Posts tagged "Islam"

New World Order – Kyrgyzstan

July 2007
A vibrant Islamic movement in Kyrgyzstan is challenging the established political system. People are being increasingly disillusioned and searching for alternatives.
In the market of Osh, Southern Kyrgyzstan, most women wear the hijab. The idea of an Islamic state is rapidly gaining currency here. “Islam offers guidance to the way people should live”, explains the local imam. “It answers every question in life”. It’s a sentiment that’s increasingly worrying the authorities. “Last year, we found out Hizb ut-Tahrir were involved in plans for terrorist attacks in Kyrgyzstan”, states police chief Shakir Zulimov. “This year, we’re expecting an escalation”. Islamic student Aman Saaliev believes one thing is certain: “There are major changes afoot in Central Asia”.

Duration : 0:7:30

Read more…

Infiltrations

The one thing Targeted Individuals have to understand is the concept of Infiltration. This means that agents, hired operatives, civillian informants, etc will try to infiltrate your organizations or your life.

I recently posted an article about Infiltration of online groups. This has been happening for some time now. Many people think if they are posting online that they will not be investigated, but there are infiltrators who try to engage posters in conversations, where they get them to say things against the government, or use talk of violence, something that might not happen without the provocateur. These individuals are on most of the popular forums, and often you won’t know who they are. You might get a sense of who they are based on their postings, but that is not always the case.

Here on some things to be aware of regarding Infiltrations.

[quote]http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/security/police-hire-private-spies-to-snoop-online/2008/11/26/1227491580370.html

Police hire private spies to snoop online

THE Internet communications and websites of anti-war campaigners, environmentalists, animal rights activists and other protest groups are being secretly monitored by state and federal agencies.

A Melbourne private intelligence firm specialising in “open-source intelligence” has been engaged by Victoria Police, the Australian Federal Police and the federal Attorney-General’s Department to monitor and report on the protest movements’ use of the internet.

The monitoring, which has been secretly conducted for at least five years, includes exploring websites, online chat rooms, social networking sites, email lists and bulletin boards to gather information on planned demonstrations and other activities. Many of those monitored have not broken any laws, but it is believed information about their participation in online activities is conveyed to government agencies that also deal with terrorism.[/quote]

These types of infiltrations are happening all over the Internet. Sometimes the poster will just be observing gathering information and monitoring. In other cases they will perform a similar fuction to their offline components, and they will engage posters in extreme conversations about violence, anti-government sentiments, etc.

When J.Edgar Hoover ran the FBI, the infiltration of the KKK was about 20% infiltration. The agents that had infiltrated the FBI were often responsible for encouraging acts of violence on others, or enacting those acts of violence themselves.

The FBI kept talking with Klan members. By 1965, some 20 percent of Klan members were on the

[quote]The FBI kept talking with Klan members. By 1965, some 20 percent of Klan members were on the FBI payroll, many occupying leadership positions in seven of the fourteen Klan groups across the country, states political scientist Robert Goldstein in “Political Repression in Modern America: 1870 to the Present,” [/quote]

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-20-2006-91543.asp

[quote]Glick lists four main methods used by the agents:

1) infiltration by agents and informers with the intention to discredit and disrupt;
2) psychological warfare from the outside, using “dirty tricks” to undermine progressive movements; 3) harassment through the legal system, making targets appear to be criminal; and
4) extralegal force and violence including break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings to frighten dissidents and disrupt their movements. [/quote]

[quote]
It was COINTELPRO “that enabled the FBI and police to eliminate the leaders of mass movements in the 1960s without undermining the image of the United States as a democracy, complete with free speech and the rule of law.

“Charismatic orators and dynamic organizers were covertly attacked and ‘neutralized’ before their skills could be transferred to others and stable structures established to carry on their work.”
[/quote]

This is why new movements have a hard time getting started. The legit movements are often infiltrated, with the provocateurs, or Informants moving to the forefront of the movement.

[quote]Dr. King was a target of an elaborate COINTELPRO plot to drive him to suicide and replace him “in his role of the leadership of the Negro people” with conservative Black lawyer Samuel Pierce (later named to President Ronald Reagan’s cabinet) according to revisionist historians including Glick and Zinn, who have come to view King’s assassination, as well as Malcolm X’s, as domestic covert operations.
[/quote]

The scary part of these operations is that they will allow a movement to go forward as long as they can eventually be in control. This means that had they been successful in getting Martin Luther King Jr, to kill himself, they would have had their man already set in place to take the helm. They don’t have a problem with the movement as long as they can run the show, or have their people running the show, and their information getting out to the public.

The other thing to be aware of is that they often start groups themselves, with their own people, this way it seems like there is a movement happening, but again they are running the show.

[quote]But Glick and several other researchers argue that COINTELPRO-white appeared only to go after violent right-wing groups, and that the FBI actually gave covert aid to the Ku Klux Klan, Minutemen, Nazis, and other racist vigilantes, under the cover of being even-handed.

“These groups received substantial funds, information, and protection – and suffered only token FBI harassment – so long as they directed their violence against COINTELPRO targets,” Glick wrote.

“They were not subjected to serious disruption unless they breached this tacit understanding and attacked established business and political leaders.”

Specifically, COINTELPRO documents indicate that some infiltrators discreetly spied for years without calling attention to themselves (like the Soviet moles or sleepers) while others acted as instigators to disrupt meetings and conventions or social and other contacts.
[/quote]

Sleepers that’s a scary concept, but even as far back as Cointelpro this idea was used. To always have one of theirs at the helm, ready to take over. It’s mind boggling how this system works.

[quote]Agents spread rumors, made accusations, inflamed disagreements, and caused splits. “They urged divisive proposals, sabotaged activities, overspent scarce resources, stole funds, seduced leaders, exacerbated rivalries, caused jealousy and public embarrassment to groups. They often led activists into unnecessary danger and set them up for prosecution.”

One common maneuver, known as placing a “snitch jacket” or “bad jacket” on an activist, damaged the victim’s effectiveness and generated “confusion, distrust, and paranoia.” The maneuver was used to divert time and energy and turn co-workers against one another, even provoking violence.
[/quote]

The only thing that’s changed is that they have probably become better at their tactics, and the world at large has become less aware, or completely oblivious.

In Russia this method of dissident infiltration was also used.

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file744_30623.pdf

[quote]
In the Stasi’s “War on Dissent,” dissenters were the most valuable informants, and the Stasi recruited heavily within the very world it was trying to destroy, employing the very people it was trying to eliminate. As a result, East German dissident-informants often paradoxically “helped the [anti-government] movement , partly simply by swelling its ranks, but also by actively working on opposition activities.”[/quote]

Governments do go after dissidents or those they are trying to eliminate. This way if they can’t eliminate the target, they will try to turn the target. So you could actively have members of a movement who are working for both sides. They are moving the movement forward with one hand, and putting it two steps back with the second hand. It’s very frustrating, because some of these people did start out as genuine activists, but at some point, they were destitute, set up, arrested, institutionalized, etc. They decided to turn informant and work for the state.

I have come across a few of these in doing this research. At first I would judge these people harshly, but now I feel sorry for some of them. Some are happy enough to sell out, but others just really don’t know what to do. They are poor, and without means and resources. This is something groups should be aware of. Someone who is a true target today, might become a turned Informant working for the state. It’s a very scary concept, but it’s again something to be aware of.

http://security.resist.ca/personal/informants.shtml

[quote]

Some types of infiltrators stay in the background and offer material support, other informants may have nothing to do with the group or action, but initially heard certain plans and tipped off the police. Among the more active types of infiltrators can be a gregarious person that quickly wins group trust. Some infiltrators will attempt to gain key forms of control, such as of communications/ secretarial, or finances. Other informants can use charm and sex to get intimate with activists, to better spy or potentially destabilize group dynamics.

Active infiltrators can also be provocateurs specializing in disruptive tactics such as sowing disorder and demoralizing meetings or demos, heightening conflicts whether they are interpersonal or about action or theory, or pushing things further with bravado and violent proposals. Infiltrators often need to build credibility; they may do this by claiming to have participated in past actions.

Also, infiltrators will try to exploit activist sensibilities regarding oppression and diversity. Intelligence organizations will send in someone who will pose as a person experiencing the common oppression of the particular activist group. For example, in the 1960′s, the Weather Underground (“Weathermen” – a white anti-imperialist armed struggle in the US) was infiltrated by an “ordinary Joe” informant with a working class image. Black war veterans were used to infiltrate the Black Panther Party. [/quote]

You will see this a lot if you visit some online or offline groups. They profile you in many cases before hand, so they think they know what triggers to use on you. The only thing you can do is profile yourself and know yourself better than they think they know you. They will try to play off of your vulnerabilities if they can find them.

The government also used Informants on the panthers, that’s how they knew where Fred Hampton would be, and the informant might have drugged Fred Hampton, just before the assassination.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/Fed_Bureau_Intimidation.html

[quote]
In 1976, the mothers of the victims filed a civil rights suit against the FBI. The COINTELPRO files released during the trial showed that the FBI had an informant named William O’Neal in the Chicago Panthers. O’Neal was a trusted friend of Hampton and chief of security in the Chicago chapter. Taylor described, “He was the classic provocateur under COINTELPRO, always suggesting far-out violent schemes. He turned out to be the Judas who helped set up Fred Hampton’s murder”

O’Neal fed information to FBI agent Roy Mitchell, who worked closely with the Chicago Police Department’s Gang Intelligence Unit, the squad that dealt specifically with Black organizations. Days before the raid, O’Neal gave Mitchell a detailed floor plan of Hampton’s apartment that indicated where Hampton and his fiancee Akna Ajeri (who was eight months pregnant with their child at the time of the raid) usually slept.

Taylor also believes that there is strong evidence that O’Neal drugged Hampton on the day of the raid. Hampton’s autopsy showed a large amount of secobarbital in his system, despite the fact that he was militantly against drugs.

Hampton was shot in the head in his bed. He never even woke up. In 1982, after many appeals, the courts finally awarded survivors of the raid $1.85 million in damages. But to this day, no police or FBI agents have ever been indicted for these ruthless murders.
[/quote]

An Informant was also able to get close to Malcolm X and became one of his bodyguards.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/Buzzkill/buzzkill.7

[quote]Malcolm X as early as 1953, when the young minister for the Nation of Islam was placed on a Security Index of people top be rounded up and detained in times of “danger to national security.” and there was at least one under cover informant present at his assassination:
Malcolm’s bodyguard Gene Roberts, who was actually an undercover cop with the New York Police Depart-ment’s Bureau of Special Services (BOSS).
[/quote]

These people in organizations have a way of rising to the top, getting into trusted positions. That is a part of the consistent M.O. that we see with Infiltrators. In researching I have not found any one surefire way of dealing with them.

The paid Infiltrators are often profiled, these are individuals that they would like to use as Informants.

http://november.org/stayinfo/breaking08/MolesWanted.html

[quote]

Carroll, who requested that his real name not be used, showed up early and waited anxiously for Swanson’s arrival. Ten minutes later, he says, a casually dressed Swanson showed up, flanked by a woman whom he introduced as FBI Special Agent Maureen E. Mazzola. For the next 20 minutes, Mazzola would do most of the talking.

“She told me that I had the perfect ‘look,’” recalls Carroll. “And that I had the perfect personality — they kept saying I was friendly and personable — for what they were looking for.”

What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant — someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, [b]then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement.[/b] The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.”

Carroll would be compensated for his efforts, but only if his involvement yielded an arrest. No exact dollar figure was offered.

“I’ll pass,” said Carroll.

For 10 more minutes, Mazzola and Swanson tried to sway him. He remained obstinate.

“Well, if you change your mind, call this number,” said Mazzola, handing him her card with her cell phone number scribbled on the back.

[/quote]

This young man was originally arrested for spray painting. (There is no way to know if he was encouraged by an Informant to perform the action.)

After he served his time for the activity, he was contacted to become an Informant, which he declined. Yet they still kept pressuring him.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=550324

A similar scenario happened to a young man over at the Storm Front Forum. He called to find out more information about the local laws regarding Firearms in the state. A few days later he was paid a visit by the FBI. After discussing his phone call, which is what initiated the visit. He was asked to become a paid Informant to infiltrate white nationalist organizations. He was also asked to name anyone he knew who was involved in any illegal activities.

He advised that he was not aware of anyone involved in illegal activities, and that he did not wish to become an informant. Since then he has been a target of Gang Stalking, and they occasionally call him to see if he will change his mind and become an Informant, which he constantly declines.

(The best thing to do in this scenario is to get a lawyer, and give them the phone number or the card of your lawyer the next time they come calling. )

This information is from the security culture brochure. If you do get a lawyer expect even more retaliation, but it’s apparently the best method for dealing with this kind of pressure.

http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Handbook/TheHiddenEvil.pdf

On his former website, and PDF Mark M. Rich had also mentioned that these support groups might have been infiltrated.

[quote]If you join a support group, you may also receive harassment via threads posted on message boards. Like other mediums of harassment, the topics of these threads may be about events that are unfolding in your personal life, as well as threats or insults covertly directed at you. This will probably happen repeatedly by the same person or people.

They may also employ some Gaslighting, or Jacketing tactics. Jacketing was often used during Cointelpro to make genuine activists look like informants.(10) Some internet groups which help stalking victims are heavily populated with perpetrators posing as victims.(7) Some of these perpetrators seem to be very vocal & popular members of these support groups. It seems that this a damage-control mechanism put in place to corral people, manage them to some

degree, & impede the groups’ progress. These people may also help with misdirecting events, or generally keeping groups disorganized & ineffective, under the illusion that progress is being been made.

These informants/perpetrators will give you correct information, & you may not find out until later that they’re trying to traumatize you as well. You may not be able to make other group members aware of it, as these informants may be well-respected members. It seems like a contradiction. Why would a perpetrator give you valuable information?

While I don’t know the exact answer to this question, here are some possibilities:

1.They know you would have eventually found the information anyway, so this trade-off is worth appearing genuine & gaining your trust, which may be exploited at a later date.

2.Create fear & uncertainty within you, causing you to doubt your own judgment.

3.This
may further traumatize a person with feelings of hopelessness when they learn that a very well respected group member is harassing him/her.

If you think that the people who oversee these neutralization programs have not infiltrated these groups, or even deliberately created some as a catch-net in order to disrupt & minimize progress, you are probably mistaken. The people who designed this system were not incompetent & some of these support groups seem to be just another phase of the campaign. If you find yourself on the receiving end of repeated covert or overt criticism by one or more of these prominent victims, you can give yourself a great big pat on the back. This one of many layers in this system of control that you’ll encounter.

Also, some people who may have been genuinely trying to raise awareness, may have been bribed, blackmailed or simply tortured (Directed Energy Weapons) into becoming informants, & therefore, have been compromised. Some of the most outspoken victims & leaders in these groups appear to be deliberately operating within boundaries designed to slow progress. And, as in most social systems, there is envy, fear & jealously. If you choose to participate in one of these support groups, you may want to limit your exposure to certain people. However, although these groups are fraught with perpetrators, not all of them are. So you may still want to attend meetings & events as it will be a good opportunity to connect with other people. You will find many people who are very decent & you may even make some
new friends. Trust your own judgment.

I have been in contact with perpetrators posing as victims on the phone & via email that have hinted that I must not be genuine. It is likely that these fake victims have probably spread lies to targeted individuals indicating that I’m not really targeted since I don’t appear to be suffering or helpless. If you are raising awareness, then discrediting attempts such as these will be standard practice. It appears to be critical that they attempt to isolate you from group members who you may have a positive influence on. Once again, organizations were heavily infiltrated during Cointelpro & jacketing was used extensively.(10)
[/quote]

In his research in the PDF Mark had formerly covered the concept of Infiltrations as well. I am not sure if this is covered on the new site.

Infiltrations and organizations seem to go hand in hand. Even if you start out with a good crop of individuals, you still have the possibility of Informants infiltrating the group. They are prone to achieving high levels of trust in organizations, they can also be used for disruption and disinformation. They can even be used as sleeper cells for down the line.

With Infiltration the idea is sometimes to destroy the organization, at other times it is to ensure the state is in control of the organization, this is true offline and online. This is also true for personal infiltrations. Getting someone into your life so they are in a position of trust, which can be used later.

The idea is to not become too paranoid, because then you will not be able to function, however it’s wise to be cognizant of these Infiltrations on a personal and professional level.

http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2005/08/203959.shtml

gangstalking
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/infiltrations-704029.html

Globalization: an Islamic Perspective

This paper investigates from an Islamic perspective the consequences of globalization in general. To specify my argument in accordance with my understanding of Islam, I would strive to argue that globalization might be very harmful before society reaches maturity but very useful after that. Allow me a brief prefatory note about my methodology in this essay: in the first part, I provide many specifics about how Islamic texts and sources view the human being as God’s creation and his ultimate goal in the world. In the second part, after a brief definition of globalization, I apply the analytic method employed in the conventional literature of economics to show why the market mechanism fails to satisfy equality and eradicate poverty in the globalization era. Finally, I try to explain how a free but virtuous, mature society can satisfy equality throughout the world in this era. Obviously, my argument relates, to some extent, to normative aspect of economics. However, it does not follow the ideological methodology at all.

Let me begin by elaborating briefly on the ultimate goal of man’s creation in Islam, since this is so essential to understanding my argument.

The Human Being as God’s Creation

From monotheism, the pivotal pillar of the Islamic worldview, we can conclude that the universe is the best and perfect manifestation of God’s beautiful names and that there is no better alternative system to govern the universe. Indeed, this principle refers to the conception of creation. That is, God is like a secret treasure, so He creates and expands the universe not only to give a clue to His throne but also to reveal His beauty and His brilliance. Some facets of His attributes such as His majesty may manifest themselves in a deterministic environment such as with galaxies and other physical phenomena. There are, however, other facets of His characteristics such as His wisdom and His mercifulness that are impossible to manifest themselves except in indeterministic form.

There seem to be many common elements in the explanation of the philosophy of man’s creation in all Abrahamic religions of which Islam is believed to be a sequel and culmination. By investigating the quality of Adam’s creation, which stands as the symbol of human being in the Quran, we can infer the kind of status he occupies in the sight of God in Islam, as well as in other religions.

In the beginning the Lord addresses all the angels[1]that He wants to create a viceroy[2] on earth. This position will be held by man. The angels object to Him and say that He wants to create a vengeful and vindictive creature to commit crime and bloodshed on earth again! But God responds that He knows something they do not know. And so, God became engaged in creating man. And this is the point which symbols, loaded with profound anthropological connotations, come into being.

From a faithful Muslim point of view, God is the greatest and most exalted. Thus, with this providential address the mission of man on earth is clarified. That is, man’s mission on earth is to fulfill God’s creative work in the universe. Therefore, man’s first superiority is that he represents God on earth.

Since God wants to create a viceroy for Himself on earth, He must, as a rule, choose the most valuable and sacred material. Yet He selects the basest matter. In the Quran there are three references relative to the material that man was made of: from sounding clay[3], like unto pottery[4], and from mud[5]. Finally, the Lord blew His spirit into the dry mud and man came into being.

In the human tongue, God is the most sacred and exalted being so the spirit of God refers to the most exalted, and the noblest manifestation of His being, while mud stands as a symbol of the meanest and the basest thing. Accordingly, He blew His own Soul, not something else like His breath, blood, or flesh, into man in its creating process. God is the most sublime being and His spirit is the finest entity for which man can possibly have an epithet in his language.

Thus, man who was formed from mud and God’s spirit is a two- dimensional being. For unlike all other beings which are one dimensional, man is two-dimensional; one dimension tends towards mud, lowliness, sedimentation, and stagnation while the other aspires to the loftiest imaginable point possible. Thus man’s significance and grandeur lie in the fact that he possesses two poles: mud and the spirit of the Lord. It is up to man to choose where to go, towards mud or providence. And as long as he has not selected either of the poles as his fate, struggle will perpetually rage within him.

Another surprising point in man’s creation in the Quran is that God calls upon the whole universe that He has a trust to offer it, but everything refuses to accept this offer except man[6]. This is indicative of the fact that man possesses another virtue; that is, his acceptance of a trust that everyone else refused. This means that man is a representative of God in the universe as well as His trustee. As to what the trust is, Islamic scholars mention many things. Some of them such as Mawlavi and Shariati[7], believe that it is will and choice. I agree with that, however, it means much more than that. It means that man has adopted a great responsibility to personify all His beautiful names; individually and collectively. Of course, such responsibility requires the ability of will and choice.

Shariati (1981) says that the only superiority that man has over all other beings in the universe is his will. He is the only being that can act contrary to his nature, while no animal or plant is capable of doing so. It is impossible to find an animal which can fast for two days. And no plant has ever committed suicide due to grief or has done a great service. Man is the only one who rebels against his physical, spiritual, and material needs, and turns his back against goodness and virtue. Further, he is free to behave irrationally, to be bad or good, and to be mud-like or divine. The point is that possession of will is the greatest characteristic of man and it throws light upon the relationship between man and God.

Man is a viceroy of God on earth as well as His trustee among the universe, and the spirit of both quenches their thirst from the same fountain of virtue: possession of will. God, the only being in the universe, who possesses an absolute will and can do whatever He wishes, blew His spirit in man. Hence, man is capable of working like God (not on par with Him, only as an image of God), or acting against the physiological laws of his own nature. Therefore, as in the Old Testament[8], He has created mankind as a potentially perfect image of Himself. Obviously, this perfect image goes beyond the interpretation that some distinguished scholars have given it[9]. It shows that all God’s beautiful names may manifest themselves with man and human society. Consequently, it requires the ability to mastery and rule over the universe.

Two kinds of rationality

As mentioned above, according to my Islamic understanding, man is a two-dimensional being. During his spiritual evolution, he should pass from being mud-like to approaching God-like. In other words, God has invited him to pass through an important reference point, maturity[10]. Thus, we can imagine that he has two distinct parts of his life: an individualistic, selfish period (before maturity of society, when the real love is not the dominant flow in the society); and a God-like, selfless period (after maturity of society). Clearly, each specific period requires a certain and separate corresponding rationality. The rationality[11] discussed in the conventional literature of economics, which is based on a low-level self-interest, only corresponds with the period of childhood. Mainstream economics, based on Adam Smith’s invisible hand and the market mechanism, quenches its thirst from this fountain of rationality. In the next part, I will explain how the market mechanism increases the gap between poor and rich countries as well as the gap between poor and rich classes. That is, the more international trade and the more integration of financial markets, the more market failure and more divergent economies! However, when society evolves from selfishness and being mud-like to altruism and being God-like, this rationality will not be effective at all and will collapse instantaneously. The alternative and mature rationality creates a special dynamism for the economy which is very powerful and without any failures. The driving force of this rationality is still self-interest, but a high-level one rooted in being God-like.

I would like to refer to one verse of the Quran, which clearly argues that the individual desires derived from a low-level self-interest lead to harm and corruption[12]: “Corruption doth appear on land and sea because of which men’s hands have done, that He may make them taste a part of that which they have done, in order that they may return.” We may deduce this corruption is only a part of the consequences of what man has done as a result of his selfishness, and that there might many other bad consequences washed clean by God’s forgiveness. In other words, the invisible hand in an immature society not only is not able to optimize social benefits, but also it creates a great deal of harm and corruption that surpasses our imaginations. However, most of this corruption will be removed by the mechanism provided in the universe by God. The remaining corruption serves to warn the people and deter them from being selfish.

Due to self-interest maximization in immature society, we may also observe clearly many, many problems such as global warming and environmental destruction which will definitely jeopardize future life, while the market mechanism and its price signals fail to reduce these consequences, much less to motivate sustainable development.

Globalization and the issue of equality

In this part of my essay, I would like to show why globalization in the context of low-level self-interest motivation and based on the market mechanism may not lead to equality. Instead, it is biased to developed countries where there is located a complex of various industries and the benefit of economies of agglomeration can be utilized. To do this, it is necessary to have a brief definition of globalization first.

The definition of globalization

As globalization is a multi-layer concept and it has become a buzzword in recent years, globalization has already been defined in many ways. I, in some extend, agree with what Thomas L. Friedman defines globalization. He says: “it is the inexorable integration of market, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before- in a way that it is enabling individuals, corporations, and nation states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that it is enabling the world to reach into individuals, corporations, and nation states farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before” (Friedman 2000, 9). He says: globalization “also has one overarching feature- integration. The world has become an increasingly interwoven place, and today, whether you are a company or a country, your threats and opportunities increasingly derive from who you are connected to. This globalization system is also characterized by a single word: the Web”(ibid, 8). This system is a dynamic ongoing process, with a driving idea of free-market capitalism, and “its own dominant culture” involving “the spread of Americanization” (ibid, 9). It has its own defining technologies, and is measured by its speed, “speed of commerce, travel, communication and innovation” (ibid, 10). He suggests that “globalization is not simply a trend or a fad but is, rather, an international system. It is the system that has now replaced the old Cold War system, and, like that Cold War system, globalization has its own rules and logic that today directly or indirectly influence the politics, environment, geopolitics and economics of virtually every country in the world” (ibid, IX).

What I want to focus on is strictly the economic layer of globalization. In my view, economic globalization refers to a completely different process of internationalization. Although in internationalization the cross-border relations between countries will increase, the nation-state institution will play the main role in the economies, they can still make economic policies and decisions. Economic globalization, however, refers to the process of removing government-imposed restrictions on movements between countries in order to create an “open”, “borderless” world economy’ (Scholte 2000: 16) so that the nation-state institution will be eradicated and no longer play no role in economy. Instead, the Transnational Companies (TNCs) will be the main players in the economy. More technically speaking, the nation’s Production Possibility Frontier (PPF) makes nonsense in the literature and there is only the worlds PPF and TNCs follow fragmentization policy in their production and distribution which is definitely alien from conventional international trade and international finance.

The Inevitability of Asymmetry in Globalization

According to mainstream economics, policies of openness through liberalization of trade and investment regimes, and capital movements have been advocated worldwide for their growth and welfare enhancing effects on the basis of the propositions embedded in the well-known economic theories of international trade and investment (i.e. the Ricardian comparative advantage theory, the Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson (HOS) model, the new trade theories of Krugman, or the model of intertemporal international borrowing/lending or portfolio allocation models). In these models, the main goal of openness is assumed to increase social welfare through: (i) static efficiency gains associated with improved resource allocation for national economies as well as for the world economy due to increased specialization; (ii) dynamic efficiency gains from such factors as economies of scale, diffusion of information, technology transfers, knowledge spillover effects as well as intertemporal trade gains from cross-border borrowing/lending for increased investment and consumption smoothing and portfolio risk diversification.

Convergence in accordance with international trade theories is still a serious dilemma. That is, there is no doubt that the level of social surplus will increase totally after free trade or integration of financial markets. However, there is a lasting concern regarding how these gains are distributed between trade partners; are they biased toward developed countries or at least unbiased. Mainstream economics’ theories including static and dynamic insist that international trade will reduce the per capita income gap amongst the open countries. For instance, one of the main theorems that derived from the static model of HOS Theory, implies that when the prices of the output goods are equalized between countries as they move to free trade, then the rewards of the factors (capital and labor for instance) will also be equalized between countries. Therefore we should expect that the increase of free trade due to globalization will reduce the North-South per capita income gap. The dynamic version of this model also suggests a convergent per-capita income trend between north and south countries.

To explain cross-country differences in economic performance, Matsuyama (1996) employs symmetry-breaking methodology. Symmetry-breaking creates asymmetric outcomes in the symmetric environment. It is the key concept for understanding self-organized (a.k.a. endogenous) pattern formations[13].

As a key answer to the increasing gap between North and South countries in the level of cross-country differences as well as the increasing gap between poor and rich classes inside the countries, Matsuyama (2005), rejects coordination failures as the key notion to understand these questions. Instead, he argues that such emphasis is misplaced; the key to understanding the diversity is symmetry-breaking. The notion of coordination failures is not only irrelevant but also misleading when thinking about diversity.

Quoting Matsuyama’s (1996) explanation briefly, it will be shown how globalization can be considered as an endogenous (or a self-organized) factor to create the inequalities.

He offers a model of the world economy, where many (inherently) identical countries trade with one another. It is shown that cross-country differences in the standard of living and in income appear as a stable outcome of international trade. According to his model, the coexistence of rich and poor countries is not just a possibility. It is an inevitable aspect of the world trading system. Although his model adopts many assumptions for the sake of simplification and concreteness, the logic behind the result is fairly general and can be understood intuitively.

Imagine that there is a list of goods that need to be consumed. Furthermore, there are some agglomeration economies in the production of each of these goods. In the absence of international trade, these goods must all be produced in each country. Without any innate difference across countries, each country produces these goods in the same amount, and there is no cross-country difference.

Now introduce the possibility of international trade in these goods. As different countries start acquiring comparative advantage in different goods, the production of each good concentrates into some countries, which leads to an emergence of a system of international division of labor. The stable cross-country difference appears as a result of ‘‘symmetry-breaking’’ in the world economy, caused by international trade. Some countries become rich if they are lucky enough to acquire comparative advantage in goods associated with large agglomeration economies, while other countries, those which happen to acquire comparative advantage in goods with small agglomeration economies, become poor. They fail to achieve a necessary coordination to reach a Pareto-superior equilibrium and find themselves in a Pareto-inferior equilibrium. The problems thus seem just a matter of coordination failures. The global perspective, however, offers a different view. The international division of labor requires different countries to take charge of producing different tradable goods with differing degrees of agglomeration economies. International trade thus creates a kind of ‘‘pecking order’’ among nations. Not all countries can be rich: some countries must be excluded from being rich, just as in a game of musical chairs[14]. At the same time, the model does not rule out the possibility that some (but not all) countries might succeed in overcoming the coordination failures, and becoming rich. This feature of the model makes it possible to talk about the effects of such an ‘‘economic miracle’’ in the world economy.

Since the economies of agglomeration requires the diversity of industries which produce intermediates available in the marketplace, we can conclude that only those countries which have already bypassed the threshold of diversity have a chance to be industrialized and reach to a Pareto-superior equilibrium. Hence, this shows how the phenomena of economies of agglomeration cause a symmetry-breaking to separate the otherwise identical regions into the manufacturing belt and the agricultural hinterland.

Globalization in Mature Society

To explain how globalization in mature society accomplishes beneficial goals, first we have to take into account the two following challenges:

1. The problem of static market failure: This problem arises mainly because of externalities (including public goods, pollution and common pool resources), transaction cost, asymmetric information (such as incomplete markets[15], moral hazards and adverse selection), as well as organization failures. The most common response to a market failure in the literature of the public sector is to use the government to produce certain goods and services. However, government intervention may cause non-market failure. Besides, as mentioned above, globalization causes nation-state eradication so there will be no effective government in such an era. Furthermore, I can hardly believe that international institutions are able to fulfill this responsibility, even if they were independent from the USA.

2. The problem of dynamic market failure: As Matsuyama showed accurately, international trade creates a specific chaos in the symmetric environment so that the operations of markets normally lead to increasing inequality across the countries over time. Likewise, inequality across inherently identical households is caused endogenously by symmetry-breaking. Matsuyama (2004) explains how the class structure is an inevitable feature of capitalism. Even if every household starts with the same amount of wealth, the society will experience “symmetry-breaking,” and will be polarized into the two classes in steady state, where the rich maintain a high level of wealth partly due to the presence of the poor, who have no choice but to work for the rich at a wage rate strictly lower than the “fair” value of labor. Hence, in the capitalistic context we may consider these increasing gaps –whether between countries or inside countries – as an indication of market failure in a dynamic version.

It is now necessary to show how mature society, using a different rationality, may bypass these challenges. This rationality formally is very similar to the conventional one. It is, however, very different in content. I would like to refer to a few verses of Quran related to this subject. God says: “Man has been created restless, so he panics whenever any evil touches him, and withdraws when some good touches him; except for the prayerful who are constant at their prayers and whose wealth comprises an acknowledged responsibility towards the beggar and the destitute; and the ones who accept the Day for Repayment.” These verses show sufficiently that the rationality that guides immature people is definitely different than that which guides mature people, although they benefit from the same potential characteristics. The main distinction between mature and immature is that the mature direct these potentials toward a transcendental personality which is beyond selfishness. They are concerned with all human beings’ needs in all generations rather than their own selves individually or at most their families.

It is very appropriate to ask about the driving motivation in this society. Of course, conventional self-interest cannot motivate people efficiently to be concerned about others. It is extremely in need of a stronger motivation based on an exalted worldview. This worldview should consist of specific beliefs that grant the greatest reward to the doer when he considers all people of all generations altruistically. As I understand, the mature society may not be blind and aimless. Society can achieve this reference point of maturity only when the true beliefs such as the belief in oneness of God, the Day of Judgment, Justice drive it entirely. Passing this reference point is a necessary condition, but divine love, which requires perfection in selflessness, is the sufficient condition for the maturity. In general speaking, love when it appears, has no room but for itself and the lover thinks of no one except the beloved. In other words, selfishness destroys love and it can never be considered as co-existent of love. Nonetheless, worldly love is too weak and ineffective to last and motivate society toward its transcendental goals. In contrast, divine love is quite sustainable and powerful. Since nature is the realms where God’s beautiful names are exhibited, divine love implies, in turn, love of the entire world and the whole creation particularly human beings, the most comprehensive fruit of existence. Therefore, love is at the core of the concept of mature rationality and creates a specific invisible hand to satisfy social benefits including prosperity and equality for all regions and all generations.

Now, allow me to explain how globalization might be useful in a mature world society. As mentioned above, a mature society is a society where all God’s beautiful names have flourished. Therefore, as God provides mercifully all necessary requirements for all creatures, in such a society, each person possesses a certain portion of natural resources consistent with his area of interest. All initial endowments are redistributed by lump sum among the people so technically speaking, all individuals move to the central points of Edgeworth’s box. All members subject to all generations’ benefits do their best to produce more and more creatively because they are His representatives. According to symmetry-breaking methodology, there is still some potential of asymmetry. However, people will share their incomes voluntarily to produce public goods and to reduce the existent gap.

The communist system is as far away as the capitalistic system from the system based on love. The lack of motivation in people’s activities as well as the inefficiency of government –especially when the size of society grows enough- are the essential issues in communism while there is no concern about them in mature society. It is because the people are mature enough to understand that more being active means being closer to God. Besides, there is no need for the presence of strong and big government because this society is governed by many small components of authority connected together in a world wide network. There is hardly conflict of interest between these components because selfishness is the main source of confliction while here the people are selfless. Moreover, they are tolerant and educated enough to avoid violence and to discuss their problems peacefully.

It should be noticed that the economy in mature society serves only as a means by which we can improve the level of virtue so that we are not allowed to sacrifice humanity and its dignity and virtue because of economic benefits.

Endnotes

——————————————————————————–

[1] Quran, 2:30: And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: wilt Thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not.

[2] It shows very clearly the worth of man in Islam. Even the Post-Renaissance European humanism has not been able to bestow such an exalting sanctity upon man.

[3] Quran, 15:26, 15:28, and 15:33

[4] Quran, 55:14

[5] Quran, 6:2, 7:12, 23:12, 32:7, 37:11, 38:71, 38:76

[6] Quran, 33:72 Lo! We offered the trust unto the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they shrank from bearing it and were afraid of it. And man assumed it.

[7] See: Sahriati (1981)

[8] Old Testament, 1:27-28 Elohim said, “Let us make humanity as our image, according to our likeness. And let them rule over the fish of the sea, the bird of the heavens, the beast, the whole earth, and all the swarmers which swarm on the earth. And God created humanity as his image: as the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.

[9] Thomas Aquinas (1976) located the image in the human ability to think and reason, to use language and art, far surpassing the abilities of any animals. Leonard Verduin (1976) says that the image consists in our dominion over animals and plants, which continues despite our sinfulness. Emil Brunner (1976) says that it is our ability to have a relationship with God, reflected in the tendency of all societies to have forms of worship.

[10] Quran, 90:10-17 And [Did We not] guide him to the parting of the mountain ways? But he hath not attempted the Ascent. Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is! (It is) to free a slave, And to feed in the day of hunger, an orphan near of kin, or some poor wretch in misery, and to be of those who believe and exhort one another to perseverance and exhort one another to pity.

[11] I will discuss the other kind of rationality which corresponds with mature period later on.

[12] Quran, 30:41

[13] For example, cosmologists wonder why the matter in the universe is distributed in clusters, leaving much of the universe empty. Earth scientists study the formation of wave patterns, such as jet streams, ocean currents, and continental drifts. Material scientists study phase transitions, how molecules aligned themselves when they reach the critical temperature. Molecular biologists ask how life began in the primordial soup of amino acids, and developmental biologists attempt to explain how living organisms acquire forms through cell division and morphogenesis (Weyl 1969, Prigogine 1980). Similar questions of pattern formations also exist in economics. Why are there rich and poor countries? Why are industries clustered? Why are there booms and recessions? Why are some ethnic groups underrepresented in certain jobs or neighborhoods?

[14] Musical chairs is a game played by a group of people (usually children), often in an informal setting purely for entertainment such as a birthday party. The game starts with any number of players and a number of chairs one fewer than the number of players; the chairs are arranged in a circle (or other closed figure) facing outward, with the people standing in a circle just outside of that. A non-playing individual plays recorded music or a musical instrument. While the music is playing, the players in the circle walk in unison around the chairs. When the music controller suddenly shuts off the music, everyone must race to sit down in one of the chairs. The player who is left without a chair is eliminated from the game, and one chair is also removed to ensure that there will always be one fewer chair than there are players. The music resumes and the cycle repeats until there is only one player left in the game, who is the winner.

[15] The theory of incomplete markets is an extension of the general equilibrium approach to intertemporal economies with uncertainty, where the set of available contracts which can be used to transfer wealth across time is limited relative to the possible probabilistic states that an economy might find itself in. Unlike in the standard Arrow-Debreu model where all trade takes place at beginning of time, in an economy with incomplete markets, agents trade in sequential spot markets.

References

The Noble Quran.

Aquinas, T. (1976), Man to the Image of God, in Millard Erickson (ed.), Man’s Need and God’s Gift: Readings in Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, pp. 37-43.

Emil, B. (1976), Man and Creation,” in Millard Erickson (ed.), Man’s Need and God’s Gift: Readings in Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, pp. 45-54.

Friedman, T. L. (2000), The Lexus and the Olive Tree, New York: Anchor Books.

Krugman, P. (1992),Geography and Trade (Gaston Eyskens Lectures), The MIT Press

Matsuyama, K. (1996), Why Are There Rich and Poor Countries?: Symmetry-Breaking in the World Economy, NBER Working Paper Series

Matsuyama, K. (2005), Structural Change, forthcoming in L. Blume and S. Durlauf, eds., the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition, Macmillan (available at: http://www.faculty.econ.northwestern.edu/faculty/matsuyama/Structural%20Change.pdf )

Prigogine, I. (1980), From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences, Freeman, 1980.

Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalization. A critical introduction, London: Palgrave.

Shariati, A. (1981), Man and Islam, Translator: Fatollah Marjani, Houston: Free Islamic Literature-Filinc.

Verduin, L. (1976), A Dominion-Haver, in Millard Erickson (ed.), Man’s Need and God’s Gift: Readings in Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, pp. 55-74.

Weyl, H. (1969), Symmetry, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Nasser Elahi
http://www.articlesbase.com/ethics-articles/globalization-an-islamic-perspective-293758.html

Clarity Crafted From Common Sense!

Let’s face it; we are all liberals, no matter how conservative we may be. The Puritans who founded America conquered dangers and disasters to win religious freedom, but they were liberals. In 1754, Benjamin Franklin depicted a rattlesnake cut into eight sections in his Pennsylvania Gazette. The eight sections of snake symbolized eight eastern seaboard colonies and the caption said “Join or Die!” It was a call to arms during the French and Indian war. By 1776, an image of a coiled rattlesnake, with “Don’t Tread on Me”, became an American icon of independence and a battle cry engrained in the Spirit of ’76.

What is different about the liberalism of the Puritans and the liberalism of the progressive movement in America today? In a word, the difference is morality. The Puritans personified deeply held, Bible based morality with their liberalism. When morality is stripped away from liberalism, the result is 30 million aborted babies over thirty years, legalized sodomy and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), all protected by the immoral ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union).

Born in 1954, I was a classic Love Generation, anti-Vietnam War liberal, living at the speed of party! It is unbelievable; what our generation has lived through. The sexual revolution, women’s lib, the music revolution, the recreational drug awakening, the Civil Rights marches, the nuclear arms race, the space race, the information revolution spawned by the computer, the internet, satellites and cell phones are just part of what we have witnessed! What a wonderful life and evolution of our democracy, in our time!

Our choices for president in 1972, when I turned eighteen and got a draft card, were Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. I did not vote that year. Most profound, perhaps, we stopped the Vietnam War to protect those poor rice farmers, from US troops. We quit and came home. Then, between 1975 and 1978, the Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge slaughtered about three million of those peasants who we demonstrated in US streets to protect, from US troops. How foolish we were!

The lesson is clear: really bad guys immediately fill the muscle void when good men stand down and go home. Those who rallied our utopian filled minds to stop the war were mostly silent about the genocide that ensued, after US troops were withdrawn. Our killed and wounded were sacrificed in great numbers. In the end, their mission and our allies were simply abandoned by Congress and our divided nation.

We grew up with Why We Fight, Victory At Sea, Combat, Black Sheep Squadron, Rat Patrol and other programs about WWII, the death camps and the cost of freedom on TV. This type of programming saturated the few over-the-air channels and we found it educational, entertaining and fascinating. Many of us still find it fascinating. It was all about the gritty, epic struggle between freedom and tyranny and it was very patriotic!

The Rifleman, Leave It To Beaver, Gunsmoke, My Three Sons, Bonanza, The Waltons, Wild Kingdom and All In The Family are just a few programs I recall that were favorites for lighter entertainment. And the Ed Sullivan show. It was all pretty wholesome fare and we loved it. The America of our youth is already gone forever, in case you missed its passing.

We watched in naive befuddlement while the Shah of Iran was overthrown by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in Tehran, who used US hostages as pawns on TV for over a year beginning in 1979. Interest rates were sky high and lines at gas stations were longer than that. Our President at the time was a former peanut farmer and most of us watched, from afar, the rise of radical Islam without understanding it.

As a result of the gasoline shortages that followed, there was a lot of talk about energy independence. Certainly, the masses of us did not connect the dots between buying foreign oil and funding terrorism. Apparently, neither did our elected leaders who were most interested in re-election, as they almost always are above all else. In retrospect, what in God’s name were we doing? Oh yeah, partying! We watched while our secular, modern thinking but despotic ally was swept from power, our Embassy was overrun, our hostages were traumatized and the rest of us were slowly strangled at the gasoline pump. We were brain dead.

We watched our principled Ronald Reagan from a distance with admiration, as did millions worldwide throughout the 1980′s. When Ross Perot entered politics, he caught everyone’s attention by driving the national debate for a balanced budget and by opposing NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) with his famous “giant sucking sound” quote. Perot redirected enough conservative or moderate votes from Bush Forty One to put Clinton in the White House.

Bill Clinton really motivated me politically. When Clinton said that he did not inhale the marijuana he tried in college, it was obvious that he was a liar, a scrupulous manipulator and I was motivated against him immediately. The Adolescent President, Bubba, dragged us all into the abyss of political and moral relativism where anything goes, as Nixon had done decades earlier. It was more liberalism without morality.

Rather than recount the long series of terrorist attacks we suffered and mostly ignored, from Carter’s administration until 9/11, let it suffice to say that I was already paying attention to politics before 9/11 thanks to Bubba. Now we are aware that we are in the fight of our lives. We have let the radical ideology of our enemies morph into a giant violent network with global reach and influence and we even, indirectly, enabled it and still do.

Our strategic goal must be the triumph of human freedom over tyranny in Muslim countries, for our own safety too. It is in our interest, is moral and it will take a generation or two for freedom to achieve victory over this brand of fascism. For non-radicals like most of us, it is bigger than the cost of oil, revenge or even justice. Because of weapons technology, it is about survival for which radicals care not. Tactics, tools and diplomacy will need to adapt and be re-configured for each adverse circumstance until the right combination is found to achieve long term victory.

The hour is late. Since 1979 our enemies have been at war with us and teaching their children to be martyrs, en masse. Most of us were asleep at the wheel until September 11, 2001 and too many of us seem to have gone back to sleep again. Religious, ideological hatred and technology are growing against us, so America must fight for freedom for others once again. We can not maintain our freedom alone, we need allies.

While we are divided about the best ways to achieve the strategic goal of freedom over tyranny, it is clear to most of us that we must use all of our resources and tools, for generations. Clarity resulted from 9/11 for most baby boomers and that means war, and diplomacy.

Lightning fast global communications show our enemies a vicious political war internally which makes winning the wars of bullets and bones infinitely more difficult. Our political division emboldens our enemies to kill more Americans. They believe we will quit and go home, again. They have Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia as their proof and recruiting tools. Last but not least, our division demoralizes our own volunteer military forces.

A massive show of political unity at home is required because votes affect troop morale on both sides!

Purveyors of propaganda surround us. Seek and you shall find what our troops’ majority wishes are, but you must work at it. It is not easy if you prefer polling data of our military over logic. Polling questions will improve so answers cannot be so easily spun into interpretations not intended by the military volunteers questioned, if I have my way. When you are sure you know what our troops’ majority political wishes are, support them with your votes because only votes count. Our words of support, without our votes being aligned with our troops’ majority political wishes, mean nothing.

Our troops and our enemies have connected the dots between votes and troop morale, on both sides, can you?

Vote as if your life depended on it, because it very well might. This is how we found clarity, crafted from common sense; the hard way!

Average Joe Boomer
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/clarity-crafted-from-common-sense-74364.html

Amazing Discovery About Early Christianity

Few things are more important to a Central Asian than maintaining cultural traditions. Throughout the existence of the Soviet Union, they were forced to conform to a Russian mindset, lifestyle, and even language. Free from this tyranny, Central Asians now cherish the things they can call their own. On the flip side, they are turned off by anything that looks, smells, or acts foreign.

In the eyes of these people, Christianity is an intrusive import from the West. According to the Director of one of the leading Central Asian Christian ministries, it is viewed as a boil, a festering sore, and causes division. After all, a persons religion is not determined by choice, but by the family into which he is born. So to become a Christian is to turn your back on both your family and culture. And such an act goes beyond being disrespectful, its crazy.

It is for this reason that Central Asian Christians are persecuted. On a daily basis, they suffer at the hands of those who intend to bring them back to their senses. Families attempt to undo what they think is brainwashing by isolating him, denying his rights, or even through intense beatings.

Restrictions from the top
In two Central Asian countries, the governments have enacted laws to deter radical religions, such as Christianity. In these countries, it is unlawful to meet in churches that have not been legally recognized by the government. However, there are so many rules and regulations in registering, that few churches are able to complete the process of gaining approval.

In one Central Asian country, it is also illegal to conduct a service in the national language. This law was enacted to stop Christians from converting nationals to a foreign religion.

Shocking evidence
However, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, more and more Central Asians are discovering that they have been living under false assumptions. And in evangelizing this region, one question is turning the tide, Why do you profess the religions of your conquerors, and forget Christianity, the faith of your forefathers?

Amazing recent discoveries have shown that Christianity was practiced throughout Central Asia long before Islam or Zoosticism, the two predominant religions of today.

While visiting a Central Asian home, the previously mentioned Director saw a pattern in the familys rug that demanded his attention. The design, common in area rugs throughout this region, was full of symbols that told the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

With the familys permission, the Director took the rug to an anthropology professor at the University of Chicago. Upon further study, the directors suspicions were confirmed, the Christian symbols predated the period when Islam spread to Central Asia.

Return to their roots
One by one, Central Asians are discovering what Christians around the world have always known, God is truth. God is love. And God is longing for Central Asians to return to their ultimate cultural heritage through faith in Jesus Christ.

Pray for those Christians throughout Central Asia who are facing the torture of their families and governments, that they will continue to have the courage to live out their faith, regardless of the cost.

Pray also for their persecutors. Pray that as Gods Spirit moves they will accept the gift of salvation from the one, true God.

John Savage
http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/amazing-discovery-about-early-christianity-98724.html

Arundhati Roy: Mumbai Was not India’s 9/11

Arundhati Roy: Mumbai was not India’s 9/11

http://www.guardian .co.uk/world/ 2008/dec/ 12/mumbai- arundhati- roy

The Mumbai attacks have been dubbed ‘India’s 9/11′, and there are calls for a 9/11-style response, including an attack on Pakistan. Instead, the country must fight terrorism with justice, or face civil war.

We’ve forfeited the rights to our own tragedies. As the carnage in Mumbai raged on, day after horrible day, our 24-hour news channels informed us that we were watching "India’s 9/11". Like actors in a Bollywood rip-off of an old Hollywood film, we’re expected to play our parts and say our lines, even though we know it’s all been said and done before.

As tension in the region builds, US Senator John McCain has warned Pakistan that if it didn’t act fast to arrest the "Bad Guys" he had personal information that India would launch air strikes on "terrorist camps" in Pakistan and that Washington could do nothing because Mumbai was India’s 9/11.

But November isn’t September, 2008 isn’t 2001, Pakistan isn’t Afghanistan and India isn’t America. So perhaps we should reclaim our tragedy and pick through the debris with our own brains and our own broken hearts so that we can arrive at our own conclusions.

It’s odd how in the last week of November thousands of people in Kashmir supervised by thousands of Indian troops lined up to cast their vote, while the richest quarters of India’s richest city ended up looking like war-torn Kupwara – one of Kashmir’s most ravaged districts.

The Mumbai attacks are only the most recent of a spate of terrorist attacks on Indian towns and cities this year. Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Delhi, Guwahati, Jaipur and Malegaon have all seen serial bomb blasts in which hundreds of ordinary people have been killed and wounded. If the police are right about the people they have arrested as suspects, both Hindu and Muslim, all Indian nationals, it obviously indicates that something’s going very badly wrong in this country.

If you were watching television you may not have heard that ordinary people too died in Mumbai. They were mowed down in a busy railway station and a public hospital. The terrorists did not distinguish between poor and rich. They killed both with equal cold-bloodedness. The Indian media, however, was transfixed by the rising tide of horror that breached the glittering barricades of India Shining and spread its stench in the marbled lobbies and crystal ballrooms of two incredibly luxurious hotels and a small Jewish centre.

We’re told one of these hotels is an icon of the city of Mumbai. That’s absolutely true. It’s an icon of the easy, obscene injustice that ordinary Indians endure every day. On a day when the newspapers were full of moving obituaries by beautiful people about the hotel rooms they had stayed in, the gourmet restaurants they loved (ironically one was called Kandahar), and the staff who served them, a small box on the top left-hand corner in the inner pages of a national newspaper (sponsored by a pizza company I think) said "Hungry, kya?" (Hungry eh?). It then, with the best of intentions I’m sure, informed its readers that on the international hunger index, India ranked below Sudan and Somalia. But of course this isn’t that war. That one’s still being fought in the Dalit bastis of our villages, on the banks of the Narmada and the Koel Karo rivers; in the rubber estate in Chengara; in the villages of Nandigram, Singur, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Lalgarh in West Bengal and the slums and shantytowns of our gigantic cities.

That war isn’t on TV. Yet. So maybe, like everyone else, we should deal with the one that is.

There is a fierce, unforgiving fault-line that runs through the contemporary discourse on terrorism. On one side (let’s call it Side A) are those who see terrorism, especially "Islamist" terrorism, as a hateful, insane scourge that spins on its own axis, in its own orbit and has nothing to do with the world around it, nothing to do with history, geography or economics. Therefore, Side A says, to try and place it in a political context, or even try to understand it, amounts to justifying it and is a crime in itself.

Side B believes that though nothing can ever excuse or justify terrorism, it exists in a particular time, place and political context, and to refuse to see that will only aggravate the problem and put more and more people in harm’s way. Which is a crime in itself.

The sayings of Hafiz Saeed, who founded the Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure) in 1990 and who belongs to the hardline Salafi tradition of Islam, certainly bolsters the case of Side A. Hafiz Saeed approves of suicide bombing, hates Jews, Shias and Democracy and believes that jihad should be waged until Islam, his Islam, rules the world. Among the things he said are: "There cannot be any peace while India remains intact. Cut them, cut them so much that they kneel before you and ask for mercy."

And: "India has shown us this path. We would like to give India a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Hindus, just like it is killing the Muslims in Kashmir."

But where would Side A accommodate the sayings of Babu Bajrangi of Ahmedabad, India, who sees himself as a democrat, not a terrorist? He was one of the major lynchpins of the 2002 Gujarat genocide and has said (on camera): "We didn’t spare a single Muslim shop, we set everything on fire … we hacked, burned, set on fire … we believe in setting them on fire because these bastards don’t want to be cremated, they’re afraid of it … I have just one last wish … let me be sentenced to death … I don’t care if I’m hanged … just give me two days before my hanging and I will go and have a field day in Juhapura where seven or eight lakhs [seven or eight hundred thousand] of these people stay … I will finish them off … let a few more of them die … at least 25,000 to 50,000 should die."

And where, in Side A’s scheme of things, would we place the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh bible, We, or, Our Nationhood Defined by MS Golwalkar, who became head of the RSS in 1944. It says: "Ever since that evil day, when Moslems first landed in Hindustan, right up to the present moment, the Hindu Nation has been gallantly fighting on to take on these despoilers. The Race Spirit has been awakening."

Or: "To keep up the purity of its race and culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here … a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by."

(Of course Muslims are not the only people in the gun sights of the Hindu right. Dalits have been consistently targeted. Recently in Kandhamal in Orissa, Christians were the target of two and a half months of violence which left more than 40 dead. Forty thousand people have been driven from their homes, half of who now live in refugee camps.)

All these years Hafiz Saeed has lived the life of a respectable man in Lahore as the head of the Jamaat-ud Daawa, which many believe is a front organization for the Lashkar-e-Taiba. He continues to recruit young boys for his own bigoted jehad with his twisted, fiery sermons. On December 11 the UN imposed sanctions on the Jammat-ud-Daawa. The Pakistani government succumbed to international pressure and put Hafiz Saeed under house arrest. Babu Bajrangi, however, is out on bail and lives the life of a respectable man in Gujarat. A couple of years after the genocide he left the VHP to join the Shiv Sena. Narendra Modi, Bajrangi’s former mentor, is still the chief minister of Gujarat. So the man who presided over the Gujarat genocide was re-elected twice, and is deeply respected by India’s biggest corporate houses, Reliance and Tata.

Suhel Seth, a TV impresario and corporate spokesperson, recently said: "Modi is God." The policemen who supervised and sometimes even assisted the rampaging Hindu mobs in Gujarat have been rewarded and promoted. The RSS has 45,000 branches, its own range of charities and 7 million volunteers preaching its doctrine of hate across India. They include Narendra Modi, but also former prime minister AB Vajpayee, current leader of the opposition LK Advani, and a host of other senior politicians, bureaucrats and police and intelligence officers.

If that’s not enough to complicate our picture of secular democracy, we should place on record that there are plenty of Muslim organisations within India preaching their own narrow bigotry.

So, on balance, if I had to choose between Side A and Side B, I’d pick Side B. We need context. Always.

In this nuclear subcontinent that context is partition. The Radcliffe Line, which separated India and Pakistan and tore through states, districts, villages, fields, communities, water systems, homes and families, was drawn virtually overnight. It was Britain’s final, parting kick to us. Partition triggered the massacre of more than a million people and the largest migration of a human population in contemporary history. Eight million people, Hindus fleeing the new Pakistan, Muslims fleeing the new kind of India left their homes with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

Each of those people carries and passes down a story of unimaginable pain, hate, horror but yearning too. That wound, those torn but still unsevered muscles, that blood and those splintered bones still lock us together in a close embrace of hatred, terrifying familiarity but also love. It has left Kashmir trapped in a nightmare from which it can’t seem to emerge, a nightmare that has claimed more than 60,000 lives. Pakistan, the Land of the Pure, became an Islamic Republic, and then, very quickly a corrupt, violent military state, openly intolerant of other faiths. India on the other hand declared herself an inclusive, secular democracy. It was a magnificent undertaking, but Babu Bajrangi’s predecessors had been hard at work since the 1920s, dripping poison into India’s bloodstream, undermining that idea of India even before it was born.

By 1990 they were ready to make a bid for power. In 1992 Hindu mobs exhorted by LK Advani stormed the Babri Masjid and demolished it. By 1998 the BJP was in power at the centre. The US war on terror put the wind in their sails. It allowed them to do exactly as they pleased, even to commit genocide and then present their fascism as a legitimate form of chaotic democracy. This happened at a time when India had opened its huge market to international finance and it was in the interests of international corporations and the media houses they owned to project it as a country that could do no wrong. That gave Hindu nationalists all the impetus and the impunity they needed.

This, then, is the larger historical context of terrorism in the subcontinent and of the Mumbai attacks. It shouldn’t surprise us that Hafiz Saeed of the Lashkar-e-Taiba is from Shimla (India) and LK Advani of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh is from Sindh (Pakistan).

In much the same way as it did after the 2001 parliament attack, the 2002 burning of the Sabarmati Express and the 2007 bombing of the Samjhauta Express, the government of India announced that it has "incontrovertible" evidence that the Lashkar-e-Taiba backed by Pakistan’s ISI was behind the Mumbai strikes. The Lashkar has denied involvement, but remains the prime accused. According to the police and intelligence agencies the Lashkar operates in India through an organisation called the Indian Mujahideen. Two Indian nationals, Sheikh Mukhtar Ahmed, a Special Police Officer working for the Jammu and Kashmir police, and Tausif Rehman, a resident of Kolkata in West Bengal, have been arrested in connection with the Mumbai attacks.

So already the neat accusation against Pakistan is getting a little messy. Almost always, when these stories unspool, they reveal a complicated global network of foot soldiers, trainers, recruiters, middlemen and undercover intelligence and counter-intelligenc e operatives working not just on both sides of the India-Pakistan border, but in several countries simultaneously. In today’s world, trying to pin down the provenance of a terrorist strike and isolate it within the borders of a single nation state is very much like trying to pin down the provenance of corporate money. It’s almost impossible.

In circumstances like these, air strikes to "take out" terrorist camps may take out the camps, but certainly will not "take out" the terrorists. Neither will war. (Also, in our bid for the moral high ground, let’s try not to forget that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the LTTE of neighbouring Sri Lanka, one of the world’s most deadly terrorist groups, were trained by the Indian army.)

Thanks largely to the part it was forced to play as America’s ally first in its war in support of the Afghan Islamists and then in its war against them, Pakistan, whose territory is reeling under these contradictions, is careening towards civil war. As recruiting agents for America’s jihad against the Soviet Union, it was the job of the Pakistan army and the ISI to nurture and channel funds to Islamic fundamentalist organizations. Having wired up these Frankensteins and released them into the world, the US expected it could rein them in like pet mastiffs whenever it wanted to.

Certainly it did not expect them to come calling in heart of the Homeland on September 11. So once again, Afghanistan had to be violently remade. Now the debris of a re-ravaged Afghanistan has washed up on Pakistan’s borders. Nobody, least of all the Pakistan government, denies that it is presiding over a country that is threatening to implode. The terrorist training camps, the fire-breathing mullahs and the maniacs who believe that Islam will, or should, rule the world is mostly the detritus of two Afghan wars. Their ire rains down on the Pakistan government and Pakistani civilians as much, if not more than it does on India.

If at this point India decides to go to war perhaps the descent of the whole region into chaos will be complete. The debris of a bankrupt, destroyed Pakistan will wash up on India’s shores, endangering us as never before. If Pakistan collapses, we can look forward to having millions of "non-state actors" with an arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal as neighbours. It’s hard to understand why those who steer India’s ship are so keen to replicate Pakistan’s mistakes and call damnation upon this country by inviting the United States to further meddle clumsily and dangerously in our extremely complicated affairs. A superpower never has allies. It only has agents.

On the plus side, the advantage of going to war is that it’s the best way for India to avoid facing up to the serious trouble building on our home front. The Mumbai attacks were broadcast live (and exclusive!) on all or most of our 67 24-hour news channels and god knows how many international ones. TV anchors in their studios and journalists at "ground zero" kept up an endless stream of excited commentary. Over three days and three nights we watched in disbelief as a small group of very young men armed with guns and gadgets exposed the powerlessness of the police, the elite National Security Guard and the marine commandos of this supposedly mighty, nuclear-powered nation.

While they did this they indiscriminately massacred unarmed people, in railway stations, hospitals and luxury hotels, unmindful of their class, caste, religion or nationality. (Part of the helplessness of the security forces had to do with having to worry about hostages. In other situations, in Kashmir for example, their tactics are not so sensitive. Whole buildings are blown up. Human shields are used. The U.S and Israeli armies don’t hesitate to send cruise missiles into buildings and drop daisy cutters on wedding parties in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. ) But this was different. And it was on TV.

The boy-terrorists’ nonchalant willingness to kill – and be killed – mesmerised their international audience. They delivered something different from the usual diet of suicide bombings and missile attacks that people have grown inured to on the news. Here was something new. Die Hard 25. The gruesome performance went on and on. TV ratings soared. Ask any television magnate or corporate advertiser who measures broadcast time in seconds, not minutes, what that’s worth.

Eventually the killers died and died hard, all but one. (Perhaps, in the chaos, some escaped. We may never know.) Throughout the standoff the terrorists made no demands and expressed no desire to negotiate. Their purpose was to kill people and inflict as much damage as they could before they were killed themselves. They left us completely bewildered. When we say "nothing can justify terrorism", what most of us mean is that nothing can justify the taking of human life. We say this because we respect life, because we think it’s precious. So what are we to make of those who care nothing for life, not even their own? The truth is that we have no idea what to make of them, because we can sense that even before they’ve died, they’ve journeyed to another world where we cannot reach them.

One TV channel (India TV) broadcast a phone conversation with one of the attackers, who called himself Imran Babar. I cannot vouch for the veracity of the conversation, but the things he talked about were the things contained in the "terror emails" that were sent out before several other bomb attacks in India. Things we don’t want to talk about any more: the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the genocidal slaughter of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, the brutal repression in Kashmir. "You’re surrounded," the anchor told him. "You are definitely going to die. Why don’t you surrender?"

"We die every day," he replied in a strange, mechanical way. "It’s better to live one day as a lion and then die this way." He didn’t seem to want to change the world. He just seemed to want to take it down with him.

If the men were indeed members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, why didn’t it matter to them that a large number of their victims were Muslim, or that their action was likely to result in a severe backlash against the Muslim community in India whose rights they claim to be fighting for? Terrorism is a heartless ideology, and like most ideologies that have their eye on the Big Picture, individuals don’t figure in their calculations except as collateral damage. It has always been a part of and often even the aim of terrorist strategy to exacerbate a bad situation in order to expose hidden faultlines. The blood of "martyrs" irrigates terrorism. Hindu terrorists need dead Hindus, Communist terrorists need dead proletarians, Islamist terrorists need dead Muslims. The dead become the demonstration, the proof of victimhood, which is central to the project. A single act of terrorism is not in itself meant to achieve military victory; at best it is meant to be a catalyst that triggers something else, something much larger than itself, a tectonic shift, a realignment. The act itself is theatre, spectacle and symbolism, and today, the stage on which it pirouettes and performs its acts of bestiality is Live TV. Even as the attack was being condemned by TV anchors, the effectiveness of the terror strikes were being magnified a thousandfold by TV broadcasts.

Through the endless hours of analysis and the endless op-ed essays, in India at least there has been very little mention of the elephants in the room: Kashmir, Gujarat and the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Instead we had retired diplomats and strategic experts debate the pros and cons of a war against Pakistan. We had the rich threatening not to pay their taxes unless their security was guaranteed (is it alright for the poor to remain unprotected? ). We had people suggest that the government step down and each state in India be handed over to a separate corporation. We had the death of former prime minster VP Singh, the hero of Dalits and lower castes and villain of Upper caste Hindus pass without a mention.

We had Suketu Mehta, author of Maximum City and co-writer of the Bollywood film Mission Kashmir, give us his version of George Bush’s famous "Why they hate us" speech. His analysis of why religious bigots, both Hindu and Muslim hate Mumbai: "Perhaps because Mumbai stands for lucre, profane dreams and an indiscriminate openness." His prescription: "The best answer to the terrorists is to dream bigger, make even more money, and visit Mumbai more than ever." Didn’t George Bush ask Americans to go out and shop after 9/11? Ah yes. 9/11, the day we can’t seem to get away from.

Though one chapter of horror in Mumbai has ended, another might have just begun. Day after day, a powerful, vociferous section of the Indian elite, goaded by marauding TV anchors who make Fox News look almost radical and leftwing, have taken to mindlessly attacking politicians, all politicians, glorifying the police and the army and virtually asking for a police state. It isn’t surprising that those who have grown plump on the pickings of democracy (such as it is) should now be calling for a police state. The era of "pickings" is long gone. We’re now in the era of Grabbing by Force, and democracy has a terrible habit of getting in the way.

Dangerous, stupid television flashcards like the Police are Good Politicians are Bad/Chief Executives are Good Chief Ministers are Bad/Army is Good Government is Bad/ India is Good Pakistan is Bad are being bandied about by TV channels that have already whipped their viewers into a state of almost uncontrollable hysteria.

Tragically, this regression into intellectual infancy comes at a time when people in India were beginning to see that in the business of terrorism, victims and perpetrators sometimes exchange roles. It’s an understanding that the people of Kashmir, given their dreadful experiences of the last 20 years, have honed to an exquisite art. On the mainland we’re still learning. (If Kashmir won’t willingly integrate into India, it’s beginning to look as though India will integrate/disintegr ate into Kashmir.)

It was after the 2001 parliament attack that the first serious questions began to be raised. A campaign by a group of lawyers and activists exposed how innocent people had been framed by the police and the press, how evidence was fabricated, how witnesses lied, how due process had been criminally violated at every stage of the investigation. Eventually the courts acquitted two out of the four accused, including SAR Geelani, the man whom the police claimed was the mastermind of the operation. A third, Showkat Guru, was acquitted of all the charges brought against him but was then convicted for a fresh, comparatively minor offence. The supreme court upheld the death sentence of another of the accused, Mohammad Afzal. In its judgment the court acknowledged there was no proof that Mohammed Afzal belonged to any terrorist group, but went on to say, quite shockingly, "The collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender." Even today we don’t really know who the terrorists that attacked the Indian parliament were and who they worked for.

More recently, on September 19 this year, we had the controversial "encounter" at Batla House in Jamia Nagar, Delhi, where the Special Cell of the Delhi police gunned down two Muslim students in their rented flat under seriously questionable circumstances, claiming that they were responsible for serial bombings in Delhi, Jaipur and Ahmedabad in 2008. An assistant commissioner of Police, Mohan Chand Sharma, who played a key role in the parliament attack investigation, lost his life as well. He was one of India’s many "encounter specialists" known and rewarded for having summarily executed several "terrorists" . There was an outcry against the Special Cell from a spectrum of people, ranging from eyewitnesses in the local community to senior Congress Party leaders, students, journalists, lawyers, academics and activists all of whom demanded a judicial inquiry into the incident. In response, the BJP and LK Advani lauded Mohan Chand Sharma as a "Braveheart" and launched a concerted campaign in which they targeted those who had dared to question the integrity of the police, saying it was "suicidal" and calling them "anti-national" . Of course there has been no inquiry.

Only days after the Batla House event, another story about "terrorists" surfaced in the news. In a report submitted to a sessions court, the CBI said that a team from Delhi’s Special Cell (the same team that led the Batla House encounter, including Mohan Chand Sharma) had abducted two innocent men, Irshad Ali and Moarif Qamar, in December 2005, planted 2kg of RDX and two pistols on them and then arrested them as "terrorists" who belonged to Al Badr (which operates out of Kashmir). Ali and Qamar who have spent years in jail, are only two examples out of hundreds of Muslims who have been similarly jailed, tortured and even killed on false charges.

This pattern changed in October 2008 when Maharashtra’ s Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) that was investigating the September 2008 Malegaon blasts arrested a Hindu preacher Sadhvi Pragya, a self-styled God man Swami Dayanand Pande and Lt Col Purohit, a serving officer of the Indian Army. All the arrested belong to Hindu Nationalist organizations including a Hindu Supremacist group called Abhinav Bharat. The Shiv Sena, the BJP and the RSS condemned the Maharashtra ATS, and vilified its chief, Hemant Karkare, claiming he was part of a political conspiracy and declaring that "Hindus could not be terrorists". LK Advani changed his mind about his policy on the police and made rabble rousing speeches to huge gatherings in which he denounced the ATS for daring to cast aspersions on holy men and women.

On the November 25 newspapers reported that the ATS was investigating the high profile VHP Chief Pravin Togadia’s possible role in the Malegaon blasts. The next day, in an extraordinary twist of fate, Hemant Karkare was killed in the Mumbai Attacks. The chances are that the new chief whoever he is, will find it hard to withstand the political pressure that is bound to be brought on him over the Malegaon investigation.

While the Sangh Parivar does not seem to have come to a final decision over whether or not it is anti-national and suicidal to question the police, Arnab Goswami, anchorperson of Times Now television, has stepped up to the plate. He has taken to naming, demonising and openly heckling people who have dared to question the integrity of the police and armed forces. My name and the name of the well-known lawyer Prashant Bhushan have come up several times. At one point, while interviewing a former police officer, Arnab Goswami turned to camera: "Arundhati Roy and Prashant Bhushan," he said, "I hope you are watching this. We think you are disgusting." For a TV anchor to do this in an atmosphere as charged and as frenzied as the one that prevails today, amounts to incitement as well as threat, and would probably in different circumstances have cost a journalist his or her job.

So according to a man aspiring to be the next prime minister of India, and another who is the public face of a mainstream TV channel, citizens have no right to raise questions about the police. This in a country with a shadowy history of suspicious terror attacks, murky investigations, and fake "encounters" . This in a country that boasts of the highest number of custodial deaths in the world and yet refuses to ratify the International Covenant on Torture. A country where the ones who make it to torture chambers are the lucky ones because at least they’ve escaped being "encountered" by our Encounter Specialists. A country where the line between the Underworld and the Encounter Specialists virtually does not exist.

How should those of us whose hearts have been sickened by the knowledge of all of this view the Mumbai attacks, and what are we to do about them? There are those who point out that US strategy has been successful inasmuch as the United States has not suffered a major attack on its home ground since 9/11. However, some would say that what America is suffering now is far worse. If the idea behind the 9/11 terror attacks was to goad America into showing its true colors, what greater success could the terrorists have asked for? The US army is bogged down in two unwinnable wars, which have made the United States the most hated country in the world. Those wars have contributed greatly to the unraveling of the American economy and who knows, perhaps eventually the American empire. (Could it be that battered, bombed Afghanistan, the graveyard of the Soviet Union, will be the undoing of this one too?) Hundreds of thousands people including thousands of American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The frequency of terrorist strikes on U.S allies/agents (including India) and U.S interests in the rest of the world has increased dramatically since 9/11. George Bush, the man who led the US response to 9/11 is a despised figure not just internationally, but also by his own people. Who can possibly claim that the United States is winning the war on terror?

Homeland Security has cost the US government billions of dollars. Few countries, certainly not India, can afford that sort of price tag. But even if we could, the fact is that this vast homeland of ours cannot be secured or policed in the way the United States has been. It’s not that kind of homeland. We have a hostile nuclear weapons state that is slowly spinning out of control as a neighbour, we have a military occupation in Kashmir and a shamefully persecuted, impoverished minority of more than 150 million Muslims who are being targeted as a community and pushed to the wall, whose young see no justice on the horizon, and who, were they to totally lose hope and radicalise, end up as a threat not just to India, but to the whole world. If ten men can hold off the NSG commandos, and the police for three days, and if it takes half a million soldiers to hold down the Kashmir valley, do the math. What kind of Homeland Security can secure India?

Nor for that matter will any other quick fix. Anti-terrorism laws are not meant for terrorists; they’re for people that governments don’t like. That’s why they have a conviction rate of less than 2%. They’re just a means of putting inconvenient people away without bail for a long time and eventually letting them go. Terrorists like those who attacked Mumbai are hardly likely to be deterred by the prospect of being refused bail or being sentenced to death. It’s what they want.

What we’re experiencing now is blowback, the cumulative result of decades of quick fixes and dirty deeds. The carpet’s squelching under our feet.

The only way to contain (it would be naïve to say end) terrorism is to look at the monster in the mirror. We’re standing at a fork in the road. One sign says Justice, the other Civil War. There’s no third sign and there’s no going back. Choose.

MUHAMMAD SHAKEER KS
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/arundhati-roy-mumbai-was-not-indias-911-711720.html

Open Your Mind to the New World Order

A review of the New World Order

Duration : 0:10:5

Read more…

Churchill, His Conservatism and Freedom

Churchill was the 20th century’s most influential person, because he personified, defended, and extended the franchise of the orthodox Anglo-Saxon inspired [big L] Liberal-Parliamentary order. Yet his lessons, attitudes and beliefs are already forgotten. In this sense he was indeed the last of the ‘Conservatives’.

The Liberal-Parliamentary order is not the ‘end of history’ but merely the most successful method of organising society yet developed. But we need to clarify some terms. First big L ‘Liberal’ in my usage does not mean the sick modern small l liberalism of left wing Marxists and chattering media elites with their empty headed politically correct rhetoric and matchless support of corrupt political friends. ‘Liberal’ in my vocabulary references the orthodox Enlightenment based Liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries – small government, low taxation, a strong military, a society keen on progress, innovation and self-reliance. In essence these ideals are branded in today’s parlance by the term ‘Conservative’ used as a pejorative by the weak-minded and power hungry. I in no way support the modern welfare or mommy-state as espoused by small l liberalism or the legal-gay-feminist axis that runs roughshod in today’s politics. Neither would or did Churchill.

Second I use ‘parliamentary order’ on purpose. I am not a big fan of ‘mass democracy’ which in my view leads to mob rule, socialist pandering to buy votes and widespread ignorance. Representative parliamentary and republican processes and institutions are necessary for society to develop. ‘Parliamentary order’ references legal, political, and systemic processes that allow a society to progress morally, spiritually, legally, economically and militarily. When politicians blather about mass democracy I have the suspicion that few know what they are talking about and that even fewer understand that it is systemic processes [as opposed to an all knowing liberal elite, educated at Ivy League schools reshaping society in their vanity], and institutions which are far surer guides to progress, then vacant rhetoric about mass democratic mob rule. In any event mass democracy has led not only to the emasculation of systemic processes and virtues but also to the establishment of a massive system of welfare and vote-buying which breaks society apart into little groups that must be catered to and bought. Mass democracy leads in short to corruption and the curtailment of freedom.

In contradistinction to what we have today, orthodox Liberals or Conservatives in the common parlance believe that systemic processes, virtues and respect for individual rights and private property ownership trump socialist vote buying and pandering to ‘rights’ groups. Churchill was one of the great defenders of systemic Conservative human progress based on orthodox Liberal ideas. This creed is premised on millennia of experiences, millions of social, economic and moral transactions and the affirmation that collective results premised on freedom of information and the accumulation of literally billions of decisions, coupled with parliamentary institutions, are far better guides to enlightenment and progress than following the utopian dreams and dictums of a self-appointed and self-absorbed corrupted elite who desire to create the mommy-state to accrete power and control.

In the age of fascist Islam, moral equivalency, United Nations corruption and support of illiberal forces, and the sad moral relativity embedded in socialist governance, there is no guarantee that freedom will survive. Churchill embodied the best spirit and hopes of mankind precisely because he defended the Conservative order and view of the world. He expressed clearly and consistently over a 60 year career in politics the belief that systemic and parliamentary forces are the only methods to move society forward in the right direction. Such forces are of course the most reliable means of increasing wealth, justice and morality for all. Though an aristocrat Churchill understood that the Conservative vision – which is so at odds with the modern welfare liberalism and mommy-state creations we have today in the West – was the only path to ensure societal dynamism and freedom for the mass. He also understood that international institutions are limited and that fascism is not reduced by endless jawing and discussions, but only through war.

Many however disagree. Hollywood airheads, pop singers, social-reductionists, leftist’s, Marxists, academics, and defender’s of the Third World’s self induced malaise, these critics and more descry Conservatism, Western history and Enlightenment ideals as being little more than white racist tripe. Such groups hate a man like Churchill who was full of pomp, addicted to empire and war, too manly, and incomprehensibly ignorant in dealing with modern socio-political issues – or so such groups claim. These criticisms take aim at Churchill’s policies; the fact that he was a white Anglo; his aristocratic lineage; his fondness for military affairs to defend empire and civilisation; his penchant for self promotion; his [admittedly] indefensible objection to India’s self-rule; and the politician’s flair for changing goals and objectives in order to succour election. Most of these critics contend that history is shaped by dialectical forces that overwhelm weak human leadership and initiative and in that regard Churchill was not brilliant but only lucky. They maintain that Churchill only rode the ‘tide’ of events and that any thinking politician did or would have done the same. One can analyse these criticisms and perhaps give them fair play but in general they are pathetic, insipid and largely worthless.

Freedom and liberty is a difficult concept to fully comprehend and defend – but they are not premised on ‘dialectical theories’ or luck. In the West it is simply taken for granted that freedom will flourish. There should be a debate however on how free people really are in the mommy-state creations of the 21rst century where tax, spend and programs of all sizes erupt yearly from self aggrandizing bureaucrats and officials. The more government power that we have, the less likely it is that prosperity will march on in a linear progression. The more mommy-state programs that are implemented the less reliable past systemic virtues, institutions and processes become. In the mommy-welfare state Conservative and systemic institutional ideals fade into irrelevance as history is rewritten and codes of conduct reshaped.

Though many people still live in poverty, filth, corrupt kleptocracies and desperation, to quote Churchill, ‘their liberation is sure.’ However, it will only be ‘sure’ if the current system of nation state and international governance does not mutate into anti-Western, anti-republican, or anti-parliamentary socialism and we defeat militant fascist pagan Islam in the Middle East and anywhere else it presents itself. These twin threats are very real. Many Western nations in the world that profess a faith in ‘orthodox liberalism’ are in reality top-down socialist constructs. Unsurprisingly most of these nations are also lax or non-participants in the war on terror against the fascistic elements of Islam preferring to free-ride off the Anglo-Saxon military. There is no evidence in history that socialism is a moral or successful construct yet it has sadly become the de-facto standard of political organisation.

In many countries socialist dogma has little in common with freedom, or what allowed the West to flourish and control history. For instance national defence, projectionable military force and pride in our collective Western greatness and historical dynamism have been jettisoned to establish immoral international or ‘post-modern’ groups, replete with unaccountable and expensive Orwellian programs and double-talk. We have replaced the philosophies of Churchill with the smirking incoherence of ‘mommy figures’ and immoral liars and centralists like Kofi Annan, Clinton and Chirac. The threat to Western freedom lies not only in fascist Islam, but in the oppressive socialism marked by post-modern welfare states, ‘managed’ trade, overbearing government, corrupt politicians and the imposition of the mommy-nanny state to turn individuals into narcissistic automatons and men into half female creatures unable to think and act like their forbears.

The values that Churchill stood for and defended, and in some sense allowed to survive and flourish, are under attack. Freedom is ephemeral and in mankind’s long journey only the late modern era has unshackled the average person’s life from tyranny. Socialism, government control, state managed trade, tariffs, regulations and unaccountable world bodies are as much of a threat to our prosperity – economic, moral, environmental and spiritual – as is pagan fascist Islamic fundamentalism. I hope we can all learn a lesson from one of mankind’s more interesting personalities and not take for granted what we have today and roll back the corrosive tides of socialist and fascistic tyranny. If we fail we deserve our fate. If we don’t understand history and realise that the fascist and illiberal ideas of the 1930s have indeed resurfaced in Islam and in small l liberalism than we truly are, as Churchill said about the human race, ‘un-teachable from infancy to the tomb.’ Unfortunately it may come to pass that Churchill was indeed the last of the Conservatives as the world falls prey to eco-fascist cults; post modern socialist silliness; and the onward march of militant pagan Islam.

C. Read
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/churchill-his-conservatism-and-freedom-699606.html