Translate

Friday 16 January 2015

Pope Francis:
''You Cannot Poke Fun at Someone's Faith''

''Pro Archia Poeta''

I respect where the Pope is coming from but the job of Satirists has always been to poke fun- at everything and anything where
the hypocrisy justifies satire.

I am not sure if the Pontiff studied Latin at school but if he did, and I assume he did, we were both reading very different textbooks [or hymn sheets.]
The personalities I studied, from about 100 B.C. had sex, drugs, wild music, wild parties, and of course, satire as key ingredients to their misplaced existences.
So in fact the characters I was reading about in Latin spent [as W.C. Fields, said about himself*] half of their money on alcohol, gambling and wild women, and the other half they wasted.
I'll leave out the sex, drugs and rock n' roll and just focus on the
'Charlie Hebdo' of that day:
One of my greatest influences from childhood was the work of
Marcus Tullius Cicero. His 'Pro Archia' I learnt off by heart – and memorized every page. I think in my textbook it was about 53 pages.
Licinius Archias was a poet and satirist who had 'insulted' Senators and famous individuals by 'ridiculing' them in his works.
In actual fact such was never the case so no charges of this nature could ever be brought against him. 
This was never done the Charlie Hebdo 'in your face' manner
but through flowing lines of beautiful poetry where the virtues and deeds of say, one general in battle, were obliquely contrasted with those less courageous or less virtuous (always by inference never by direct charge – but the educated could easily decipher (or indeed imagine) the coded 'messages' in the flowing lines of laudation and inferential scorn for those less worthy of praise.)

I think in this instance Wikipedia may be mistaken in just referring to Archias as 'a poet' - ''Pro Archia Poeta''.**
 He was much much more than an ordinary poet. He was a poet and a satirist and had 'politely' ridiculed many (by inference) in his poems. Unfortunately he made one powerful enemy too many. One such person it is believed he may have inadvertently (or deliberately) ridiculed was the very powerful Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.

Archias also had one particular influential supporter.  Marcus Tullius Cicero had been his pupil and remained a loyal friend throughout.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was the equivalent of a powerful political godfather and kingmaker having excelled as a warrior general and came from a very wealthy and noble family, well connected in Rome and in the Senate. His aspiration was ultimate power.   So he was someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth, proved himself in battle, used to getting his own way and not used to being insulted, especially by 'Barbarians' (Archias was not originally Roman but Greek) and decided to 'teach' Archias a lesson in 'respeto' and the meaning of power when exercised by one of 'the untouchables'.
It may well have been that the objective was, through this prosecution, to teach all 'Barbarians' (or non-Romans granted citizenship) to 'know their place' respect power, not to 'cross the line' and most important of all, never in your wildest dreams think of crossing Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus because he would not suffer fools nor satirists gladly and would, through this prosecution, send his own legal not so flowing 'message' to the educated, and to the poets and wannabe satirists.
There may also have been some jealously about the fact that Archias wrote such beautiful poetry about his patron (and sponsor, incidentally, for Roman citizenship) the Roman General Lucius Licinius Lucullus, and there was, in effect nobody of any worth to write such memorable lines about himself - [the great] Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
Pompey and Lucullus were also bitter rivals for power and influence in the Senate.
So there may well have been much more behind the case which
was 'engineered' against Archias – it has been suggested by experts and noted historical researchers.
That Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was using this trial of Archias to get at (and ultimately destroy) his arch rival for power and influence in the Senate - Lucius Licinius Lucullus - is very plausible.
There was, of course, a legal basis to bring charges against Archias.   It would have been to the ridicule and have caused eternal laughter amongst the Senators and Plebes for Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus to claim that a [Barbarian] poet had insulted him – it would also have been 'beneath his station'. The general public would have thought he had 'lost the plot' if he had directly accused Archias accordingly.
What was contrived were charges that Archias was not a Roman citizen and should therefore be expelled from Rome on these grounds.
The Lex Papia de Peregrinis (65 B.C.) gave authorities full powers to expel foreigners falsely claiming to have Roman citizenship.
[You might call it today a power to expel non-EU nationals and forcibly send them back home.]
The introduction of this law in itself, was, some noted historians and experts agree, yet another plot – this time against Caesar - who supported the claim of the Latin colonies north of the River Po.
[You need to appreciate that there were so many plots by Senators, Generals, aspirants for power and influence, and by their financial supporters (lobbyists) and backers, that it's a wonder any work ever got done in the Senate(!); does this remind you of somewhere more contemporary?]
Marcus Tullius Cicero was a lawyer, a poet, philosopher, a consul, a constitutionalist and a political theorist.
He is also considered one of Rome's greatest ever orators and prose writers.
Cicero had been a pupil of Licinius Archias so it was perhaps natural that he would be defending his former teacher against
the crime of non-citizenship.
In any event, Cicero's defense of Archias ('Pro Archia') was and still is today, regarded as one of the greatest pieces of prose oration ever produced by mankind and it has become
synonymous with mastery of 'style' – the equivalent of YSL,
Jean Paul Gaultier or Karl Lagerfeld in how to use words and
sentences with style, to convey powerful ideas, meanings and philosophies.
Interestingly, we do not know the outcome of Cicero's defense of his teacher but any educated Judge (or Senator) reading Cicero's defense, if not moved to tears from the beauty of the oration and evidence, would, I have no doubt, have dismissed the case against Archias as 'frivolous' so as not to end up 'on the wrong side of history' - as the one-time butchers of the now 'Lazarus' resurrected  Charlie Hebdo, most certainly have.


©Patrick Emek, 2015



Epilog:
Archias The Poet
So little has survived of Archias' works that we must piece it all together based both on the evidence available and what we can most likely infer.
Historians will argue that there is no evidence Archias was a satirist – and I cannot refute this based on the works which have survived to this day.
As evidence of his genius my basis is his onetime pupil, Cicero,
whom everyone agrees was a genius.  But where did Cicero first learn then build upon such masterful skills in poetry, satire and oration?   'Pro Archia' one could easily dismiss as a mere exercise in his own masterful skills – but I read something more than this.  Historically Archias was a poet, full stop.  My argument is that as a 'newcomer' he might only impart such contentious skills in his own complex use of speech to exceptionally talented acolytes – of which Cicero was one.

PE


 

“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.”


― W.C. Fields

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/678820-i-spent-half-my-money-on-gambling-alcohol-and-wild




**http://en.wiki2.org/wiki/Pro_Archia_Poeta

 







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey







Posted by at
''Can We Have All The Cryptography Keys Please?''

British Prime Minister David Cameron is widely reported to be in the United States, amongst other reasons, to request 100% intelligence sharing on issues of cryptography.
There is no doubt that secure communications are an invaluable tool in the hands of anyone.
Cryptography, is invaluable for, say, dissidents in North Korea to let the outside world know what is happening without being shot as spies.
I recall many years ago visiting a country within the sphere of influence of the former Soviet Union.
The computer connection for the outside world was never working at the hotel and likewise at all the other hotels.
Excuses were always made why it was 'OUT OF ORDER' – despite my polite requests to see if I could look at and possibly fix one of the computers – which offers were always politely declined.
I recall from history books when intelligence sharing was at a high level after World War II between the U.S. and Great Britain. Little did most Americans know that the British Secret Service (MI6) was riddled with Soviet spies and there was hardly anything the Soviet Union was unaware of as soon at it landed on a British desk anywhere in the world.
Today there is no reason not to think that there are many Edward Snowdens well placed within many countries who would relish the thought of compromising commercial intelligence to, say for example, China and Russia.
For the U.S. to order cryptography companies to cooperate with foreign intelligence services – or indeed for the NSA to share all it's keys with allies– would be sheer madness – and I have no doubt, from historical precedents, would be a death sentence for dissidents in many different parts of the world as details of their online activities became available to their governments.

The truth of the matter is that cryptography is more valuable as a business tool than it is for terrorists.
More countries (especially totalitarian) worldwide are privately more up in arms about their inabilities to read secure citizens and business communications than they ever were about terrorism.  Countries such as China and Russia are having to invest such vast resources simply into codebreaking where the algorithms have become so complex (quantum genetic algorithms and intelligent molecular genetic systems for example) to make their cracking very time consuming , very costly and way beyond the reach of small nations.

You recall how 9/11 was used by so many diverse U.S. government departments to 'snoop' on
everyone, worldwide?   'Fishing' expeditions and 'trawling' became the order of the day.
The effects of such are still being felt in terms of new legislation, worldwide, to this very day.
Some might even argue that a new financial system was evolving during the course of 2002-2006 which would have profound effects on world economies later on.
So too today this issue of secure communications is being used to open the floodgates to every type of intrusion of privacy.
My concern is more the fact that such information sharing by the NSA will most certainly result in this information yet again ending up in the hands of the very totalitarian regimes and business competitors – China and Russia - but even more serious is that dissidents living under such regimes will have absolutely nowhere to hide nor to communicate with the outside world as none will feel safe and secure online.

The U.S. government has 'betrayed' so many of it's allies recently (see my previous blog) is yet another betrayal just around the corner?
Very soon the U.S. will have not a single ally (or to be more precise, interest) it can trust as all will fear being 'sold out' or 'outed' 'at the drop of a hat'.



©Patrick Emek, 2015

Many countries are developing their own 'autonomous' and 'firewalled' internet and intranet systems completely shielded or configured with narrow ports of entry and exit. North Korea is one of such countries.  I have chosen it in this blog purely as an example of the dilemma which dissidents worldwide face.



https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/11283/CJRieserVTPhDEEDissertation101804.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Posted by at

Thursday 15 January 2015

Rendition

Some years ago, by sheer accident, I became aware that a number of sensitive operations were being conducted out of an international airport, somewhere in the world, on behalf of an unnamed U.S. government agency.
This was at a time when the project was unknown to the general public.
This project was with the full knowledge of the Intelligence Oversight Committee (SSCI) but with only limited 'need to know' availability of information given to senior politicians (including the Prime Minister) of the country through which the flights were routed in transit.
From information now publicly available, key players appear to have been engaged on a 'need to know' basis.

A number of very sensitive operations went through this international airport. I was only aware of 3 but there may have been more.  All were vital to the (then) security interests of the United States and another unnamed country.  Two were rendition stop overs, the third was completely unrelated but a component part of the War On Terrorism and involved yet another interloped country - again with the approval and full knowledge of certain elements the government of that country and the United States.  The government of that country, to this day, denies all knowledge for the latter and, when issues came to light, conducted it's own 'impartial' investigation, which found absolutely nothing of relevance.  For this component operation the full cooperation of trusted individuals was essential for it to succeed.  
 It has not been made public to this day the extent of involvement or knowledge of the U.S. government of this component operation but certainly it's success was/would have been/ extremely beneficial to the global fight against terrorism.
Whilst the operation, sadly, did not bring about peace in a particular part of the world, certainly the operation itself was an effort to ultimately bring about conditions which might have led to peace.   It is because the motives were just and the ideals of world peace is something, in my view, we should all always be striving towards in the democratic world, for these reasons there is little point in giving full details.
In any event, I kept no written record as I was not intending to use it for any particular purpose and had no responsibility to do so for any party nor employer.
Fortunately  the names of many individuals in allied countries involved in assisting the U.S. in the war on terrorism have not been released by Senate Oversight Reports which have examined  activities of government departments following on from 9/11.   To do so would deal a mortal blow to U.S. allies whose future cooperation may, even at this moment, be in doubt should another 9/11 (or crisis of similar or greater proportion) ever happen.    This is because most assumed that the details of the sensitive assistance given to the U.S. by friends (countries) and allies (countries) in the aftermath of 9/11 would never be made public - at least not for thirty or so years – giving everybody a chance to 'work out' their chosen careers and professions before the proverbial s**t hit the fan.
[In certain instances, however, enough details have been released to enable an astute researcher to put the pieces together.]
Some countries (and politicians) have been, to date, unluckier than others in this regard.
I am not sure whether Congressional Representatives really do appreciate (or even care) how much goodwill has been lost by unnecessarily revealing details of countries participating in assisting the United States in the War on Terrorism.
One can argue whether rendition of terrorism suspects was the right program (for my part, as one who has never worked for the U.S. government, I have always thought it was not) but to give location details of detention facilities worldwide and other even more sensitive information with regard to levels of participation and cooperation of governments will, in my opinion, negatively impact on future security cooperation in sensitive matters – especially if such countries are yet again being requested, at very short notice, to participate in another American 'project' at some stage in the future.   If I were a politician and U.S. ally, I would certainly think again before saying 'yes' to a friend who had 'outed' next to everyone involved within a few years of what were supposed to be secret operations.
I would go further and say that even Senior Staff of Government Departments would be reluctant to 'follow orders' if there is even the slightest chance that they will be prosecuted for either 'war crimes', 'revealing sensitive information', or some other spurious grounds to get politicians 'off the hook' for failed programs (failed, because those same politicians failed to provide the necessary levels of logistical support and even failed to provide moral support, leaving their protégé 'swinging in the wind' in order to save their own political careers or indeed to deflect from oversight and scrutiny their very own failures, as politicians, to take advice from those commanding in the field – resulting in debacles, setbacks and humiliation for serving officers.)
[There is also a certain hypocrisy whereas senior politicians reserve certain rights and privileges with regard to the release of classified information for their own personal memoirs and then the same ham-fist subordinates doing likewise in efforts to smother (or snuff out) conflicting opinions (historical viewpoints) as to why certain events did or did not succeed and their impact on the course world history.]

Asking commanders to fight wars, then, subsequently, either because of political infighting resulting in paralysis or in the interests of political expediency, telling them it will have to be accomplished with one or both hands tied behind their backs might not be so easy for U.S. politicians to achieve in the future.  The best candidates for the (future) job may withdraw if they think that 'failure is not an option' policy might not be accompanied by sufficient resources to get the job done – or indeed if they are likely to be 'the patsy' anointed to conceal political incompetence.

While certainly there has to be accountability and public scrutiny of political decisions and their impacts on events and individuals worldwide in any democracy I fail to be persuaded that such should extend to the damaging of allied cooperation by revealing such detail as to render the War on Terrorism ineffectual – and then for those very same politicians [and media]] to say how ineffectual the War on Terrorism actually was (!)

If politicians are going to routinely scapegoat their field commanders (as historically, Empires  always have) then, in an interconnected world such as the one we are in, they should not be surprised if such 'patsies' 'bite back' to defend their reputations from the (metaphorical) ' death of a thousand cuts' regardless of what gagging restrictions the politicians attempt to impose to save their own reputations (sic. their actions) from that same public (sic. electoral) scrutiny as they attempt to conceal their own shortcomings and halfhearted support for tasks they simply do (did) not have the stomach, the (political) courage, the (political) time nor can they stand 'the heat' to see controversial decisions they have 'Okayed' (or nodded) through to completion.

©Patrick Emek, 2015

Posted by at

Tuesday 13 January 2015

The Roots of Modern Islamic Extremism In Europe:
The Roubaix Gang

Some decade or so ago I attended briefings with (former) colleagues at U.S. Naval Headquarters in a major European city.
After one such briefing we were treated to a 'Buffalo Burger' reception. [Yep politically correct folks, Buffalo was on the menu -and it tasted great!]
Between munching on my burger and a beer I had the opportunity to chat with a Navy Commander (that evening soon to return to active duty.)
He asked my opinion of what should happen in Bosnia, now that the conflict was ending.
I said that the first priority must be to get rid of (sic. forcibly repatriate) Jihadi militants from Chechnya and elsewhere who had ensconced themselves with local communities (even inter-marrying and taking local names of missing or presumed dead citizens to attempt to avoid detection – this I had learnt from my own trip to Bosnia.)





To return to the U.S. Naval headquarters chat, we were both in agreement and I was hopeful that the politicians would equally share our sentiments.
This was not to be the case and the Jihadist fighters who had (and have) infiltrated Bosnia now use this as their hidden 'Al Qaeda' (base) for operations into Europe.

One of the problems was that they (Muslim Jihadi extremist fighters from Chechnya) had so well blended into local communities - being assisted by Bosnian Muslim politicians – that they were untraceable.   These same 'tactics' [see above] have been used in other parts of the world to 'blend in' to avoid detection.  Most simply 'disappear' into very 'tight-knit' supportive local communities.

These are individuals who have direct links back to extremists in Chechnya and other regions of the Caucuses.

As with most modern terrorist groups they seed-financed their organization with several major armed robberies - in this particular case along the French-Belgian border. They were already very well armed and seasoned fighters.   As most were European (Caucasian) in appearance there was nothing which would make them 'stand out' in a crowd.  This was to be their ace in evading capture – and almost blowing up the G7 Lille Conference.  Most were eventually either captured or killed but their leader, Lionel Dumont, a Muslim convert, successfully evaded capture and death by fleeing back through Bosnia.   He may have been offered the opportunity of a new life in the Caucuses – a reward for his 'services – but declined (this latter is speculation and should not be taken as actual fact) stayed in Bosnia, later fled to Japan and was eventually extradited back to France.

(Don't confuse the 'foot soldiers' such as those involved in the Charlie Hebdo and Kosher Store Market slaughters with their instigators and 'spiritual' motivators.)

The point I am making here is that modern Islamic terrorism in Europe can be directly traced back to our failure to understand exactly who these 'volunteer' Jihadist fighters in support of their 'Muslim' brothers actually were and what their hidden agendas for Bosnia and eventually the rest of Europe are at present.

Failures to dot the 'i's' and cross the 't's' are responsible for our current dilemmas.
Generations of Muslims who came to Europe (or as I refer to it, Christendom) were not radicalised.
This was a problem for extremists since there was nobody who could be 'trusted' so 'fear' became the key to their success.  Fortunately Imams from Saudi Arabia would provide this key ingredient.
As clerics they were above suspicion and could travel freely the length and breadth of the European continent, identifying potential recruits (initially other clerics) or individuals susceptible to radicalization and setting up 'support' networks (cells).  Part of the strategy involves fear – terrorizing Muslims to have as little as necessary contact with Christians because of their 'polluting' and 'degenerate' values.
Fear of fatwas (excommunication and death) are classic psyop tactics to instil order and obedience of the masses and such extremists have used them with remarkable effectiveness – operating 'below the radar' for decades simply because the traditional law and order forces have other priorities than questioning the motives of clerics and well-dressed bespoke, law-abiding polite individuals – which some of the most (effective) 'sleepers' are.

France's ghettoization of it's Muslim population and the denial of equal rights and opportunities for it's French Muslim youth together with the racism many will tell you they experience in every aspect of French life and society, a denial of their culture and existence in all aspects of French institutions, all adding to this radical 'recruitment drive' both in terms of alienation and being fertile grounds for extremist Islamic preachers - offering as they do an 'explanation' for Muslim 'suffering'  [in rather similar manners to the reasons for 'suffering' of the ordinary Germans which the National Socialist (Nazi) Party successfully exploited through their 'bible', Mein Kampf ; likewise the 'suffering' of all Muslims, worldwide, can be explained [solely] through radical Imams [exclusive and narrow] interpretation of the Hadith of the Koran.  If you have no hope, no future, no work and no perceived value in any society be it Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Hindu, or indeed Atheist declared countries, such 'call to prayers' and to 'have faith' can be very powerful motivators.

Most of the popular media consists of journalists who have little real 'experience' of war zones, terrorism and counterinsurgency tactics. Many simply 'piggy-back' their Muslim extremist stories with one feeding the other until you get a crescendo of anti-Muslim rhetoric (usually disguising racism and mirroring their own grievances.) The problem here is that the public are misled and deflected away from the source of the issues – a failure of the politicians (our Christian politicians) to solve problems; a failed policy in the Bosnia and a failure to get the Saudis to 'play ball' across a variety of world issues; And, of course, conflicts just on the periphery of Christendom (North Africa and The Levant) all of which are converging in chaos as we appear so hopelessly unable to solve any of these crises only increasing instabilities with every failed policy – and resulting in an exodus of terrified refugees from (mainly) Muslim lands – which only add to the problems.

When you ask yourself 'why?' - why does the West not put pressure on, say, the Saudis – who bear a heavy responsibility for much of the Muslim extremist sentiments in the world, not just in Europe, then you are on the path to understanding the problem. Only then, when you can answer these questions – and if the politicians listen - will it ever be possible to work out solutions to radical Islam.


©Patrick Emek, 2015

There are so many examples of the 'thinking ' in Saudi Arabia and it's negative
influence on the Muslim world , I will add just one current example of what is 
the normative of thought is amongst most Saudis:
(I have given less frivolous examples elsewhere but I chose this current one to emphasize
how extremist Islam is a world apart from Christendom and no amount of appeasement will ever satisfy such extremists.)

Saudi cleric condemns building of snowmen as the work of 'Satan' and the 'West':

 http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/offbeat/saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic/ar-AA84xyX?ocid=mailsignoutmd
Posted by at

Friday 9 January 2015

For Whom The Bell Tolls?
No, I'm not talking about my perennial topic of involvement in conflicts in Muslim lands but whether we should be dissuading EU citizens from going to fight abroad.
I am a child following on from the Spanish Civil War where Volunteer Brigades came to aid
the Republican cause from every corner of the planet.
As a child I knew someone who had fought in a Brigade in Spain during the Civil War.
By the time I was seven or eight he was already in his 60s, but still very proud of his involvement.
He certainly did not do it for money – as he was living just on the breadline – but was entirely motivated by his political ideals. It was, as he would say to us kids, his sacred duty to defend Spain from the Fascists.  Those pictures of himself and his comrades are now very vague in my mind and I cannot actually see their faces anymore. One had such black skin it almost shone out against the yellowing photograph as the light from the kerosene lamp in the room illuminated their profiles.  Sometimes when I see a film or read a book with photos from that era it all comes back to me and I am back in that room.
Most were young men, many in their thirties but some much older as I recall.
There were also women – so proud to be equally on the front line of a conflict where the ideals of liberty, justice, democracy and light were confronting a darkness soon to descend across the entire continent.   But at that time, they were oblivious to the greater evil soon to follow.
A civil war is exactly that - brother in arms against brother, sister fighting against sister, father against son and mother against daughter or son.   Nothing can be more terrible than a civil war.
A civil war tears at the very foundations of civil society fracturing it so badly that it can take hundreds of years for the wounds to finally heal. The butchery and carnage are almost incomprehensible.  The ideals – religion and politics – become morphed into something very ugly and very evil.
All wars dehumanize but in civil wars we find our true homes as creatures in the jungle of primitive life on a very primitive planet.

If our societies so sicken individuals that they are motivated to fight in combat against their brother countrymen (sic. as NATO, Coalition or EU deployed forces) then we need to understand why this is so.   Perhaps we already do.
There are no hero welcomes today for Volunteers returning home from wars abroad.  The Spanish Civil War was something quite different. The Brigades were sourced often through Socialist, Marxist, Trotskyist, Anarchist or Communist Party affiliates in many European countries and in The United States. These might be individual sympathizers or actual Party members of such organizations.  Some of those going off to fight were very highly educated men and women.   But all were passionate about what they believed in.
Even as we listened to a retired veteran tell us of his adventures from long ago I could still sense a pride in his voice as he recalled with tears his fallen comrades in arms.
It's difficult to explain to today's generation but at that time Socialism and Communism were regarded as the Nirvana for the downtrodden and impoverished.  Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were Gods sent from on high to break the bondage of servitude of the masses to corporate (Upper Class) exploitation. If only the masses could be educated, they would understand the salvation which Communism could deliver for the whole planet.  At least, that was what the masses were told.  The reality was of course something quite different but Uncle Joe's (Josef Stalin) party political propaganda machine was so captivating you could not but be impressed by the wonderful singing workers harvesting in the fields of the Ukraine, Russia's breadbasket, singing their joyous hearts out to be reaping the harvest for mother Russia.
[It was that same captivation, that same hero worship, those same atavistic fears which would equally mesmerize ordinary Germans to join the Nazi Party and set the course of Europe on a path to total annihilation and slaughter on an industrial scale.]

Those committed individuals felt that it was their destiny to be in Spain.  It was their equivalent of a Jihad - a Holy War against the forces of evil – capitalism and fascism. A Holy War which would usher in a new dawn where the Proletariat would finally take their rightful places at the Masters' Table instead of foraging like animals for the scraps he threw them after feasting.
At least that was what the nomenclatura taught the uneducated masses.   The reality was, of course, equally, something quite different.
Some did indeed come back to their local communities and to heroes welcomes.  Many others just returned with memories.   Some went out again to fight the Nazis domination of the continent of Europe.  Others were so disillusioned (or psychologically scarred or traumatized) by what they had done, seen and experienced during the Spanish Civil War that they had to be actively commandeered by Uncle Sam or by Winston Churchill to 'fight the good fight'. This is what they don't tell you in the history books.

We have thousands of individuals across the continent of Europe who are in despair at our governments policies of military interventions in Muslim lands.
I have always said that we are waging wars in such lands in manners not dissimilar to the Crusaders – playing one local ruler off against another, supporting our client Muslim allies against their enemies – creating (Crusader) fortresses (military bases) where none previously existed – to secure our interests.

If such individuals feel so strongly that they will take up arms against their brother citizens (and many Muslims in Europe would not call Christians their 'brothers') then perhaps we should think again as to whether we are doing the right thing in preventing these committed individuals from fulfilling their perceived destinies in defense of the ideals which they hold so dearly and sacredly to be prepared to die for the cause, even to place in peril their right to return home to Europe.

As a human being with a conscience and as someone who has experienced war first hand, I would attempt by all means possible to dissuade them from going as many are no different from those proud and idealistic (mainly, at least the ones in my community) young Republicans who went to Spain to fight the good fight (and many to die in a foreign land, in unmarked graves or just soil cover, far far from home) not possibly knowing (and how could they?) the true horrors of war – close up and personal, where you have to live with the nightmares of fallen comrades, the tortured, the butchered, the dismembered, the crippled, the disfigured, the grieving and those left alive but in eternal pain and anguish, wishing they too had been taken as death would have been a kinder gift than their living in an eternal hell.
Even if they were to tell me that this (the Middle East) is 'spiritually' where they want to die as they would feel more at home dying for a cause they believe in I would still attempt to dissuade.
I would not wish this nightmare of war on anyone hence I would attempt to dissuade 'Volunteers' to armed conflicts where the glory, the fighting and the dying are more to be linked with the duties of professional conscripted armies and professional mercenaries (or, in today's language, 'contractors') than causes for idealistic young volunteers.   But youth is often about idealism.

I would attempt to dissuade them – but at the end of the argument, I must respect their wishes.

What is to become of their future citizenship should they wish to return home is a matter for their individual countries.
Should they be injured in battle against Coalition or NATO or EU Allied Forces I would be as reluctant to see their health care or other needs met in European hospitals and institutions as I would to see Nazi, Gestapo and SS troops health care needs met in the United States or Britain either during or after the Second World War.   This view of the majority they should be in no doubt about.  (I do of course preclude those individuals who could have a potential intelligence value - and indeed, there are historical precedents such as 'Operation Paperclip' providing as it did an exit for former Nazis after World War II.)
Likewise should they destroy their passports and later recant, then it's at the discretion of individual countries as to how to deal with such matters.

Rather than locking these highly motivated idealistic and spiritually committed individuals away from society (to be out of sight and hence out of mind) and assuming we have no intention of negating responsibilities to our Muslim allies in the Middle East in the foreseeable future, we need to find an answer other than one of alienation and ghettoization for our Muslim brothers and sisters in Europe.

I would strongly disagree with their ideals but would be prepared to defend their right to express dissent from the status quo - using whatever means they can – and within the laws of Christendom.
We need to make extremists aware that we too are equally prepared to stand up and be counted to defend the ideals of free speech and democracy to the same extent as they are prepared to die in order to bring about their own intolerant tyrannies.


© Patrick Emek, 2015

Operation Paperclip and Stalin's 'Trophy' Brigades:
We live in a dysfunctionally hypocritical world where the so-called socialists and neo-liberals
will condemn the U.S. for offering sanctuary to former Nazi scientists and intelligence personnel
whilst approving or turning a blind eye to the Soviet Union's pillage of the looted treasures of the Third Reich.  Be under no doubt, the Soviet Union was just as eager to get it's hands on German rocket scientists as were the Americans - but 'slave' labor in Russia would have been very different from the freedom, the wealth and personal anonymity offered by the United States to former (and recanting) Nazi party members.
In the absence of the likes of 'visionary' politicians (such as J.F.K) and efficient technocrats to carry out their unreal expectations - such as Wernher von Braun - the U.S. Government's  Space Program has virtually collapsed - or at the very least, in my opinion, has absolutely no idea where it is going beyond the Moon and Earth's orbit.
We may get to Mars (and beyond) someday, but probably after China and India - and good luck to them if they have the clarity of vision and the political will to succeed.


*idea for the title of this blog is taken from the book of the same name:







Posted by at

Wednesday 7 January 2015

9/11
 at 
Charlie Hebdo

Ritual Slaughter-Buffet Style


In brief, how the major U.S. and UK media reacted to the Butchers of Paris this evening:

7.16 PM EST

Voice of America
Voice of America probably gave the most comprehensive coverage reflecting the views of the majority of Parisiens, secular and non-secular French citizens and civic democratic society across Christendom this evening.



Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Gives decent and fair coverage to the sentiments of most people across the continent of Europe this evening.




Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
For PBS, as usual, it was a 'non-event'.
As with CNN, after several years, when everything is politically correct, they will do a hard-hitting expose about radical Islam it's links to Saudi Arabia and ties to CAIR (already declared a terrorist organization) within the United States.
PBS is such a tame network these days, quite frankly, I really don't know anyone watching it.
As the caption says at it's Press Site, PBS exists 'to make your life easier' (sic. by not including anything currently controversial.)
If PBS continues on this path I can't see it with any audience in the future.



Christian Science Monitor
Christian Science Monitor seemed more keen to turn the Butchers of Paris into Quiz celebrities than might have been expected for a serious publication:
In my opinion, this has lost them considerable credibility as anything other than an out-of-touch publication offering nothing more to it's readers than  'vestige d'une gloire disparue'.



CNBC (at 7.16 PM EST)
CNBC fared just above Al Jazeera, Fox,the BBC and CNN Fox in it's coverage giving voice to the sentiment of Parisiens and the general populace, ranking as number five in their newsworthy items for coverage.



Al Jazeera ( or Salafism With a Human Face)
Salafist-Wahhabist apologists and supporter Al Jazeera took the opportunity to showcase the known  Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which in it's turn spent more time discussing why Christians should not react (or, to be more precise, how the actions of the Butchers of Paris will play into the hands of anti-Muslim groups across Europe) instead of condemning outright this act of slaughter by one of it's fellow-Salafist-Wahhabist Muslim terrorist traveler supporter groups, the Butchers of Paris.   CAIR has already been cited  by the FBI as a 'terrorist-linked organization' and, for these reasons, they have ceased all cooperation with this group.  The FBI conducted it's own investigation of CAIR so this is not my view but one coming direct from the Bureau.

SKY News
Sky hauls in it's Muslim Salafist 'expert' apologist to say that Charlie Hebdo was regarded as a 'highly racist' magazine - and that's a direct quote from Nabila Hamdani on Sky television this evening.
So, from the general public's interpretation of Ms Hamdani's viewpoint: 'they had it coming'.

Fox News
Even the fearless Fox News sits on the fence not wanting to offend Muslim sentiments.
It's easier for  Fox  to just continue to snipe from the sidelines about their 'bash Obama' obsession than tackle any real issues in the world where their own scrawny (cowardly) necks would be on the line and in the firing line.
addendum:
Fox eventually came out with an 'analysis' which was so outrageous and insulting to Parisiens that it beggars belief.


The BBC
The BBC likewise brings on Salafist apologists  to explain to  a justification for censorship on cartoons about Mohammed.


CNN
Last but not least.
As mentioned earlier, CNN spends a lot of time explaining why individuals should not publish cartoons about Mohammed because, as usual with this politically correct channel, anything less will offend corporate opportunities for business - especially in the Muslim world . Don't hold your hopes out folks for anything other than continued banality from this channel.



Islam has never had a Martin Luther so it's not possible to find any Muslim to support the concept of free speech as we understand it in the United States and Europe - this includes freedom to criticize and caricature anyone and anything regardless of race, religion, color, ethnicity or tribe.
It is for this reason that I have not included any individual Muslim opinions supporting Charlie Hebdo's right to criticize as it see's fit under and within the laws of Europe and Christendom - as such would most certainly place them in conflict with an intolerant faith - which expressly forbids them individual freedom of expression and civil rights as we understand them.

If you can recall the power of the Catholic Church before Martin Luther and The (Protestant) Reformation, then you can understand Islam today.   This is due, in no small part, to our  faithful and loyal friends, those stalwart bearers of women's rights, democracy, freedom of expression, of religion and of one person one vote,  the Saudis.  And with friends like these folks, who needs Al Qaeda or ISIL as enemies?


Patrick Emek



Update
United Kingdom Press Report:
One of the  Police Officers murdered  after being wounded on the Street by the Butchers of Paris, without mercy, was Muslim.  The two murdered  Officers at the scene of the carnage have been named as Cycle Patrol Officer Ahmed Merabet and Protection Officer Franck Brinsolaro.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901681/Hero-police-officer-executed-street-married-42-year-old-Muslim-assigned-patrol-Paris-neighbourhood-Charlie-Hebdo-offices-located.html

The Officer gunned down at 8 a.m. the next day whilst attending a routine traffic accident  was a rookie whose name was Clarissa Jean-Philippe.
You can read about her at:
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901670/Gunman-arrested-Paris-police-officers-seriously-wounded.html

and just in case you view or read Mr Rupert Murdoch's world empire of media resources, you may well have also missed this further detail: 

''Heroic Muslim man saved Jewish hostages during Paris siege by hiding them in freezer'' 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/heroic-muslim-man-saved-jewish-hostages-during-paris-siege-by-hiding-them-in-chiller-9970051.html

 

Epilog [20th January, 2014]
PBS has come in for a lot of criticism for it's very weak coverage of this incident.
There is some hope that it will revise it's policies so as to be more reflective of it's stated philosophy
of freedom of expression and factual representation rather than being a cloned version of CNN: 
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/blogs/ombudsman/2015/01/14/those-cartoons-to-publish-is-one-issue-to-explain-is-another/ 

 

 

        http://www.charliehebdo.fr/

 

website details updated at 5th February, 2015

Posted by at

JE SUIS CHARLIE

 

http://www.charliehebdo.fr/

 

Website details updated at 5th February, 2015

Posted by at

Saturday 3 January 2015

'No Sex Please! - We're Anglo-Saxon!'
You can't help but notice in the Anglo-Saxon media world the number of 'sex claims' against prominent individuals.
I am not talking about under-age sex but claims by adults who were adults at the time that the alleged offences took place and should, by all accounts, have known better.
(The normal response in my time was a severe slap across the face or even worse, kick in the groin, by the offended adult which usually removed any (unwanted!) hand from any female private area – and at the speed of light!)
I am now talking about ditched girlfriends, former wives, embittered semi-geriatric ex-lovers, 'privately maintained women' or acquaintances or ex-employees now accusing prominent individuals of 'molesting' them when they were 18+ years old – or bottom pinching them as adults (when they were above the age of consent) thirty or forty or even fifty years ago.

I have to invoke my own (lapsed) profession now and say that, from a psychiatric and psychological viewpoint, it would appear that the availability of mass media instant personal communications have produced a new type of sociopath which my (latent ) profession has not yet been prepared (or simply is not courageous enough) to acknowledge.

The Embittered Sociopath with Obsessive-Compulsive Neurotic Dysfunctionalities

Without revealing my own background and training, I have, by accident, met and listened in public forums to some of the stories of these individuals and am of the opinion (I cannot say 'professional' because I am not a practicing psychologist nor practicing psychiatrist) drawing on my studies and training, that such individuals have indeed suffered.  Their 'suffering' however clearly appears to be the results of failed relationships, unfulfilled ambitions, and broken or embittered dreams rather than any culpability on the part of the individual being accused of 'molesting' or 'assaulting' them whilst they were clearly in a consensual (and sometimes clearly and evidentially, financially beneficial) relationship 30 or 40 years ago.
It also appears to be the result of resentments - 'Die Hard' and 'Death Wish' - revenge checklists bubbling underground, like dormant volcanoes, for decades.
So if you want to call this psychological trauma, then clearly they have suffered.
Perhaps they have been quietly 'stalking' their former partner for decades, watched him (it's usually him) raise a happy loving family and have waited in time, in the darkness, for their revenge, before expiry.

False Claim Syndromes The Role of The Internet and Social Media
The internet, social media and perceived changes in societal values have now provided the mediums for such grievances to be exploited.
The fascinating thing about Witch Hunts is that every opportunistic character can 'get in on the act' - from charities seeking a new funding frontier, to politicians seeking a new 'fear' with which to swing votes in their favor, to those with more sinister objectives – such as the dismantlement of credibility in the institutions of the State (part of insurgency strategy which political and religious extremists use to undermine society) all jump on board for the ride. The rest of the horrified general public just cower back in terror.   And it can be a very lucrative ride – the charity gets enormous publicity 'taking down' prominent individuals (and, as an intended consequence, it's coffers swell), the politicians are overwhelmingly re-elected with the promise to keep civil society 'safe and secure', extremists are very happy because credibility in institutions of the State have been grievously undermined.
Under Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. the embittered individuals have had their former lovers or acquaintances or 'sugar daddy' publicly humiliated -and have even been rewarded financially 'for psychological damage'.  So it's a win-win situation for everyone – no proof required just enough individuals to jump on the band waggon to ensure the public can 'see' that, there can't be smoke without fire.   Right?   Right?   Right?
It does not matter that no proof of alleged offences taking place 30 or 40 or 50 years ago has been produced.  When you have Witch hunts no proof is required - only public confessions, and recantations of sorrow (such recantations used to be elicited by the Inquisition Friars with last-minute pleas to the condemned that, at the very least, they should attempt to save their immortal souls from eternal damnation with a public acknowledgement of heresy, witchcraft and wrongdoing.)   Today such are elicited by lawyers acting for the 'victims'.    That this all take place in a public arena before the public 'burning at the stake' – which today is the feeding of the accused as 'dinner' to the 'starving' mass media wolves, bereft as they are of anything worthwhile to gossip about since the departure of Rupert Murdoch.
[Some even (privately) suggest a relationship between the ignominious departure of Mr Murdoch from the United Kingdom, the conviction and jailing of his close associates, and the mass and velocity of the availability of material about sex scandal revelations implicating prominent individuals, to long-enquiring bodies.   Remember folks, you read it here first!]

 Prince Andrew - Britain's (One time) Most Eligible Bachelor
The embittered already, triumphantly, have Prince Andrew's 'head' 'in a bag', so to speak.

(Again allegations - but of a different nature than those being addressed above - and again strenuously denied by the Prince - with the usual 'no evidence required' by his accuser to fulfill today's criteria for 'guilt by association'.)
 I expect the next ones on their 'hit list' to be The Queen or The Duke of Edinburgh.
Already the demented and retarded claim that She is a lizard, has webbed feet and a tail and that both of Them are aliens - and I don't mean the ones coming in via Lampedusa (!)   You think that I'm joking?   Not in the least!    As Will Smith said in the film 'Independence Day' when the alien spacecraft hatch opened:   ''Welcome to [Planet] Earth!''


© Patrick Emek, 2015












'The Queen Is An Alien' – the 'evidence' so far:

He once claimed he's the Son of God and the world is run by alien lizards, but the story of David Icke's marriage breakdown is almost as weird By Natalie Clarke for MailOnline
Updated: 08:11, 9 January 2012 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2083287/David-Ickes-marriage-breakdown-He-claimed-hes-Son-God-world-run-alien-lizards-story-marriage-breakdown-weird.html#ixzz3NlS5Lh9p



and now back to the sane world(!):








Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive