JR'S Free Thought Pages
No Gods ~ No Masters
~ No Bullshit
|
JR'S Free Thought Pages |
|
Critical Thinkers, Anti-authoritarians, Sceptics, Iconoclasts, Contrarians, Dissidents and Radicals Seven Peas in a 21st Century Anti-Establishment Rationalist Pod By JR, December 2024
James Randi - Professional Skeptic and Debunker
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), arguably the greatest mathematician, philosopher and social critic of the late nineteenth and twentieth century was one of my earliest intellectual influences and continues to be as relevant today. Another huge influence is Noam Chomsky (b 1928 -) who I discovered in a Burnaby Bookstore in the early 1980s. The young man working at Burnaby Books was an SFU philosophy student and could not say enough about his hero. He directed me to a section with several of Chomsky’s books and I bought then all; I now have over 100 in my library. Noam Chomsky is a most remarkable man, not just for his incredible intellect but his adherence to strong moral principles. He’s the subject or author of well over 100 books and the world’s most celebrated linguist and relentless critic of US imperialism and its endless wars that began with the anti-communist hysteria and barbarism of the Vietnam War in which the US slaughtered 5 million innocent people. Chomsky, greatly inspired by Russell, was professor at MIT for many years and in his cluttered office crammed with books he had a huge photo on the wall of his hero Bertrand Russell. There are many talks by Noam on you tube and one of the best web sites of his writings is: https://chomsky.info/. People fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth – more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid - Bertrand Russell Capitalists, militarists and ecclesiastics co-operate in education because all depend for their power on the prevalence of emotionalism and the rarity of critical judgement - Bertrand Russell If you think your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather than by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called “education - Bertrand Russell The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts - Bertrand Russell from“The Triumph of Stupidity,” 1933 [1] Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a natural critic, skeptic, radical and counterculture contrarian with an insatiable curiosity from a very young age. These traits never diminished throughout his very long life of 98 years. He believed from his teenage years that most people don’t like to think and often fear those who are intellectually superior, challenge the mystical paranormal “truths” of Christianity and held radical left wing and anti-authoritarian ideas that conflicted with the current religious and secular dogmas. This included unethical authoritarian political ideologies such as capitalism’s mystical “invisible hand of the market” monopoly of corporate capitalism and the inane bedtime story superstitious dogmas of religion. After all, challenging current orthodoxies can be stressful, but potentially threatening to life and limb. Moreover, thinking is hard work that can be infuriating, frustrating and tiring. Along this thread, another of Russell’s many great quotes is, “Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do.” Mush of the aversion to critical and original thinking is fear of condemnation and ostracism from the indoctrinated credulous compliant majority. Russell rightly noted that those who think critically and have independent minds are detested by those with power that include religious and other authoritarians such as business managers and bosses because they invariably ask the “why” question, causing what he called “administrative difficulties” when they challenge the conformities of corporate policy that demand unquestioning docility and obedience. This ought to surprise no one given the hierarchical oppressive nature of corporations and even small businesses. Of course most of us have an aversion to thinking for themselves because of conformity, laziness, ignorance, intellectual sloth, lack of curiosity and a host of other reasons. Fear has not only been a mechanism of control by those in authority as the great anarchist philosophers have rightly claimed, in addition to the truism that power invariably corrupts. People reject thinking logically and critically not just because it is difficult but because they worry it will undermine their comforts, habits, religious faith, routines and especially refutations of their comforting beliefs. This is especially true of most Christians I have known. Bertrand Russell in an essay written in 1934 remarked about the great Thomas Paine, “He had faults, like other men; but it was for his virtues that he was hated and successfully calumniated”. Along with Bertrand Russell there’s the incredible Noam Chomsky who as mentioned earlier was a big fan of Russell, confirmed by the large photo of Bert in his MIT office. On cannot neglect the late Carl Sagan, another one of my many intellectual influences, having read several of his books and thoroughly enjoyed his amazing “Cosmos” series on television now over forty years ago. If I had to recommend one book by Sagan it would be The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Carl Sagan predicted the horrific environmental mess and unavoidable catastrophes we’re facing today, including the neo-fascist political and economic dysfunction, declining behaviour, intellects and free fall in IQs. Several decades ago Sagan was predicting the catastrophic existential environmental threats such as ecosystem collapse, human overpopulation, widespread species extinction such as all wildlife and even insects – threats that will only worsen as nothing is done by our capitalist masters who only value greed, accumulation, power and profit. The semi-intelligent apes called humans of course that have overpopulated (2 billion a century ago but a bloated untenable 8 billion and counting today) and desecrated the planet that resembles a gargantuan trash heap thanks to homo saps that will eventually be on that lengthy extinction list. Carl Sagan Predicted The Mess 2021 Would Be 25 years Ago - YouTube Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate change; did they take him seriously? Of course not! Profit overrides everything, including all life on earth. Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate change - YouTube Below is a link to Carl’s final interview with Charlie Rose as he was dealing with the cancer that would eventually kill him at the age of 62. Carl Sagan's last interview with Charlie Rose (Full Interview) - YouTube From my personal experience in the workplace and other hierarchical environments, I can relate to this seemingly paradoxical remark. If you are someone who speaks out against injustice, there will be people who will hate you for it. After all, those “yes men”, “lickspittles”, “boot lickers” and “moles” that are looking for advancement and promotion will invariably side with management (or whoever holds power) regardless of the ethical issue involved. Those who are skeptical critical thinkers and do their best to live by moral principles, comfort the afflicted and inflict the comfortable, challenge illegitimate authority, question policy such as violence and war, unreasonable demands and are generally non-compliant are typically put on a pathology list (the infamous “shit list”). This odious pervasive stigmatization has reached the level of absurdity today as many precocious recalcitrant school children are being diagnosed with ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder) and recommended for prescription drugs such as Ritalin and Adderal, turning them into docile zombies – like the dumb and dumber cell phones (called “smart” phones) their irresponsible equally distracted parents buy them. I’ve had ODD all my life and am thankful for it despite the many times I was sent to the principal’s office for the standard 10 on each hand with a razor strap. Often asking the wrong question in class like I frequently did would get you ushered to the infamous principal’s office. One of these occasions occurred in the mid to late 1950s when in grade six I questioned the boring daily bible readings and another was in grade four or five when several of us were sent to the office for throwing snowballs. This latter crime violated one of the many inane school rules. One of us in the group was the school bully who we all feared. When it was his turn for the 10 on each hand he began to cry after the third or fourth strike of the strap. Once that news got out, it was the end of his bullying career – at least in the Connaught Elementary School in our working class 1950s Northern British Columbia town of Prince George, the deluded people of whom still vote conservative far right wing - against their socio -economic interests. It wasn’t until 1972 when the progressive NDP (New Democratic Party - formerly CCF) government of Premier Dave Barrett was elected in BC, overturning the corrupt crony capitalist far right wing Social Credit, a creepy 1952 mutation of the former Conservative Party in BC. Within a year after becoming Premier of the Province, the affable former social worker Dave Barrett banished from the public schools the barbarism of the strap and corporal punishment in general. I don’t know what was worse, the strap or the mind numbing morning holy babble readings? But Barrett only lasted three years as day after day he was relentlessly crucified by the calcified conservative big business press no matter what he did. But he was able to implement many reforms to the existing draconian policies in education and other aspects of the big business dominated province that still functioned as though we were locked into the 19th century and in many cases the Dark Ages when religion ruled (and still does in areas of the USA. While common anxieties like fear of the unknown, fear of failure or previous episodes of trauma may play a role, I think the more likely explanation is more mundane. Not only is logic and critical thinking not taught in our schools, efforts to implement these programs have been blocked by the Christian Churches and even the Chambers of Commerce who don’t want workers who can think critically; rather the capitalist ownership classes prefer obedient docile workers who question nothing. On the other hand, there are young people who simply lack the means, motivation, encouragement, self-esteem or opportunity to think critically and have never had an inspiring teacher who could incorporate a program into the rigid curriculum of indoctrination and whitewash underwritten by the capitalist state. Moreover, each individual has a unique combination of genetic traits, motivation, socio-economic status, nutrition, family influences, quality education and the chance encounters with their societal environment that all influence the intellectual abilities and desire for critical thinking. But even with the highest ability and motivation, an individual might have a stifling daily life that limits the opportunity for thought. The great psychologist, radical thinker, anti-capitalist and cultural critic Erich Fromm defined radicalism not as a certain genre of doctrines or ideas but rather a dispositional way of thinking and intellectual standpoint that involved insatiable curiosity, skepticism and an evidence based scientific methodology. If your five senses including enhanced detection with technology and instrumentation cannot detect something it very likely does not exist. So much for hundreds of gods concocted from humans during our bumbling superstitious history of wild imagination. Not unlike Bertrand Russell he promoted the idea that everything needs to be doubted in varying degrees. Societal norms and inculcated ideologies and values that have been reduced to common sense, however defined, are not exempt. Of course conceptual clarity is crucial in any inquiry. For example in debates about the existence of gods, ghosts, goblins, angels and other supernatural entities need to be precisely defined or discussion is an exercise in futility. According to Fromm to be a radical is about the cultivation of an open curious mind but not a form of credulity to the point of your brains falling out. The radical confronts social, political and economic questions at a different order of abstraction and is able to zone in and out from the particulars of the present to see patterns that must be put into historical context and endlessly questioned at least by each generation of inquirers. Fromm explains that radical questioning is only possible “if one does not take the concepts of one’s own society or even of an entire historical period such as Western culture since the Renaissance for granted, and furthermore if one enlarges the scope of one’s awareness and penetrates into the unconscious aspects of one’s thinking.” This is a habit of thought and language that seems rude and impertinent to the non-radical. Radicals seek out root causes of any societal dysfunction whether psychological, political or any other morally unacceptable negative outcome such as drug addiction and homelessness which are unacceptable in any legitimate and genuine democratic society or community. For both the socialist and anarchist, homelessness for example would be a huge scandal in any society that considers itself just, fair and civilized. In confronting the socially-constructed nature of truth, radicals call attention to “the interaction between power and knowledge.” They see that our judgments about what is true are “not independent of the power relationships in which we are entangled within.” Rather, our knowledge, so-called, arises from the social context and its relationships of entrenched ideology and power structures of both the state and religious institutions. Merely to understand and undertake these logical strategies of skepticism, critical thinking and radicalism are threats to the status quo and a serious threat to those who hold power, a fact of which they are fully aware as the existence of police and military who protect their interests graphically demonstrate. To the conservative and other proponents of the hierarchical status quo, the radical appears to indulge in a negative disordered way of thinking, unable to accept the world as it is as though it has been ordained from some cosmic force. Radicals, the non-radical says, chase unattainable utopian goals and impose unattainable standards, often appealing to the mythic “human nature”, a highly malleable construct. As Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti observed, radicals are discontented people who are waking up and thereby deemed a threat to the prevailing society, particularly those at the apex of the socio-economic pyramid. It is patently obvious for anyone paying attention that the notion of the nation state did not originate from a debate leading to social agreement, or with any disinterested view of promoting democratic order, fairness, justice and economic equality No, the state arose from conquest and confiscation and subsequently as a mechanism for maintaining the stratification of society permanently into at least two classes, a small minority owner and exploitive propertied class and a generally huge dependent exploited class without property. In the latter class, critical thinking is deemed superfluous and a threat to the elite ownership class. The curriculum of our education systems has been shaped by the needs of those in power, by the need to reproduce predictability, uniformity and passive obedience in future workers. This is achieved by indoctrination, whitewashed history and a didactic teaching format. Anarchism, which can be minimally defined as skepticism of and questioning of all power sources, has arisen in large part to examine and revise the historical record, exposing the fundamental mistakes to which anti-authoritarian writer James C Scott argues in his books Two Cheers for Anarchism and Against the Grain. Anarchism is one of the longest standing political philosophies in the world. Before authoritarianism such as theocracies, monarchies and the undemocratic capitalist state and its governing bodies that were created to serve wealthy elites, anarchism was simply how humans organized their affairs. It is about much more than how to ‘run’ society—an inherently hierarchical formulation; it is about how to live, above all with one another. Anarchism rejects all power relationships and does not only is not merely to reject the immorality of the capitalist state and its autocracy, it is to reformulate all human relationship rejecting capitalist greed and exploitation and transforming society into one of egalitarianism, economic and social justice equality, respect, empathy, and real democracy entailing community, cooperation and sharing. It is to change the individual as much as it is to change society in which authoritarians such as monarchs and theocrats would no longer exist and police and military would be abolished in a society without class divisions. The linguist professor at MIT and self-described anarchist Noam Chomsky was a courageous critic of many aspects of the authoritarian nature of capitalist culture including the vile war mongering imperialism of his own country that was at a fever pitch during the brutality and barbarism of the Vietnam War. Noam was also a vehement critic of education, rightly claiming that, rather than the system of indoctrination that it is, the most important goal ought to be “to inquire and create”, in addition to promoting independence of thought, critical thinking and most importantly, relentless curiosity. The great chemist and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov and brilliant Nobel Prize physicist Richard Feynman had similar philosophies of education. Noam Chomsky and both Asimov and Feynman have had a profound influence on my thought and outlook. Feynman who in addition to being a brilliant physicist, independent thinker and iconoclast, despised dogmatism and the politicization of science [2], had a wonderful sense of humour, an engaging eccentric personality and was an anti-authoritarian in addition to being a great teacher, wrote, “I prefer questions that can’t be answered to answers that can’t be questioned” and “Never confuse education with intelligence, you can have a PhD and still be an idiot”. Do you think any of these three men suffered from boredom or melancholy? If a person maintains a vibrant curiosity and dedicated pursuit of enlightenment, knowledge and a demand for truth, boredom will never be an issue. Sadly most people, thanks to the dogmas of religion and ideology of capitalist culture, prefer comforting puerile palliatives rather than knowledge and truth. George Carlin, an autodidact who left school in grade nine because it wasn’t sufficiently challenging, rightly argued that the purpose of education is to churn out not sceptics and critical thinkers, but mindless consumers and “obedient docile workers”. But the terminally bored can always take the advice of Albert Camus: there is always the option of suicide. A proper system of education would encourage just this approach to social reality and its institutions, so it seems incumbent on us to see whether the current education system does. Radicals also tend to follow Pierre Joseph Proudhon (the first self-proclaimed anarchist who asserted that “all property is theft”) and William Godwin in seeing culture and education as “far above economic and political action” in their importance to lasting social change. Because radicals, by definition, seek out the root causes of the social phenomena we observe, it is not surprising that they should interrogate current systems of education and their implicit philosophies. We cannot hope to address deeply entrenched social and economic problems without first acknowledging their psychological and cultural bases. The great anarchist writer Colin Ward followed Godwin in understanding the centrality of education, formal and otherwise, in the socialization of children to accept the undemocratic, hierarchical societies in which they’re forced to live and assimilate the values and justifications of our esteemed capitalist ruling elites. This is what is typically implied by “common sense, an example being the myths of the efficient market and self-made man.. It is difficult to imagine the survival of such societies without these devious efforts that include the corporate controlled mass media and a professionally run government education apparatus that forces children into an oppressive, stultifying and regimented environment from the time they are 5 years old to when they’ve reached legal adulthood. Discussing his total opposition “to the views of the teaching profession,” Ward and other critics of the institutions of indoctrination such as John Taylor Gatto and the 1970s rock group Pink Floyd (Another Brick in the Wall) recommend the education systems as they currently exist be abolished or at the very least radically reformed. Ward and other prominent anarchist radicals on the left observed that many in the education profession also seek democratization of education and more choices as opposed to the existing mass mind control. Some countries such as Finland for example have made progress toward such a more open ended environment with great success. Teachers in Finland are required to have post graduate degrees and have far more autonomy in the curriculums and in the classroom than other countries. Moreover, their outcomes are superior and they score much higher on international competitions in literacy, mathematics and science. But educators and everyone else in the 99% need to take their radical and revolutionary ideas further into the socio-economic realm for which we are facing multiple existential threats in the form of overpopulation, ecosystem collapse, contamination of air, water and soils, oceans circling the drain, global warming and climate extremes, extinction of all species except humans - but as the title of 1963 pop song said, “Our Day Will Come”. Then there is the systemic corruption within the capitalist classes, the bloated manipulated stock markets that includes insider trading (stock buybacks) financial predation and grotesque economic inequalities. One of the mystifying rituals on Wall Street occurs at the end of the trading day for the DJIA. Why is it that at the end of the trading day (most trades by the way are executed by algorithms) everyone stands around smiling and applauding regardless of whether or not the markets are up or down? Did they do this in 1929 and 2008 when the markets were in a chaotic state of total collapse? We are likely heading for oblivion not only from the current bloated markets hyped up on AI, another boom-bubble-bust-bailout debacle in the making, but I fear it is too late for the natural world as the warnings have been around at least since the 1970s. As many climate scientists warn, just prepare yourselves for the calamities to come. Nothing short of a global revolution will solve these multiple problems but with propaganda, indoctrination and self-inflicted ignorance so widespread it will not happen. When we are in the thrall of an illusion or perhaps when we have been convinced by some marketer, huckster or con man with not so honourable intentions, instead of searching for ways to prove the ideas false, we usually attempt to convince ourselves they are true are true. Psychologists and logicians refer to this propensity as confirmation bias, and it presents a major impediment to our ability to break free from the misinterpretation of randomness. This is merely one of hundreds of logical fallacies in which we the credulous are led astray from logic and common sense and lack of scepticism and critical inquiry. Our intuitions (thinking fast) are frequently leading us astray as is the case with the famous Monty Hall Problem which is relevant to the fascinating area of mathematics on conditional probability and Bayes Theorem. One might want to read the excellent book by Daniel Kahneman Thinking Fast and Slow and a good book on logical fallacies and the important distinction between heuristics and intuition and intellectual toil. Fallacies, formal and informal, are not new as philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon put it in 1620, “the human understanding, once it has adopted an opinion, collects any instances that confirm it, and though the contrary instances may be more numerous and more weighty, it either does not notice them or else rejects them, in order that this opinion will remain unshaken.” All logical fallacies are detrimental to our thinking about what is true or false but confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are perhaps the most common and detrimental to our thought processes and beliefs, having unfortunate consequences in the real world of rationality and scientific inquiry. Poor reasoning is common and widespread within politics, marketing, religion and most people throughout the world, formally educated or not. Rarely do most of us look for counter evidence to our preconceived beliefs. In science however, the potential for falsification is an important criterion for any theory which is always deemed conditional and open to revision or even rejection. But even with reason on our side and given ones understanding of how it works and why it is seriously flawed for most people who behave both irrationally and without moral oversight. Here is theoretical physicist Leonard Mlodinow from his excellent book The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules our Lives: Determinism in human affairs fails to meet the requirements for predictability alluded to by Laplace for several reasons. First, as far as we know, society is not governed by definite and fundamental laws in the way physics is. Instead, people’s behavior is not only unpredictable, but as Kahneman and Tversky repeatedly showed, also often irrational (in the sense that we act against our best interests). Second, even if we could uncover the laws of human affairs, as Quételet attempted to do, it is impossible to precisely know or control the circumstances of life. That is, like Lorenz, we cannot obtain the precise data necessary for making predictions. And third, human affairs are so complex that it is doubtful we could carry out the necessary calculations even if we understood the laws and possessed the data. As a result, determinism is a poor model for the human experience. Or as the Nobel laureate Max Born wrote, “Chance is a more fundamental conception than causality.” In the scientific study of random processes the drunkard’s walk is the archetype. In our lives it also provides an apt model, for like the granules of pollen floating in the Brownian fluid, we’re continually nudged in this direction and then that one by random events. As a result, although statistical regularities can be found in social data, the future of particular individuals is impossible to predict, and for our particular achievements, our jobs, our friends, our finances, we all owe more to chance than many people realize. On the following pages, I shall argue, furthermore, that in all except the simplest real-life endeavors unforeseeable or unpredictable forces cannot be avoided, and moreover those random forces and our reactions to them account for much of what constitutes our particular path in life. I will begin my argument by exploring an apparent contradiction to that idea: if the future is really chaotic and unpredictable, why, after events have occurred, does it often seem as if we should have been able to foresee them? As Albert Einstein put it, pure science and the quest for knowledge are arguably the most valuable activities we share since in a socio-economic world order based on selfishness we don’t share much of anything else. Science, skepticism, logic and critical thinking are valuable not because they guarantee absolute truths free of bias, error and deceit but because they are unique self-correcting methods for reducing bias, error and fraud in order to advance our understanding of the social and natural worlds and the universe. Among all the ways of knowing ever devised, only science strives to control our confirmation biases and other logical fallacies by demanding that not only scientists but that all inquirers and those making claims question their premises and expose their conclusions to the inspection of unsympathetic nonbelievers. The hallmark of science is the question: What is the evidence? Surely this ought to be the basis of any honest inquiry, scientific or otherwise. For a possible solution to our countless deadly predicaments created by randomness, chaos and science’s inability to predict most of what we all face, one might read Mlodinow’s book and especially the last chapter. Since the demented vulture capitalist ideology, its corruption and wanton disregard for the natural world combined with the failure of classical liberalism which has morphed into fascism, cannot help us, one might even consult the views of famous revolutionary Bolsheviks such as Vladimir Lenin or Leon Trotsky and particularly Trotsky’s concept of the “permanent revolution”. These two brilliant men, as most ought to know are the two charismatic leaders of the Russian Revolution that everyone needs to study, including the brutal Civil War that followed. At the onset of World War I Lenin wrote about the impact of the Great War to end all wars which provided a revolutionary opportunity for the overthrow of the corrupt and incompetent 300 year Romanoff monarchy and its brutal tyranny: The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the “lower classes” do not want to live in the old way and the “upper classes” cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realise that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses—hitherto apathetic—who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it. Radicalism and iconoclasm in education discussed earlier is distinguished by the fact that dedicated inquirer and contrarian notices features about compulsory education that most of their peers seem not to notice; namely that schools depend on the coercive containment and internment of the student’s body and mind. They are constrained, held in the school against their will and forced to accept standards and policies without question. Typically curiosity is not only discouraged but punished as happened to me in grade six when I questioned the boring bible readings every morning. This caused the teacher who I discovered later was a Christian fundamentalist to transform into a raging maniac. This was a public school but despite what I thought was an important why question that a minority of classmates also felt important. However, for the crime of curiosity I was summarily sent to the office and inflicted with the standard ten whacks on each hand with the strap, courtesy of the principal. In the early 1970s after 20 years of a far right wing neo-fascist government in British Columbia the New Democratic Party (NDP) under the progressive charismatic social democrat Dave Barrett implemented many much need reforms of the system of education in BC that included banning the barbarism of the strap. But it’s not just education systems that need to be reformed and reformatted to intellectual and political freedom, logic and critical thought. Whereas most students, at least in the elementary levels grade 1-8 would prefer to learn through being out in the world, involved in it and a part of solving its problems, the student is instead imprisoned and held away from the world, seated with fellow students in neat regimented rows. Our schools and the students that they so mercilessly incarcerate are not a part of our communities; rather they are arranged like military automatons in a display, inhibited both in body and mind. For many radicals (some like me seem to be born with this genetic predisposition) the first confrontation with control and authoritarianism is the compulsory government school (even more oppressive in most religious and other private institutions), and so naturally many become radicals within its walls quietly detesting it. “The fact that attendance is not a choice, not an autonomous act, means that it starts out fundamentally on the wrong foot as a compulsory institution, with all the alienation that this duress implies, especially as children grow older. The system is a factory system, whose monochromatic flattening of education (the anarchist Colin Ward’s idiom) is designed to produce a single compliant docile product to serve the immoral non-undemocratic prevailing capitalist system of greed and exploitation. So, uniformity of thought is the goal, which is why periods of war were the birthplace of so many of the compulsory public education system’s defining features. Most of you have likely read the book All Quiet on the Western Front and seen the marvelous 1930 movie. As was the case in the preparation for World War I in the aforementioned book, the first casualty is the truth. If you have not already done so, watch the great 1957 Stanley Kubrick’s anti-war movie Paths of Glory here, arguably Kirk Douglas’ greatest performance. To prepare young men for mutilation and death, the state must inculcate idiotic flag waving patriotism and dedication to god and country with acceptance of unquestioning authority as the product. The persons who values their freedom, is a radical skeptic and critical thinker who of course cannot accept such a totalitarian system even though he is powerless to challenge it. And even if he has been successful in the cruel competition of this vile system (currently vulture capitalism and its partner imperialism), he knows the only way he can flourish and not be poverty stricken in old age must be to some degree complicit with it. Years of focused propaganda, delivered during our most vulnerable and impressionable years, are required to produce the shared belief, the faith in authority, honesty and the benevolence of the money changers and profit driven capitalists in power. As the Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin wrote, “We have been carefully and expertly brainwashed thanks to a system of education deformed and vitiated by the State.” Destructive, abusive power exists first between our ears, as an automatic pattern of thought shaped by trauma. Thus do new social patterns require new patterns of thought, forged from the observed failures of the old, advanced by freethinkers, dissenters and those who challenge illegitimate sources of authority such as the state. A great number of us are radicals for the same reason Voltairine de Cleyre was an anarchist: we can’t help avoid it; we have to do something with our inquiring brains. I urge those concerned with our fraudulent dysfunctional democracies and authoritarian capitalist states to read all the great anarchist writers from Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman to contemporaries such as David Graeber and Noam Chomsky. You may want to check out the sections on anarchism and critical thinking on www.skeptic.ca. Notes: [1] From Mortals and Others: Bertrand Russell's American Essays, 1931-1935, v.2, p.28. Eminent mathematician, philosopher and public intellectual, Russell has been one of my primary intellectual and ethical influences ever since I discovered him as a high school student. Here is the essay from 1933 “The Triumph of Stupidity”:
What has been happening in Germany is a matter of the gravest portent for the
whole civilized world. Throughout the last hundred and fifty years, individual
Germans have done more to further civilization than the individuals of any other
country; during the latter half of this period, Germans, collectively, have been
equally effective in degrading civilization. At the present day the most
distinguished names in the world of learning are still German; the most degraded
and brutal government is also German. Of the individual Germans whose work has
caused Germany to be respected, some are in exile, some in hiding, and some have
disappeared, their fate unknown. Given a few years of Nazi rule, Germany will
sink to the level of a horde of Goths. Addendum: A Brief Explanation of Anarchism, the only real Philosophy of Freedom Anarchism emerged in the first half of the nineteenth century as a response to several related phenomena: the growth of industrial capitalism, the development of political economy as a separate and distinct discipline and the rise of mindless patriotism, silly nationalism, police and military to serve and protect wealthy power elites, exploitive imperialism and the modern authoritarian coercive nation state. And while the world is a very different place today, anarchism’s critique of centralized power remains relevant. Anarchism is a viable workable answer that, despite its provocative generally misconstrued and distorted label attributed to conservatives and liberals alike, does not in any way condone lawlessness or chaos, but at a free, fair society in which communities are allowed to develop their own bottom-up solutions to concrete problems by decentralized self government. Anarchism takes seriously the notion that if all people are equally free and equally entitled to dignity, autonomy and justice, then no individual, group or state has the right to impose upon or violate anyone. Anarchists have presented a wide variety of economic proposals and lived a vibrant medley of real-life social and economic experiments that guarantee consensual and communal self governance are surely possible rather than hierarchical, authoritarian and exploitative monopolistic oligarchies that we endure today and have endured for at least the past two millennia. As anarchism has matured, it has confronted ever more inequalities of authority, resisting stark economic disparity, class elitism, racism and sexism, among other sources of social domination. On a philosophical note, anarchists do accept any precise conception of human nature which is essentially malleable if it is meaningful at all. Any philosophy of freedom surely accepts a positive take on the beneficence of human nature in the sense that given the ideal conditions of autonomy, adherence to moral principles such as the golden rule, the state is redundant. Anarchists, given their world view are implying that that if the essence of human nature is positive, the state must be abolished. On the other hand if human nature is deemed evil, rapacious, selfish and exploitive, then the state, empowered with its monopoly on the use of force and legitimate violence, is even more dangerous than psychopaths and common criminals, the criminality of who is at least recognized for what it is. Anarchists have attempted to call attention to this paradox not as enemies of law, order and social cooperation, but as the omen of a more principled and complete order. Even as they are the friends of order, anarchists are the enemies of static coercive control, regimentation and social monoculture. Current political language especially from our corporate masters and lackey politicians talk a lot about the People but really doesn’t trust them to govern themselves, positing various bureaucrats, cops and intermediaries, all of whom of course have their own interests and desires. Our rulers maintain the pretense that they are governing for the good of all in order to continue their exploitation, greed, plunder and domination, aware that power of the conquerors lives first and ultimately in the minds of the conquered. When we change our minds about the state capitalist tyranny and head for the streets with pitchforks and pillories, their power comes to end. Notes for consideration: Don’t believe anything until it has been officially denied – Claude Cockburn People and the interests behind them seek to control information. They want to prevent certain information from reaching an audience and they’d like a certain narrative, even disinformation, to reach that audience. If knowledge is power (not a corrupting power, it is hoped), then it should not be controlled by the already powerful, it should be a liberating force to empower the masses. Don’t Be a Yes Man There are different types of contrarians depending on whether those who we are talking to are in agreement or disagreement. We are encouraged to be critical thinkers. We are taught to value leadership. However, there is a type of person called a Yes Man (or Yes Woman). This is a weak person who always supports whoever is in a position of power, rightly or wrongly. Yes Men are dangerous. There are plenty of bad laws on the books. One aphorism holds that laws are meant to be broken. This is too simplistic. But some bad laws should be broken and taken off the books. Don’t follow bad leaders or bad laws. Ritter is a contrarian to the fetid state. He has the courage to oppose censorship, bad thinking, and following bad laws. Knowledge, Power, and the Inalienable Right to Know Blessed Are the Whistleblowers against the Treachery of State and Corporation By Kim Petersen / June 25th, 2012 On the classroom wall is a poster with a jumbo-sized declaration: Knowledge is power. I juxtaposed a quotation from John Dalberg-Acton: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ((Letter to Mandell Creighton (5 April 1887), published in Historical Essays and Studies, by John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (1907), edited by John Neville Figgis and Reginald Vere Laurence, Appendix: 504. Available at The Online Library of Liberty.)) I always encourage the critical thinking of learners, so I posted the quotation without comment. While both of the aphorisms can be persuasive, they are superficial and do not capture the nuances that underlie knowledge and power. I differ with Dahlberg. People who desire power are already corrupted in that sense and the attainment of greater power more fully reveals the nature of their corruption. To desire power for oneself is morally questionable. After all, is this personal desire not selfish? Why not desire power to be shared equally among people? Knowledge can be a stepping stone to power, but it is not equivalent to power. Knowledge is important because it is a type of empowerment. People armed with facts and ability to apply sound reasoning are able to interpret and apply meaning to events. For example, what greater repository of knowledge is there than a computer? Despite a huge database of knowledge — HAL 9000 ((HAL 9000 was an artificial intelligence in Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey that seized control of the spacecraft Discovery One from its human crew.)) aside — does anyone consider the computer to wield power? In a school, the principal is the nominal “power,” but does that necessitate that such a person is more knowledgeable than other teaching staff? A more compelling example might be to look at the person who is often referred to as the most powerful person on the planet, the president of the United States. Yet, was George W. Bush ever lauded for his knowledge or acumen? (See Mary Jacoby, “The dunce,” Salon, 17 September 2004. A former professor remembers Bush vividly as a pathological liar without a moral compass. ) Knowledge does not necessarily imply power, and power does not imply knowledge. They are distinct concepts although they may reside in one person. The Danger of Knowledge? Renowned author Mary Shelley made what may be framed as an eloquent pitch for the “ignorance is bliss” crowd: Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow. ((Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, Ch 4. )) It seems Shelley has equated knowledge with power. The creature endowed with life by Dr. Frankenstein did indeed gain knowledge and impressively so, but the creature was always suffused with power in the form of phenomenal physical strength. The creature’s brawn allowed it to overpower its tormentors. What is power if not the means to effect desired action, behavior, and/or change through whatever avenues are at hand, one of which may be the application of knowledge. The ultimate power (i.e., abusive power) is to control knowledge and achieve preponderant strength to force one’s will upon others. Another case in point: it was not the scientists who created an atomic weapon that controlled the power achieved through application of their knowledge. It was the government agents and their string pullers who would decide when and where the Bomb would be used. Despite having written a letter to president Franklin D. Roosevelt urging research into the development of atomic weapons, Albert Einstein was, nevertheless, kept outside the loop of work on the Manhattan Project to develop the Bomb. Einstein later came to regret the outcome. ((See The Manhattan Project,“Einstein: Peace and War,” American Museum of Natural History. )) Einstein knew that knowledge, per se, is not dangerous. The danger arises when people possess a knowledge before they are sufficiently advanced to deal with that knowledge. After all, knowledge exists even when it is beyond the ken of the seeker. Coveting Power Is Anomie Not all thinkers covet knowledge. Daoists view learning as increasing knowledge daily, but their goal is otherwise: “In cultivating Tao we do reverse of knowledge: get less and less – oneness (throw away distinctions).” ((In Fung Yu-Lan, The Spirit of Chinese Philosophy (Ed Hughes, trans.) (London: Routledge & Keenan Paul, 1947): 72.)) Daoists seek the path to harmony and naturalness. Contrariwise, Muslims are devoted to knowledge and desire it for everyone. While in Jordan, I was surprised when the son of an Imam informed me that knowledge was much more highly esteemed by the prophet Muhammad than prayer. Apparently, an hour of study was worth more than years of prayer. ((The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “If anyone travels on a road in search of knowledge, God will cause him to travel on one of the roads of Paradise. The angels will lower their wings in their great pleasure with one who seeks knowledge. The inhabitants of the heavens and the Earth and (even) the fish in the deep waters will ask forgiveness for the learned man. The superiority of the learned over the devout is like that of the moon, on the night when it is full, over the rest of the stars. The learned are the heirs of the Prophets, and the Prophets leave (no monetary inheritance), they leave only knowledge, and he who takes it takes an abundant portion. – Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith 1631 (sunni) considered sahih.)) Possessing knowledge will not detract from the attainment of power, which is attained primarily through accumulation of wealth, through military conquest, and through manipulation of the masses, aided by media. These methods of attaining power are quite anti-social. Is accumulation of great wealth a laudable action? Given that the economic pie is finite at a given point in time, if one or a few persons consume inordinate slices of pie, leaving only crumbs for the masses, is that fair and moral? Is using violence to achieve ends moral? Manipulating the media message — adding erroneous information or depriving people of certain information — makes it difficult to arrive at what might be the proper conclusions. Furthermore, how does it speak to a society if it fosters inequality among citizens in terms of power, wealth, and privileges such as access to knowledge? Is such a society not already corrupted by virtue of its inequality? Does blaming the corruption of the system exculpate the society and the people within the society who abide by the system? Knowledge can lead to power, but it is too often subordinate to power. Power can control access to knowledge; this can be used to maintain or create an imbalance in knowledge – an inequality in knowledge. Is this not, after all, what secrets represent in a society: an inequality in knowledge, where some are privileged with knowledge and others are deprived of the knowledge? The Misuse of Power Power is also used to destroy knowledge. The unbridled use of power led to the destruction of the ancient Library of Alexandria, the ancient world’s largest repository of knowledge. It is contentious what form of power brought about the end of the great library. A military manoeuvre by Roman emperor Caesar caused a fire in Alexandria which is said to have destroyed many scrolls. Another popularized account has an edict by Roman emperor Theodosius I calling for the destruction of pagan edifices. The patriarch of Alexandria, Theophilus, knew that as long as the library’s “knowledge existed people would be less inclined to believe the bible so he set about destroying the pagan temples” in 391 CE. ((See James Hannam, “The Mysterious Fate of the Great Library of Alexandria,” Bede’s Library, 2003.)) Religious power has long sought to control knowledge. The Christian Church has opposed heliocentrism, geochronometry, and many clergy still oppose evolution. Evolution is a theory based on observable phenomena and testable hypotheses whereas creationism, as postulated by the Church, relies predominantly on faith. Religion does not just butt heads with science, it attacks disparate religious accounts. Thus Christians engaged in a disinformation campaign and historical revisionism to demonize the Muslim in Al-Andalus (the Iberian peninsula as it was known variously between 711 and 1492 CE) as the “diabolical Moor” and “treacherous, bloodthirsty Moor” despite Moors having rebuilt a decaying Europe. ((Described by Bethany Hughes on “When the Moors Ruled in Europe,” The Ancient World, 2004.)) All the archives of the Moorish palatial masterpiece in Granada, Spain – the Alhambra — were destroyed by the Inquisition. ((Described by Bethany Hughes on “When the Moors Ruled in Europe,” The Ancient World, 2004.)) Muslims are not pure by any account though, and in 2001 the Taliban obliterated the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan. Why? Mullah Omar explained, “I did not want to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamiyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings — the Afghans who are dying of hunger, but they are so concerned about non-living objects like the Buddha. This was extremely deplorable. That is why I ordered its destruction. Had they come for humanitarian work, I would have never ordered the Buddhas’ destruction.” ((Quoted in Gary Leupp, “Killing the Buddha in Pakistan’s Swat Valley: The Bad Karma of Imperialism,” Dissident Voice, 21 November 2007.)) Power is used to thwart open inquiry or inquiries will be set up to whitewash events. Disinformation is a sine qua non for warmongering elitists. Power is used to control the narrative; in war, the victor’s version will prevail. Power is used to prevent inquiry or questioning of state-sanctioned historical narratives. Thus one genocide out of several that have occurred in human history has been deemed incontestable. The Right to Know The current geopolitical context undoubtedly necessitates a certain level of secrecy. However, the goal should be to steer governments and corporations to greater, if not full, transparency. In a so-called representative democracy, can governments operate in secrecy from the citizenry and still claim to be representing constituents? When secrecy is the norm, how are people supposed to assess the political doings of the government and properly exercise their right to choose a representative without full knowledge of what is being done in their name? The Right to Know is severely under attack these days. The cases of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange attest to this. As described, power is used to conquer, and power can destroy. Whistleblowers threaten the control powerbrokers have in the world, especially for the US hyperpower which has a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech. Whistleblowers empower the masses by making knowledge available, something that scares powerbrokers who prefer to operate without scrutiny. War is a repugnant action undertaken by moral nihilists. Truth, as the axiom goes, is the first casualty of war which is shrouded in a fog of lies. If people know about the killing of civilians, the destruction of the environment, the deliberate targeting of economic infrastructure, it would hamper the support that the war criminals rely on to perpetrate violence. That is why whistleblowers have to be silenced. That is why Bradley Manning is shut away. That is why Julian Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, was under house arrest in Britain, why the Swedes want Britain to extradite him, and why the Americans will seek to have him extradited to the US for espionage. It is a risible charge given that the FBI,CIA, NSA, and several other US government agencies exist for the purpose of carrying out espionage. Some of the moves Assange made are open to criticism. He seemingly made his own bid for the power of celebrity. Assange, as it turns out, foolishly courted the monopoly media, which is – of course – controlled by the powerbrokers, the ones with a vested interest in filtering information. Assange is an intelligent man. Was he not familiar, as a journalist, with the Propaganda Model of Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky? ((Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon, 2002).)) Assange now reaps the blowback from the very media he disclosed major leaks to. Nonetheless, Assange deserves justice, and as long as he is not charged with any wrongdoing, he deserves his freedom the same as any other citizen. His organization Wikileaks also requires and deserves the freedom to continue informing the populace. Privacy and secrecy are two issues being inversely affected. Power holders like to cloak their decisions and actions in secrecy; however, while many citizens willingly divulge information in social media, others still wish to protect their personal information in a private sphere. Yet increasingly the common people are deprived of a right to privacy. Governments around the world have enacted PATRIOT Act-type legislation. The high-security surveillance state has come into existence. In the US, habeas corpus and the Posse Comitatus Act are weakened. In the age of Big Brother, people are routinely tracked by social security identifiers, DNA and fingerprint databases, tracking chips embedded in credit cards and products, etc. They are spied on in the streets, at the workplace, in schools, elevators, and who knows where else. Internet chat, emails, and cell phone conversations are stored and monitored. CCTVs are ubiquitous, as are cameras and cell phones. The fortunate upshot is that the very means that the governments uses to surveil citizens can also be turned back on the actions of the government and politicians. That is what Wikileaks has done. The Whistleblower Imperative The light needs to be shone, above all, on the power holders, and that is why the world needs whistle blowing organizations like Wikileaks and whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Daniel Ellsberg, Mordechai Vanunu, Gary Webb, Katharine Gun, Siebel Edmonds, and so many others. The very fact that people are whistle blowing is prima facie evidence that there is governmental/corporate wrongdoing afoot. Too often the “wrongdoing” takes the form of staggering crimes such as contrived casus belli, assassinations, wedding party massacres, torture, extraordinary renditions, mass incarcerations without charge, etc. If governments and corporations behaved as morally guided actors, then they would not need to fear whistleblowers. Consequently, governmental action to silence and/or eliminate whistle blowing points to malicious intentions and actions on the part of government and/or its organs. Open access, transparency is the right of all people in an egalitarian society. In a moral universe governments should not be feared, and they should not fear exposure. Whistle blowing is an act of courage, an act of high moral character, and an act for the betterment of society. It should be accorded utmost respect, and the whistleblowers should likewise be esteemed for their bravery, integrity, and sacrifice. One day, very soon, whistle blowing should be possible without fear of reprisal. People have the right and moral obligation to reveal the crimes of state and corporation. Freedom for Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Mordecai Vanunu, and all whistleblowers! On Being a Patriot By Kim Petersen / August 8th, 2024 Journalist and political analyst Caleb Maupin put out a video “Scott Ritter’s home raided by the FBI.” Maupin affirmed his solidarity with Ritter, a staunch opponent of US militaristic support for Ukraine and Israel. Ritter’s anti-imperialist stand is nothing new. He first came to wider attention with his opposition to US plans to attack Iraq for having weapons-of-mass-destruction. Ritter, the then United Nations weapons inspector, said that Iraq was “fundamentally disarmed.” History has proven Ritter correct. The US government was wrong. Nonetheless, many patriots often trot out the canard “my country, right or wrong.” Scott Ritter, a former US marine intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector, is a fierce critic of US militarism. Yet, he does not equivocate when it comes to his patriotism: “I’m an American Patriot who puts my country and its security first.” This fidelity called patriotism is universal. For example, it is one of the 12 goals of socialism in China. Generally, it is understood to mean “love of country.” Thus, the Chinese characters for love and country. Patriotism: “devotion to and vigorous support for one’s country.” To vigorously support one’s country? Right or wrong? And what exactly is a country? Is it specific to a geographically defined dimension? Country: “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.” This definition of country does not clarify precisely the orbit of patriotism. Is it government? It couldn’t be that because people, who consider themselves to be patriots, in countries with elections are often voting governments out. And one can often hear citizens venting displeasure with their government. Does this mean they are not patriots? Ritter, undeniably, does not hide his displeasure with government. Nation: “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” Well, the United States often describes itself as a melting pot: “a term that was used to describe Americanization in which immigrants adopt American culture and abandon culture from their home country.” So, US culture is the result of abandoned cultures? Previously, I asked why people like Scott Ritter and colonel Douglas Macgregor keep professing their love of the US while pointing out its dishonesty, bullying, war crimes, war making, corruption, etc. Why love such a country? Ritter points out the multitudinous crimes of US empire, the racism, the crimes against whistleblowers and publishers (e.g., Julian Assange), the crimes of US allies (e.g., Israel; it took him a while to realize the evil of Zionism, but credit to him that he rejected a previously held position that he later found to be intellectually and morally untenable), the unfair “trade” practices (e.g., sanctions, theft of another country’s assets), the deterioration of US infrastructure (e.g., water in Flint, MI), the destruction of the environment, the inequality, homelessness, poverty, etc. Yet, he always says he is an American patriot and that he loves his country. The logical disconnect seems huge, but it is also understandable. Why? If Ritter didn’t praise his American citizenship to the heavens, then he would likely be dismissed as anti-American, and people who swallow the patriotism Kool-aid would tune him out. A sad state of affairs. If Ritter, Macgregor, and other American voices that speak in opposition to the imperialist agenda did not profess their love of the US of America, an entity that came into existence because of a massive genocide, then they all know that they would be silenced. The world needs contrarian voices to be free to speak, and not just contrarian voices, all voices. People must have the opportunity to consider what the voices say. Are their facts verifiable, is their logic sound, and is their message morally based? Ritter educates many of us about US militarism, what the fighting in Ukraine is about, who the actors are and why they are involved. Back to Maupin I do not always agree with Ritter, and I have expressed some of my reservations and my reasons for them. Likeliest, Ritter would like to revisit and amend some of his formulations, as most of us would. But Ritter is a cut above; he is experienced; he does his homework; he talks straight and extemporaneously. A friend who started checking out Ritter’s geopolitical views on my recommendation, came across disturbing news about Ritter and asked me about it. The news of the FBI raid on Ritter’s domicile, has provided the monopoly media the opportunity to dredge up his past indiscretions and criminal activities. However, these should not just be brushed aside or dismissed. And neither should Ritter’s views be brushed aside. Whatever the facts are of the unsavory matter, Ritter had been punished. Now the state is piling on. Because past actions are past, we cannot undo them; the best we can do is atone. Some might question whether a person with certain criminal deficiencies could be trusted about their reporting on geopolitics and militarism? The answer seems obvious. The focus ought to be on whatever information, from whoever. By all means, take into account the source; regarding the information, take what is good and factual and relegate what is bad and dubious to a lesser file. Ritter is an important voice. The assumption is that the FBI raid was only about Ritter’s expressing his first amendment rights. Regardless, I have no problem to standing in solidarity with Ritter against imperialism, warring, and Zionism. The common refrain “I love my country…” is almost mandatory in the US if uttering any criticism of the state. As ex-military and a declared patriot, Ritter had created a space to function as a critic of the international crimes of America. That space appears to have severely narrowed. To express non-allegiance with America – despite it being a moral abomination – would invite the wrath of the state. For one, these critics would be slandered and have their communication platforms targeted, as Maupin knows well since his book Kamala Harris & the Future of America was banned by Amazon. This is another example of the government and its allies undermining free speech. As Maupin said in the video, an injustice to one is an injustice to all. It is a call for the free speech rights of Ritter, and it emphasizes the same rights for all of us. An Interview with Kim Petersen, Co-editor of Dissident Voice Angie Tibbs | 26.03.2006 07:20 | Analysis | Social Struggles "The UN should be scrapped and reconstituted along egalitarian and democratic lines. There must be no permanent power allotted to any one state or group of states” - Kim Petersen
An Interview with Kim Petersen - Co-editor of Dissident Voice Angie Tibbs
For Home:
|
