Get Your War On: The Watch List

"This is it. The highly anticipated premiere of Get Your War On, the new animated series from 23/6, based on the popular comic by David Rees."

No One Will Keep Us From Seeing

Like Spinning Plates

The photograph below is the final scene of a powerful series capturing the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, during a rally in the city of Rawalpindi on December 27th 2007. Interview with photographer John Moore, Getty Images, 1st Prize for Stories, 2008 World Press Photo.

While you make pretty speeches
I'm being cut to shreds
You feed me to the lions
A delicate balance

And this just feels like spinning plates
I'm living in cloud cuckoo land
And this just feels like spinning plates
Our bodies floating down the muddy river

- Like Spinning Plates by Thom Yorke of Radiohead

Standing silent in the Old Church (Oude Kerk) in central Amsterdam, I'd made my annual pilgrimage to remember the world unfolding around me. The sermon was strong again this year; suppression of the human condition in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Kenya and other lands so tortured. How often have we heard this parable and how often have we begged the lesson yet be learned? There was no hymn, no choir of angels to descend upon our fearful souls. We came to see, not listen, and we look until our eyes are filled with tears upon faintest realisation that THIS is happening HERE and NOW, merely outside whatever walls that we imagine line our little lands. There is no priest, except whatever voice wells up from within, and no communion except the few fragile seconds when you let slip and imagine that this man or woman or child is human, just like you.

Jon Stewart interviews Douglas Feith

One of the most dangerous and infuriating aspects of the Bush administration has been the media-spinning, propaganda producing, history revising, blank-faced lies and denials. Knowledgeable, respectful, willy and determined, Jon Stewart interviews a lead Neocon in the Bush Administration's planning, execution and justification of the Iraq War- former Undersecretary of Defense, Douglas Feith.

Feel it. That sweet sense of accountability, and almost.. almost a hint of justice.

Waiting for the Guards

"Waiting For The Guards is the first of 3 films commissioned by Amnesty International to highlight the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA in the “War on Terror”. The Directors approached the making of the film in a way that has never been done before, choosing to show the reality of Stress Positions in as authentic a way as possible. They filmed a person being put into Stress Positions over a 6 hour period. There is no acting on the part of the “prisoner” – his pain and anguish is for real. This powerful film shows without doubt that what the US administrations say is interrogation is in reality, torture and must be stopped."

There isn't much that will have tears filling my eyes at 9AM in an open office space- but this piece confronts one with such a deep well of anguish and sorrow that it's simply overwhelming. It is a rare moment when the reality of the history unfolding around us can punch through the veil of apathy and comfortable ignorance, but as they say "some viewers may be disturbed".

Well tough, the world is disturbing and who are we to pick and choose only the pretty pieces to colour our fantasies of this place in which we live. I think many share this feeling of strong resistance to this raw reality, but what is the basis of this fear? It's not a fear of what this information might do to us or make us feel, it's a fear of what we may no longer be able to do. I think we're afraid to lose our ability to sit there and do nothing.

I suggest watching the higher resolution version, although a Youtube is below. Turn your speakers up.

The actor is Jiva Parthipan, his story is here. Unsubscribe is a campaign by Amnesty UK, welcoming people around the world to join them unsubscribing from human rights abuses in the ‘war on terror’.

Update: Burmese Protests Expand

Photography by the AP.

Things have escalated in the Burmese Buddhist led protests over the weekend-

"Up to 100,000 people took part, among them perhaps 20,000 barefoot red- and orange-robed monks. At first, the monks limited themselves to chanting prayers and sermons, and urged the Burmese public not to join their marches. But over the weekend, a hitherto unknown group, the All Burma Monks’ Alliance, urged people to “struggle peacefully against the evil military dictatorship” until its downfall. Monday’s march was joined by some of the country’s best-known actors and musicians, as well as leaders of the opposition National League of Democracy (NLD) and crowds of ordinary Burmese."

The Economist has the full story. Wikipedia news is tracking events as they unfold.

The International Crisis Group considers the situation in Myanmar. Human Rights Watch doubts that reforms will bring change in the country.

Pitiless Kings

Today is the U.N. International Day of Peace. I look at the UN, at our collective governments, and wonder if this is really the best they can achieve? A feel good factor that might make some of us feel that we can take control of this huge, violent monstrosity, even for a moment. When my bile settles, I reflect that anything that raises awareness and brings our focus closer to compassion is a good thing and that cynicism is too often the refuge of a crushed idealist.

So if this event is about attention, then my attention goes out to the thousands of Buddhist monks protesting peacefully this week against the military junta in Myanmar. 45 years of military rule, human rights violations, and surpressed uprisings- have left the country one of the poorest in Asia.

In a public statement the monks in Yangon declared yesterday.

“The clergy boycotts the violent, mean, cruel, ruthless, pitiless kings, the great thieves who live by stealing from the national treasury. The clergy hereby also refuses donations and preaching”

In January this year Russia and China vetoed a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that would have urged Myanmar to ease repression and release political prisoners, a resolution long called for by human rights groups. This makes the actions of monks even more important- and I imagine few are better trained for the non-violent action necessary. However, successful non-violence relies on engaging a powerful group who can intervene to address the injustice. Whether broader Burmese society has the power or the international players the interest to play this critical role we may soon discover- or perhaps this is just another rise and fall upon this cruelly drawn out story of repression.

(Art by Banky)

While Brave Men Die

“Eleven years later. Numbers have dehumanized us. Over breakfast coffee we read of 40,000 Americans dead in Vietnam. Instead of vomiting, we reach for the toast. Our morning rush through crowded streets is not to cry murder but to hit that trough before somebody else gobbles our share.

An equation: 40,000 dead young men = 3,000 tons of bone and flesh, 124,000 pounds of brain matter, 50,000 gallons of blood, 1,840,000 years of life that will never be lived, 100,000 children who will never be born.

Do we scream in the night when it touches our dreams? No. We don’t dream about it because we don’t think about it; we don’t think about it because we don’t care about it. We are much more interested in law and order, so that American streets may be made safe while we transform those of Vietnam into flowing sewers of blood which we replenish each year by forcing our sons to choose between a prison cell here or a coffin there. ‘Every time I look at the flag, my eyes fill with tears.’ Mine too."

Dalton Trumbo, 1970. Read the full piece on LA Taco.

Poster at Berkeley, captured by ivangonecrazy

In August 1939, Dalton Trumbo published the American anti-war book of the century, Johnny Got His Gun. Days later Germany invaded Poland and such pacific perspectives were forgotten. Trumbo writes the narrative of a "deadman-who-is-alive", a World War I soldier who has lost his arms, legs, ears, eyes and most of his face. This darkest night of the soul speaks a tragic and bitter journey of realisation, despair and attempted suicide that culminates in a rallying cry against the lies, cruelty and foolishness that buries men- and worse- in the name of liberty.

"And all the guys who died all the five million or seven million or ten million who went out and died to make the world safe for democracy to make the world safe for words without meaning how did they feel about it just before they died? How did they feel as they watched their blood pump out into the mud? How did they feel when the gas hit their lungs and began eating them all away? How did they feel as they lay crazed in hospitals and looked death straight in the face and saw him come and take them? If the thing they were fighting for was important enough to die for then it was also important enough for them to be thinking about it in the last minutes of their lives. That stood to reason. Life is awfully important so if you've given it away you'd ought to think with all your mind in the last moments of your life about the thing you traded it for. So did all those kids die thinking of democracy and freedom and liberty and honor and the safety of the home and the stars and stripes forever?

You're goddamn right they didn't.

They died crying in their minds like little babies. They forgot the thing they were fighting for the things they were dying for. They thought about things a man can understand. They died yearning for the face of a friend. They died whimpering for the voice of a mother a father a wife a child They died with their hearts sick for one more look at the place where they were born please god just one more look. They died moaning and sighing for life. They knew what was important They knew that life was everything and they died with screams and sobs. They died with only one thought in their minds and that was I want to live I want to live I want to live.

He ought to know.

He was the nearest thing to a dead man on earth."

Dalton Trumbo, Johnny Got His Gun, 1939. An online excerpt can be found here.

The Fog of War- Marlene Dumas

I finally took time to stop and read this poem; part of an art installation by Marlene Dumas. It hangs in a cultureless corridor filled with art, that I'd passed dozens of times on the way to my office. I wonder if I'm the only person whose stopped to read it, and if any others did whether they too shivered at the realisation of the vacuum surrounding them.

Crisis of American Superpower

Jon Stewart interviews Zbigniew Brzezinski- foreign policy Professor, author and National Security Advisor to President Carter.

"I think there is a potential, a residual potential for recovery after 2008, because this is still... a very decent country, but also sad to say, a very ignorant country about the world. We have to survive the next 20 months without the war in Iraq expanding, drawing us into conflict nearby, specifically in Iran. Because if we do that, quite seriously now, if we do that, I think we’ll be bogged down for the next 20 years in a war that spans Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and probably Pakistan and that will be the end of American global supremacy.”

-Zbigniew Brzezinski

A Nuclear Tale in Five Parts

Yesterday's announcement by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago has inspired me to complete a series on the Nuclear tale, one that I began in April last year spurred by the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. In the coming week I shall post five sides of story; from weapons and warfare to energy and the environment.

Our Only Lesson

In June 2005, Turkey introduced a new penal code including Article 301, which states: "A person who, being a Turk, explicitly insults the Republic or Turkish Grand National Assembly, shall be imposed to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of six months to three years."

Soon after, Orhan Pamuk, who recently won the Nobel Prize for Literature, was retroactively charged with violating this law. In an an interview he had given four months earlier Pamuk had stated that "one million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in Turkey" (between 1915-1917). This is seen as an insult to Turkishness as the official line in Turkish government, academia and society is that there was no Armenian Genocide and proposes extreme statement such that 56,000 Armenians perished during the period due to war conditions, and less than 10 thousand were actually killed.
Taken from the official statements of Yusuf Halacoglu, The President of the Turkish Historical Society Ref.

Ironically, a bill adopted by the French National Assembly two months ago would make statements such as Halacoglu's, tantamount to publicly denying the Armenian genocide, illegal in France. Thus we see a blatantly clear contradiction on the factual basis of history enshrined in Turkish and French law- it is impossible to make any consistent and legal reference to the nature of the Armenian genocide in Paris in the morning and Istanbul by night.

Reminiscent of the "study the controversy" campaign to befuddle logical perceptions of evolution with "Intelligent Design" doctrine, in 2005 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for an international Commission "to establish the events of 1915". His offer was rejected by Armenia and its foreign minister remarked that "The historians have already said their piece and it is now down to Turkey to determine its attitude."

Furthermore, the International Association of Genocide Scholars sent an open letter to Erdogan in response stating-

"The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:
1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.
2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide."
International Association of Genocide Scholars, June 13, 2005.

In the terminology of modern debate, Erdogan just got "pwned".

The number and nature of the deaths, necessary for defining genocide, is as complex as any feature of history however, "There seems to be a consensus among Western scholars with the exception of few dissident and Turkish national historians, as to when covering all the period between 1914 to 1923, over a million Armenian might have perished, and the tendency seem recently to be, either presenting 1.2 million as figure or even 1.5 million, while more moderately, "over a million" is presented, as the Turkish historian Fikret Adanir provides as estimation". Ref.

This is not merely a case of differing interpretations, it is an active denial of reality, an affront to the dead and evidence of deeper neurotic avoidance of national history; a dangerous discord for any aspiring "open society". It is evidence of blinding doctrine- one that makes it a crime to study and speak the truth as an objective search will reveal.

The open letter to Erdogan finishes, "We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as a proud and equal participants in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust."


Post Script on Iran

The above piece lay unfinished for the last few months until I was stirred by the abhorrent news on the Iranian Holocaust Conference. Their motives are clear, as Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki declared in a speech that: "If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt."

Although I find this anti-Israeli hate mongering dangerous and exactly what is not needed right now, it is pretty much more of the same thing that has been in the press across the region for decades. What really sickens me is the official reinterpretation of history- guided by dogma and political agenda. That is what is really terrifying- escalating this dangerous precedent- not only for Israel or Jews, but Iranians and indeed all humanity. History is our only lesson. It is one for which we have paid our highest price and if we fail again the cost of our ignorance is surely the blood of our children. This is my fear.

Conflict History: Pakistan

Some succinct and neutral background information from the ICG.

"Pakistan joined U.S.-led “war on terror” following 11 September 2001 attacks, promoting Musharraf’s image abroad as secular reformer and U.S. ally. But at home he has given Islamists free-hand, neutering political parties and doing nothing to address Pakistan’s unregulated network of madrasas. Alliance of six major religious parties won majority in two provinces bordering Afghanistan October 2002, promising enforcement of Sharia law and prompting fears of alliance with Afghan jihadists. Musharraf amended constitution 2003 enabling him to dissolve parliament and dismiss prime minister; parliamentary vote 2004 extended his mandate until 2007".

"Once again the country is ruled by the military and much needed reforms to its economy and government have faltered. Religious extremists play an increasingly important role in providing education and other services to the poor, resulting in the radicalisation of areas of the country. The elections due in 2007 should provide important indications of whether Pakistan will continue on this path, or whether more moderate forces will be able to assert themselves."

"The International Crisis Group Conflict History: Pakistan.

Guantanamo

The gates of Guantanomo Bay, aired on the Daily Show last week. Symbols of the history unfolding around us in the 21 century.

Politics of Fear

Some people mentioned they missed this in my extended post, so here it is again- the Republican party propaganda machine at the work.


Which inspired me to write this piece On Propaganda, Terrorism and the danger of the Noble Lie.

On Propaganda, Terrorism and the danger of the Noble Lie

Propagating The Faith

400 years ago, in the response to the ideological challenge of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Gregory XV created the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith) a Papal arm responsible for fostering the spread of religious ideology in Europe and the new colonies. It is from this body that we draw the term propaganda- "that which ought to be spread". What exactly ought to be spread has differed across history as those welding power have changed- from our theocratic beginnings, rising nationalist sentiment, the political ideologies of the Cold War, and into the post 9-11 world of Terrorism, Sovereignty and the Clash of Civilizations. All are ideological battles perpetuated by various elites- seeking to shape the hearts, minds and actions of the public through any combination of emotion and intellect- fear and solidarity- salvation and security.

"Here may lie the most important effect of mass communication, its ability to mentally order and organize our world for us. In short, the mass media may not be successful in telling us what to think, but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think about."
- Shaw & McCombs, The Emergence of American Political Issues


These People Want to scare U.S.

Recently, I saw an incredible documentary (The Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear, by Adam Curtis). It argues "that during the 20th Century politicians lost the power to inspire the masses, and that the optimistic visions and ideologies they had offered were perceived to have failed. The film asserts that politicians consequently sought a new role that would restore their power and authority, that "“Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares". To illustrate this Curtis compares the rise of the American neoconservatives and radical Islamists- both movements who have benefited from exaggerating the scale of the terrorist threat". I found his perspective to be intensely interesting and worth experiencing in detail (free on Google Video).

Most notably for me, was the exploration of the roots of the neoconservative philosophy- especially on the perpetuation of the Noble Lie. This Platonic concept was interpreted by Leo Strauss- a reclusive academic political philosopher who mentored some key neoconservatives- as necessary myths perpetuated by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society, giving people meaning, purpose and stability.

Therein lies a critical distinction which leads to a very dark place- in consciously divorcing the internal ideology of the political elites and the Noble Lies perpetuated to the populace. This is ultimately self-destructive as the elites inevitably begin to believe the propaganda they perpetuate- and this increasing division from reality will dangerously effect strategy and policy. As we are currently witnessing in the US administration, this gap requires further propaganda, ethical and legal violations to maintain control- and stop reality from crashing back in.


The War is Terror

-Click above for video-

This piece of propaganda is produced by Progress for America- a organisation set up by the Bush Administration (read "friends of the Party") to bypass regulation limiting political campaign funding and avoid accountabiliy for political advertising (527 groups- also used by Democrats). Progress for America was the 4th biggest fundraiser for the 2004 election cycle (spending $35 million) - and the third biggest for 2006. Their propaganda is paid for by a number of key contributors including a co-founder of Amway, an owner of Walmart and the US Ambassador to the Netherlands. This isn't grass roots racism or simple ignorance; this is right-wing elite sponsoring grass roots racism and misinformation. This is part of the strategy; they are perpetuating irrational fear to maintain control. I find this both frightening and dangerous.

With the propaganda piece in mind, here's a handy ranking of the various dangers confronting America, based on the number of mortalities in each category throughout the 11-year period spanning 1995 through 2005. Sources: National Highway and Safety Agency and Wired.

Yet, they consciously perpetuate a culture of fear around this unknown, unpredictable evil. Furthermore, this culture actually supports terrorist methods. It amplifies the terror of past acts by maintaining focus and the emotional hype around them and builds frightful anticipation for the future, heightening the terror of any myriad of possible acts.


Living with Murder?

Terrorism is inevitable- it will always exist (or at least until our Eden/Nirvana/Jetsons style world is eventually actualised). It was present in 1st century Roman Empire when Zealots struck down rich collaborators and others who were friendly to the Romans in a fierce and unrelenting terror campaign in the eastern Mediterranean. It was present in early 20th Century United States as the Ku Klux Klan tried to establish a culture of fear to promote their white supremist ideology. It has been a recurring theme in the latter 20th Century, and will continue well beyond our lives. Terrorism has always happened, and in a free society, will always happen. As demonstrated in the above graphic it has a very limited "real" impact and one that should not challenge the values and institutions of western civilisation. Yet our values and institutions are being changed- not because of terrorism but because of the culture of fear that has been perpetuated in it's name.

Terrorism exists - just as homicide exists. We need to understand it and address it rationally, without fear that we are going to be taken hostage or blown up in the sky. There seems to be two ways this can happen. Either through apathy- or through exploration. Apathy tries to cut off terrorism at its emotional root- we stop caring about the actions; turn inwards, become more parochial. I find this approach quite dehumanising and potentially dangerous, not only that it might result in terrorists seeking more and more shocking actions but that it would remove an important fail safe for an open society. If people are willing to kill themselves to bring attention to a cause- then history suggests that cause, and the conditions and motivation that lead to the actions, deserves enquiry at the very least.

Through exploration we would seek to understand the motives and rationale for terrorist actions and address the conditions that forge them. I do not believe these core conditions are ideological; I believe this "Clash of Civilisations" is itself part of the propaganda. This ideological conflict merely distracts us from the real conditions in which we live and attempts to convince us that our brothers are not our brothers. I believe that through education, economic development, responsible leadership and empowered individuals and institutions we will find real solutions to our social problems. Real solutions that do not hang only the air of ideology- but cut to very heart of our reality. This is no time for the Noble Lie, now we must call upon the simple truth.

Rain and Fire

Friday afternoon, 14th of April 2006, a quarter century after my birth. Cloudcover masks the sky as Monika and I beat our way through the wind and rain across the Bebelplatz in Berlin. The Humboldt University, St Hedwigs Cathedral and the German State Opera flank the paved square.

I steal a glance through a narrow gap between the umbrella, which is wedged at a horizontal into the wind, and the rainsoaked pavings. A small plastic window comes into my acute view- the only landmark in this open area.

"This is where the Nazi's burned the books in '33", Monika tells me. May 10, 1933; Nazi youth groups burned around 20,000 books from the Humboldt University and the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft; including works by Thomas Mann, Erich Maria Remarque, Heinrich Heine, Karl Marx and H.G. Wells.

The rain sinks deeper into my coat. I'm lost in a vision of a dark night, of rain and fire, black smoke and echoing anthems.

I peel back the black and return to the grey, now staring through the plastic window into an almost featureless chamber below- a underground chamber cloaked in an off white, featureless except it is lined with massive bookshelves. Rows and rows of empty bookshelves. They are not graves, they are not remains, they are not even nothing- they are lost.


Another couple battle across the square and look into the chamber below. "It's beautiful" says the American woman. I don't know if she doesn't get it or even if it could be beautiful. I feel revulsion. I want to get away and think about how it could happen- how a civilisation can destroy its essential treasure, its value, it's offering to the future. I want to think about why this touches me more than murder.

"Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen", "Where they burn books, they will end in burning human beings." Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1821.

Untied Nations

"Last month, world leaders met in New York to try and forge a common response to these challenges... They decided to create new UN bodies for promoting human rights and building lasting peace in war-torn countries. They promised to fight terrorism in all its forms, and to take collective action, when needed, to save populations from genocide and other heinous crimes. They decided on important reforms of the UN Secretariat.

But on climate change and Security Council reform they could make only weak statements. And on nuclear proliferation and disarmament they could not agree at all. They have left us a great deal of work to do.
Today, as we mark the 60th anniversary of our indispensable institution, I promise you that I will do my part. And I trust that you, as global citizens, will do yours."

Excerpt of Kofi Annan's message for the 60th Anniversary of the UN.


60 years on, it seems that the UN finds itself in a bind but then if one looks into the history of the UN it has always been in a bind- or more accurately, in two shackles. First, the lack of political will from empowered countries to give up aspects of their authority, and even more inexcusably failing to honor their own commitments in the UN. Second, the ridiculous HR structures of the UN- combining the worst aspects of bureaucracy from its member nations- leading to massive waste, and has been highlighted in the Oil-for-Food scandal, corruption. I have had experience with both Country Representatives in the General Assembly and Senior Secretariat officials from New York and can recount stories from both sides of one blaming the entire problem on the other.

For the majority of it's history the UN has been bound in the Cold War deadlock- where people working for the UN were literally trying to stop things happening. Possibly the worst organisational culture that could have developed. Since then we have had two legitimate opportunities for real reform. The end of the Cold-War gave the last remaining superpower the opportunity to dictate a new era- and despite failure in Rwanda, things were comparatively ok in the UN in the 90's- nonetheless real system change was not realized. The second occurred on September 11th 2001, when history unfolded and the eyes of the world waited for the US to respond. They could have done anything and everyone would have agreed- they had the "moral authority" that's now being bantered about. It could have been the birth of a new international order, a global system upon which the 21st century would be built. But the opportunity was lost- a short-sighted empire that assumed it would remain in power forever, ignoring the lesson of the history of civilizations.

Will there be a third such tipping point? I believe there will be. And I believe that the next time we will actually get it right. Because the next time success will be the only option for us. When confronted by the environmental and resource challenges of the next two decades, when our Earth itself confront human progress and the geopolitics that come with it- we will again feel the urgency and clarity that inspired the UNs founding exactly sixty years ago- that it is a most necessary step for the survival of humanity.

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto: A Choice for Humanity

In 1939 the Allies knew that the Nazi government was hoarding uranium from their Czech mines and were investigating the development of atomic weapons. The prospect of the Nazi government having nuclear weapons was, and still is, terrifying for humanity. In light of this darkest of dangers, on August 2nd 1939, and before the U.S entered WW2, Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt.

Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard (re)crafting their famous letter to F.D.R in 1939. Source.

"In the course of the last four months it has been made probable - through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America - that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future. This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory."

And so began the Manhattan Project resulting in US developing the first nuclear technology -and the devastating use of these weapons upon humanity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If any blame can be attributed to Einstein, it is perhaps for the difficult choice of the lesser of two evils. Despite the destruction of the Nazi terror, a new and very real fear had arisen- the prospect of nuclear global annihilation from the next global war. As his last public act, and just days before his death in 1955, he signed the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. It was written by Bertrand Russell- Einstein's fellow great public intellectual and Nobel Laureate- and forms one the great humanist charters of the 20th Century.

Excerpted paragraphs from the Manifesto read-

"We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism... We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?...

It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain… No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration…

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term "mankind" feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity...

There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."

The Manifesto was taken as the founding charter for The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an international organization that brings together scholars and public figures to work towards reducing the danger of armed conflict and to seek solutions to global security threats. In 1995 The Pugwash, and surviving founder Joseph Rotblat, won the Nobel prize "for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics and, in the longer run, to eliminate such arms".

Goodthinked Design

On the Island of Jura, Scotland for most of year Nineteen Forty-Eight, one of the geniuses of the 20th century, George Orwell, wrote his masterwork. The novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four" describes a "totalitatian dystopia"- or a scenario where the government has absolute control of a system in which people are living nightmarish existences. Part of its genius is the envisioning of the totalitarian communist state that would shape much of the later half of the century. Another equal accomplishment is in it's description of how peoples thinking, their culture and even their experience of consiousness could be controlled through changing language. In this grey landscape Orwell demonstrates Newspeak- an adapted language to remove the the ability to conceptualize revolution, and lead people to what is called doublethink- described as

"the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary." 1984

Changes in the US cultural landscape in the last five or so years has shown a marked change of language. One of the saddest casualities is the bastardisation of "freedom". The encroachment of imperialism upon this high held value is sickening and the world will long pay the nausea. It is now unacceptable to the liberal mind that "freedom" is worth fighting for, that it is an inalienable right to rally around. Another is the "culture of life"- which is a rebranding of anti-abortionism, rather than say, finding out how we can limit the destruction of the species that form life. Hell, I would have settled for an old timey harvest-moon festival.

Scientists, like most of those guided by the light of reason, have not featured much on centre stage and mostly left this politico-cultural transformation. Until recently that is. Fundamentalists in the US have been trying to get some doublethink happening around "Evolution". This pisses of scientists big time, as evolution is basically the underlying mechanism of genetics and broader biology. The attempt at doublethink gets them going even more now they find they're being labelled, not as scientist but "evolutionary theorists". So whats the wrap? The argument runs a bit like this-

• Evolution. It's just a theory, right? The "Theory of Evolution"?
• This theory has some randomness in it right? (ie random selection, mutation etc etc)
• I have another theory. It is that stuff is hella complex, no ways a random theory could make such complex stuff.
• Thus my theory says there must be an intelligent designer of this complexity thats guiding the creation, not this random natural selection.

OK- old timey creationism vs evolution. By the by it's called "the teleological argument", an argument for the existence of God based on supposed evidence of design in nature". Scientists all say "no ways" don't try and misuse science to justify your own assumptions about God, and so it has been argued out for well over two centuries. And also reasonably well buried as an "issue of faith". But what is interesting is in the current rehash of the argument, is it follows with

• Hey, these are both theories, right?
• As you scientists must agree, "Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question?" (intelligentdesignnetwork)
• Then let's teach both these theories in school, nay, in Biology class. For the good of objectivity and... of the children who really are, the future of science.
  

At this time something special happens. Scientists Power Up. If they were transformers they would have formed a giant robot by now.
"Enough! You may question and misrepresent our most proven concepts, ignoring the fossil record and reams of genetic data, you may abuse the common understanding of the word "theory", you may snidely claim the objectivity to which we have devoted our discoveries ... but not in Biology class".
They are pissed. It's their Israel-Palestine and they're not letting go. This is not doublethink at the edge, in some relative environment of opinion and gossip. This is doublethink in the pure light of reason and experiment. This is the "denial of the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies" (1984).

Well that give us the last of the three principles of the totallitarian government described in Nineteen Eighty-Four. "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH". And I think we are already familiar with the first, "WAR IS PEACE". Which leaves only "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY". And with so purchasing and electoral options, flavours and forms of entertainment, how could this be slavery?

"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc (the guiding philosophy)." 1984

For the lowdown on evolution from a real scientist try Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford.

A fleeting victory

Across Europe governments are leading celebrations for the 60-year anniversary of Victory in Europe. They remember the victory over the Nazi's and the millions who lie in the ground because of the struggle. I fear that in this remembrance we look back, not forward, we remember who died, not how can we ensure that our children will not pay the same price. We recall a victory over oppression as if it that war had really ended- we forget it was just a critical battle against the ongoing enemy- a darkness of corruption and hate whose elements reside in all human society. In 1926 in Weimar Germany an author Herman Hesse captured the essence of this misguided focus in part of his genius fiction "Steppenwolf"- the cruel unfolding of history has proved it's worth.

"Now and again I have expressed the opinion that every nation, and even every person, would do better, instead of rocking himself to sleep with political catchwords about war guilt, to ask himself how far his own faults and negligences and evil tendencies are guilty of the war and all the other wrongs of the world, and that therein lies the only possible means of avoiding the next war. They don't forgive me that, for, of course, they are themselves all guiltless, the Kaiser, the generals, the trade magnates, the politicians, the papers. Not one of them has the least thing to blame himself for. Not one has any guilt. One might believe that everything was for the best, even though a few million men lie under the ground. And mind you, Hermine, even though such abusive articles cannot annoy me any longer, they often sadden me all the same. Two-thirds of my countrymen read this kind of newspaper, read things written in this tone every morning and every night, are every day worked up and admonished and incited, and robbed of their peace of mind and better feelings by them, and the end and aim of it all is to have the war over again, the next war that draws nearer and nearer, and it will be a good deal more horrible than the last. All that is perfectly clear and simple. Anyone could comprehend it and reach the same conclusion after a moment's reflection. But nobody wants to. Nobody wants to avoid the next war, nobody wants to spare himself and his children the next holocaust if this be the cost. To reflect for one moment, to examine himself for a while and ask what share he has in the world's confusion and wickedness--look you, nobody wants to do that. And so there's no stopping it, and the next war is being pushed on with enthusiasm by thousands upon thousands day by day. It has paralyzed me since I knew it, and brought me to despair. I have no country and no ideals left. All that comes to nothing but decorations for the gentlemen by whom the next slaughter is ushered in." - Hesse, 1926

B-17 Flying Fortresses over Neumunster, Germany, on April 13, 1945.

Genocide 2044

Here's a provocative thought. In 1944 the world was afflicted by the Holocaust. In 1994 it was the Rwanda genocides. Suppose that the world has not learned and that in 2044 humanity will be again corrupted and abused on such a mass scale. Would you do anything different in the next 39 years with this knowledge? Would it change your life at all?

Would you look on the 2044 genocides with same powerlessness we feel for the past? Or would you be able to see what your choices and contribution was in the world, and feel it was sufficient for you own sense of justness? Everyone has their own calling, their own sense of community and contribution, and I do not suggest that ending genocide is everyone's purpose. Merely I suggest that we take into account the true condition of humanity and make a choice that we will honestly stand by. I believe this results in empowering our sense of choice and their consequences in the world and helps us to come to terms with our abilities and limitations.

In 2044 I may cry again but it will not be for shock and wondering why. It will not be because I walked ignorant and powerless for so long whilst an unknowable force of evil swelled in a corner of humanity. It will not be because I failed to choose how best to contribute to my community. It will not be because I failed to understand the darkness that exists in our hearts and the limitations of our current world system. The tears that fall will be for the individuals who will face the most terrible slaughter and for our collective humanity that refuses to learn this cruelest lesson.

Dehumanising Humanity

All of us, with even the slightest interest in history and humanity,
have wondered at the tragedy and horror of the Holocaust of World War
II. We wonder how such cruelty could be inflicted at the hands of Man.
We wonder how people could stand by and let it happen. We wonder how
so many could have guarded their ignorance and not sought to discover
how and why these millions died.

All except the oldest in our societies can view these dark events as
"history". A world removed from us by generations. I would like to
imagine that if I was alive I would have sought to understand, to add
meaning to the incomprehensible events and do what I could to ensure
that this ultimate price at least bought the ultimate lesson to
safeguard the future of humanity.

However, in my lifetime such events have again befallen us in Bosnia and
Rwanda. Although I was only 13 they occured in my waking life, not some
conceptual "history". At the time my understanding was limited to news
headings; Tutsi and Huti, Bosnian Muslim and Serbian Croats, Srebrenica
and Nyarubuye. The names didn't illustrate the reality, rather they
formed barriers which contained these far away places and afflictions of
people I would never know. In early 2002 I visited Bosnia and Croatia to
try and develop an understanding of the histories and the people to try
an build the collection of facts into story I could feel.

The Rwanda genocides amplified my frustration. The decimation of a
people kept away from our collective focus largely because of the
concept we have built as "Africa". This perspective that seems to
underlie the western view; "Who can comprehend the savagery, the
foreigness, the senseless violence and disease of Africa?" And in Rwanda
we saw Africans killing Africans and thus further denied the
responsibility of our colonial history and our globalized present.

I could not piece together a story of Rwanda that I could understand.
Nor did a year spent wrestling with Apartheid in SA help me understand
this very different Africa. The single worst atrocity of our time; one
that tore the heart of humanity from a country and a people, machete
blow by machete blow, and claimed a million lives faster than the Nazi's
systematic slaughter of the Jews.

James Nachtwey, USA, Magnum Photos for Time. http://www.worldpressphoto.com

If we don't understand it, how can we prevent it reoccuring? If we don't
find meaning in how humans can dehumanize, if we only condem the
madness, than we are passing the cruelist of legacies to our children.
It is in this spirit that Philip Gourevitch travelled to Rwanda to build
a comprehensible story the world could understand. His book "We Wish to
Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories
from Rwanda"solved my Rwanda problem. It demystifies the cruelty and
the chaos by explaining the what, the how and the why of the genocides.
His insights portray a picture of the darker side of humanity; the crimes
of leadership, the cruel choices of individuals and the indifference of the
international community. He portrays a picture that is savage and
horrific, but a story that is human and all too possible.

Tomorrow night I shall see the film "Hotel Rwanda" and post any further
thoughts on this piece of history that has unfolded in our lifetimes.