Jihad and the Meeting of Cultures

Jihad for me is walking into the Mesjid. As an American, it is a good exercise for me to see the things which are deeply wrong with my culture. They aren't easy to miss. However, walking into the Moscow Islamic Center, I can't help but remember the deeper problems which the many cultures which have embraced Islam have. This is despite the vast strength and profound benefits which I believe Islam has to offer the world. (I must believe this, or I wouldn't have decided to become a Muslim.)

Islamic-culture problems like inferior treatment of women, sexual violence, a kind of "culture nazi" view of shariah, hiding in the closet in Western cultures, conflating religion and politics (sometimes to the point of violence), are easy to spot for an American observer. Part of this is because these problems are emphasized by the media. Part of this, though, is that these problems quite obviously exist. And I can't deny that. And that is why walking into the Mesjid is jihad for me.

As I journey through the world of being a Muslim, I see a great deal of hope and offering in the religion of Islam. I believe it is the best religion in the world. But it's always difficult for me to walk into the Mesjid, knowing my staunch unwillingness to discard my Stetson cowboy hat as a North Idaho Libertarian, nor to set aside my uniquely American beliefs about the world. I am an American. And I hold a far less cynical view of American culture than many of my Muslim sisters and brothers.

This makes the Eid al-Fitr gatherings and the public worship very difficult for me. Sometimes, I decide just to pray at home. It's too frightening to go to the Mosque. I willingly adopt the ideology which France would jam down my throat — I keep my religion private. I realize it is difficult particularly for my Muslim brothers, too. At first, I was hurt by the marked lack of "Aslaam-o-alikum" greetings at the local Eid al-Fitr feast. But then, upon reflection, I realized that a lot of the people there probably didn't know I was a Muslim. And, quite reasonably, they were afraid of me; a North-Idahoan wearing a Stetson cowboy hat is not someone an Arab Muslim immigrant wants to piss off. I don't want to make things this difficult for these Muslims, but I have to.

Why do I have to? Because of the ease at which the 12-year-old Pakistani Muslim came up behind me, said "Aslaam-o-alikum," and shook my hand. He treated me as a true brother: with a child's courage, undaunted by the baggage of Islamic-American relations. He will return to Pakistan with a positive view of North-Idahoans wearing cowboy hats, which insha'Allah has tremendous impact on the world's path towards peace.

Muhammad (sallallahu aleyhi wa salaam) said that the second best deed for a Muslim to do, just below belief in Allah (subhana wa t'alla) and His prophets. So I suppose I still, with the help of the more courageous of my Muslim brothers, will visit the Mesjid. Sometimes, with my punk-Libertarian upbringing, my Islamic-Buddhist beliefs, and my Stetson cowboy hat, I feel like my very existence is an act of jihad. But I have to do it. Because I feel I have a positive contribution to make. I hope, earnestly, that all these things help.

Eid Mubarrak.

**Note: Saying Islam is the best religion in the world in no way invalidates my Buddhist perspective. Buddhism has religious aspects, which I believe are Islam — or, at the very least, if you want to get technical, they are proto-Islamic. But primarily, Buddhism isn't a religion, but rather a system of mind-yoga which leads to truth, including religious truth, which was formulated as a radical contre-puntal to Hindu yoga. Buddhism is a philosophical mind-training technique and world-outlook, not so much a religion.

On the Legitimacy of Israel as a State

I questioned, in a Facebook post, the legitimacy of Israel's self-proclaimed right to exist. It seems to me, anyway, that God did not give Israel to the Jews, but rather England did. And I think Palestine is the main test of Israel's right to exist.

The way Israel is treating the Palestinians is not justifiable. Israel isolates them from the outside world. It would be better if the Palestinians could leave, or become a part of Israel. But this is impossible. Why? Because Israel sees it in their best interests to isolate them. The problem, of course, is that the Palestinians probably have a more legitimate claim to that land than Israel.

Israel is forced to battle Palestine. Peace is impossible for them. Why? Because if they make peace, the Arab states will take advantage of a weak stance and attack Israel one way or another. I believe this is the case. Also, I believe that there are Arab states who might ultimately win in the conflict (if peace were made) which are worse states than Israel. States like Syria.

But really, all this is a battle more for the State of Israel than for anyone else. Israel was founded on questionable principles. The right of an ethnic-based State to be formed by an external oppressor because it's in the Bible is questionable. The right of any ethnic-based state to be formed is questionable. If Israel has any shred of legitimacy to its existence, I think the true test will be Palestine. Also, I think Israel fully realizes this, which is why they are in so much trouble about it.

Israel has very few options. They can't exterminate the Palestinians. They can't let them emigrate to Israel or elsewhere. They can't make peace with them. They can't fight them too hard. They can't fight them too soft. There are no choices for them. And the way they behave in Palestine is very similar to the way a failing regime behaves when its legitimacy comes into question. They imprison people without cause, place them in concentration camps, incite violence to legitimize violence, spend more money on security than research, and so forth. I've never been to Palestine, but from what I've read of the situation there, it's like a concentration camp. It's very similar to psychiatry. A failing regime grasping at straws to ward off its inevitable defeat.

I've had experience living in a concentration camp kind of existence. And when you're inside the concentration camp, sometimes it's a difficult decision you have to make whether to threaten or use violence or not. Because sometimes an oppressor will only respond to violence. This is a fact. I had to threaten to stab hospital wards with a pen in order to force them to bring food to my seclusion room. The decision was part of a long series of pressures I put on them (this one being the only truly violent one), which probably resulted in enough food to survive. Barely.

But oppressors all ultimately act the same. They inevitably spend all their energy on bolstering security rather than gaining knowledge or helping people. This is why fewer and fewer people choose to be psychiatrists: the pay really isn't very good, the training is exhausting, and the fact that they will be pigeonholed into an existence where they must oppress people every day really makes it hard. Why is the pay not so good? Probably because psychiatry prisons are locked down tighter than military compounds. They spend all their money on more and more traumatic seclusion rooms, rather than actually helping people, or gaining knowledge. Why don't they spend money on knowledge? Because as research comes out about psychiatry, it shows them that they're all doing it wrong; that psychiatry is an illegitimate institution.

And the fact that these oppressors act the same, when they're not bolstered by an external oppressive force, indicates that they all eventually cannibalize themselves in the end. So the smartest strategy for someone who is NOT living in a concentration camp system is non-violence. It is to put political pressure on the oppressors, forcing them to cannibalize themselves, without resorting to violence, and thereby legitimizing their oppression. The problem comes when your motivation is bad. People with bad motivation will collect up these victims of oppression and pray on their sufferings to the point of inciting them to violence. It will legitimize both oppressors, until they go to war and one oppressor is defeated. All oppressors act the same.

In a lot of ways, America is behaving the same way. But I'm not sure that the outcome for any of these oppressors is set in stone. I feel America will survive. America is a legitimate state with a troubled history of oppression. That's how I feel. But in order to survive, America has to do soul searching. This is what is happening with the Occupy / Tea Party movements. This is happening internally within the Republican Party, I'm aware, and may also be happening in the Democratic Party. Obama has made surprising decisions, such as the decision following the will of the people not to go to war with Syria. Even this decision may have been a mistake, but it's an example of soul searching.

The problem for Israel is that I'm not sure they have the luxury to be able to do soul searching, surrounded as they are by all these Arab states who do not believe in their right to exist. America is a world superpower, very rich, and having the most powerful military in the world. We can do soul searching. Allowing Israel to do soul searching for the benefit of Palestinians, unfortunately, is not very much on the to-do list for these Arab states. A lot of them are very authoritarian, and rely on strong security forces. And the problem is, these security states require some kind of propaganda to keep their publics supportive of the current regimes. Palestine is a good propaganda point for any dictator in a Muslim majority state.

So really, the right for Israel to exist is less of a test for Israel as it is a test for Arab Muslims. Are these Muslims going to point to the passages in the Qur'an which say that Jews will be hiding behind rocks and the rocks will tell them to kill them? While conveniently ignoring the passages enjoining us not to dispute with the People of the Book except by means better than mere disputation? Or are these Muslims going to work to promote more and more functional democracies at home, so they can deal with Israel intelligently? This is the test. Arabs as a nation have a right to exist on their own land, of course, but many of their states, I feel, are as illegitimate as Israel's or more so. The fate of Israel rests on the fate of Palestine. And the fate of Palestine, and Palestinians, I feel, rests on the ability for Arab Muslims to combat oppression in their own states so they can restrain their own militants from attacking Israel, and allow Israel to sort out its right to existence on its own. If Israel is purely an oppressor, the more it becomes isolated from support from the outside, the more they will cannibalize themselves. If not, they will survive, and peace will prevail.

Muslims and Americans

It's interesting to note that Muslims and America are similar in that they both have global ambitions. According to the Qur'an, Islam is a religion for the whole world. Somewhat similarly, America has always had ambitions to be the world empire. Global imperialism of this style was descended from the Roman Empire, which also had global ambitions, but lacked the means to meaningfully rule the world. Right now, there are a lot of people who feel that the global ambitions of Islam and the global ambitions of America are in conflict. But a close examination of the nature of these ambitions should illustrate that that's not the case.

A global brotherhood.

Islam is meant to be a global brotherhood of believers, marked by religious ideals like faith, goodwill, and good social conduct. But nowhere in the Qur'an is it indicated that this brotherhood is to be political. Interestingly, political order and statehood seem to be missing from the Qur'an. What you will find in the Qur'an, however, is an edict that there is a good reason for mankind to be split up into different nations. "O mankind! We ... made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other" (49:13). This lays the foundation for cooperation and brotherhood between nations and political entities. If we focus on Islam, in theory, America, as just another nation among many, ought to be on friendly terms with Islam.

The nation of unquenchable fire.

America is criticized on a couple of counts. For one, our culture is very materialistic. Money holds a great deal of importance, the advertising industry and its attendant consumerism is all-pervasive, and the thirst for paying customers of American commodities is never quenched. For another, our government and education system are secular. Religion is deliberately placed at a distance and diminished in importance to a great degree. The second point seems to indicate that we are averse to religious guidance in a visceral way, and the first point seems to show that we are simultaneously attracted to non-religious things. Thus it seems we're doubly anti-religious. To a culture where religion is everything, that doesn't go down easy.

I, however, think American secularism is misunderstood. Secularism doesn't negate religion; it protects it. Adopting a secularist culture is like surrounding yourself with an unquenchable fire. Material goods are fundamentally unsatisfying, hence the fire is unquenchable. But material goods are forceful in their ability to transform things, and the results of the transformation are evident. If used wisely, a secularist perspective can help transform some situations into opportunities to express religion.

Religion is focused on specific infinite-scope phenomena. It is not secular. Secularism is focused on specific singular-scope phenomena. The nature of the dichotomy is not one of enmity. The Qur'an says, "And of everything we have created pairs: that ye may receive instruction" (51:49). Religion and secularism are a dichotomy and a pair. They are opposite ideas which both exist in reality. It is logical, then, that given time and ambition, a secularist empire would rise up as well as a religious one. But unless I'm missing something, the import of this is exactly nothing. Night and day also both exist. You can argue that religion is more important than secularism, which I think is pretty much true. But you can also argue that day is better than night. That doesn't mean that one or the other doesn't have a purpose.

Clearly, if secularists and religious people are at odds right now, the reason must lay beyond the mere ideas themselves. The Middle East is certainly riddled with problems, and many of these problems are caused by the West and by America. But some of America's problems are caused by America, and some of the Middle East's problems are caused by the Middle East. That doesn't mean that America is fundamentally at odds with America or the Middle East with the Middle East. Whatever the trauma of Western civilization that has led to the conflict, we should take heart that it is at the very least not fundamental to our differing perspectives as human beings. I think if we see it this way, it might help us understand one another better when we talk about the Middle East.

How to Tell if there's a Conspiracy

Conspiracies exist. Everywhere. A conspiracy is defined as an attempt to do something unethical, which you don't want anyone beyond your circle of friends to know about. Of course, there are times when doing something unethical is necessary, usually to protect yourself. However, unfortunately, there are certain people in the world who are ignorant of the effects of unethical actions, which are always bad. These kinds of people commit conspiracies and think they'll "get away with it." You never get away with a conspiracy, but if you were trying to protect yourself, or something similar to that, then you may be able at least to survive the negative effects of the natural consequences of when the truth comes to light.

How to Tell if There's a Conspiracy:

You check the independent channels. They won't know all of the truth. This is because they're independent. They don't have a lot of social resources, so they can't access all of the truth. Some of them, you can't trust. Some of them have been infiltrated by conspirators who don't want the truth to be known.

You check the people who you think are committing the conspiracy. They'll mechanically repeat the exact same thing: "There is no conspiracy here." Or something relevantly similar to that. If they actually did make a mistake, and as a matter of fact they are decent people and not conspirators, they will send out marketing information revealing exactly what the mistakes were, who made them, and what they're doing to correct the problem.

You check the people who you trust, who have seen the truth. This is called an empirical observation. Eventually, you'll find a couple empirical observations through the appropriate channels which contradict the last mechanically repeated statement, "There is no conspiracy here." Then you know there's a conspiracy.

However. Even at this point, not all the questions have been answered. You don't know for certain who is the one committing the conspiracy. Depending on how much you've been hurt by the conspiracy, it's up to you to determine how extensive of an investigation you want to make to determine who the real conspirators are, and it's also up to you to determine how you're going to use violent means (like the government or the law) to neutralize the conspiracy and bring the criminals to justice.

This goes for corporate conspiracies, Illuminati conspiracies, government conspiracies, raver conspiracies, Satanist conspiracies, Buddhist conspiracies, etc.

Clarifications of Buddhism: Nonviolence, not Anti-Violence!

One of the problems faced by American Buddhists today, I think, is that we are too peaceful. Many of the teachings of Buddha indicate a strong central value of peace. But to many, this kind of peace simply means inaction.

Instead of trying to be grossly peaceful, we should try to be subtilely peaceful. We should have a deep and meaningful sense of peace.

Consider the Dorje Shugden controversy in Tibetan Buddhism. Dorje Shugden is an enlightened, wrathful protector whose worship The Dalai Lama has outlawed. He outlawed this practice, according to Wikipedia, because he read a story about Dorje Shugden saw, wherein the deity saw a bunch of Gelugpa Buddhists studying Nyingmapa Buddhism, and so he slaughtered them, because Dorje Shugden is a Gelugpa Buddhist and wanted to maintain the purity of Gelugpa Buddhism.

I can definitely understand the pressing need for Tibetan Buddhism to be adopted by Westerners, and I can definitely see how Buddhism may not have been so easily introduced if His Holiness didn't adopt such a firm perspective. Far be it from me to criticize the Dalai Lama.

But honestly, what's so bad about slaughtering people? Slaughtering people is something human beings do, and we need to recognize this. We can't just take our human nature lightly. There's an important lesson in our violence.

In my opinion, if we're going to slaughter people, we should do so in a mutual hatred stemmed from mutual respect. As Sonny said in the classic Dog Day Afternoon: "The guy who kills me... I hope he does it because he hates my guts, not because it's his job." We shouldn't kill people dispassionately, leaving them confused about why they are victimized for no apparent reason, and leaving us with a spiritual crisis because we don't understand our actions or the meaning of our lives. If we kill people, it should be because we fucking hate them. And because they fucking hate us. Period. End of story.

The Maoris, whom I have studied a bit, built a well-developed warrior ethic based on this idea. They are warriors. They hate people, and they kill them. They also send them medics to lovingly heal them up and make them strong and ready to fight, not because they love them, but because they hate them and want to fucking kill them. In this deep hatred is a profound feeling of love. If a Maori wants to kill your fucking guts, you should take it as a compliment.

But if an American wants to kill you, unfortunately, it's probably because his boss wants a little higher of a profit margin. Understandably, as Americans, this leaves us a little disoriented. Should I identify as an American, despite this desperate cynicism, or should I adopt a wholly new culture? Being American is thus difficult for us. However, unfortunately, this difficulty in being American, due to people's natural tendency to overgeneralize and miss the point of things, results in an unwarranted extension of the idea of restraining violence into the territory of anti-violence, which disregards not only the cynical American approach to violence, but the wholesome Maori approach as well. In this way, the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

So if Dorje Shugden wants to slaughter people, so what? He's enlightened; he can do what he wants. We should be less concerned with whether or not slaughtering people is justified, and more concerned with opening up to the other, and being receptive when the other opens up to us. There are teachings we must learn from others. And we Buddhists have wholesome things to contribute. Being anti-violent is actually a kind of closed-mindedness.

If we decide to be nonviolent, that's great. But how does this apply to others? This is our moral choice. Not theirs. It is far more important to be open to the ideas of others. And here's a crucial point. When we are open to others, and their wishes, belief systems, and so forth, we will begin to see the actual basis for nonviolence, rather than our mere projected basis for it. We will begin to see the most appropriate way to express our inner wishes, and we will see that regardless of violent intent, on either side of a dispute, if we are truly open to each other, the most equitable and intelligent way to resolve the dispute will come to light. And this way will probably (though not certainly) have no violence. In other words, the resolution will certainly be non-violent, but not anti-violent.

Moral codes are not dogma. Moral codes are a system of restraint that we apply to develop a sense of higher importance. Dogma, on the other hand, is the belief that a certain moral value has an essential quality by the virtue of which it is completely infallible and must be followed in every circumstance without fail. I tend to think instead of nonviolence as a guiding moral principle, we Western Buddhists tend to adopt anti-violence as dogma.

Blueprint for a Just and Creative Society: Part 2

The two sides of the coin described in the previous article have to do with creativity and justice. I can summarize it like this: 1) When one can choose between two or more social institutions, and the choice doesn't matter, it is important to make a choice and stick with it. 2) When one can choose between two or more social institutions, and the choice is important, it's best not to choose between the institutions themselves, but rather choose the most ethical point of view, and the institution that happens to be most in accordance with that point of view. Choice 1 makes society creative, choice 2 makes it just.

I think it's also important here to touch on one particular choice in the second category that we must make as a society. The choice has to do with a kind of unity. When we make choices of the first category, it is important that we as a society do so in a context regarding sociocultural institutions, agreements, understandings, and so forth that we can trust. While it's important that personalities do not get all mashed up, we have to have some common ground which invites us to view other personalities, and for other personalities to view our own. This gives meaning to everyone, regardless of their choices. (I'm using the word "personalities" here instead of "people" in light of the statement that we form our identity, or our personality, according to the loyal choices we make that do not matter.)

In order for this to happen, we have to be able to trust one another. For there to be common ground, or a level playing field, we have to agree on certain codes of conduct, according to each person's differing ability to accept things. There are a number of these common grounds, like the fact that one dollar is worth the same everywhere in the U.S., the fact that arguments can't escalate to the point of lethal violence, or sexual violence, and so on. The most important of these, of course, is a legal system we can trust to institute our just demands.

But there's another aspect to this as well—an internal aspect. We can't simply rely upon external things like laws and financial institutions to ensure that all our interactions are positive. We also have to have an internal sense of trust for each other, and an internal sense of goodwill. We have to truly have warm-hearted, good feelings for one another. Love and compassion. Then we can get into fights without really fighting. And anyway, if we don't have these feelings, no number of laws can cover every contingency. We have to trust that we can trust each other.

Thus we should be able to have multiple different personalities, some of which radically opposed to one another, in all aspects except the ones which are important, in which case we should be in accord. And these personalities should interact, through the medium of social exchange which we can trust as an ethical baseline. We must all have a sense of trust for one another, as well-founded as it can be. If this isn't possible, neither is a just and creative society.

Hope for Obama

The set of things that can be known differs in both quantity and nature from the set of things that can be believed. Which implies the possibility that sometimes they complement each other. Beliefs are sometimes more desirable than facts for these reasons:

1. Facts don't give a complete picture, because there are inevitably facts you don't know.
2. Facts can seduce you into believing something false, because facts correlated with one perspective don't necessarily justify that perspective. E.g. it may be a fact that you met a Communist in College, but that doesn't justify the perspective that higher ed is Communist. This is how logical fallacies work. However, the fact that you met a Christian in church does work to justify the perspective that church is Christian.
3. Facts may produce a picture that's incoherent. This is why PR firms for immoral companies always seem to drum up a litany of facts to justify whatever they want to do.

Beliefs, on the other hand, can be more powerful than facts (especially when supported by facts), because the picture is complete enough to justify action, true enough to work from, and coherent enough to get people to buy onto it. If beliefs didn't have power, religion, advertising, public relations, politics, etc. would have never come about.

Case in point: cynicism about how bad congress is and how ineffective politics are is what allows Republicans to do whatever they want, because people continue to vote for them out of cynicism.

A Silver Lining on Wisconsin: My Analysis

The results of Wisconsin's recall election are understandably upsetting. However, there is some silver lining. We can't judge too quickly that American democracy is dead, because the richest 1% is, perhaps, not as monolithic and negative of a force as we may think.

Yes, the richest of the rich spent $63 million to buy the recall election. The bad news is, that's a lot of money. The good news is, that's a LOT of money. In fact, it is so much money that, I would argue, as long as activists continue to fight for democracy, buying elections like this is a) unsustainable and b) not necessarily effective.

The Voters

There are around 5 million people in Wisconsin (Wikipedia). Around 1/2 of them voted (Huffington Post). That's 2.5 million votes. Walker only won 4% more votes in this election than his 2010 election (Huffington Post). That means, all that money spent was worth around 100,000 voters. That's about $630 per voter. (If you count all citizens in Wisconsin, it's around $315 per voter, but according to what I was told by Democratic Party campaign officials, most campaigns don't even bother to spend money on people who never vote.)

Now keep in mind that the only counties which did significantly better for Walker were the Republican counties (Huffington Post). So that means the voter pool is even smaller.

Of course arithmetic like this may not mean much, but it should give us some kind of ballpark idea of how much money must be spent to buy every single important election nationwide. If people continue to mobilize like they did in Wisconsin, it will force the richest of the rich to spend a LOT of money, probably in the hundreds of billions, every couple of years. Simply multiplying half the American public by the $650 figure gets us almost $100 billion, and this figure assumes, of course, that Americans cast 150 million votes.

And note that this doesn't assume that Americans will cast 150 million votes in a single election. No, it assumes something more like casting 150 million votes in EVERY election. Every two years, voters must decide state senate, state house, gubernotorial, federal Senate, federal House, and Presidential elections, not to mention judiciary elections. And each of these elections is important. Wisconsin proves this, if nothing else. And the more public offices voters must consider, the more money must be spent on each voter. The $650 figure only applies to a single candidate in a single election.

Now for some more down-to-Earth data: My reading of a study by Gregor A. Huber and Kevin Arceneaux ("Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising") is that you're probably not going to get much more than 8 or 9 percentage points no matter how much advertising you use. Nate Silver also suggests that there is a diminishing return on advertising, as people eventually find it annoying, as well as the deleterious effect of the perception that a candidate is buying his office. Of course the effect of the advertising probably also depends on a large variety of factors, including the effectiveness of the ad campaign, the likability of the candidate, and so on. But this is important, because it means, in theory, there are some elections that money simply cannot buy.

There are other variables, too.

First of all, Walker's campaign is a recall campaign, not a general election campaign. This is important because, as the New York Times tells us, 60% of people believe that recall elections should only be held because of official misconduct, and 10% believe that recall elections should never be held at all. Understandibly, these people were more likely to vote to keep Walker in office. If this were a general election, the results might be different.

Also, lest we forget, Walker and his legislation had to get pretty brutal to hold onto his seat, and he may face indictment for corruption (Current TV). All things considered, this is by no means a landslide victory for Walker. And he had to outspend his opponent by at least 7-1 to obtain this far from decisive victory (MSNBC).

Patrons of Our Democracy Store

So far we might have assumed that corporations and the 1% are some kind of united, monolithic Republican force. That every single 1%-er will cough up his or her fair share of the hundreds of billions of dollars they need. But this may be giving them too much credit. The Sunlight Foundation and Forbes and New American Gazette show us that not every rich person is necessarily political. And of those that are political, not all of them are Republicans. And corporations respond to the demands of the public more often than we may think, because they are more interested in making a profit than buying an election most of the time.

And even of the monolithic Republican contributors, it seems highly unlikely that they can or want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every couple of years. If they wanted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, they might as well just pay taxes and leave elections alone, because it will likely cost about the same, and it's less dangerous. Why is it less dangerous? Because it's less likely to produce large-scale protest movements.

Street-Wise Democracy

First of all, it's important to note that the Wisconsin and Occupy protests are getting it right. They're permanent, non-violent, and large. The question is, of course, will they have any effect. According to Paul Schumaker ("Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands"), either community support and intra-group support individually will predict a positive outcome more than either agency, elected-official, or media support individually. According to Schumaker and Michael O'Keefe ("Protest Effectiveness in Southeast Asia"), some factors correlated with positive response include whether the regime is democratic, and whether the group is permanent or whether it's large. In other words, the Wisconsin protests have everything going for them.

Conclusion?

I recognize that the information I've presented is not very conclusive, largely because of its speculative nature, and because the different studies seem to be measuring different things. For example, the Schumaker and O'Keefe studies seem to be studying the policy response of the government, while the advertising studies seem to be measuring election outcomes. Also, the Schumaker and O'Keefe studies do not measure the interrelatedness of the various correlations.

But we can be sure of one conclusion: giving up is NOT the proper response. Protest movements may take time, but they are effective. One thing the data clearly do not show is that deep media influence necessarily trumps protest movements. There is a silver lining: We may win yet.

When I Would Vote Republican

Psychiatry is Thought Policing. The Thought Police, especially in public schools, are trying to outlaw emotions and vast territories of free thought. There is nothing positive about psychiatry.

In order to advance their agenda of control and mental slavery, the Thought Police first make school life intolerable, then when any student in any way expresses how intolerable school life is, they use fear tactics to frighten parents into believing their son or daughter has something called a "mental illness" (a thing which they simply made up) and that the kid cannot be trusted to think for themselves. They then encourage every effort to forcibly disallow the child to think for themselves and make authority figures think for them. This, of course, causes the child immense suffering, which they will obviously express, and when they do, it confirms their proposition that they have a "mental illness."

No tactic is too extreme to force the child not to think for themselves. Schools have been known to put children in isolation for hours and not allow them to go to the bathroom. They also torture children with electric shocks to get them to fall in line. If they express suicidality (who wouldn't in such a situation?) they use police force to incarcerate them and deny them all basic rights in a "mental hospital" (prison). Abuse is rampant at these hospitals. While according to the first Amendment, people should be allowed to videotape orderlies at these hospitals, if you try to force them to respect this right, they will violently tackle you to the ground, take away your camera permanently, put you in isolation, not allow you to eat with the other inmates, and put you on a higher dosage of mind-killing medications in order to subdue you.

Parents naturally have a bond for their children. So when they are afraid for them, they take control of the situation. This instinct is twisted and perverted into a sadistic form of mind-control and manipulation by the Thought Police. If you can get a parent to believe that their child has illegal thoughts ("mental illness"), they will use any and all tactics to force the child to think the way they prescribe. They will try to "help," which in essence means torture and traumatize the child into allowing the parent totalitarian mind-control to force out the illegal thoughts.

How do they frighten parents into becoming proxy Thought Police? Consider a publication I found at the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, entitled "Red Flags in Children's Behavior." What exactly are some of these "red flags?" For adolescents, some include, "drug and alcohol use," "difficulty with relationships," "inattention to appearance or grooming," "risk taking behaviors with little thought of consequences," "extreme sensitivity to rejection or failure," "social isolation." In other words, being a normal adolescent is illegal. In order to satisfy the Thought Police, you must be a completely abnormal teenager--a freak. But of course, if you ever get depressed because you're a freak, that's an illegal thought, and they will bear down on you using every tactic they have in their arsenal.

According to the Thought Police, humanity is illegal. And to punish being human, they will torture you and traumatize you any way they can.

I am a solid Liberal, but the Republicans have a great track record against psychiatry. If Democrats EVER take up the position that we should "help" people with "mental illness," I won't care about the environment, I won't care about gay rights, I won't care about rampant corporate corruption, I won't care about civil liberties, I won't care about domestic spying, I won't care about foreign wars, I won't care about militarizing the police, I won't care about the war on drugs, I won't care about regulation of Wall Street; if Democrats EVER try to "help" people with "mental illness," I WILL vote Republican. Period.

It is imperative that right-thinking people let the world know how we feel about the disgusting anti-human institution of psychiatry and oppose it in any possible way we can.

Some Thoughts on an Age of Aquarius Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying

All parts include: Part 1: Ignorance; Part 2: Seduction; Part 3: Compassion; Part 4: Psychiatrists; Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying.

Hacking vs. Lying

In my opinion, this is the most interesting of the series because it involves a brief philosophical treatment of a very new concept. I am going to use the "programmer subculture" definition of "hacker," which is someone who manipulates computers in ways they weren't meant to be. I will distinguish this from "cracking," which is simply unlawful access to a computer.

Hacking is not cracking. Nevertheless, I feel there must be a little leeway given against the law in use of the term. If you do something online that's only a minor transgression of the law, but nevertheless have ethically praiseworthy or at least neutral motives, then I believe you are still "hacking."

How does this relate to lying? Well, it raises certain ethical issues. Hacking is essentially "gaming the system." It is a blatant misrepresentation of your motives. And we needn't be talking about computers here. We can talk about things like political maneuvering done in congress, or journalist misrepresentation in search of a story. The fact of the matter is, however, that it usually involves computers. And this is what makes hacking ethically neutral, as opposed to lying, misrepresentation, or "gaming the system" per se, which are all unethical.

So what's the difference? Hacking is done openly. Example: you're calling a company with an automated menu on the phone. You know you will have to misrepresent yourself in order to talk to a human. You're not cracking, because your motives are ethically sound—maybe you want to know the washing instructions for your kid's new sweater. If you were straight up misrepresenting and not hacking, you wouldn't ever want to tell anyone what you did. But that's not the case. You were hacking, because if someone asks what you did, you can tell them; it's not a big deal. If there are restrictions to who gets to know what you did and why, it's only because those people are the people you're hacking. It's not because you need to keep a secret from the general public.

Hacking is a product of the Age of Aquarius. It is an "open" act in my use of the term. (See my Principles of Openness for an explanation of my use of the term.) And furthermore, I believe that my outline of the notion of hacking is sufficiently concrete to be protected speech under the Constitution of the United States, as it should be.

Some Thoughts on an Age of Aquarius Part 4: Psychiatrists

All parts include: Part 1: Ignorance; Part 2: Seduction; Part 3: Compassion; Part 4: Psychiatrists; Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying.

Psychiatrists

In my opinion, psychiatrists are the single biggest threat to any open society in alignment with the principles of openness. They represent a perversion of every principle of openness. (I'm referring to my Principles of Openness.)

1. They appear not to, but they represent an undue extension of authority. They appear not to because anyone, presumably, can become a psychiatrist. And psychiatrists can change careers, move between jobs, etc. The position appears to be open. But. It's open to everyone except the most important person—YOU. YOU cannot become your own psychiatrist. YOU have no authority over what the psychiatrist diagnoses and prescribes. Psychiatrists affect you. But they have no formal accountability to you. By all rights, if you need to change psychiatrists, you should be able to, but all to often, you can't. And in cases where you can, like in Portland Oregon, psychiatrists actively oppose any peer-run psychiatry clinics on the fundamental belief that psychiatric patients should have no say in who gets to treat them.
2. They appear not to, but they represent closing off the ability to participate. Psychiatrists work under the common assumption that they're doing good science. And that their experiments are not a "black box" in any sense. "Black boxes" are strictly forbidden in any open system, and the institution of Western science is such a system. But. There are multiple black boxes in psychiatry. First, there's the black box of the observed. The observer can observe the symptoms, and describe them, but she has no idea what they signify. No psychiatric science ever has been able to describe what symptoms signify beyond subjective and arbitrary labeling, and the ASSUMPTION that this labeling represents a license to take complete control over all aspects of the patient's life. Then, there's the black box of the symptoms themselves. No one has any idea what theoretical basis drives the symptoms and their respective diagnoses. They're just arbitrary labels.
3. They appear not to, but they hold secrets. When you go into a psychiatrists office, since psychiatry is supposed to be a science, and medical, and approved by society, you'd expect no shady secrecy going on in your interactions with psychiatrists. But. Psychiatrists LIE as a normal part of their profession. As much as they may try to convince themselves otherwise, they know that there is no scientific basis for their diagnoses and prescriptions. So if a psychiatrist knows you have depression but no psychosis, and they want to prescribe you an anti-psychotic, they will LIE to the authorities to do so. And if they think you need to be hospitalized but they don't feel they have sufficient evidence to prove you're a danger to yourself or others, they will misrepresent, bullshit, and LIE to get you institutionalized. And most importantly of all, if they feel you don't deserve to know what they're deciding on your behalf, they will LIE to you to keep it secret.

I cannot stress enough how much psychiatry is the antithesis of openness. It is the biggest long-term threat to our democracy. Already, children are being medicated simply because they defy authority. They are being medicated under the pretext of an invented illness because they're bored. THESE are the change-makers, who are being snuffed out due to this travesty of science. And furthermore, since the institution of psychiatry seeks full autonomy in deciding whether to incarcerate or otherwise control people with "mental illness" on a whim, based on their "objective" (read: patently subjective) diagnoses, we can all expect key activists, politicians, and change-makers to be locked up for invented illnesses, just like they do in Russia, if we allow psychiatry any more legal leeway. Republicans already like to say Liberalism is a "mental illness." Surprise surprise. Psychiatry is an illegitimate institution—the product of Western obsession with control and a repressive and arbitrary suppression of the use of psychoactive drugs for psychological (and not psychiatric) purposes.

Principles of Openness

A while ago I did some philosophical grunt work trying to nail down what it means to be "open" in the style of Occupy, open source software, the Internet, etc. Here's a paraphrase:

Everything should be open. Including all societies, groups, corporations, governments, etc.

What does it mean to be open?

• No undue extensions of authority
• Everyone has a chance to participate
• Nothing of substance is secret

What is an "undue extension of authority?" Any authority which violates the principles of open authority. Here are those principles:

• Either the authority must change,
• or the people in authority must change.
• And when a change is made, the choice must not be limited in any way.

What does this mean? It means that if you create a position of authority, like say, logo designer, it must be a temporary position. If it is an office like the presidency, not a temporary position but permanent, the person who fulfills that office must change. There must be some kind of formal mechanism for ensuring that change does occur when needed, for instance term limits, or votes of no confidence, etc.

In substance, if someone wants to be in a position of authority, that person must be allowed a reasonable pathway to do so. If the position of authority rules out anyone arbitrarily, that is an undue extension of authority and violates the principles of openness.

What does this rule out? It rules out monarchy, because the person in authority (i.e. the president) does not change frequently. Rather, he's allowed to serve for as long as he wants without any change.

It also rules out nepotism or the "revolving door" for congresspeople, because when a congressperson is hired as a lobbyist in return for policies of deregulation, for instance, that position of lobbyist is not open to anyone—it is offered specifically to the congressperson. Ideally, the position of lobbyist should be open to any person or group, so that all people get their voices heard in congress.

Where Liberals Have Gone Wrong

I've been busy writing up the business plan for my website (www.netcultpolitics.com), and have come to a surprising conclusion:

I am not a Liberal.

during my research, I had to do answer some fundamental questions about the American political marketplace. And one of the questions I had to ask was, first of all, what is a Liberal? (And, more importantly, what is a Conservative?)

"Liberal" can mean many things. A liberal used to mean a Communist, back in the early part of the century. After World War II, however, that changed; American communism fell apart. After that, Liberals were people who agreed with the F.D.R. tradition, following the lead of the Great Society. But the Great Society had a rotten core because, while it supported domestic improvements for the common man, it also supported imperialism and war, implicit racism, and big business. This is where Liberalism shot itself in the foot. When the civil rights movement came, as it inevitably would, along with the (also inevitable) anti-war movement, Liberals fractured. And today, unfortunately, this legacy of Liberalism continues. This is why I say, I am not a Liberal. I am not a Lyndon Johnson Liberal, because I disagree with a) the Vietnam war and interventionism in general, b) selfish Capitalism, and c) racism.

When the Liberal movement failed, of course, conservatives immediately filled the vacuum. It was the same old story—racism, big business, and imperialism—but with the added feature of enhanced propaganda and an attitude of "screw the common man." (While I'm not a Johnsonian Liberal, I am certainly not a conservative.)

However, I think we are in the process of redefining what it means to be a Liberal. I, for one, do not fully associate Liberalism with Lyndon Johnson's tradition. I think Liberalism has more to do with being generous and letting people go their own way without interference. It's like Libertarianism, except with generosity—real, systematized generosity (i.e. welfare). In this sense, I definitely am a Liberal. I think we need this kind of politics. And its roots are everywhere. Our culture is filled with generosity. We have soup lines, food banks, the Salvation Army, the gospel, Buddhism—all kinds of generous potential. This potential has moral force. The conservatives may have political power, and economic power, and propaganda power, but Liberals in general have more moral power—at least, under my newer, updated definition of the word "Liberal."

So what does it mean to be a Conservative? Essentially, I think, it means that you are against regulation, but for laws. "Regulation" means laws that govern business. There are also other laws you do not support—laws regulating guns, and protecting the environment. Conservatism also means you support freedom from all kinds of interferences, but you think this freedom must be protected by military might. Finally, it means upholding traditions, especially the tradition of Democracy. I think a lot of these traits are admirable, and if we had people in office who lived up to these ideals, we wouldn't be so bad off. The problem is that Conservatives do not honor the rules. They follow the letter of the law, sometimes, but don't live up to its spirit. The purpose of Democracy is to preserve the freedom of individuals, which means they need deliberative freedom (i.e. freedom from propaganda) and political freedom (which entails representatives being held accountable to their public). On these two counts, the conservatives are lacking greatly.

Where do we go from here? Well, we have to stand for something. We have to uphold our true values as human beings. We have to capitalize on our potential for generosity. Liberalism, while under threat, will by no means die out, because things have changed enormously in history. Human beings have actualized their potential to be decent people to a great extent. With my values as my touchstone, I tend to think it is easier to redefine the word "Liberal" to reflect this than it is to redefine the word "Conservative," because of the damage done by the Heritage Foundation and all the others. That is why, in my own way, I truly am a Liberal.

Criminality and Society

It seems to me that the criminal has a dangerous road. To some extent, he has given up society and gone "underground" if you will. Society may seem constricting, but it is useful in that it provides a construct for being good to people. There is a sense that what's good for society is good for everyone, so in a very real sense, someone who civilizes himself is working for the good of everybody. But the person who gave this up to pursue criminal purposes is probably working only for himself. Society teaches us to think about other people, instead of just about ourselves. This is why it is good to impart in people a sense of being civilized.

In some cases, movies and television glorify criminal life. Particularly, there is an idea that violence is justified, even if it is illegal, as long as there is a sense of moral violence. This is bad on two counts: it justifies violence, and it justifies criminality. Anyone could get the sense that doing this or that is bad in most circumstances, but in my case it is okay. In fact, this is quite common, and quite mistaken.

Now I think a fundamental precept of democracy is to maintain a dialogue which constantly tests the values of the government. In reality, almost nobody is good all the time, and this includes those who run the government. Democracy admonishes every citizen to take an active role in policy-making. It makes explicit the fact that politicians must answer to their constituency. Thus laws can change. Some people make the decision to be a criminal, I think, because they are destitute. This is understandable, though regrettable. But some people decide to become criminal simply because they feel society is wrong — society requires too much work, or society doesn't solve everybody's problems, or society has made mistakes. This is incorrect. Even if this were true, turning criminal is not the right answer. People who behave like this legitimize a harsh penal system, and further disenfranchise the destitute who turn criminal because they have no other choice. Because of people who behave like this, destitute criminals who have no other choice are given little sympathy. In the end, if one feels society is wrong, one should find legitimate ways to change society, because turning criminal does no good.