Ron Paul is rolling in huge amounts of money via the Internet. The media and other candidates are baffled. He always was considered a joke, a fringe personality - not fit for office (although he is a longtime member of the US Congress) nor discussion.

But is his current success really a surprise? Hardly. Ron Paul offers foremost a real alternative (in talking points) to the American public. His constitutional fundamentalism is a refreshing change to all the slogan bashers ("Those evil islamo-fascists!") and super christy vote hunters. He is a reminder of what Americas great founding fathers had written down and that the constitution is still valid and doesn’t need so much shady legal bending like in the recent years ("Waterboarding is not torture!" etc).

But people go to him in droves, because the Democrats are offering no encouraging alternative to the über-corrupt Republicans. If the DEMs would be worth anything they would have won the last election with a huge majority - but they didn’t. Almost like the Torris in Britain they have been weak for years - to weak to really exploit all the damage George Bush and his Neocon brethren have inflicted on the US.

Money isn’t everything in politics …

For many disappointed REPs and independent voters in the US Ron Paul is the only interesting and consistent candidate to vote for. He has a consistent voting record and politics in the US congress - and has been speaking truth to power for a long time. He has the spine that the DEMs so much lack. That is the secret of his success.

Will he succeed? Nope. The political establishment - especially the Republican Party can’t allow his success beyond the primaries. He will be stopped or has to run again as an independent - what will be his doom.

It’s all a political wet dream. Even if Ron Paul would become the next President of the US of A he would be a lame duck. He has no political support or established party system out in the wild, nor on the floor of the US senate or congress. He would be impotent without that apparatus. Although Dick Cheney has made sure the next President has a lot of executive power it won’t be enough. Similar to Oliver Chromwell he would have to become a democratic dictator to mend the US system.

Ah, the irony of Realpolitik …

More? Official Website

I am a proud polit-blogger, listen to me …

Thanks to blogging finally everybody has it’s little media outlet. Media democracy at least - so it seems. Time to celebrate? Nope. Overall you just find more of the same instead of a greater variety of ideas, reflections and inspiration.

Tribalism

First and all people love to form tribes and hordes - the liberal bloggers, the conservative bloggers, the gay bloggers, the farting bloggers. Stickers and links are the new medals and flags of the blogosphere.

Conformists

It is amazing how conform each tribe reports and argues it’s cases. It’s like the Reagan’s trickle down economy in the blogosphere. The A-list bloggers and media outlets fill the pot and it all trickles down to the lower sites. With each report, trackback and linkback the actual facts get more and more distorted - and more and more blabla added.

Hate

Even more amazing is the spiral of hate and anger that seems to drive the battle. Comments and actual postings are often full of profanity as well as insults and personal attacks. I can understand this confronting political figures - which one can’t touch. But how about some respect for your fellow blogger? So much about civilized discussions and cooperation.

Aimless

Polit bloggers are way to willing to continue dogmas and phrases. Instead of controlling and checking political agendas and programs they loose track of their own interests as voters. Instead of a war of ideas any society should concentrate on finding the best solution. So what happened to common sense and consensus?

Nothing is left alive …

Overall polit bloggers remind me of several different ant armies - aggressively devouring anything in their way down to the bones. Very short sighted, very selfish, very hysterical. Therefore they fulfil a role in the political ecosystem: to ‘check’ for errors and take away the garbage.

But so far I have only seen a few blogs of ‘enlightenment’, who add something to the process apart from word wrestling and dogmatic masturbation.

Image: The great Eadweard Muybridge

I am making here a little fun of the historical concept of Absolutism.

One of the major underlying difference between so called left/liberal and right/conservative (plus fundamentalist) dogmas is the conflict between ‘relativism’ and ‘absolutism’.

In a dogma of absolutism you have ‘true’ and solid values and ‘points’ in your world view that are not negotiable. (Wikipedia on political and moral absolutism.) Some of it’s heads are: Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant and Aristotle.

With a relativistic world one thing leads to another, you hardly find solid positions to navigate, but a mere set of ideas that keep a network of borders that constantly shift. (Wikipedia on moral relativism.) Some of it’s heads are: Karl Marx, Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger.

Absolute concepts and values are of course easier to understand and present, since their set of rules is less wobbly - hence the word absolute.

Karl Marx - bloody relativist communist scummmmm …

Here are some statements about Absolutism by Mr. Richard Hooker (taken again from here):

Political philosophers attempted to extricate themselves from these matters through two different, contradictory approaches: “natural law” or “the Divine Right of Kings.” According to natural law political thinkers, there were immutable natural laws which should govern states and their relations to their citizens and to other states. According to the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, a system of thought derived ultimately from medieval theories of kingship, certain kings ruled because they were specifically chosen by God to be kings. Surprisingly, both of these approaches could yield the same result: the idea that the best form of government is an autocracy, or rule by a single person. This person was not to be questioned or disobeyed; this became known as “absolutism,” since the monarch ruled with “absolute” power, that is, unshared power.

Natural law yielded absolutism in the work of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who believed all things, including human society, could be understood using principles of geometry. Hobbes’ central argument was that all humans are driven by two and only two impulses: fear of death and desire for power. If left unchecked, human beings would act on these impulses and live violent, brutish, inhumane, and solitary lives. In order to keep these impulses in check, human beings, according to Hobbes, drew up a social contract, which ceded authority to a single person in exchange for a level of security. The single ruler would control the violent and selfish impulses of individual members in a society through brute force; individuals would lose their liberty, but they would gain security and community. Hobbes didn’t care what form this single rule might take, whether a monarch or a dictator, only that absolute power was required to keep society together.

Relative guilty? Absolute Guilty? Relative dead? Absolute dead?

This is of course a nasty rhetoric trick from my side, to mix modern conservative thinking with an 17th century ideology. But I can’t help the feeling that the overall attitude is very similar?!

But it is about time that we leave dogmas behind us as political tools and aspire to use whatever is the best idea for the problem. But that would again imply that that solutions are relative to the problem and it’s circumstances. So is life in the end relative and not absolute? Can one defend absolute ideas in the end? Read this christian refutation of Relativism.

“The American Christian fundamentalists are nothing like the Taliban.”

The Taliban used football fields to execute people. They enforced stoning and other cruel laws of the Sharia. They suppressed women, they disliked music, drugs and movies - all that fun stuff. A terrible regime of orthodox believers. Agreed the Taliban were terrible.

American Christian fundamentalists so far haven’t killed anyone - their actions are within the law of the land. Physical violence isn’t anywhere near the Talibans bloody actions. So the American fundamentalists are ‘better’ then their afghan counterparts?

Measuring a society or group just by their usage of physical violence is a bad and not very precise tool.

The basic concept of fundamentalism is that their version of ‘reality’ is the only truth that is acceptable. Anything else can (maybe) tolerated, but never accepted.

Visit www.americanfundamentalists.com to view the image in a larger size - and learn some other stuff as well.

But acceptance of plurality is the most important cornerstone of our modern democracies. This very acceptance is shown in the rule of law that everyone is the ’same’: we all have the same rights, the same obligations - although we are different individuals and by no means the same.

Religions fundamentalists and modern states both have laws and rules, which more or less make sense. But the very difference is who made the law: either they are eternal, because they were made by some God or they are in constant development, because they are made by man and still adapted, expanded and changed.

This also shows a very basic psychological element of the fundamentalist: with a rule set given by your eternal Overlord you have a ‘perfect’ and static system to live by. Not much surprise there. Very different to a pluralists society that continuously changes itself. Although your life might be difficult at times you at least know with a fundamentalist mindset what is right or wrong.

We are right! We are right! We are right!

Here we encounter another problem with fundamentalists: anything that is ‘wrong’ according to his/her believe basic system has to be changed. These people are on a holy mission. Now this is very contrary to ‘in the name of the people’ when you want to change society ‘in the name of the Lord’.

In a Democracy you need the consent of the majority, you need to agree. In a fundamentalist system there is nothing to agree on, no need for debate or even change. Anything that comes from the Lord is not open for discussion. This is especially explosive when a Priest or any other Leader ‘claims’ to speak the Lord’s words. How do you ask God if that person is really his Prophet? You can challenge any law, policeman and politician in court, but again there is no discussion with the word of God.

Lets come back to our American Christian fundamentalists. They are much smarter then the Taliban. They won’t use physical violence to change society - they simply change the laws so society has to adapt. Instead of accepting plurality they use lobbyism, votes and money to enforce only their fundamentalist views.

This is one of the greatest weaknesses of Democracy, that it’s very openness to change and populism allows it’s own destruction. Once again it is important to mention the Hitler lesson (Newsflash: Orangeguru says Christians are Nazis). He was voted into power and slowly abolished democratic laws one by one with popular consent until there was only ‘ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer’ (one people, one country, one Führer).

How the erosion of American pluralist consent is progressing can best be documented by the fierce fight about ‘intelligent design’ and abortion. Slowly the fundamentalists ideas are introduced and cemented into popular opinion as the only truth in small steps. I especially admire the propaganda and rhetoric’s to actually use pluralism to enforce fundamentalism: hey, why don’t you teach ‘intelligent design’ - it’s just another form of science?!

Abortion is wrong / terrible for other reasons - not because your God said so.

But the war on abortion speaks even louder: here pressure groups have been working for decades to enforce their mostly religious point of view onto American society. On PBS.org is an excellent documentation ‘The last abortion Clinic’ that show you how fundamentalist lobbyism can work wonders against pluralism.

So, is there such a thing as an American Taliban? Yes, there is! The methods might be different, but their attitude is very much the same. Most of all over the recent years we can see the ‘just anger’ and aggression against anything liberal and pluralistic getting fiercer and fiercer.

And it’s that religious righteousness I am most afraid of.

Crooks & Liars has made this great comment about 1984 and the right wing blogosphere:

A Party member…is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party. The discontents produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline…called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

I love the expression protective stupidity - it’s much better than the usual label of ‘ignorance’. It’s not ignorance to stop thinking - it really is protective stupidity.

Here you see my countries highly intelligent leader: Frau Angela Merkel. Once sponsored by Helmut Kohl after reunification she never governed anything in a leading position: no city, no Bundesland - not even a serious ministerial position. Yep, she studied physics, so she must know what comes up must go down. I honestly can’t wait for the second part of the equation. Some people hailed her as a German Maggie Thatcher, but she does not have the stomach nor the political vision to really turn Germany around.

The grand coalition under her leadership has made VERY little progress over the past year, energy prices are still extremely high (controlled by an industrial electricity monopoly) and all reforms are crawling to a standstill.

More? Wikipedia

Dead, but still alive as an anti-gay martyr.

The American subculture of professional Christians is really amazing. They preach the word of god with the aid of technology and megachurches. They ‘collect’ huge amounts of money, but they hardly lift people out of poverty. They rage against some other subcultures, but rarely embrace forgiveness and tolerance.

Would they kiss a gay person or someone with aids like Jesus kissed a Leper or a Whore?

More? For kicks - watch the farting preacher and Ted Haggart admitting he fucked da gay on drugs - and watch him again raving against da gays.

Yeah, kick those criminal foreigners out of our beloved country!  

Swiss society is very conformist, conservative and very xenophobic. Although Switzerland is very rich it’s people are not big on sharing or international entanglement. Neutrality is obviously a national obsession - or rather a fanatical obsession not to get involved with anyone or anything.

So it’s no surprise that Switzerland is not part of the EU and loves it’s banking lifestyle so much that ripped of Jewish money has been held back for decades. Don’t get involved with those bloody foreigners.

I already have a bloody nose!

In a few days there is a general election in the land of Honey and Toblerone - and the rightwing SVP party seems to get at least 25% of the votes. That’s a huge in the political landscape, but shows the old Swiss conservative attitude.

Swiss cheese only for Swiss people!!!

Sure there is lots of protest - but it shows that in our complex times not only Americans are susceptible to hate and fear mongering a la Neocons. It works in any country.

Several hundred years of neutrality, too much Calvinism and isolation are a bad thing. Especially in our modern, fast moving and international world.  Wake up Switzerland: xenophobia won’t get you anywhere and you are a part of this planet if you like or not. Neither the Alps nor Swiss armyknife or stupid election promises won’t protect you from that …

Often I criticize your country, your government and even the whole of American society. Am I guilty of blatant Anti-Americanism?

No country is perfect - and hardly any remaining lonely HyperPower can be perfect as well. I think all countries are guilty of stupidity, selfishness, hypocrisy and nationalism. More vital societies are guilty of violence, terrorism and imperialism as well. China, Iran, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia are far from perfect.

But even when you Americans feel attacked by protestors in Baghdad, Berlin or Tokyo - know this: we pay attention to you, because we care. Friends do watch friends. And friends tell friends, when they think something is wrong or could be done better. And even your enemies might spot a truth about your country and shove it into your face. Nobody is perfect.

We hated Nixon, we loved the King - but who didn’t?

You would be amazed my dear Americans how many of your friends watch your internal politics very closely. Every US election is an important topic for almost any other country. The person who runs America is handed a global leverage. If your country makes big decisions the rest of us face it’s consequences as well. If your banks go bust - some of ours do too. If your economy gets shaky, ours wobble as well. If you attack someone, we also become targets, combatants and allies. America you don’t stand alone - you are deeply connected with your friends and your enemies.

Many people from so called industrial nations have traveled to your beautiful country, watched your movies, listened to your musicians, ate your food. We love American culture and sometimes we despise it. Hypocrisy? No, we don’t have to love and consume everything you produce - and you don’t love and consume everything of your own culture as well. We all choose what we like and we all find something stupid about our own cultures as well.

Culture? Imperialism? Americanism? Or simply a cheap and easy way to eat that appeals to everyone?

The Age of Enlightenment is the foundation on which American was built and Europe was transformed by it as well into a modern society.

We share the same admiration for rule of law, equal rights, freedom of religion, separation of power, social justice, human rights, capitalism, democracy and consumerism. Most countries on this planet aspire to follow that path - because it is so far the most ‘humane’ form of government we humans have created. Plus globalization transforms us all - brings us closer and makes us more the same.

In Tehran young girls have almost as many nose jobs as girls in LA or London. There are polish Country and Western singers, there are German Cowboy and Indian festivals and there is a McDonalds at almost every major street on this planet. American Idol is a British invention, Japanese people are crazy about Baseball and the best Cricket Players are Indians and Pakistanis.

We all laughed about Borat - because every culture has it’s own hypocrisy, oddities and funny bits. 

The credo of the future is Mix & Match. We take bits and pieces from each other’s culture and blend it with our own local affairs.

America has so much to offer the rest of the world.

Remember that my dear Americans. Remember all the good stuff you have developed and you can share with us. Remember that community and progress were always your greatest strengths. Remember to make friends and share the fruits of your civilization as we shall share ours with you. In the end there is only one planet and one people.

We love you America!

[Warning: long rant ahead ... skip if you are bored by politics ...]

For years now political blogs have branded the Bush regime as a fascist elite - transforming the US of A into a Brown State.

If you search Hitler+Bush on Google you get a gazillion articles and images - plus reports like that (father of a fallen soldier beaten up by pro war citizens) and this (student gets tasered by the police asking annoying questions) seem to support the argument. The US is slowly turning into a new Nazi Germany.

I think it’s fundamentally wrong to compare modern forms of Fascism always with old ones from the Hitler era. Like Democracy all forms of government change and adapt - even the bad ones.

For example: today society ‘exists’ more in a virtual form instead of ‘the street’. So you no longer need many thugs or brown shirts to push your agenda. Mental control and groupthink work today much better then 1933 - especially in a ever more complex and diverse media world. There is much more entertainment, hobbies and consumerism out there to distract you from ‘real’ life and politics then 1933.

Most people are afraid of real freedom and complexity. They love almost anything that ‘makes nasty stuff and thoughts’ go away. It doesn’t matter if it’s a pill against restless leg syndrome or immigrants - something easy to swallow is preferred over anything complicated or personal involvement.

Dude, this Democracy stuff is hard work …

Typical right wingers or conservative have this symptom ("We are the good ones, all others are bad.") as well as those who are so called green and progressive types ("Back to nature, modern science and/or corporations are destroying us!").

Read the rest of this entry »

The Taser seems to be the weapon of choice to enforce social conformity. This is not the first video about unnecessary tasering during a public event or public place.

This no way to deal with social protest or even a simple question. It just shows how much American and slowly British culture enforce conformity and group think onto others.

And why is such a massive use of force and police personal necessary to deal with someone who is simply annoying or inconvenient?

"They hate us for our freedoms!" - yeah right.

Video 1 and video 2 - some older stuff video 3 and video 4.

Once again the irony: Alan Greenspan was the financial guru associated with the Republican party in the US. After serving several US presidents he retired recently and finally his book will be published.

Some bits are already out there and causing some big political waves. Guess who Alan Greenspan praised above all other presidents in terms of political and financial sanity: Bill Clinton.

More? Some recent TV interviews: About the Clintons, George W. Bush, Taxcuts,& Cheney and the real kicker The Iraq war was about Oil (surprise!).

Well, finally science has something to say about the conservative mindset or brains. They are really limited according to a new study of the New York University and UCLA:

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

…

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

So why are these people allowed to vote - if they have such a hard time to adopt to change and new situations? In an ever changing world we need leaders (and voters) that can cope with change!

Too bad I wasn’t around for a year - since there have been so many nice sex scandals in the USA with the defenders of Family Values and Anti-Gayness … the Republican party. Funny enough all these white middle aged farts are oppressed souls who preach against their own sinful lives: Ted Haggart - the drug addicted gay prostitute shagger, Lary Craig - the toilet surfing Senator and Mark Foley - the fan of young stiff male flesh.

Ah, the irony.

But still the word liberal is used as an insult over there and compassion is only a thing for rich people. When will these americans ever wake up and smell the abuse?

This conflict has been ranging since 2003 longer then WWII - and it won’t go away any day soon. Hardly anyone supports this war in the US of A. Finally all american magazines, TV stations and almost all political pundits have turned from being pro-war to anti-war … or at least do some more serious reporting.

Europe has been much more critical from the beginning - since we cheese eating surrender monkeys had our fair share of it.

This is the first blogged war: soldiers, voters, journalists and civilians tell their stories in a gazillion postings. YouTube has tons of war pr0n and charming calls for peace …

I dare to ask: made it ANY difference?

The Bloggers have lost this war. No matter how well these arm chair activists have debunked every talking point of President Shrub and his cronies - the war is still raging. The political fallout was minimal, because the US Democrats are spineless and the american public mostly ignorant for what is done in their name.

Overall it is almost amusing how the political american left and right blogosphere has used the war to establish itself - celebrating it’s self proclaimed importance. This is satire at best when I read the continuing phoney rage against the war and the political opponents.

Muuuu … there is cash for you!

Discussing the war is now a business and therefore contributes to the economy of the industrial military complex. Daily Kos profited as much from it as Michelle Malkin.

Although politicians read blogs and have their own it is still money that makes the political system go round. Grass roots poltical funding has made the Howard Dean a phenomenon in the 2004 US elections, but it has turned just into another cash cow. And the biggest and baddest money fountains are still in the hands of companies and lobby groups.

So blogs are just political opinions and unless you can translate that into serious money and votes it won’t change ANYTHING.