I was invited to be on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News this morning – which I always find a great deal more intelligent than the Andrew Marr alternative on the BBC. I declined because I did not want to get up and get a 7.30am train from Ramsgate on a Sunday morning. I had a meeting until 11.30pm last night planning a conference on human rights in Balochistan [I still tend to say Baluchistan], and I have a newly crowned tooth that seems not to want to settle down. But I am still worried by my own lack of energy, which is uncharacteristic. Is this old age?
I also have some serious work to do on my Burnes book, and next week I shall be staying in London to be in the British Library reading room for every second of its opening hours. So there may be a bit of a posting hiatus. I have in mind a short post on an important subject on which I suspect that 99% of my readership – including the regular dissident commenters – will strongly disagree with me.
This is a peculiarly introspective post, perhaps because my tooth is hurting, but I seem to have this curmudgeonly spirit which wishes to react to the huge popularity of this blog by posting something genuinely held but unpopular; a genuine view but one I don’t normally trumpet. The base thought seems to be “You wouldn’t like me if you really knew me”.
Similarly when I wrote Murder in Samarkand I was being hailed as a hero by quite a lot of people for my refusal to go along with the whole neo-con disaster of illegal wars, extraordinary rendition and severe attacks on civil liberties, sacrificing my fast track diplomatic career as a result. My reaction to putative hero worship was to publish in Murder in Samarkand not just the political facts, but an exposure of my own worst and most unpleasant behaviour in my private life.
I am in a very poor position to judge, but I believe the result rather by accident turned out artistically compelling, if you don’t want to read the book you can get a good idea of that by clicking on David Tennant in the top right of this blog and listening to him playing me in David Hare’s radio adaptation.
Anyway, that’s enough musing. You won’t like my next post, whenever it comes. Promise.
“I’m very sad this morning. I got very sad some days ago, but I recovered for a while, but I’m very sad again today. I suppose that I know the cause. I want to be a moral entity with free will. I do not want to be God’s toy, or a pet. Such an existence would not be worth living, and it would be terrifying, because it could be impossible to escape.”
As far as I’m concerned, you are absolutely fine as you are. I immediately picked up on your kindness, honesty and sincerity and therefore I started to communicate with you. Don’t compare yourself with what is supposed to be “normal”, I doubt normal even exists. You are unique and have unique qualities. Try to stick to those and develop them further.
Those are my laymen observations and are grounded in nothing else than my personal experiences of this world. I too was abandoned and it has had an enormous effect on my life so I can relate to some of the things you say. I know far too little to give any serious advice and even if I knew more I would not have the proper skills to give any good advice.
I went to professional counselling, psychotherapy, for two years which helped me immensely in my understanding of myself and I’m very happy I got that opportunity. I recommend it if you ever get the opportunity. I was also very sad and my experience was that I couldn’t get out of that condition on my own but I was helped by a professional counsellor.
@Clark – I don’t sense there was any threat in Sunflower’s earlier message. It was rather despondent, but certainly not aggressive. I commend you both for an interesting thread.
@Sunflower – the closed nature of firmware is a special interest of Clark, and I know a little about it as well. But I see reasons to be optimistic – the FSF has a campaign on secure boot systems, and in general the closed nature of BIOS software. So, if this is of interest to you, read their website, and perhaps join up too.
Also, there is hacker interest in F/OSS software for routers, look up “Tomato” for more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato_%28firmware%29
My optimism comes from a firm belief that hackers create software that best solves people’s needs and desires, whereas closed/corporate solutions tends towards the needs of corporations. Although the likes of Cisco et al will not go out of their way to build firmware that is anti-corporate (for example, adding Torrent software to a router) they will if it saves them money. Since the hacker community is not only doing great work here, but doing security updates for free, router manufacturers would be crazy not to use it.
Sunflower at 4 Oct, 9:44 am
I share this suspicion, which is why I retain older hardware. When the market was more competitive, and we were seeing large increases in the power of hardware, there was a strong incentive to advertise every capability of the hardware, so hidden malicious features were less likely than they are now.
Some hidden hardware features have been exposed; there was the secret AMD CPU debug mode, for instance.
I’m not aware of this issue. Could you supply a link, please.
@Sunflower, great post at 12:36pm.
“You have not explained what it was in your communication that led to my suspicion. If you do not do so, I will.”
Please help me, it’s hard for me to know what made you suspicious of me.
Jon, Sunflower is making a point about hidden/secret functionality in hardware. The hacker community is doing very well in overcoming such features in software, including firmware, for which they have provided many Free and open source replacements.
Yes, I must flash my router… So much to do…
(Ah, I just looked up my own link, and found that Tomato isn’t entirely free. However the point I make still stands – the efforts of Free Software hackers produces software that people want to use, and is cheaper for manufacturers to use than running their own paid software teams. In any case I should think there are a variety of projects like Tomato – an interesting topic for further research! I’ve reflashed a variety of hardware devices in my time – even an iPod!)
On Huwai Clark:
http://nerdtwilight.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/u-s-national-security-concerns-cast-pall-over-huawei/
And here: http://nerdtwilight.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/for-huawei-and-zte-suspicions-persist/
@Clark – fair point about hardware. However this isn’t risk-free for anyone who would hide this in hardware subversively, since they would be likely to get found out. Look at the firmware system you can add to an ordinary PC that reports the location of a computer in the event of theft. It survives an operating system reinstall, since it is flashed into the firmware.
However, to detect it making contact with the outside world, it needs to use a network interface (router) which these days has built-in logging, and you only need one person to notice this to blow the whistle in the tech press. I suppose you could have a dormant feature that is remotely activated to reduce the chances of detection, but the odds of someone who “needs to be watched” having the right hardware to permit this, and having a firewall configuration to permit such an activation, is low in my view.
Sunflower lodged the following message for me in the moderation queue, by including multiple links, some time before 11pm last night, which is the despatch time of Jon’s e-mail to me alerting me to Sunflower’s hidden message:
My emphasis in bold. I complied with this request at about 5:30 am this morning, and at about the same time I sent this message to Sunflower:
At 9:10 am, Sunflower sent me this e-mail:
At 10:04, Sunflower posted here the comment that could be taken as a veiled threat. I started reading and posting here before checking my e-mail. Thus it could be a misunderstanding, though Sunflower’s self-contradiction is quite plain. Or, it is possible that Sunflower is skilled in the techniques of “plausible deniablity”. I have often pointed out in comments that my e-mail address is available on the link on my name on my comments.
Sunflower is anonymous here, even to the point of using a false e-mail address to post comments. Sunflower wished to initiate covert communication with Zoologist, though revealing this to the site moderators via the message in the queue.
Sunflower, I am going to proceed on the assumption that you just got a bit carried away, but I don’t see any need for the cloak and dagger stuff.
Sunflower, I also have some problems with your argument technique, which seems less than honest. Looking back through the thread, you originally displayed a stance of complete rejection of all rational understanding based upon a religious belief.
This stance has slowly morphed into an acceptance of science. You also seem rather technically inclined.
Why did you initially misrepresent your own position?
Sunflower, thanks for the links about the Huawai hardware.
Unfortunately, they give me further problems as to what your attitude really is. You were criticising the hacktivist community as useful idiots giving the Illuminati or whoever the excuse they need for a clampdown, possibly even orchestrated by covert elements within. You also mis-named the hactivist community as the hacker community in that comment. But your recent links, including the ones in your hidden message, suggest that you suffer from no such confusion, which would suggest that your misrepresentation was deliberate.
Dear Clark, “Sunflower, I am going to proceed on the assumption that you just got a bit carried away, but I don’t see any need for the cloak and dagger stuff.”
The [Mod/Jon: have emailed C about this, please leave in moderation] is JON’s text it means that JON mailed you about this. Not me. I understood this line to be a note from Jon to me. I didn’t mail you, I didn’t have your e-mail address.
Clark>At 9:10 am, Sunflower sent me this e-mail:
>“HI there, no I didn’t mail you. Didn’t have your address. Thank you
>for helping.
Yes, I was just telling you the truth.
“Or, it is possible that Sunflower is skilled in the techniques of “plausible deniablity”. I have often pointed out in comments that my e-mail address is available on the link on my name on my comments”
You are drawing the wrong conclusion, Clark. I’m sorry. I was not aware I could easily find you address here.
“Sunflower is anonymous here, even to the point of using a false e-mail address to post comments. Sunflower wished to initiate covert communication with Zoologist, though revealing this to the site moderators via the message in the queue.”
Is that a problem, Clark?
“Sunflower, I am going to proceed on the assumption that you just got a bit carried away, but I don’t see any need for the cloak and dagger stuff.”
You got a bit carried away, Clark. But I don’t take offence. This shit happens sometimes, I have also made mistakes so no problem. There is no cloak and dagger.
“Sunflower, I also have some problems with your argument technique, which seems less than honest. Looking back through the thread, you originally displayed a stance of complete rejection of all rational understanding based upon a religious belief.”
“This stance has slowly morphed into an acceptance of science. You also seem rather technically inclined.”
“Why did you initially misrepresent your own position?”
I never rejected the scientific process as such in the areas where it has legitimacy, i.e. in the world we can perceive with our material senses. I do reject how conventional science is practically applied in supporting the current materialistic world view and dominant political system since it contradicts the scientific process to begin with.
When it comes to areas like mind and conciseness the conventional scientific process cannot help us. There is however a scientific process that can help a person increase his understanding of consciousness by applying similar techniques or steps that conventional science rely on.
I have never misrepresented my position, I have no problem, looking at a given phenomena from different perspectives at the same time without that causing contradictions in my mind. That is natural to me, maybe not all persons are comfortable with that. And there is no critique implied in that statement.
“You were criticising the hacktivist community as useful idiots giving the Illuminati or whoever the excuse they need for a clampdown, possibly even orchestrated by covert elements within.”
No I did not, I pointed out that since the hacktivist community is anonymous from a public perspective, that anonymity gives an excellent opportunity for covert operations in the name of the hacktivist community. That conclusion says nothing about whether I think it’s good or bad that such community exists or if I like or dislike it being anonymous.
“You also mis-named the hactivist community as the hacker community in that comment”
I’m sorry, it was not intentional.
“But your recent links, including the ones in your hidden message, suggest that you suffer from no such confusion, which would suggest that your misrepresentation was deliberate.”
I never misrepresented anything, I never had ill intent. I hope this post will help you understand that.
Actually, I wanted to contact Zoologist in the first place and say hi privately since I felt we had a common perspective on a lot of things, simple as that.
Let’s leave this misunderstanding and carry on?
“Complex mathematics isn’t that hard, nothing like PhD level. Can you multiply out something like the following?
(2x+3y)(-4x+6y)”
Something like 18y2-8×2, or 2(3y+2x)(3y-2x)? Long long time since I algebra in high school…
@Clark – Read what people are saying to you. Not what your brain is projecting. They are really NOT the same thing.
Re-read my first email to you. Did you see the bit where I said “I have always felt you were a “kindred spirit” “?
I thought you were bullying SB but on re-reading I think you were just overeacting to what you thought he was saying. I read what he wrote and understood his meaning totally differently to you.
I only emailed you because to me you’re perspective seems a bit out of whack at the moment. Nobody is saying any of the things you say they are. You’re taking it all very personally and out of context when there is no evil intent. You even snarled at Jon the other day for no reason that I could see.
I think Sunflower is also a “kindred spirit”. I’m guessing he too has had a challenging life – or maybe he is just a kind person, as he says he is. Sure looks that way to me.
I told you privately, I too was “damaged” by my childhood.
It takes one to know one. I too needed therapy to get fixed. I’m glad I did – I probably wouldn’t be here if I hadn’t. For what it’s worth, I also think you should consider talking to a pro. Get some help sorting out your internal demons before taking on all the nutters on the internet – even the benign ones like us.
I’m not ignoring you by the way – I really do have deadlines whizzing past my ears.
And in case of doubt, I’m not a hacker either. I couldn’t hack my way out of a paper bag.
I could also do with a beer and a joint if there’s one going.
I think I’m allergic to Mandelbrots though.
Got any Nachos?
@Dopeyjoe Thanks for that. I didn’t see you there.
Did you bring up Machiavelli in support of my argument? Thanks for the nudge – I had forgotten about him.
“For in every city these two opposite parties [people vs aristocracy] are to be found, arising from the desire of the populace to avoid oppression of the great, and the desire of the great to command and oppress the people….For when the nobility see that they are unable to resist the people, they unite in exalting one of their number and creating him prince, so as to be able to carry out their own designs under the shadow of his authority.”
Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. IX
Even thougth he was based in Florence during the Renaissance and died in 1527 Machiavelli’s works on political theory can be traced directly to the American neo-con cabal via Neo-Con philosopher Leo Strauss.
Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. Strauss believed that “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”
He believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
Adherents of his ideas include prominent neocons such as Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/leo_strauss%27_philosophy_of_deception
More from the Leo Strauss philosophy .. (link above)
Rule One: Deception
It’s hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”
This dichotomy requires “perpetual deception” between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,”The people are told what they need to know and no more.” While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of ‘Leo Strauss and the American Right’ (St. Martin’s 1999).
Read the full article for
Second Principle: Power of Religion
Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Other titbits:
“Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat,”
“Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured.”
“Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in,” says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an “aggressive, belligerent foreign policy,” of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars – not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power.
Strauss’ neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a “national destiny” – as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 – that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a ” myopic national security.”
“They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they’re conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy,”
Sunflower 4 Oct, 3:11 pm
Interesting that you sent what looks a lot like a one-off disposable e-mail address, then. I forgot to mention that earlier, and it’s really only fair to Zoologist, who may not be familiar with such things.
Now we can move on, as requested.
(2x+3y)(-4x+6y)
I don’t have superscripts for power notation, so I’ll use “xx” for “x squared” and “yy” for “y squared”. Yo multiply each term in the first brackets with each term in the second brackets. So, there will be one xx term and one yy term. There will be two xy terms, so they can be added or subtracted into a single term, thus:
+2x times -4x = -8xx
+2x times +6y = +12xy
+3y times -4x = -12xy
+3y times +6y = +18yy
Written out:
-8xx +12xy -12xy +18yy
Well, +12xy -12xy is zero, so those two terms knock each other out (this is just a coincidence, not a general rule; I didn’t check the outcome when I posted the comment). So the answer comes to
-8xx +18yy
Could someone check that, please? I haven’t done algebra for years, either.
OK, another, similar but with no y terms. Go ahead, Sunflower, if you’re willing:
(x+7)(x-2)
If we get this one right, we can get on to complex maths.
Sunflower:
Thanks for pointing that out, and I apologise.
There, Sunflower. That’s how it’s done. Remember my comment about advising a child how to use a zebra crossing? You just ignored it. The sort of stuff Scouse Billy was pushing and you have been supporting does have actual consequences in the real world. You might have some idea why I’ve been having trust problems with you.
Zoologist:
I have actually tried to get some psychotherapy, but the NHS assessor has deemed me too well off (!) to get anything but cognitive behavioural therapy. I have an objection to paying for psychotherapy, as a therapist in such a business relationship is not independent of the client. Besides, I’d like to see the same therapist that I saw on the NHS for two years after the suicide of a close friend, but cut-backs mean it’s not going to happen.
But anyway, I think that most of my problems would improve a lot if I got to bed earlier. But there is a lot going on for me at present, including this thread, which is touching upon important moral and philosophical issues for me. It’s very interesting to see the alliance between global climate change denial, scientific medicine denial, science denial in general, “spiritual” beliefs, appeal to divine authority, and conspiracy theories.
So thanks to all for taking part. Yes, I got that wrong earlier. Sorry.
Hey Clark… just doing it in my head, I get +18y^2 – 8x^2
But are you sure complex numbers are the best introduction to the world of science and reason, that can be seen through mathematical terms? I always thought Laplace Transforms, where one finally understood that even the most complex musical structure can be described in such terms, was the greatest delight :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_transforms
I’d never really liked maths that much until realising this. The possibilities suddenly seemed limitless.
*
Getting to bed at a reasonable time has been one of the greatest bug-bears of my life. It’s always left me knackered, because something or other had my attention until it was getting ridiculously late. I’m sure it’s not just a coincidence, that I find myself in a job where precisely this sort of behaviour is absolutely fine – as long as the job still gets done. Not being a major bread-head or empire builder, this suits me fine.
I don’t know that CBT should be dismissed – it’s very efficient in a surprising number of cases. The shrink usually has side-interests too, so the CBT won’t be absolutely sterile. Terribly sorry about your loss with the suicide victim. In a way, we’re going through the same sort of thing – you and I – but with advanced notice. Which is even worse. You with your cancer patient who refuses treatment, and me with the very dear friend who’s absolutely bent on drinking himself to death.
I’ve been away for a while but am glad to see that Zoologist and Sunflower are right on the ball with how so many things they mention. It is quite hard work to try and explain all the inter connectiveness of world power where it exists, and in some cases it has to be accepted that it isn’t possible to convince everyone of the dangers facing us in all its complexity.
Again, the messenger and the message don’t have to always be agreed with but when people such as Webster Tarpley, who is an academic historian with a very convincing track record shares his research and insight – he deserves to be heard. I wouldn’t, for example, agree with everything Webster says – some fundamental aspects of Malthusianism, sustainability and population containment i would agree with – our resouces aren’t all infinate.
But Clark is not looking at the actual evidence if he thinks population culling and mass control is not a real prospect – it is all there for us all to see. Bill Gates,as one example, can be seen here on a you tube video openly admitting that he hopes his vaccines can reduce population by 15% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12DmpWbMSTI&feature=related – as clear as day….again i don’t think the earth can support an infinate number of people but these people are not talking about handing out free condoms and some friendly advice..
Even this is slightly missing the point – where this stems from is good all supremacist eugenics ideology stemming from those great Victorian racists from the East India company and Rhodes Milner round table, and their inbred Dr Strangelove obsession to try and rule the world and all its people, and cull the stragglers that aren’t of any use – it is not about saving polar bears and saving ice sheets – far far from it..
Oh BS Chris Jones. If you really have caught up with this thread, you’ll see that this “disproof by disbelief” and slithering around every subject they haven’t ignored is hardly being “right on the ball”. Still, it’s good to know at least some people (like your wise self!) is at least qualified to to recognise someone trying to “explain all the inter connectiveness of world power where it exists” 🙂
I liked Tarpley as it happens, I’ve even got one of his books (and read it, and understood it too, before you question that again) – he’s not someone on whom one could hang their hat, however. He’s a historian, and not a qualified climatologist, no matter how authoritatively he speaks like one.
Your last couple of paragraphs of utter drivel aside, where is your evidence? Population reduction – where? “Control” by governments on CO2 emissions – where? Your fevered imagination – and your Alex Jones DVDs aside – what is the basis for your massive conspiracy theory, and where is the evidence?
Unbelievable.
@Glenn: “He’s a historian, and not a qualified climatologist, no matter how authoritatively he speaks like one.”
He speaks like a historian in the video as you would know if you had watched the it.
“Where is your evidence”
Here are some more books for you ..
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony C. Sutton
“This graph wasn’t hard to find”
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony C. Sutton
And for those who can’t manage a book, here’s a video:
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
We speak with John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man he describes how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8171.htm
JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring — to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It’s been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It’s only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.