When Google Met WikiLeaks

posted by Harry J. Bentham

L’homme est libre au moment qu’il veut l’être.

Man is free at the instant he wants to be.


This is a belated post, but an important one for updates.

I have recently drafted a review of Charles E. Cobb Jr’s book This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed. This will be completed published at Dissident Voice soon.

I have received a review copy of When Google Met Wikileaks, by Julian Assange, from the publisher – OR Books. This is fortunate, because it is not yet available in print from Amazon and I only tend to buy books in print. I am especially keen to review this for h+ Magazine, the top source for news and opinion on the transhumanist movement – a movement of technology enthusiasts whose position on issues at the heart of freedom and technology ought to be as well-informed as possible. Although of course I’ll come in on the side of Assange and WikiLeaks due to my anti-statist tendencies – that’s just the sort of political being I am at this point – the book essentially covers the clash of philosophies and views between WikiLeaks and Google.

With WikiLeaks representing the technological empowerment of individual citizens and Google representing the alignment of technology with immense corporate and statist power, I believe this book could foretell a great battle of ideologies that is going to shape the remainder of the Twenty-First Century.

By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

PM Cameron warns about aggression, commits aggression

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Les Membres de l’Organisation s’abstiennent, dans leurs relations internationales, de recourir à la menace ou à l’emploi de la force, soit contre l’intégrité territoriale ou l’indépendance politique de tout Etat, soit de toute autre manière incompatible avec les buts des Nations Unies.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Charter of the United Nations

As the NATO Summit in Wales tried to generate as much hysteria as possible over alleged Russian aggression in Ukraine, the attending Prime Minister David Cameron was caught committing aggression in an interview. While showing apparent rage over the rise of the Islamic State (IS), formerly ISIS, terrorists, Cameron issued a threat of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of a state, Syria. Aggression, legally, is most commonly understood as just the above, as outlined in the Charter of the United Nations.

Cameron threatened that he would bomb IS targets in Syria without permission from the Syrian government, which is a blatant call not just to violate the UN charter and commit aggression, but to violate the UK Parliament’s own ruling not to get involved in the War in Syria. The threat from Cameron comes amid his apparent concerns over alleged Russian military involvement in Ukraine – involvement that has been denied by the Russian government.

It is interesting to note that the Russian constitution refuses to give the President the ability to use military force without the approval of the Russian parliament. Right now, Russian President Putin has no such approval – just like Cameron has no approval to launch a military campaign in Syria. After Crimea joined the Russian Federation, the Russian President revoked permission for the Russian military to intervene in Ukraine, making any further involvement illegal and unconstitutional if were to actually be happening. Let me repeat: this means that according to Russian law, the Russian military involvement in Crimea was legal, but any Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine right now would be illegal and unconstitutional. Similarly, the UK government ruled against involvement in Syria in 2013.

Based on the PM’s reckless statements, Cameron’s UK appears to be a far more dangerous and destabilizing aggressor than Putin’s Russia in two ways. First, Cameron is publicly issuing his calls to aggression and trying to justify them. Second, Cameron is directly and blatantly breaking the laws of his own country and violating the rulings of the UK Parliament itself.

Russia is probably involved in eastern Ukraine, but its involvement must be informal simply because it has no legal basis. The idea of Russian tank divisions rolling into Ukraine is a fantasy – they have no authorization. So, Russian involvement with the unrest in the eastern region of Lugansk most probably only amounts to media support, social support, and humanitarian support. That is about the same level of involvement that the US has in most internal crises happening around the world, so the US and UK are blatant hypocrites for describing that as aggression.

I can come up with no other conclusion than that the whining by NATO states like the US and UK has nothing to do with any Russian aggression, but everything to do with their own ongoing publicly announced aggression in Syria, which Russia has constantly opposed diplomatically and is committed to prevent. Despite what the BBC and CNN say, NATO is still an ageing, obsolete organization and no guarantor of security for anyone, whether the threat is Russia or the IS.

Putin is no angel, but David Cameron, you sir are a scumbag.

By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Hollande’s Syria comments: evil or stupid?

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Bachar al-Assad est l’allié objectif des jihadistes

Bashar al-Assad is the de facto ally of the jihadists (fighting to oust him)

Francois Hollande

Normally, I preface my posts on this blog with something wise from great French politicians and scholars, which signify the traditional place of France at the heart of all political history as a result of the French Revolution. However, today I feel a quote demonstrating incredible stupidity is necessary.

YouTube Preview Image

In Syria, dictator Bashar al-Assad is fighting essentially the same battle being waged by pro-Western dictators Sisi in Egypt and Hiftar in Libya, yet the some Western states are incapable of seeing the resemblance so they insist al-Assad is a different creature, whose opposing Islamists are benign and democratic. So they support the military regimes in Egypt and Libya, yet oppose the military regime in Syria, for no reason at all other other than their own prior idiocy and bad judgment on the Syrian regime’s survivability. In other words, for the West, Syria is no longer about democracy but about making the West not looking as dumb as it actually is. Now, however, French President Francois Hollande has come up with the even crazier alternative: both sides in the war are evil… and (because he doesn’t like either of them) they are …allies!!?!

Either Francois Hollande is involved in Orwellian doublethink to believe that the enemies of Assad are simultaneously the allies of Assad (all the while his is the side giving them direct material and propaganda support by supporting the insurgency in Syria) or he is too stupid to hold office. Either he thinks the French people are too stupid to see that it is not al-Assad, but Hollande, who supports terrorism in Syria, or he is so ill-informed that he does not understand who is fighting who in Syria.

To really believe that al-Assad is allied to the violent terrorists fighting against him (who are actually getting their vast quantities of funding and other support from Western allies like France) would mean Hollande has been kicked so hard in the head that his ability to speak after it at all astonishing.

I am quite sure that my next article at Press TV will address the Syrian crisis, in particular how some Western powers try to shirk responsibility for the calamity happening there and still act as if they are a civilizing presence, when they actually stirred up and justified all the violence in the first place in the name of the creepy Neocon dream of forcefully imposing “democracy”.

By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Scottish independence ‘Yes’ makes huge gains

posted by Harry J. Bentham

A la base de notre civilisation, il y a la liberté de chacun dans sa pensée, ses croyances, ses opinions, son travail, ses loisirs.

At the root of our civilization, there is the freedom of each person of thought, of belief, of opinion, of work, of leisure.

Charles de Gaulle

new Twitter background 290814

I have recently changed my Twitter banner and thought that would make a good picture for this post – the handwriting is my writing using the touchscreen, so forgive its imperfections. I think it had quite a good effect.

My post today will be about Scottish independence, in response to the encouraging recent surge in support for independence.

According to a recent polls that has been conducted, public opinion has surged massively towards independence. This changes my earlier leanings that, due to the numbers of people who are uninterested in taking part in the vote itself, a Yes vote would be unlikely. I now believe a Yes vote is historically very likely, given the momentum that Yes has gained during these closing days before the referendum takes place on the 18th of September. Above all, I feel that a No vote could only be caused by indifference by large numbers of people whose actual opinions lean towards independence, at this stage :

Of course, swaying people who are undecided remains a challenge.

I have written two pieces on Scottish independence that I believe should be reviewed by people undecided on whether Scotland should leave the Union. One was published at Press TV and the other was published at ClubOfINFO. They present two arguments that I feel should sway the ‘undecideds’ into the Yes camp.

In sum, these are the two decisive points that I believe push reasonable people into the Yes camp:

  1. Scotland is more innovative and tends to lead the rest of the UK, in terms of its people, yet the UK takes credit for all of what should have been Scotland’s own scientific and technological accomplishments.
  2. * Sentiments have been going in the direction of independence, in the long term, as a reaction to poor governance by London. If Scotland does not get independence now, it will only get independence later. The idea of Scotland forever remaining part of the UK does not fit with the facts. Scottish independence/the breakup of the Union is inevitable. Why not now?

Voting at the referendum

History has proven that gaining independence is a real chance to improve things, and that it enables a region to better safeguard its own interests and make the best use of its own resources. When sentiments align with the concrete realities of injustice and poor governance, it should be considered unacceptable not to grasp this kind of momentous opportunity.

NOTICEIF YOU’RE A SCOT, YOU GOTTA DO THIS: This is an easy way to change the world with the stroke of a pen, and no-one should refuse that kind of opportunity. The alternative is more misrule by blatantly evil Conservatives or the prospect of the even nastier and more backward UKIP eventually coming to power. How could anyone vote for those guys instead? If anything, this is a unique protest opportunity. Honestly, I would probably move to Scotland if it got independence, just to escape them.

By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Previous Posts

Helping you make headlines: for bloggers
Il ne s’agit pas alors de paresse, de laisser-aller. Bien au contraire, l’individu est tourmenté It is not then laziness, sloppiness. On the contrary, the individual is tormented Alfred Sauvy The internet has changed publishing in ways that disproportionately empower many individual

posted 11:00:45pm Sep. 20, 2014 | read full post »

Born in the Wrong Century?
C'est une sphère infinie, dont le centre est partout et la circonférence nulle part. It is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere. Blaise Pascal In my publishing this week, most notable were an op-ed at Press TV , my last to have expressed hope tha

posted 12:55:10pm Sep. 20, 2014 | read full post »

US Empire hates Scottish independence
Toute oppression crée un état de guerre. All oppression creates a state of war. Simone de Beauvoir Image from Voltairenet The US, like the UK's Conservative government, clings to an outdated adversarial worldview based on the old-fashioned wartime alliances of the Twentieth Century

posted 11:00:36pm Sep. 13, 2014 | read full post »

Defining stories: my own star wars
Qui définit le moment où j'écris? How to define the moment that I write? Michel Foucault Next month it's October. It may seem early, but it reminds me to draft a science fiction horror story for entering into the sort of literary competitions often seen on the web at Halloween. I w

posted 11:00:19pm Sep. 12, 2014 | read full post »

When Google Met WikiLeaks
L'homme est libre au moment qu'il veut l'être. Man is free at the instant he wants to be. Voltaire This is a belated post, but an important one for updates. I have recently drafted a review of Charles E. Cobb Jr's book This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed. This will be completed publ

posted 11:09:33pm Sep. 06, 2014 | read full post »

Report as Inappropriate

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

All reported content is logged for investigation.