What is a vector?

May 1, 2009 — xanthippa

So, what exactly is a ‘vector‘?

Like so many other words, it seems to mean something different in different ‘disciplines’.  But, deep down, the meanings are connected through the root of the word, ‘vector‘.  In Latin, it means ‘carrier’ – so, in all its uses now, it implies a direction, an increase or decrease, or another dynamic component to the basic information it, well, carries.

Recently, I have read a most excellent – clear and understandable – explanation of what it is that a ‘vector’ is.  So, with CodeSlinger’s permission (and a few illustrations and links thrown in by me), without further delay…

VECTORS: a tutorial by CodeSlinger

The simplest model of a vector is a directed line segment.


On the plane, pick any three points, not lying on the same line.  Call one of them the origin.  Call the line from the origin to the second point a basis vector in the u-direction, and call the line from the origin to the third point a basis vector in the v-direction.

Then you can represent any point on the plane by a sum of appropriately scaled copies these two vectors.

No amount of scaling will turn either of these vectors into the other.  Thus we say they form a basis of the plane, which is what were anticipating when we called them basis vectors in the first place.

Of course, this basis is not unique.  Any two vectors which are not parallel form a basis of the plane in which they lie.

Most of us are used to selecting base vectors which form a right angle, such as the x-y axis

Most of us are used to selecting base vectors which are at a right angle to each other, such as the x-y axis.

However, it always takes two of them, so we say the plane is a  two-dimensional space.

Similarly, we can find triples of vectors which form bases of three-dimensional space, and N-tuples of vectors that form bases of N-dimensional space.

The component vectors are made up of multiples of basis vectors in that dimension

The component vectors are made up of multiples of basis vectors in that dimension: the number of basis vectors defines the number of dimensions of that space.

If a set of vectors forms a basis for a space, then we say that the basis spans the space.  The essential defining characteristic of a basis is that none of the N vectors can be obtained by any combination of scaled copies of the remaining N-1 vectors in the set.

Now, if we choose our basis vectors such that the angle between any pair of them is always 90 degrees, then our basis has the additional benefit that the directions are mutually independent.  No amount of movement parallel to any basis vector results in any movement parallel to any of the others.

When a basis has this property we call it an orthogonal basis.  Going back to our plan , for example, we now have the x and y directions familiar from graphing.

In three-dimensional space, we have x, y and z.  And the idea extends to N-dimensional space, even though there may not be standard names for the basis vectors.  So, now that we have a clear picture of the properties of basis vectors in geometric terms, let’s get a little more abstract.

We can treat any set of N mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive properties (also called degrees of freedom) as a set of N basis vectors in an N-dimensional representation space.

A representation space is just the set of all possible combinations of these properties.  For example, red, green and blue.  Any colour visible to the human eye can be represented as a sum of appropriately scaled red, green and blue components, but neither red, green nor blue can be obtained by any scaled mixture of the other two.

http://www.satimage.fr/software/images/graphics/rgb.pngThus we say that red, green and blue are the 3 basis vectors of a 3-dimensional colour space.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in education, science, technology. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

How vaccination works

April 30, 2009 — xanthippa

One of the ways our society relies on to combat viral diseases is through vaccination.  But, how does that work?

First, let’s look at viruses:

http://medicineworld.org/images/blogs/11-2006/influenza-flu-virus-230.jpg

Diagram of an influenza virus from MedicineWorld.org

There are several important things to notice:

  • The coiled things on the inside, which look like springs or slinkies, are the genetic material of the virus.  Viruses only contain half the genetic material that a ‘normal’ living cell needs, so they cannot make more (reproduce) unless they invade another cell and hijack its reproductive system.
  • The wall of the virus (lipid envelope) is made up of two layers of lipid molecules.  This wall is an incredibly good barrier, preventing material from going through it.
  • The  yellow spikes and other bits that stick outside the wall are actually proteins which are embedded in the wall of the virus.  Because the double lipid wall is such a good barrier, these proteins are the ‘channels’ through which things can move across the wall.  All cells (not just viruses) have them:  they can move water and nutrients (and waste materials) through the bi-lipid cell wall, allowing a cell to ‘eat’, ‘breathe’ and communicate.

These proteins that ‘stick outside the wall’ are very important for another reason:  each type of virus (or other infecting cell) has a slightly different types of proteins sticking out, and they are arranged in slightly different ways.  Therefore, the ‘pattern’ and ‘shape’ of these proteins has become the easiest way to identify the virus.  (Scientists can also analyze the genetic structure of a virus, but this is not something our immune system can do!  So, our bodies recognize viruses by the ‘fingerprint’ of the proteins on their surface.)

An actual electron-microscope view of a virus looks like this:

http://blog.silive.com/health/2008/10/avian-flu-virus.jpg

Image on an avian influenza virus from Health&Fitness

As you can see, the proteins stick out on the outside of the wall of the virus, and they form a very specific pattern.  This is very important, because it is precisely by the specific proteins and the pattern they form that our immune system recognizes viruses (and other ‘pathogens‘, which cause infection).

Looking at the human immune system quickly will not be so easy, because it is much more complex than a simple virus is.  Let me give it a try…

When our body is infected by an ‘antigen‘ ( a pathogen which will cause our immune system to react and generate antibodies – as opposed to a poison, etc.), our immune system springs into action.  It follows a very specific chain of steps:

  • ‘General defense’:  the ‘generic’ cells which kill all kinds of ‘invaders’ are released by the immune system in hope of containing the infection within hours, before it can spread too far thoroughout one’s body.
  • If this does not work, the next line of defense begins:  this is when the body begins to defend itself against a ‘specific antigen’.
    • the body attempts to identify the infection by looking at the ‘fingerprint’ pattern of proteins on its skin/surface/cell membrane by comparing the current infection against its ‘memory database’ of past infections the body has successfully defeated
      • if it has no record of past infection that looks ‘like’ this one, it begins to ‘figure out’ the best way to fight it
        • once it figures out the best ‘antibody’ to produce, which would be most effective in fighting this specific infection, it will begin to produce it…but, figuring it out is a process of trial-and-error, and can take quite a while
      • if it finds a ‘match’ in its ‘memory database’ between the ‘fingerprint’ of the surface proteins – types and pattern – of this infection, it begins to produce the same antibodies which worked against it the last time
    • the body produces the antibodies which fight against this specific infection:  that is, it produces the very antibodies that it produced the last time it saw this pattern, and got better as a result
    • if these antibodies are strong enough to kill the infection faster than it can reproduce AND if the infection has not reached a critical level before the body can produce this antibody in sufficient amounts to conquer it, the person will survive the illness which is the result of the infection

So, how does vaccination fit the picture?

Vaccines are made up of either weakened viruses (viruses and bacteria are the most common forms of infection, and we have antibiotics to fight bacteria (viruses are too small/primitive to be killed by antibiotics)) or viruses that are dead and ‘ground up’.

When the the body ‘receives’ the vaccine, it perceives it as any other infection.  The vaccines are engineered to provoke the body to start manufacturing antibodies and the cells which recognize the’fingerprint pattern’ of the ‘antigen’ (weakened virus, or bits of the virus wall with the ‘fingerprint pattern’ of proteins on it which the body uses to recognize an infection).  In other words, the weak virus or bits of the wall of that virus will be fought – and catalogued for future use.

The theory is that if a virus (or another antigen) enters the body in the future, and the body will recognize it and produce antibodies which ‘recognize’ it and fight it.

By ‘recognizing’ the invader, the body can begin to produce the antibodies very quickly.  While some infections take a long time to overwhelm the body, other ones – the ones called ‘virulent‘ – can make one ill very, very quickly… faster than the body can find an antibody that would work!  (During the more virulent outbreaks of ‘black death‘, it was said that people could go to sleep feeling perfectly healthy, but die of the disease before the morning…)  This speed in the body’s ability to defend itself against an invading infection can mean the difference between life and death…or, at least, between a speedy recovery and an unpleasant illness.

Therefore, the philosophy behind vaccination is to introduce a non-lethat (not dangerous) form of a really bad pathogen to a body in order to get its immune system to figure out (without the danger of being ovewhelmed by the infecting disease) how to fight that specific germ, so that the body can store this information in its ‘pathogen database’.  Then, if it ever encounters the ‘full-strength’ germ, it will be able to ‘remember’ how to fight quickly – not giving the invading infection the time to become strong by spending valuable time trying to figure out how to fight it!

This is a beautiful theory!

And, like all such theories, it does actually work in many, many cases!  Unless a person has an atypical, stressed or diseased immune system, vaccination will be very effective in providing them with protection against a potential future infection.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in education, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

The problem with vaccines….

April 27, 2009 — xanthippa

As the reports about the ‘swine flu’ are spreading like wildfire, people are wondering how to protect themselves.  This brings up more and more talk about ‘vaccines’:  how large are our supplies, how easily we can create more, and so on.

Frankly, we have a problem with vaccines…

No, I don’t mean the ‘accidents’ that can happen in the manufacture and distribution of vaccines.  These are real problems, because ‘human error’ is, well, something we, humans do.  But, we do learn from our mistakes (I hope!) – plus, depriving oneself of a useful defense against disease just because someone might have made a mistake somewhere along the way is a little extreme…  We ‘ought to’ worry about this in the sense that we demand good oversight and testing and all that – but there comes a point when we must trust our government institutions to do their job!

Nor am I talking about the laughable ease with which terrorists could use ‘live vaccines’ to inject multiple live viruses into willing persons, in the hope that the viruses simultaneously attacking the same cells will produce a ‘super-virus’ in at least one of them (this is called ‘reassortment‘), then using our mass transport system to spread them.  That is just a little paranoid… and worries like this are best left to our law-enforcement agencies!

The real problem we all have with ‘vaccination’ is much deeper and much more serious.

The real problem lies in the unrealistic expectations we place in vaccination!

The fault  for this lies – to a great degree – with the medical community.  (To a lesser degree, the fault lies with the mainstream media (MSM) for accepting the medical community’s word without digging deep enough to get the facts, and with each and every one of us who lets the medical and journalistic communities get away with doing such a poor job.)

Please, don’t get me wrong:  I am not ‘anti-vaccine’.

It’s just that I cannot stand it when people are given ‘partial information’ when they are expecting ‘the whole truth’ and when people are generally misled about ‘stuff’ – especially about ‘stuff’ which involves science!

And, when it comes to vaccines, we are often told by our MDs and other ‘health workers’ only part of the truth:  only the information which will manipulate us into doing what they think  is best for us, instead of letting us make the choice ourselves.  They may mean ‘best’ for us – but, by not telling us all we need to know, they are depriving us of the ability to make an informed choice for ourselves.

I am not joking – or making this up.  Physicians are taught (according to an MD in Ontario) in their medical ethics class that their responsibility is to the ‘greater community’, not individual patients.  Therefore, it is their ethical responsibility to only give their patients positive information on vaccination so that they will build a ‘greater herd immunity’ (his words, not mine) – even if this will harm a percentage of their patients.  This ‘will lead to overall benefit to society’, so ‘the end justifies the means’…

So, please, take a moment to consider for yourselves whether or not we have a problem ‘with vaccinations’:

  1. Every medical procedure has risks associated with it – even vaccination. We need accurate information on the risk to each one of us – as an individual, so we will have the ability to make informed choices for ourselves. Yet, we are told no more than vaccinations are ‘safe’.
  2. No vaccine is 100% effective. Some people will have no protection against a virus, even though they have been vaccinated against it.  Yet, before we are given a vaccine, we are not shown any figures which show what the efficacy of this vaccine is, and how likely someone within our ‘demographic’ is to benefit form it! (Most doctors who administer the vaccines do not have these figures – I have asked, many times!)  Yes, there are various methods of measuring the efficacy of a vaccine, but some of the vaccines we are currently offered are known to have less than 50% (some less than 20%) in ‘field application’ (meaning in ‘trials outside the lab’ – like when administered to ‘general population’). Yet, we are told that vaccinations WILL protect us against infectious diseases!
  3. Believing that they have 100% protection because they’ve been vaccinated, people are not likely to take other precautions. Of course, this will raise the danger of exposure to the very danger they think they are safe from. And THIS is the REAL problem…

Nothing we do in life is without a risk associated with it!

This does not mean we ought to ‘stop living’….  But it does mean that as responsible people, we must make choices about what we do, and how we do it.  Therefore, we MUST be given accurate information about just how effective the various actions we take to protect ourselves from infectious diseases truly are!

Vaccinations are likely a key weapon which we can (and should) use to combat the spread of infectious diseases.  But to use any weapon effectively, we need to know its strengths as well as its weaknesses.

When it comes to vaccinations, we know we are not being told the whole truth. That is dangerous!

And THAT is the problem with vaccinations…

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in debate, education, human nature, science, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

What is ‘Cultural Marxism’?

March 31, 2009 — xanthippa

One of the best things about life is that as long as we are breathing, we can continue to learn!

One of the best things about blogging is that the comments I receive are often insightful, well thought out and I can learn from them.  Usually, these just point out the ‘holes’ in my education/knowledge base:  something I appreciate because it points me in the direction of things I need to learn.

Yet, every now and then, there are comments which are an education in themselves!  Below is an excerpt (!) from one such comment:  I thought it so important and informative that I wanted to share it with everyone.  And, having received permission from the author, here is the answer to my question ‘What is ‘Cultural Marxism’?’:

CodeSlinger says:

Cultural Marxism is not Marxism-Leninism (which we usually just call Communism).

Marxism-Leninism is a system of political economics, which results from applying the so-called Marxist dialectic, developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in a process called critical analysis, which uses it to deconstruct Western democracy and capitalism, and to rewrite history in terms of economic class struggle (and we all saw how that turned out).

In the 1920’s, Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács adapted the methods of the Marxist dialectic and critical analysis to the cultural sphere and applied it to the task of undermining Western science, philosophy, religion, art, education, and so on. The result is called the quiet revolution, the revolution from within, the revolution that cannot be resisted by force. This is cultural Marxism.

Now, that was quite bad enough, but then along came a group of sociologists and psychologists — chief among whom being Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Jürgen Habermas — and they combined the Marxist dialectic with Freudian psychology to produce an exceptionally corrosive concoction called Critical Theory, which they use to deconstruct Western culture and values, and to rewrite history in terms of sexual and racial power struggles (and we can all see how that is turning out).

Collectively, these guys are called the Frankfurt School, because they originally got together under Horkheimer at the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), which was domiciled in a little brick building belonging to the University of Frankfurt am Main in the early 1930’s. They all published their work in the Journal for Social Research (Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung), edited by none other than Horkheimer himself.

Then Hitler consolidated his control of Nazi Germany, so, seeing as they were all Jewish, they fled to the USA, more or less as a group, in 1934. In America, they affiliated themselves with Columbia and Princeton Universities. The Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung was renamed Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, and they really got down to business.

Horkheimer’s key idea was that Critical Theory could be used actively, to change society, in contrast to the traditionally passive role of sociology, which had been merely to understand society. These guys were not your typical academics, whose main interest is the pursuit of knowledge. On the contrary, these guys pursued an agenda: they wanted to find out why the Marxist revolution had failed in the West, and they wanted to remedy that situation. To that end, the group’s research addressed what to attack, how to structure the attack, how to deliver the attack, and how to measure the results of the attack.

Thus, for example, Adorno joined up with Paul Lazarsfeld, founder of the Bureau for Applied Social Research at Columbia, and began studying the effect of mass media on the population, and how to measure it. Starting in 1937, they collaborated on the Radio Project (bankrolled by the Rockefeller Foundation) which, among other things, produced the 1938 War of the Worlds broadcast so they could measure its effects, and the Little Annie Project, which pioneered methods that quickly evolved into the Nielsen Ratings and the Gallup Polls.

Another example is the concept of intersubjective rationality, developed by Habermas, which replaces the individual process of reaching a conclusion based on the objective criterion that it follows from valid reasoning and known facts, on the one hand, with the social process of establishing a consensus supported by the subjective criterion that the group feels good about it, on the other hand. In today’s schools, those who do the former are maligned for being judgmental and demanding, while those who do the latter are praised for being good team players.

But, rather than go into pages and pages of detail right here and now, I’ll just list the titles of some of the major works of the Frankfurt School. Given the context, this combination of titles will make the hair stand up on the back of your neck:

Authority and the Family, Horkheimer, 1936
Escape from Freedom&amp, Fromm, 1941
Sex and Character, Fromm, 1943
The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno et al., 1950
Eros and Civilization, Marcuse, 1955
Repressive Tolerance, Marcuse, 1965
Communication and the Evolution of Society, Habermas, 1976

These are just a few of the core works; some are papers, some are books. The total volume of work by these guys, and their followers, is huge. The combined result, as I outlined in my very first post on this blog*, is something like the following:

It includes not only censorship of various kinds, but also the erosion of privacy, the debasement of the schools and the neutralization of the church. It includes the destruction of the family by setting wives against husbands and children against parents. It includes the disarmament of the public, the invalidation of self-defence and the incitement of fear. It includes the promulgation of the culture of victimhood, the promotion of immaturity and the reduction of society to a mob of narcissistic adult children. It includes the dogmatization of the universities. It includes the concentration of wealth, the concentration of ownership of corporations and the concentration of control of the media.

In sum, your description of all this as a descent into a new dark age** is exactly correct. And since you put it in those terms, I highly recommend an article by Michael J. Minnicino, called The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness. It speaks your language, and it will make the big picture very much clearer! Another good place to start is The Origins of Political Correctness, which is a transcript of a talk given by Bill Lind at the Accuracy in Academia Conference in 2000.

Update: The reference list above has been updated to also include the following: Escape from Freedom, Fromm, 1941

Xanthippa’s  footnotes:

*  ‘first post on this blog’= ‘first comment’… on my post  ‘Limiting our freedoms – making sense of the ‘big picture’‘

** reference to my post:  ‘Fight the ‘Forces of Darkness’!‘

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in education, freedoms, language, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, science, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 13 Comments »

Fight the ‘Forces of Darkness’!

March 27, 2009 — xanthippa

Do you remember reading about ‘The Dark Ages’?

They were called ‘Dark’ for several reasons.

Most of us are familiar with the first one:  because the state of learning had disintegrated so much that most of the people in Europe were plunged back to illiteracy, we have very few written historical records from this time period.  Thus, this era is sunk in ‘darkness’ – as in, ‘absence of knowledge’.

But, there is another reason:  because civilization had declined, most of the people had to eek out a meager existence off the land.  Therefore, they tended to live in small rural settlements, get up with sunrise and go to bed with sunset.  Gone were the parties which lit up the night with joy and revelry! No  longer were people wealthy enough to light up the night – nor would they have much reason to…

Much of Europe had been plunged into a physical, as well as philosophical darkness!

If you are not aware, there is a widespread campaign to plunge the Earth into darkness!

This coming Saturday evening (March 28th, 2009), the new forces of darkness have been guilting people into participating in a creepy, cultish ritual pretentiously called ‘Earth Hour’.

Are you familiar with the methods cults use to ‘break in’ new recruits?  How their brainwashing techniques work?

Here are some of the highlights:

  1. Find a victim: the more intelligent and caring, the better.  Ones who think they are immune to brainwashing make the best targets.
  2. Find or create a vulnerability.  Guilt is an excellent one.
  3. Offer them a solution for salvation (physical or spiritual or both).
  4. Feed them THE answer:  a simple solution, repeated over and over and over.
  5. Do not allow any questioning of the ‘solution’ (dogma).  Those who question it will be shut up or attacked/punished.
  6. Introduce rituals which reinforce the dogma and build bonds of the victim to the cult at large.
  7. Reinforce that adherence to the dogma and the rituals will bring salvation.

Now, please, apply this to the AGW alarmists:

  1. Most of us don’t think we – especially the society as a whole – could possibly be vulnerable
  2. We have THE highest standard of living, ever.  Christianity has filled us with guilt for the very act of living.  It is very, very easy to take these seeds of guilt and manipulate them:  the AGW forces of darkness are not the first, nor the last to exploit this wound on our collective soul.
  3. Salvation:  cut down Carbon Dioxide!  YES!  That is the only way to wash away our guilt for having a nice life!
  4. Humans caused Global Warming through our evil over-consumption!  We must make sacrifices, it will be painful, but we must atone for our sins of living well by destroying the little bits of our economy we still have left and pay, pay, pay!
  5. From David Suzuki (Canada’s AGW grand priest) calling for anyone who questions the AGW dogma to be jailed to hundreds of actual scientists now beginning to speak up (many from the relative freedom of retirement) and describing how their careers and even jobs would have been threatened had they dared speak the truth which was opposed to the dogma… this one is clearly fulfilled!
  6. Start recycling programmes.  Get people to turn out lights.  Simple games, repeatable rituals.  Easy as 3.14….
  7. Introduce ‘Earth Hour’ – and get schools to force kids to push it on their parents.  Those who dissent – well, we all know the story of little Pavlik Morozov…  (OK, so it is not so extreme here now, but… the pressure my 10-year-old has experienced in school to explain to his family why we should all conform to this is truly incredible:  from essays on how good it is, to reports on what their family is doing to ‘pull its weight’ are not just present in his class (actually, his teacher is really great), they are part of a large campaign which is greater than just one school, or one school-board:  with colourful pamphlets which feature ‘friendly characters’ and quote ‘undisputed science’…. it’s enough to make one want to home-school!

If you think I am exaggerating, if you prefer to believe the words of Al Gore, then, here are some of his own words from way back in 1993 (sic):

“Science will not intrude on public policy!”

Yes, the Guru himself knew, as far back as 1993, that science did not support his AGW policy.  But, such minor details were not allowed to interfere with his bid for money and power!  Of course, Gore profits from ‘carbon credit’ trading, having started one of the first such companies….  And, as I write this, more and more evidence is coming out that Obama is also in on the racket.

But, I got sidetracked… please, forgive me.

The beauty of this particular cult is that it reduces the populace’s access to the very things which enable it.  I should explain…

With the advent of the internet – and the ease of access to it – people have found new ways to educate themselves, AND new ways of holding their elected officials accountable.  This threatens a lot of people!!!

People can now communicate, and educate themselves, in an active way – instead of being passive receptacles into which ‘information’ in the form of ‘culture’ is deposited.  Controlling these channels of ‘culture-production’ controlled the evolution of the social culture.  The loss of this control which accompanied the rise of the internet is being addressed now, with the global war against the open internet.

On the governance front – things are no better.  Originally the privelage of very few, now, even ‘regular citizens’ could access the governance structures, the mandarins administeing them and the elected officials who are supposed to control them.  All it takes now is an email (with the ‘electronic fingerprint’ this leaves behind)!

This ‘electronic accountability’ has fundamentally altered our governance structures.  (I’ve spent about a decade evaluating this phenomenon, so I could go on and on about it for days… and, being an Aspie, I don’t know how much I ought to delve into it without boring my audience to death…so, I will simply pass on.  Yet, if you have questions, please, let me know and I will answer them in the comments!  Just, please, specify the level of detail you’d like on this….or it WILL go on and on and on!!!)

One of the most insightful writers ever was Frank Herbert, who wrote the ‘Dune’ series (if you are going to watch it, instead or read it, then watch the 3-part series – not the movie). The man was brilliant.  He was not only a highly skilled writer, he was also extremely insightful in how archetypes affect us – and how they can be used…  How religions arise, evolve, are used – the man was brilliant!

In his book (a bit into the series), ‘God Emperor of Dune’ (whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry missed the point of the book – nay, the series), the previously technologically advanced society of his dystopia (or, is it eutopia – he makes them hard to distinguish) has been reduced to ‘walking’.  High technology is still available, just that much of it has been outlawed and is permitted to be possessed only by ‘the state’ (meaning the Emperor and his minions).

The most wise Emperor, Leto II, says (and, I am paraphrasing, as if I tried to look up the quote, I would end up reading the book again and again, and would not post for weeks…):

“A population that walks is easier to control!”

And, make no mistake:  the symbolic, ritualistic plunging of the Earth into darkness for just one hour, every last Saturday evening in March, is very much and affirmation of the policy of the forces of darkness who fully understand the implications of Emperor Leto’s statement.  It is the first step in plunging the Earth into a much more permanent darkness:  physical as well as philosophical and scientific one, the better to control us all!

Don’t let them.

PLEASE!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, science, society, technology. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

Police raid on home of WikiLeaks.de owner

March 25, 2009 — xanthippa

I wish I could say this was a surprise!

Here is the press release (in full):

‘March 24, 2009

EDITORIAL (Wikileaks)

Excerpt raid documentation

Excerpt raid documentation

Shortly after 9pm on Tuesday the 24th of March 2009, seven police officers in Dresden and four in Jena searched the homes of Theodor Reppe, who holds the domain registration for “wikileaks.de”, the German name for wikileaks.org. According to police documentation, the reason for the search was “distribution of pornographic material” and “discovery of evidence”. Police claim the raid was initiated due to Mr. Reppe’s position as the Wikileaks.de domain owner.

Police did not want to give any further information to Mr. Reppe and no contact was made with Wikileaks before or after the search. It is therefore not totally clear why the search was made, however Wikileaks, in its role as a defender of press freedoms, has published censorship lists for Australia, Thailand, Denmark and other countries. Included on the lists are references to sites containing pornography and no other material has been released by Wikileaks relating to the subject.

Some details of the search raise questions:

  • Wikileaks was not contacted before the search, despite Wikileaks having at least two journalists which are recognized members of the German Press Association (Deutscher Presse Verband).
  • The time of at least 11 police detectives was wasted conducting a futile raid on the private home of volunteer assistant to a media organization.
  • Police asked for the passwords to the “wikileaks.de” domain and for the entire domain to be disabled.
  • Mr Reppe was not informed of his rights; police documentation clearly shows that box to be left unchecked.
  • Contrary to what is stated in the police protocol, Mr. Reppe did not agree to “not having a witness” present.

Ultimately, Mr Reppe refused to sign the police documentation due to its inaccuracies.

The raid appears to be related to a recent German social hysteria around child pornography and the controversial battle for a national censorship system by the German family minister Ursula von der Leyen. It comes just a few weeks after a member of parliament, SPD minister Joerg Tauss had his office and private house searched by police. German bloggers discussing the subject were similarly raided.

Mr. Reppe sponsors the Wikileaks German domain registration and mirrors a collection of Wikileaks US Congressional Research Service reports but is not otherwise operationally involved. Mr Reppe is also maintainer of one of the most popular German Tor-proxy servers (morphium.info) but only the connection to Wikileaks was mentioned during the raid.

Wikileaks.de and other Wikileaks domains were unaffected by the raid.

Wikileaks is a non-profit project, sponsored by transparency groups and investigative journalists world wide. To support our defense of this and other cases, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks‘

Is this what it has come to?  Are reputable journalistic organizations no longer allowed to report on the facts of censorship, without the fear of having their peoples’ homes searched?  Are police going to be allowed to take ‘shortcuts’ from proper procedures?

It is no co-incidence that the police raid was not carried out against any of the journalists, or that the WikiLeaks office was not notified:  no, picking on the techie volunteer and raiding his home is a deliberate attempt to intimidate!  It is meant to send a clear and unequivocal message:  if you stand up for your rights, we will get you!

Please, make no mistake:  the goal of the state here is NOT to ‘protect children from abuse’ or ‘protect children from pornography’ (as if THAT second one were the state’s role, when it is clearly 100% the parents’ role)!  No, this is a pretext.  The goal is transparently simple:  assert power, normalize the concept that the government has the power to monitor and censor all your communication, until nothing you say, type, read, see or hear will not go unrecorded, un-stored and, if you dare oppose the government, un-used to destroy you completely and totally!

How do I know this?

It is simple reasoning:

How can you make child pornography?  By recording the act of sexually abusing a child, right?

So, if you prevent children from being sexually abused, you will prevent child pornography, on the internet, or anywhere else.  Still correct?

Therefore, if a government is serious about stopping child pornography on the internet, one would expect such a government to strengthen its laws against pedophilia, would one not?

But, the German government, so eager to protect children from child pornography has already stated that it plans to legalize pedophilia!

Hard to believe, but true!  That a government so eager to throw its weight about, pushing around techie volunteers for reputable journalistic organizations – all in the name of protecting children from child abuse – is actually going to enshrine into law that ‘pedophilia’ is a ‘protected grounds’ against which one may not be discriminated against!

Only the constitutional challenge by a lone German MP has prevented Germany from ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, and the German President had, in October 2008, stated his intention to sign the Lisbon Treaty into law by May 2009…

What is the significance of the Lisbon Treaty?  It is the new set of laws which all EU states must submit to, one which clearly and unequivocally includes ‘pedophilia’ as a ‘protected grounds’ on which one is not allowed to be discriminated against!  If you think I am exaggerating, please, listen to someone who is better at expressing this than I am:

So, the next time an EU politician excuses abuse of power in the name of ‘protecting children from sexual abuse’ – you know they are lying!  If they were truly concerned about the kids, they would stop the practice, NOT LEGALIZE IT!!!

Don’t let their pretense at righteousness fool you:  they are after raw power and are doing nothing less than normalizing these abhorrent practices into accepted means of exerting control over their populace!

Hat tip:  Somebody Think of the Children !

P.S.  My own link to the ‘Danish banned list’ stopped working within 24 hours of when I posted it.
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Is Britain a ‘failing state’?

March 24, 2009 — xanthippa

What is a ‘failed state’?

A ‘failed state’ is a state which has completely failed to function.  The exact definition is debated by the experts, but, a ‘failed state’ is often described as having the following characteristics:

  1. inability to maintain its territorial integrity
  2. loss of monopoly on policing and judiciary
  3. failed social structures
  4. corruption of its governance structures (failure of its government to function as it was meant to)

Now, a ‘failing state’ has not quite become a ‘failed state’ – yet – but is certainly heading in that direction.  Some suggest that a failing state may attempt to assert totalitarian-type control over its populace in its last attempts at remaining in control…

Yes, I know, my definitions are not perfect – I don’t have the technical lingo down pat.  Yet, from the little bit of reading I have done, this seems to be the ‘rough’ idea behind the concept.

Britain is not a failed state – yet!  My question is, just how far on the road to becoming one is it?

Let us look at the major characteristics of a ‘failed state’, as per my definition, and see if they are applicable to Britain:

1. Inability to maintain territorial integrity

This is a tough one:  Britain has bartered away the control over immigration to Britain in a series of treaties with the EU:

‘It is therefore actually both impossible and illegal for British immigration officers to obtain hard facts on why people are entering Britain, because an EU passport gives someone from Poland or France as much right to enter this country as I do – no questions asked.’

All right – it is not a ‘failure’ in the ‘classical sense’, but rather the surrendering of responsibility for its territorial integrity to a supranational legal structure.  Yet, it also means that the British government has, in a very real sense, lost the control over maintaining its territorial integrity…

2.  Loss of monopoly on policing and judiciary

Last year, it was revealed that a parallel legal system, based on Sharia law and in no way answerable to the state, had been operating and deeply entrenched in Britain.  In September 2008, acknowledging that they cannot control or abolish this parallel legal system, the British government formally recognized its legitimacy.

Even though this parallel legal system is not based on British laws or traditions, and is completely outside the control of the British government, it is fully functioning and its authority is officially recognized by the British government.

In other words, the British government has failed to maintain a monopoly on its judiciary.

Of course, many people would argue that Britain has also lost its ability to police its society… or even the ability to understand their basic role to charge those who disrupt peace, not those who protest the disruption.  That is not functional policing…

3.  Failed social structures

When a state begins to issue civil court orders known as ASBO (anti-social behaviour order)  against toddlers, it is a rather unequivocal sign that its social structures are failing.

How is an ASBO issued against a person?

Well, according to Wikipedia, the accuser brigns their complaint against the defendant in front of a magistrate (my emphasis):

‘Applications for ASBOs are heard by Magistrates sitting in their civil capacity. Although the proceedings are civil, the court must apply a heightened civil standard of proof. This standard is virtually indistinguishable from the criminal standard. The applicant must prove that the defendant has acted in such a manner beyond all reasonable doubt.’

OK, you might say, so what is the problem?  I know lots of toddlers who display ‘anti-social behaviour’!  Beyond all reasonable doubt, most toddlers DO engage in ‘anti-social behaviour’…  After all, they ARE toddlers.

Yeah, right… But  ASBO is usually issued against ‘football hooligans’ and unruly youths and so on, forbidding specific behaviours.  If the order is broken, and the individual engages in the behaviour prohibited by the order, that individual is subject to arrest.  In other words, it’s sort of a ‘probation’ thingy for specific behaviours.

So, could an ASBO ever be issued to a two-year-old boy?  In England, apparently, it could… and against his sisters, aged 4 and 5 (one of whom is autistic).  From Dvorak Uncensored:

‘A boy aged two has become the youngest Briton ever to be threatened with an Asbo.

Lennon Poyser received the warning along with his sisters Olivia, five, and four-year-old Megan, after neighbours complained about their behaviour.’

And, yes, the kids had been told they could be arrested if they continued in their anti-social behaviour.  While the whole thing had eventually been cleared up as a ‘mistake’, the fact is that such a complaint did go before a judge, been proven to be true ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ to a standard which ‘is virtually indistinguishable from the criminal standard’ and the order was issued and delivered – ALL IN ERROR?!?!?

Sounds to me like things are seriously breaking down in England…

While all this is going on, what are the local councils worried about?  Are they addressing the breakdown of their society? Are they working hard to plug the holes in their governance structures, so 2-year olds won’t get tossed into jail for kicking a football?

Well, not so much…there is no time for that, because they are busy banning apostrophe’s from public signs and Latin phrases from daily speech!

Of course, these are not the only examples – there are too many to fit into an itty-bitty blog post… One would need a few volumes to even scratch the surface!  And, if THIS is how the local councils are attempting to fix their failing social structures, then, in my never-humble-opinion, England is doomed.

4.  Corruption of its governance structures

Britain is the cradle of our modern-day democracy:  the home of the Magna Carta (or is calling it by its Latin name no longer legal in England?)  Its parliamentary system is designed with checks and balances.  It ought to work!

But, when one unelected parliamentarian can assert his will by threats of terrorism – and do so openly, with impunity, and which no consequences – it is unequivocal that the British government has failed in its function.  It has become corrupted and dysfunctional.

And, if this letter can be interpreted as anything other than a threat of increased domestic terrorism should the British government not submit its foreign policy to the will of the Islamist lobby, then I don’t know what it could possibly be.

So far, I think it has been demonstrated that Britain is slowly but surely advancing on the road towards becoming a ‘failed state’.  Are there any signs that it is behaving according to the patterns of such states?  Is it beginning to attempt to impose some totalitarian, oppressive policies it its desperate attempt to stay in control?

Well, perhaps admitting that the state is unable to keep peace after dark is the reason for the imposition of a curfew which bans all teens from being out at night.  And the populace’s response?  They are squabbling about the ‘how’, not the ‘what’ of the order…

Or, how about this?  The British government not allowed – by EU treaties – to control its immigration, so they are going all out to ‘big brother’ every Briton’s travel plans?

That does not even scratch the surface of the British censoring, choking and monitoring of all internet traffic…some of the blarmiest laws about the internet ever!

If THAT were not enough, now the British government is actively encouraging its citizens to go through each other’s garbage in order to report ‘anything suspicious‘…. and attempting to villify anyone who does not approve of being monitored by cameras 100% of the time!

Having considered the above – how far along the road to ‘failed state’ do you think Britain is?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Existing laws may already allow ‘Thought Police’

March 23, 2009 — xanthippa

Over the last little while, I have been ranting about the ever-increasing legislation to censor our communication.

Let’s not kid ourselves:  governments today are opposed to information being freely available to their citizens.  ‘Regulating’ things gives governments power over its citizens and collecting fees for ‘regulating’ is an important source of revenue for them.  From UN on, the aim of governments is to ‘regulate’:  it gives them both power and money.

It is only when we, the ‘unwashed masses’, show up – wielding pitchforks – and threaten to our legislators with defenestration* that they will unwillingly and grudgingly step back and allow us to keep some of our inherent rights and freedoms!

Still, when we do, we can make a difference:  the New Zealand government is backing off implementing its controversial ‘Section 92A’ of their copyright law, which would force all ISPs to cut off internet access to anyone even accused of copyright violation!  It looks like the internet petition, protests from all sides (except the movie and music industry) and the loud, loud outcry which echoed worldwide did have some effect:  the government will send that section ‘back to committee’ for re-drafting!  But, the fact that they are re-considering it does not mean they will come to a different conclusion… and passing it quietly, once the fuss had died down.

The fact of the matter is that governments will censor and restrict (sorry, they prefer the term ‘regulate’) as much as we, the citizens, will allow them to!  Once something becomes ‘accepted practice’,  there is grounds for it to become part of our laws, whether we like it or not.

What I’m about to write next is a little bit of ‘reductio ad absurdum’ argument, and I freely admit that.  Yet, it does illustrate what I think is an important principle which we ought not loose sight of…

All around the world, we have accepted that governments have the right to regulate ‘the airwaves’.  Of course, the word ‘airwaves’ is a misnomer:  what is mean by this is the transmission of information using electromagnetic radiation (waves) which travel through the air.  Whether it is the US FCC, Canada’s CRTC, Ofcom in Britain,  ARCEP in France or any other nation’s body – the common thread here is that EVERY governments has established that IT has the RIGHT to regulate the transmission of information vie EM waves through the air.

It is on this basis that it licenses – and censors – radio and television stations. It regulates who is allowed to access which wavelengths, and when, and how.

Most of us have come to accept this as their ‘right’ – if not their outright role, and therefore DUTY.

We seem to have simply ‘accepted’ the premise that governments HAVE the right to regulate the transmission of information using EM radiation.  And, undoing such an assumption will be difficult!

Now, I would like to remind everyone of my first law of human-dynamics:  if a law can be abused, it will be!

How often have our legislators (or the bureaucrats who actually control the implementation of any government policy) passed a law, only to later expand its application in ways the populace never dreamed of – and would not have approved, had they understood just how twisted this law can be?  (If you can’t remember, here is an example from Australia…)

Back to my main point:  how does fMRI work?

Well, in layman’s terms, it is a medical imaging device which measures the EM transmissions of our brain as we think.

As in,when we think, our brain actually converts our thoughts (or, perhaps, makes our thoughts) as a form of EM radiation, which it then transmits these waves outside our brain… where this nifty machine can detect them.

But, did we not just accept that our governments have the right to regulate these???


Please, think about it!

Note:  *defenestration – when talking about ‘open-source code’, the word ‘defenestration’ (meaning, ‘out of windows’) becomes a bit of a pun…
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, language, opression, philosophy, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

‘It’s the message that is being censored’

March 20, 2009 — xanthippa

FACT – Freedom Against Censorhip Thailand:  Thought Crime in Bankok and Rangoon-Rule of Lords

I have never heard the principle expressed so clearly and concisely!  (my emphasis)

‘Win Maw, Zaw Min, Aung Zaw Oo and Chiranuch in reality all stand accused of the same crime: a commitment to free speech. Their offences have nothing to do with the technology after which the draconic instruments they purportedly transgressed have been named. The medium offended no one. The stuff that passed through it apparently did. These are not cybercrime laws at all. They are thought-crime laws.‘

This is an important distinction:  the technology did not offend anyone (well, the very existence of it is threatening to some who would like to control all our thoughts, as well as our actions) – the ideas which were passed through this technology did!

All this ‘internet regulation’ is nothing less than thought-crime legislation.  It’s time we started calling it by its real name.

And remember: if a law CAN be abused in any way, shape or form – it WILL BE!!!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, science, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

The first rule of censorship is that you are not allowed to talk about censorship

March 18, 2009 — xanthippa

WOW!!

This sounds like a bad movie!

(Not that ‘Fight Club’ was a bad movie – just that a ‘Government enforced’ version of ‘Fight Club existence’ would be a very, very bad movie!!!)

This is beyond comprehensible!

OK… I’ll slow down enough to fill you in on what I’m talking about.

Imagine a dystopia where the government has a ‘black list’ of things you are not allowed to do and not allowed to talk about.  Or, perhaps, a list of websites you are not allowed to click on.  They are still visible, you are just not allowed to click on them.  IF you breach this strict prohibition, you will be hunted down and punished, with the full weight of the state hurled at you to crush you.

Pretty bad, right?  Where would you say this is taking place?

Well, on the surface of it, you might suggest places like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and, perhaps, Pakistan.  Yet, I speak of a different place…

Perhaps more clues are needed in order for you to recognize the country I speak of:  would it be helpful if I told you that there, this ‘black list’ is actually secret?

Yes, you read this correctly:  nobody KNOWS they have broken the rules until AFTER they have broken the rules!

Do you not believe such a thing could happen today???

Well, you would be wrong.

Not only does it happen in our world, it is happening as we are having our virtual conversation:  and it is happening in a ‘Western Democracy’!!!

The ‘black list’?

Is it some ‘democracy-in-name-only, a country stiffeled under the yoke of the EU oppression?  As in the manner of ‘Prison?  Then is the world one…in which there are many confines, wards and dungeons, Denmark being one o’th’worst!’

I’m sorry to disappoint you – I am not speaking of a EU nation-state.

I speak of no other place than Australia!!!

Yes, Australia!!!

The Sydney Morning Herald from 17. March 2009 reports:

‘The Australian communications regulator says it will fine people who hyperlink to sites on its blacklist, which has been further expanded to include several pages on the anonymous whistleblower site Wikileaks.

Wikileaks was added to the blacklist for publishing a leaked document containing Denmark’s list of banned websites.’

Aside:  Just in case you happened to be in Denmark, or wanted to travel there, and did NOT want to run afoul of the local laws by accidentally clicking on one of the thousands of websites banned in Denmark, the ‘Wikileaks’ page listing them is here.

But, please, consider the implications of this action!!!

  1. A number (a very big number) of websites get banned – people get fined for accessing them, and their internet providers are legally obligated to monitor their subscribers’ activity online and notify the government (and provide them with the necessary documentation, to be used in court) if ANY one of their subscribers accesses one of these sites.
  2. An internet website publishes this list of banned websites:  after all, people ought to KNOW where they are not allowed to click – right???
  3. The internet pages actually providing this public notice are themselves banned – for the very reason that they ARE informing people WHAT is and is not legal!!!

In other words, our governments are wrapping themselves in the cloak of righteous indignation over the ‘problem of internet pedophilia’ and banning websites, left, right and centre (though, mostly right of centre)…NOT just sites that (horrid and reprehensible as they are) abuse kids.  And, to make sure that nobody notices EXACTLY WHAT it is they are banning, they will ALSO ban any pages which actually tell people what it is that is banned!!!

So, the first time you will find out that a site is ‘blacklisted’ is when you loose your internet service and get dragged to court for having ‘clicked on something’!!!

And, if you think that only websites that contain ‘child pornography’ (or whatever euphemism you want to use for this horrible, horrible abuse of kids) are being put onto these ‘blacklists’, please, think again (my emphasis):

‘The site has also published Thailand’s internet censorship list and noted that, in both the Thai and Danish cases, the scope of the blacklist had been rapidly expanded from child porn to other material including political discussions.

Already, a significant portion of the 1370-site Australian blacklist – 506 sites – would be classified R18+ and X18+, which are legal to view but would be blocked for everyone under the proposal. The Government has said it was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond.’

To infinity 10,000 sites – and beyond!!!

‘EFA said the Government’s “spin is starting to wear thin” and it could no longer be denied that the ACMA blacklist targets a huge range of material that is legal and even uncontroversial.’

And, yes, Australia’s ‘blacklist’ of banned websites is also very, very secret.  As a matter of fact, the article suggests that it was the fear that the Aussie list would also ‘get published’ which prompted the Australian government to ban (block access to) sites which list the Danish ‘blacklist’.

Is THIS what our democracies, the only defenders of the individual’s inherent rights to make his or her own choices, have been reduced to?!?!?  If so, then I want a ticket out of here!

(Sorry, I get really, really worked up over this stuff – this is NOT just some hypothetical thing, this is a REAL THREAT to our freedoms!  Now, let’s get some of you people ‘out there’ – who have the right background to make this technically possible – to start working on a censorship-proof subnet… which will, eventually, replace the now so obviously dying internet‘!)

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »