HOME

How we can change the world

It's important not to make the same mistake as did Hannibal when he invaded the Roman Empire via the Alps. Hannibal went on to conquer small towns and villages, thinking that he would conquer Rome after having subdued all minor settlements. Military historians agree that he should have marched on Rome, the center, right away.

If we want to effect radical change, there is no point in achieving progress in the Ukraine, Uganda, or Uruguay.

If we want to change the world effectively, we only have to achieve change in one location: the United States of America. That country carries so much weight that any change achieved there will easily snowball to any other country.

I do not know what the ultimate aim is of Al Qaida? If the ultimate aim is to establish a geographical zone in which Muslims can live as pious as they want, in peace (as they proclaim), then it is a strategic error to attack the US in 9/11 style.

They had such a zone, in Afghanistan, and they could have established it in other parts of the Muslim world if they would not have chosen to attack the US so violently. For violence generates counter-violence, as is evident in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am not an Islamist. I am very critical of the US but I don't go on a rampage. I indeed want to live in peace, with as little interference in my personal affairs by any state or religion.

If that is one's political wish, there are much more promising strategies to oppose US interference in other parts of the world than to fly planes into US targets.

The most promising strategy would be to change the political balance in the US.

The US is proud of their democratic tradition. But it's not that US presidents and US parliaments would represent actual majorities of US citizens. There are a number of reasons why they don't:

1. In the US political system, only around half of eligible voters do indeed vote. Those who do not vote, as majorities of inner city populations, do not feel that US presidents and parliaments represent their interest. They do not vote because they rightly believe that it doesn't make a difference whether public affairs are run by Democrats or Republicans.

2. Republicans and Democrats may differ on many policy issues, but they agree on a political system that keeps all other parties out. For this reason, they have a winner-takes-all election system (in Ohio in 2004, Bush received just two more votes than Kerry for the electoral college, but thereby carried the state). Voting districts often are not genuine geographical units, but gerrymandered in a manner that assures that either a Republican or Democrat will become a district's representative. This is sophisticated, but immoral electoral cheating. Nobody but the US gets away with that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/oh/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

3. Elections in the US are publicity contests, decided largely by how much money an electoral camp has to run an advertising campaign promoting their candidates, and smearing opponents. Real political issues are less relevant than how skilled a candidate and his camp is in generating sympathy.

Because so much in the US depends on the media, and because the media is an open market in the US, it is much smarter to use one's war chest to influence US politics and public affairs through the media, rather than trying warfare with abducted planes and suicide bombers. Attacks with a large number of civilian casualties only push people one wants to convince of one's course into the opposite camp.

This is one thing the religious extremists of the Scientology sect have understood much better than the religious extremists of Al Qaida. But their metaphysical system is just as unconvincing.

Of course, the Scientologists, being US-based, are better positioned to employ the most promising tactics (e.g. creeping into Hollywood). But if we (talking on behalf of non-US based activists) know what camp in US elections we best support, even just 10 million US dollars can make a big difference. Ross Perot and Michael Blumberg spend around 70 million each on their political ego trips, and even though their personal ambitions were obvious to most voters in the elections they contested (for US president and New York mayor), they still captured a lot of votes (and Michael Bloomberg even won).

http://www.scientollywood.org/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8333804/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

Non-US based entities cannot play a role in US elections as candidates or through their own parties or other organizations. But one thing non-US based entities can do is play the US media. This is possible in several ways:

1. As investors (if they have the means)

2. As advertisers. Newspapers in the US don't ask much who pays for political ads, provided their content is not questionable.

3. As authors, addressing, at least partially, the US public.

The next point on which a decision has to be made is what camp to support in US politics. It doesn't make much sense considering either Republicans or Democrats. Both are stacked with opportunistic career politicians, and for those who want to change the world, to support Democrats or Republicans would be a waste of money and resources.

But whom, then, to support? I would recommend the Libertarian Party [http://www.lp.org/], admittedly a small force in US politics. They claim that they are the third largest party in the US, but they are so far behind the Republicans and the Democrats that most people would not consider them a worthwhile alternative.

They won't win the 2008 presidential election, and not even the 2012 contest. But that doesn't matter. Lifting them to just 10 percent of the vote would have an enormous impact on the US public and political landscape.

Fact is that they really are different. While of course they are romantic illusionists as far as the practicalities of implementing their ides is concerned, their radicalism in matters of personal freedom is inspiring.

It is stupid to believe (as they do) that we could do away with most structures of states and governments and still have a pleasant world to live in. The result of dismantling states and government structures would be mafia types ruling it over peaceful citizens.

On the other hand, I share their high respect for personal freedom. What a person does to his own body, is the person's own business (e.g. in the case of drug use). Where there is consent between two people, and the matter does not affect other people, no government intervention is called for. These are essential ideas about personal freedom on which the Libertarian Party focuses more strongly than any other political organization in the US, and in this, they even express a common sentiment in the US.

Of course the Libertarian Party is wrong in one important, indeed very important aspect: because they want less government involvement in their personal affairs, they propagate weak government. Because they want less laws that interfere with their lives, they want a weaker congress.

But the best prospect for more personal freedom would not be a weaker government but a stronger one. A government of a single state party with a sound ideology of granting a country's citizens as much personal freedom as possible in an as save an environment as possible. A government that doesn't have to deal with any executive problem by first passing a generalizing legislation that covers not just the task at hand but many other possible cases the legislators have impossibly been able to think of. Because such legislation ad definitionem applies equally to all citizens, if forces behavioral patterns where for the citizen's safety, no such behavioral patterns would be needed.

For there are two important misconceptions at the base of Western political philosophy: 1. that the more direct democracy is practiced, the freer a people, and 2. that a rule of law, not of people, provides the most appropriate justice.

But let the US be convinced of these fallacies, because these convictions make them weak, and that's what we want the US to be.

There are two reasons why I advocate that those who want to change the world have a stake in the Libertarian Party.

One is that the Libertarian Party expresses a very valid concern: we want as much personal freedom as possible.

The second is more sinister: because of the many errors in the agenda of the Libertarian Party, to strengthen them will definitely weaken the US. And anything that weakens the US is welcome news for all who oppose a world order by US design.

For example, the Libertarian Party advocates self-determination for ever smaller social entities. OK, let them dismantle the central state, and the federal states. Mid-Western farming communities won't meddle on the world stage.

They support the right for everybody to be armed to the teeth. Great. Let them be consumed in community warfare. They will then be less inclined to send troops abroad.

The Libertarian Party anyway preaches almost total disengagement from world affairs.

Having a stronger Libertarian Party in the US, or more Libertarian philosophy in other parties, would benefit almost everybody who suffers or feels infringed because of US intervention around the world.

A content-wide beneficiary would be South America, which has been a playground for US imperialists and secret service agents since Walter Monroe formulated his infamous doctrine.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

Muslims in other parts of the World who just want to be left in peace would benefit as non-interference is a cornerstone of US foreign policy as envisioned by the Libertarian Party.

Anybody in the world who is incarcerated for drug use because of US machination could pin some hope on the Libertarian Party, and so could all their relatives who want their family member back, for the Libertarian Party advocates the liberty to used drugs as one wishes, and the release of all who have been convicted in drug cases.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, there is no point in achieving progress in the Ukraine, Uganda, or Uruguay. Everybody who wants real change in the world will be more effective working for change in the United States. And supporting the Libertarian Party, or Libertarian ideas, offers considerable leverage. So, I call on all those who are interested in destabilizing the US while presumably supporting US political ideals to think of ways to support the Libertarian Party. I assume that more than anything else, financial help will do the trick.

Political machinations on par with the strategic considerations outlined in this article have so far been the realm primarily of the CIA. The CIA has long understood that in the worldwide political chess game, you can support organizations in a targeted country not so much because you share their vision but because of the net effect that supporting such organizations has on the political landscape.

The CIA has a long record of "peaceful" (mostly financial) undercover support for destabilizing forces in targeted countries. Such forces include pro-democracy activists, press-freedom advocates, religious lunatics, ethnic independence movements, and so on. Hollywood plays a part in the game, too, projecting an image in targeted countries that in America, everybody is rich, and that adopting an American system, and becoming an American ally, will allow the people of a poorer country to become rich, too.

The strategies of the CIA and other US institutions applying similar tactics have worked well time and again, and they did play a part in the demise of the soviet empire. More recent cases were the Ukraine and some former parts of the Soviet Union in central Asia.

Only on one target the strategy has so far not worked, and that is China. They do many things right in China, and indeed, China is by far the best candidate to be the world's number one player when the US will have succumbed. And by all indications, I will be happy with that.

Just as every healthy human being has two legs and two arms, he or she has a sex drive. The sex drive appears with the onset of puberty, usually between the ages of 12 and 14. While girls typically enter puberty slightly earlier than boys, the male sex drive typically is more aggressive.

Yes, young and older humans can keep a lid on their sex drives. To keep a lid on it means primarily: to keep it to oneself.

Up to the 19th century, boys were beaten black and blue when it was discovered that they were masturbating. Repeat offenders would be put into restraining jackets.

The principle effect probably was that most boys found ways not to be caught. And never talk to anybody about it. Always swear that you never do it.

Of course, men who believed that sexuality is nothing but Satan's temptation, and that giving in to any sexual inclination will mean time in hell, possibly for an eternity, have good reason to suppress their sexuality.

Catholic priests, for example. They do believe in god and the bible, do they? They do believe in hell and paradise? I mean, they don't just believe in modern morals, isn't it? And they believe that having sex on their minds will be very bad for their personal fates?

They are concerned with the spiritual well-being of fellow humans. Bringing them closer to god. Letting them know that this earthly life isn't the real life; and that the real life will only begin after judgment day. Or am I wrong?

Of course, nowadays, many Catholic priests no longer believe in god. Many of them, especially in the US, have become Catholic priests because they considered this a perfect cover for their homosexual, pedophile inclinations.

I believe that humans, especially men with forbidden sexual inclinations, can be quite imaginative when it comes to devise covers under which they can achieve sexual satisfaction without having to fear punishment. That is why businessmen go international (but not to Saudi Arabia), and why anywhere around the world, the percentage of pathological sadists is much higher among prison wardens than among the general population of a country.

Of course, when certain sexual deeds are very prohibited, humans with an inclination towards such deeds will work on alternatives where the dangers of getting beheaded or incarcerated are substantially reduced. That is why we have pornography. And when pornography, too, is outlawed, we still have our fantasies.

Who wants to guess how many humans imagine something very different when they have sexual intercourse with a spouse?

But many people want more than just their fantasies. Some at least want pornography. And I assume that those who seriously get a kick only out of child pornography will go a long way to set up an appropriate cover.

I sometimes wonder what goes on in the head of a police officer in his 30s whose assignment it is to investigate child pornography? For those who derive sexual pleasure from looking at child pornography, being a police investigator in that field would be a perfect cover.

I once read in an interview with such an investigating police officer that he sometimes feels nauseated from what he has to view as part of his job, but that he goes on with his duties because somebody will have to do the "dirty work".

I also once read of a police officer who, after having been transferred to another assignment, got into legal trouble because he kept tons of child pornography on a private computer, long after his work in that field had ended. He admitted his guilt and asked for leniency. He explained that he got addicted to that stuff because of his job.

Of course, not every man who realizes that being a police officer on that beat would be the perfect cover, will be able to join the police force. Typically, if one doesn't decide to become a police officer in one's early 20s, the chance for that kind of a career has passed for good.

But then, one can still become an anti-child pornography and anti-child prostitution activist. Or even better: a private child prostitution and child pornography investigator in an exotic land, such as Cambodia.

I sometimes also wonder what goes on in the head or in the loin of a Catholic priest who migrates from Europe to Southeast Asia to work with child prostitutes? Well, I do know that sexual stimulation and sexual satisfaction does not require physical contact. Some men can derive a lot of sexual stimulation from being in a sexual environment that matches their sexual inclinations, but they always finish off masturbating on a toilet.

For a man with such a mind architecture, nothing would be more suitable than being a Catholic priest, working with child prostitutes in Southeast Asia. He can ask child prostitutes to relate to him all they experienced, and maybe they even show him something. Under the pretext of working on legal charges, he can request that the same story be told again and again, with ever more colorful detail. He also can set up a shelter, so that he can have these poor little girls around him for much of a day, and he can enjoy watching them.

While a large number of child sexual abuse cases have been uncovered in orphanages and shelters for children, a Catholic priest may consider it too risky, to touch the child prostitutes he rescued, or to have outright sex with them. But then, you also can't touch the girls shown in child pornography. And who says that that having a 12-year old girl in front of you, telling her rape horror stories would be less stimulating to a man whose sexual fantasies thrive on such stories.

Here some links on child torture and child murder in Africa. Compared to this much worse moral problem, all the attention on a few child prostitutes is but moral grandstanding. Grandstanding, too, because working on the moral problem of child prostitution guarantees huge publicity and media fame with an absolute minimum of effort and danger. We all know that the media anywhere in the world loves sex topics. But if readers are presented with real moral problems, they may not have the appetite to buy a newspaper the next day. Cheap trick number 1 if anybody wants international fame on the moral front: deal with the juicy topic of child prostitution.

DRC: Children suffer torture, rape and cruelty, NGOs report
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=34823&SelectRegion=Great_Lakes&SelectCountry=DRC

Amnesty deplores African rights record
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3749633.stm

Uganda's civil war targets children
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=68&art_id=qw1135246863325B225&set_id=

Mauritania's deadly daily poverty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4219104.stm

Ethiopia’s children dying from malnutrition
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/ethiopia_26181.html

Crisis in Darfur
http://www.unicefusa.org/site/c.duLRI8O0H/b.50755/k.7A58/Crisis_in_Darfur__Feature_Stories__Emergencies_
What_We_Do__US_Fund_for_UNICEF.htm

**********

http://www.asiatour.com/change-world.htm
Jan Garanoz
Juhu Tara Road, Juhu,
Mumbai - 400049 India
Last updated: February 15, 2010