'What was I thinking? And more importantly, why didn’t anyone stop me?'

From the recent parody of the New  York Times.

The End of the Experts?

By Thomas J. Friedman 
Published: July 4th, 2009

The sudden outbreak of peace in Iraq has made me realize, among other things, one incontestable fact: I have no business holding a pen, at least with intent to write.

I know, you're thinking I'm going too far. I haven't always been wrong about everything. I recently made some sense on global warming and what we needed to do about it, for instance.

But to have been so completely and fundamentally wrong about so huge a disaster as what we have done to Iraq — and ourselves — is outrageous enough to prove that people like me have no business posing as wise men, and, more importantly, that The New York Times has no business continuing to provide me with a national platform.

In any case, I have made a decision: as of today, I will no longer write in this or any other newspaper. I will immediately desist from writing any more books about how it's time for everyone to climb on board the globalization high-speed monorail to the future. I will keep my opinions to myself. (My wife suggested that I try not to even form opinions, but I think she might have another agenda.)

Baffled? I don't blame you. So I'll cite some facts to support my decision — a practice, I must admit, I have too seldom followed.

Let's start with the invasion itself. I was pretty much all for it. Mind you, I was not one of the pundits, reporters, or public figures who said that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. I knew better — but I said it didn't matter!

Back in February of 2003, I wrote in this space: “Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred. Taking him out is a war of choice — but it's a legitimate choice.” In other words, we should invade a sovereign state and replace its government in order to remake the world more to our liking.

Now the simple fact is, an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state is a war crime, even when linked to grand ideas of the future of mankind. In fact, that's exactly what Hitler did, for exactly the same reasons. The Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal called it the “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

What was I thinking? And more importantly, why didn't anyone stop me?

But wait, it gets worse. Having expressed how acceptable it was to commit Hitler's signature crime, I then applauded the invasion of Iraq as an “audacious roll of the dice.” It should have occurred to me that this gamble would be unspeakably painful for an untold number of Iraqis who had done nothing to us — in other words, any of them.

Soon, when it became obvious that my pipe dreams for a peaceful and democratic subject nation were just that, I decided to say it was too soon to tell how things would turn out in Iraq, but that we would definitely know in six months to a year. I said this pretty much every six months for five years. And The Times just kept giving me more and more column-inches.

I'm not trying to beat myself up here. I've done that plenty already, believe me — and my wife has done the rest! But I have one question: why are newspapers like The New York Times letting people like me make fools of themselves, mislead the American people, and, worst of all, give their wives a lifetime of ammunition?

To err is human, but to print, reprint, and re-reprint error-mad humans like me is a criminally moronic editorial policy.

Nor, of course, is it only me. Just consider who populates the opinion pages of America's top newspapers. Bill Kristol, who was actually hired by The Times long after being proven wrong on Iraq. Charles Krauthammer. Robert Novak. Mona Charen. Fred Barnes. The list goes on and on of officially-approved wise men (and a woman or two) who never once doubted that Iraq had vast stockpiles of W.M.D.s. And that's just in newspapers.

We were all wrong again and again — and the consequences were devastating. Can anyone tell me why any of us should ever be asked, let alone paid, for our opinions ever again? Or, for that matter, why Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz should be allowed behind any sort of desk whatsoever as long as they live?

Peace in Iraq will undoubtedly have many far-reaching consequences. As promised, I'm not going to speculate publicly about what they might be.

Except one. As of today, I'm putting down my pen, to take up a screwdriver. I am going to retrain as an engineer and spend the rest of my life working to build non-carbon-based energy technologies. And I'm going to spend a lot of time washing my hands.

~ via Tikkun ~

The bright side of the current systemic breakdown

From Robert Anton Wilson's Prometheus Rising:

"...Instability is not always bad: in fact, it is absolutely necessary for evolution to occur. Insect societies are highly stable and have not evolved at all in several million years. Human societies are highly unstable and are in continuous evolution.

Prigogine demonstrates the evolutionary value of instability by his concept of the "dissipative structure."

A dissipative structure is highly complex and therefore highly unstable. The more complex it is, the more unstable it is, mathematically, certainly; and the more unstable, the more likely it is to change — to evolve.

All dissipative structures are teetering, perpetually, between self-destruction and re-organization on a higher level of information (coherence).

If that sounds grim, it isn't really. Prigogine's math is highly optimistic, He shows that the more complex structures — such as our world-round human society today, midway between Second Wave indust-reality and the emerging Third Wave — are mathematically more likely, much more likely, to "dissipate" into higher coherence than into self-destruction.

In other words, in the intellectual conflict between Utopians and Dystopians, the mathematical odds actually are on the side of Utopians. Our human world is so information-rich (coherent) that it is almost certain to "collapse" into even higher coherence, not into chaos and self-destruction.

Prigogine is the mathematical demonstration of McLuhan's intuition that many seeming symptoms of breakdown are actually harbingers of breakthrough..."


Ilya Prigogine: Science, Religion and the new Utopia




Ilya Prigogine - Caos concept

EU agency says French GMO maize ban unjustified

Europe's top food safety agency said on Friday that France's ban on a genetically modified maize [corn] developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto was unjustified.

Monsanto's MON 810 is the only GM crop grown in the European Union, unlike in the United States and Latin America, where they are more common. Many European countries doubt the safety of using the genetic technology in agriculture.

"No specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, was provided that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause," the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said in an opinion released on its website. The EFSA is based in Parma, Italy.

France suspended the use of MON 810 earlier this year, invoking a so- called safeguard clause against the European Commission's decision to authorize the GM maize.

The French government said it had serious doubts about whether Mon 810 maize was safe for the environment.

However, the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) has remained legal. The European Commission, which monitors food safety and implementation of EU food standards across the bloc's 27 member countries, had requested the opinion from the EFSA.

~ more... ~

Turkey -- Georgia -- Azerbaijan Confederation or Caucasus Contained

By Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

19 Oct, 2008

In a separate article, entitled ´Biased US-UE Games in Georgia and the Caucasus Expected to Trigger a Russian Climax´, I republished the Press Briefing given by Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, at U.S. Mission Geneva a few days ago. The EU/UN/OSCE-sponsored talks on Georgia is a diplomatic game serving for coverage; it does cover the Western inertia vis-à-vis Georgia, and even worse Russia.

It is part of common sense that the West abandoned Georgia to an unnecessary defeat which was the result of an attempt to defend what cannot be defended, namely the denial of the right of the Abkhazian and South Ossetian peoples to freedom and national independence.

The Americans had long heard from various Turkish diplomats, statesmen and academia that the Georgian insistence on ruling Abkhazia was historically nonsensical; the problem is that the Americans did not understand that the attempt was also politically counterfeit.

Like Kosova, Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia, Abkhazia has had full right to secede from an administrative authority to which it was attached by biased, Communist authorities of bygone eras.

The reason of the American misperception of Caucasus and failure in Georgia are all due to the indexation of the US foreign policy to European interests; what the present pathetic US administration failed to understand is that the European interests are detrimental not only to the US but also to Europe itself. In brief, one should not take them into consideration under any circumstances whatsoever.

The problems of the Caucasus geopolitics and geostrategics have been aggravated by Europe´s erratic approach to Europe itself first, and then to Russia and the possible Russian – European relationship.

West´s Problem in Caucasus: the Euro-fallacy

The main problem of the European political decision-making is its greatly anti-democratic character; the main reason for which French politicians and statesmen want Turkey and Ukraine outside EU is precisely this, namely the continuation of the present character of the EU.

The fragile situation, in which the prevalence of the partial and colonial interests of the axis Paris – London has been possible, will be irreparably disturbed and counterbalanced due to the great weight that the two countries (Turkey 75 million people and Ukraine 46 million people) will de facto have within the EU Commission and the European Parliament.

The filthy colonial game of the evil and secretive Paris – London axis evolves around several basic tools:

1. the imposition on Germany of a totally un-German political establishment that perceives the political reality through an Anglo-French viewpoint. In fact, Germany does not exist politically as an autonomous entity in the same way Berlusconi´s Italy does; it has never existed since the WW II defeat. By this, I don´t imply that Nazism was an authentic German political ideology; it was not, and it was rejected by both, the German noblesse and the German Left. Authentic German political ideology can be found in the Weimar Republic, in the Imperial Germany (1870 – 1918), and the Prussian and Bavarian kingdoms. Nothing of all this has been left in today´s Germany.

2. the constant isolation and even under-estimation of Italy,

3. the formation of ideological alliances (socialist, conservative, liberal, etc.) with politicians and statesmen among the smaller states (this is a way of guidance and manipulation), and

4. the circumstantial satisfaction of various demands introduced by smaller states´ governments, according to an immoral and ruinous barter agreement of the style "you vote for this, and I will support you on that".

The game reached its limits with the entrance of Poland. Turkey and Ukraine will totally counterbalance the Paris – London axis, canceling the advantage of the politically inexistent Germany.

Even more inconsistent is the European position on Russia; in fact, the immoral, pseudo-democratic and utterly criminal European elites deliberately pushed Russia to oligarchy and totalitarianism, through a multifaceted method involving harassment, humiliation, derision, alienation, and animosity. The Anglo-French elites did their ingenious best to reintroduce terms existing before more than 100 years that described the tsarist monarchy and its backward character. However, post-communist 1990 Russia was definitely not what was portrayed by the Europeans and their fallacious mass media. The Yeltsin years condemned EU and Russia to rivalry, and it will be very difficult to prevent this development.

Quite pathetically, the European leaders pulled America and exported their unreal vision of Russia – a vision that damages the West before all the rest; if you are unable to face-off a resourceful rogue state – nuclear power, it´s better that you don´t push its leadership to reactionary and rogue behaviour. This basic wisdom was not well comprehended by today´s mean, sectarian and myopic elite of Europe that excels in Russo-phobia, Turco-phobia, and Islamo-phobia.

Caucasus

All this does not bode well with the needs of Caucasus geopolitics and geo-strategics. Caucasus has long been an area that belonged to the Islamic Caliphate. Long before the Islamic armies reached Gibraltar, Iran, Azerbaijan, Eastern Turkey (the easternmost confines of the Eastern Roman Empire), Armenia and Georgia had been invaded and annexed to Medina and then Damascus.

The Russian expansion in the Caucasus is a far later phenomenon which is largely due to the disastrous Ottoman – Safevid rivalry that replaced the old Roman – Persian confrontation on a Sunni – Shia theoretical canvas.

Caucasus would be a matter of further decomposition of Russia, if ethno-religious considerations were the only to be implicated; as it happens, Caucasus is a mixture of geopolitical interests hinging on energy exploitation and transportation and geostrategic agendas that involve Russia´s containment from the South (traditional colonial Anglo-French scheme) or Russia´s expansion to the Southern Seas (traditional Russian expansionism).

The outcome of the confrontation will be of colossal dimensions; the Russian push to the South can lead to the elimination of the pro-American puppets of the Middle East and to the destruction of Israel.

Similarly, the Energy Drang nach Osten will have even more cataclysmic effects:

1. the decrease of the European dependence on Russian Energy

2. the rise of a great, Muslim, preponderantly Turco-phone, secular state

3. the shrinking of Russia into its 17th century dimensions, and

4. the subsequent rise of the Turkish – Central Asiatic state, which bodes well with the geopolitical interests of China, India, America, and Europe.

A Great State of the South as Counterbalance to Russia

For the West to contain Russia, there is a basic problem: the effort will be successful only through the rise of a big state at the southern confines of Russia from Abkhazia to China.

This state has to be:

1. Muslim (in its majority)

2. Secular

3. Democratic

4. Liberal

5. Multi-cultural and

6. (principally) Turko-phone

For this to be done, the underway Anglo-Saxon plan of division of Turkey into two states, Turkey (60 million people) and Kurdistan (15 million people), with the parallel adhesion of the former in the EU and merge of the latter with territories sliced from Iraq, Iran and Syria, has to be canceled.

On the contrary, Turkey must be left to normally become the spinal cord of a vast state that will incorporate Iraq, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and progressively Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The project may span over more than 10 years to be materialized, but it consists in the only way to

1. contain Russian expansionism

2. diminish European dependence on Russian energy

3. shrink Russia

4. cancel the pending threat of a nuclear Iran

5. eliminate the expansion of Islamic conservatism and backward theology

6. pacify Israel and Palestine, and

7. modernize a vast part of Asia by fully integrating it into the global system - to the benefit of the inhabitants, and to the detrimental loss of Russia.

Myopia and Panic in the Caucasus August 2008 Crisis

The way to set up the geopolitical project of Turkey – Central Asia is to start by offering to Georgia the only defense that can truly function efficiently.

It was utterly ludicrous for the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a comical puppet of the Anglo-French axis, to suddenly support Georgia´s adhesion to the NATO - just a few months after the chance for this development was denied to Georgia, Ukraine and (for other reasons) Macedonia.

Turkish extremist Islamist premier Erdogan´s suggestion for an international body including Turkey, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia would be as ineffective as theatrical.

If this happened, it would be inconsequential, and would even drive NATO to an impossible position; given the rogue behaviour of the Russian oligarchy, one should rather expect a further advance of the Russian army for another let´s say 4 km within Georgian territory, a development to which the entire NATO would prove unable to respond. The credibility of NATO would thus fall to its lowest possible.

Furthermore, viewing the case ´Georgia´ independently is a geopolitical error of colossal dimensions. Georgia is interlinked with Azerbaijan at all levels. With Georgia disconnected from Azerbaijan, the West offers Russia, its supposedly merciless rival, a bonus of trillions of dollars in energy.

In fact, Russian pressure over Azerbaijan has been ceaselessly exercised in order to minimize Azerbaijan´s colossal geopolitical value, and reduce it to a mere annex of Russia (Soviet comeback).

Turkey – Georgia – Azerbaijan Confederation

The only way to effectively defend Georgia, and preserve its interconnection with Azerbaijan is an immediate merge of the three states, Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, into a Confederation under one Constitution providing for

three official languages, Turkish, Azeri and Georgian,

common defense and foreign policy,

three different legislations,

three federal and one con-federal parliaments, and

economic convergence.

The immediate proclamation of the confederate state would automatically expand NATO to the Caspian shore; with the South Ossetian and Abkhazian territories left to their indigenous populations, Georgia – and Azerbaijan – would be automatically protected by Turkish army and NATO nuclear arms.

This would trigger the fast exploitation of the vast Oil reserves of Azerbaijan, and the subsequent erection of at least two more pipelines through the Georgian - Turkish territory to Europe.

With the decrease of the Russian threat, which is still looming over Georgia, the Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan Confederation would be engaged in two projects, the first in Dagestan (to free the tyrannized Muslims from Russia) and the second in Iran (to liberate the oppressed Azeris, Turks and Turkmens).

With the liberation of the Iranian provinces of East and West Azerbaijan, most of the Caucasus region would be placed under the NATO control, and the Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan Confederation would be very close to a further merge with Turkmenistan.

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Orientalist, Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 51, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages. He refuted Greek nationalism, supported Martin Bernal´s Black Athena, and rejected the Greco-Romano-centric version of History. He pleaded for the European History by J. B. Duroselle, and defended the rights of the Turkish, Pomak, Macedonian, Vlachian, Arvanitic, Latin Catholic, and Jewish minorities of Greece. Born Christian Orthodox, he adhered to Islam when 36, devoted to ideas of Muhyieldin Ibn al Arabi.

Greek citizen of Turkish origin, Prof. Megalommatis studied and/or worked in Turkey, Greece, France, England, Belgium, Germany, Syria, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Russia, and carried out research trips throughout the Middle East, Northeastern Africa and Central Asia. His career extended from Research & Education, Journalism, Publications, Photography, and Translation to Website Development, Human Rights Advocacy, Marketing, Sales & Brokerage. He traveled in more than 80 countries in 5 continents. He defends the Right of Aramaeans, Oromos, Ogadenis, Sidamas, Berbers, Afars, Anuak, Darfuris, Bejas, Balochs and Tibetans to National Independence, demands international recognition for Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and Transnistria, calls for National Unity in Somalia, and denounces Islamic Terrorism.

~ American Chronicle ~

Beyond the Fat Cats

The most important thing the Democrats and President-elect Obama can do with regard to the economy is bring back a sense of fairness and equity.

The fat cats who placed the entire economy at risk with their greed and manic irresponsibility are trying to lay claim to every last dime in the national Treasury. Meanwhile, we're nowhere close to an economic recovery program that will help the people who are hurting most.

Back in September, with the credit markets frozen and the stock markets panicking, the treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, was telling anyone who would listen that his $700 billion bailout package had to be passed with lightning speed — no time to look at it too closely, no time for dissent.

The package was modified, but hurriedly. Now we learn that while all eyes were focused on this enormous new burden for American taxpayers, Mr. Paulson's department was also engineering — separate and apart from the bailout — what The Washington Post described as “a quiet windfall for U.S. banks. ”

With virtually no public attention, and without the input of Congress, Treasury made a change in an obscure tax provision that benefited banks to the tune of well over $100 billion. Was this good policy? In the absence of proper scrutiny, how is it possible to know?

We've also learned that the government bailout of the giant insurer, the American International Group — already more than $100 billion — is apparently insufficient. Tens of billions more are needed.

When the Champagne and caviar crowd is in trouble, there is no conceivable limit to the amount of taxpayer money that can be found, and found quickly.

But when it comes to ordinary citizens in dire situations — those being thrown out of work or forced from their homes by foreclosure or driven into bankruptcy because of illness and a lack of adequate health insurance — well, then we have to start pinching pennies. That's when it's time to become fiscally conservative. President Bush even vetoed a bill that would have expanded health insurance coverage for children.

We can find trillions for a foolish war and for pompous, self-righteous high-rollers who wrecked their companies and the economy. But what about the working poor and the young people who are being clobbered in this downturn, battered so badly that they're all but destitute? Can we find any way to help them?

~ more... ~