US was paying and training to defeat ISIL. And while the rest of the coalition focuses on giving the Kurds as much support as possible to battle ISIL, the Turks will be bombing the Kurds and nullifying the effectiveness of the entire American strategy. As soon as they receive their American weapons, they are just as likely to fall prey to Turkish bombs.

Advertisement

In some ways, this type of situation proves that the NATO alliance is a sham and cannot be taken seriously. NATO simply has too many members in different regions of the world for the alliance to possibly act in a coordinated or rational way, and its obsession with gaining even more member states is only going to make this problem worse in the future. Once the situation gets violent, the individual states in the NATO alliance tend to simply fend for themselves and the alliance becomes nothing more than some political noise. Turkey repeatedly calls for NATO emergency meetings, and has done so again recently, as if to try to get some appearance of legitimacy for its attacks against Kurds. This puts the Obama administration in a very difficult situation, ostensibly allied to both the Kurds and the Turks and trying to satisfy both of them that it holds their security to be more important than the other’s.

Advertisement

In any realistic assessment of the conflict, the US and other coalition members would need to consider Turkey an enemy and not a partner in global efforts against ISIL. NATO has proven to be nothing more than a long rope for its members to hang themselves with, as the biggest threats of aggression and wanton destruction in the NATO area come consistently from its own member states and the alliance inhibits possible cooperation against this aggression.


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Advertisement

War on Iran would cause, not prevent, nuclear apocalypse

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée, tout se transforme.

Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed.

Antoine Lavoisier


Opponents of the nuclear energy deal between world powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran are obsessed with World War 2 comparisons and, insanely, they believe starting World War 3 might prevent World War 3.

Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu claims Iran is trying to conquer the world while his own country continually steals land and kicks people out of their homes. Image via https://syrianfreepress.files.wordpress.com/

Advertisement

The root of America’s problem with Iran isn’t Iran, but Israel. Despite the butchery it committed against civilians in Gaza and in Lebanon, the most bloodthirsty atrocity Israel has committed in its short and violent history is its influence over American domestic politics, which helped to cause the Iraq War base on a lie. A lie that cost thousands of American soldiers and contractors their lives, as well as nearly a hundred thousand Iraqis, to accomplish nothing but irreversible damage to American interests and even more costly grief to thousands of families who find no consolation in the realization that their sons and daughters died for nothing but a parasite state.

Through its accursed and rotten meddling in US domestic politics, Israel boasts of the ability to start a nuclear holocaust of humanity if it feels that its comparatively tiny and worthless little state is under threat from the Islamic world or from the friends of Russia and Iran in the Middle East region.

Advertisement

YouTube Preview Image

Despite propaganda to make Hamas and Hezbollah appear like the greatest villains in the world, events taking place in the locale of the conflict between Israel and the barely armed civilians it claims to feel threatened by in Gaza is of no consequence to Israel’s ability to survive or not survive as a state. Even the dispute between the Israelis, a settler population who invaded the heart of the Islamic world without any consent or invitation from the people already living there, and the Islamic world, is likely to be of little consequence to whether Israel will survive. Israel’s real battle for survival is taking place in the United States and Europe, as more and more Americans and Europeans are taking a stand against Israel for the historic crimes against humanity that this regime committed in order to “survive” on land it annexed without excuse or justification.

Advertisement

Within the United States, supporters of Israel have been reduced to a small fringe of lunatics who are no less interested in starting a Third World War to bring about the Rapture, than they are in starting a war with Iran. More supporters of Israel can today be found among the Christian Right and the associated conservative lunatic fringe in the United States than can be found among the American Jewish community. Far from representing the Jewish people as he claims, Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu represents the lunatic fringe of world opinion, a group of isolated warmongers who despise humanity and want to unleash a holocaust on the world in their despair at the growing global chorus to liberate Palestine.

The greatest threat to Israel today is not Iran but Netanyahu. Every step he takes to damage Israel’s relations with the United States plunges Israel further away from the ally it relies upon to exist. Without the United States, the world’s most cowardly regime will be left to fight its own wars and sacrifice its own sons and daughters instead of sending Americans.

Advertisement


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Advertisement

Organization without organization?

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Quar nous navons volu ne volons le Temple mettre en aucune servitute se non tant come il hy affiert.

For we did not and do not wish the Temple to be placed in any servitude except that which is fitting.

Jacques de Molay


In the past, the ability of any group or idea to coordinate itself relied upon an efficient organization. Thanks to technology, this fact may soon be obsolete and it may be possible for individuals to organize society without the need for monolithic organizations, states and institutions at all.

Advertisement

Image via https://oclccog.wordpress.com/

We have governments that claim to have conquered the Internet, and with this conquest, to control your hearts and minds. They have failed. While states may be more capable of the voyeuristic triumph of listening in on your private communication, this capability is worthless to the goal of actually disorganizing or degrading one’s opponents or in any way keeping a regime safe from the wrath of the people.

More disturbing than mere surveillance, for dissidents, could be the so-called “Four Ds” now available to tech-savvy regimes that wish to damage their opposition. Or, Deny/Disrupt/Degrade/Deceive. It is something that came to my own attention when I read Glenn Greenwald’s book No Place to Hide, where the means of such operations are quoted from slides leaked from the intelligence services. The slides speak of means by which an individual can be dishonestly smeared, discredited and destroyed by the government using fabrication of evidence and impersonation in the Internet, isolated from his friends and allies so as to dampen and ultimately silence the dissident’s voice. The fact that this strategy to silence political criticism was authored by so-called defenders of democracy (or Boris Johnson’s “people who keep us safe!”) only proves the extent of their cynicism. These are people who will stomp democracy’s face into the pavement to “defend” it from alleged terrorists.

Advertisement

The obvious solution to this type of threat to the online body politic is clear. One must not become attached to any individual voice on the Internet, but heed a vast selection of voices. Further, one must not work alone via the Internet but must build effective networks, through which no-one worships any one personality but instead tunes in to the voice of the whole collective.

One man and his laptop is no threat to any government, but that is what governments have decided to target and brand as a threat. Even the most skilled hacker in the world can be tracked down and captured or eliminated by a determined government. What governments have no defense against are thousands of people and their laptops. In time, their obsession with lone hackers and lone dissidents, whether that individual is Dread Pirate Roberts, Edward Snowden, or Julian Assange, will seem as foolish as deciding to attack a single bee.

Advertisement

Governments and laws remain still a century (and increasing) out of date with modern technology, as are many other organizations and institutions, including the vast majority of political parties including those who claim to be at the frontlines of social and technological change. It is not that these institutions aren’t tech-savvy. It’s that, in this modern world, they should no longer exist at all. The very forms of democracy and the management of the economy in the present day are sclerotic and broken institutions, and the existence of “political parties” at all is a hangover from a time when people needed newsletters and leaflets delivered by hand. The fact is that one person can achieve through the Internet today what it would have taken an “organization” of hundreds of lackeys to achieve in the past.

Advertisement

Almost every function of such archaic organizations, from fundraising to the coordination of important events, can be achieved now using the organizing power of the Internet, without setting up any formal organization in the first place. The fact that the Internet can be used to organize makes it unnecessary to have any “organization” (noun) in the conventional sense to organize (verb). Even the validity of “authority” or “fame” has been weakened by the Internet and seems rather primitive now, as anyone can spring from the collective voice to rally his peers at least for a brief instance, before retreating back into obscurity.

This modern potential for organization without organization is much like the accompanying emergence of new currencies without banks (bitcoin being the best example). As more and more mundane aspects of organization are taken over by machines, it is not only the low-ranking worker who finds himself without a purpose but the oligarch and the parasite also finds himself without a purpose. Those who prided themselves on their ability to manage a business or government from some headquarters may simply not be needed anymore to achieve effective governance.

Advertisement

The world has barely begun to adjust to the arrival of the Internet as political and economic force, and the changes that will be made possible now will cause unbearable agony and catastrophe to the institutions and halls of power that once bragged about creating these technologies in the first place. Pandora’s Box has been opened, it cannot be closed. It isn’t that I am an anarchist or have anything personal against archaic forms of organization or hierarchy, but that I simply see humanity gradually learning and equipping itself to get by just fine without such bodies existing at all.


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Previous Posts

Citizens of the world, citizens of what?
On n'enseigne pas l'intellectualisme en une école. Intellectualism is not taught in school. Jules de Gaultier The idea that countries should welcome everyone and citizenship should be charitably extended to everyone also gives rise ...

posted 11:00:28pm Jul. 26, 2015 | read full post »

Turkey joins anti-ISIL coalition and bombs anti-ISIL fighters
La pensée ne doit jamais se soumettre, ni à un dogme, ni à un parti, ni à une passion, ni à un intérêt, ni à une idée préconçue, ni à quoi que ce soit, si ce n'est aux faits eux-mêmes Thought must never submit, neither to a ...

posted 9:00:01pm Jul. 26, 2015 | read full post »

War on Iran would cause, not prevent, nuclear apocalypse
Rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée, tout se transforme. Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed. Antoine Lavoisier Opponents of the nuclear energy deal between world powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran are ...

posted 11:00:10pm Jul. 19, 2015 | read full post »

Organization without organization?
Quar nous navons volu ne volons le Temple mettre en aucune servitute se non tant come il hy affiert. For we did not and do not wish the Temple to be placed in any servitude except that which is fitting. Jacques de Molay In the past, ...

posted 9:00:10am Jul. 19, 2015 | read full post »

Obama loses three wars and trillions of dollars by opposing Putin
L’on peut me réduire à vivre sans bonheur, Mais non pas me résoudre à vivre sans honneur. I can be forced to live without happiness, But I will never consent to live without honor. Pierre Corneille At this moment, the armed ...

posted 10:00:44am Jul. 12, 2015 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.