catastrophical curves in politics

Introduction.

When you are acquainted with catastrophe theory (it's rather complicated but the basics are simple)the whole world looks different.

In that it is like the game of Go (go, wei qi, baduk, goe). The world of the game go is a very orderly one. The conflict between you and the other, the other and her self, is permanent. Every action get's a reaction, and the chain of incidents encompasses the whole 19*19 board.
Sometimes when an opponent makes a wrong move, you actually don't react.
In that, go is better then reality, bad actions don't ask for reactions of catastrophic proportion.
When you play or watch a game of go, since the board is just to big to fit in our mind (actually the board went through a suggestive progression in size) it becomes allegoric. Just like chaos theory and catastrophical curves it tells us something of the interconnectivity of reality, and how courses have their causes.

Every smart move has its results, and so does every error.
With that most is said. People pay for errors (on a social level) with catastrophes.


Media:

Sometimes i find it hard to wresttle through the piles of mud, (does the expression throwing mud mean anything to you) in the media and even in personal contacts.
How can it be people are so subinformed, mislead?

However when i project my experience with eventcurves (so how catastrophes came to happen) on this exact feature of our media's , our mind and our worldviews,
i feel alarmed. Apparently it is not yet widely recognised yet that by messing things up you introduce catastrophical curves on a social scale always.

I am thinking over writing an article, "the last pages of real history" or something of the sort. As a sort of vain attempt to provide an anchor. A relativism to the future desinformation. People think perhaps it is not urgent, but actually while we are thinking things can get us into bigger problems, costing us dearly just because we didn't recognise or want to accept their catastrophical consequences.

Often i reflect how truth is the only counter against desinformation. So i want to set up databasis of 'statistical truth'.( and provide it with any sociohistorical function i can imagine for analysation), just like harry seldon.., the character of isaac asimov that founds the socio-historical illegality.
Also it seems essential to describe 'requirements' for grades of truth.

Politics

I am now contemplating preventing catastrophical conflict on the planet through standardisation of not only finance etc. but also through setting an objective score for truth.

There are very many subjective kinds of truth, more then humans on the planet on any given moment, usually there is only one real event however, with an unlimited but usually smaller nr. of causes (usually historical) and inflictions (usually of truth). For each of the causes (except the ones we don't think of or deny), it is rather easy to proof or disproof it's relevance.

It gets a bit harder with these inflictions. The usual infliction of truth contains lies, and lies when unnoticed have the same effect on people as truth. Subconsciously people will be motivated to prevent the catastrophical results of the enfolding curves.
As a result whole populations can get biased or malinformed.

I'll give an historical and obviously catastrophical example: Irak.
When whoever (bush and the neocons, the leading oil and weaponindustry, or even the pharmaceutical complex) decided to wage war against Irak, an excellent example of the catastrophical lie was introduced.

I hate to be so meticulously but it seems people won't understand me without,
i am talkin about the WMD argument. The weapons of massdestruction argument.
By abusing it, that argument wich should in fact be considered an essential for the survival of our planet, (logical result of this 'curve' is US will have to abolish nukes as well), lost most if not all validity. We killed 2-3 million people over it,
but it was not true. Now when someone accuses someone of WMD, one will always have to wonder , what does he have to win with that lie. (a country might have wmd , but the argument has been so abused, that you can almost be sure the next implementation of that security measure by the UN will be another hoax, another genocidal lie, and catastrophical theft.)

Unfortunately things have not yet changed for the better, and our international opinions are mostly formed through lies and falsifications of the truth. Wich are just as bad as they purposedly introduce the lie into the individual, with an exact same effect as plain lies.

Even true falsifications of the truth , a thing i am not proficient at but know how to handle, are not ok. They would be ok in a perfectly informed society, but we are the opposite. My interpretation of the eretz (i think purposedly) israelian incident,
in the last article is an example.

It is perfectly true, but it does not tell some other borders have been open at the time they closed eretz, to create a different kind of incident,
(look how mean is hamas: they scare wounded (and armed?) fatah members (that shot them yesterday) instead of helping them.)

Such is true, because it is the result of the curve. retrospectively it is true
because the chain of incidents was under perfect israelian control at that crossing.
(actually i think on day1 already israel has been moving with tanks around these helpless fatahmembers or rather close at least).

Now israel has admitted to help her fatah allies, and i just have to grasp limited medical resources in gaza have been diverted more to the victims of fatah.
(wich makes perfect sense from a people's point of view as fatah was the one having the better arms and the initial opressor(security service) and thus the more efficient killer. )

These are all excellent examples of how media politics influence human catastrophy over the people themselves. Ofcourse there are bigger catastrophys.

For one thing i care about humans and not catastrophys.. and for another israel is so much pushing her prominence in the media that actually (perhaps much against their wish?) it invites analyses and speculation more then many other cases.

To mention an example: i have some understanding of the situation in the darfur region, also as it being of bigger proportion.
However the problem and the history of the nations is not 1/1000th as broadly
underdocumented as the palestinean case.
(i think we could do with much less material if it just was better though)

My impression is the intern darfur discourse is actually hidden from the western, and possibly african arab and asian public, just because they don't want people to have a say in it.

Strangely this is a feeling well known in darfur.....
However it is also true that to a certain extend the public cannot solve the isolated case of darfur (or the larger one of sudan, darfur and the horn of africa).
The Darfur conference has proven that. It has also proven that political awareness is cheaper then aid. And the endresult is that the notion of oil spoiled it all.
So now we have to be working from that point off.

A point the UN does not want to make to it's populaces.
Wich is very much were we stand. The political lie, untruth and purported unknowingness rules the world, and we are divided by the percentage of lies we still or always believe in. Believe me that side-effect is not only recognised by me.
Although hopefully usual "agents" (secret services personel) understood it worse.

Conclusions

To some extend most people have to believe in their own (their medias, their governments) lies to function for that economy/politics. Ofcourse it is a focus , and that besides it is a psychological fact. An easy focus:)
It's somewhat close to how white soldiers called japanese apes etc.
There was a security argument for that but eventually people don't kill without lies.
And that was probably the major cause for this piece of still existant militairy culture, that as far as i have been able to research always has been intrinsical to militairy and paramilitairy action. (with me always last like 20000 years at least, so off the first uniforms and armys).

Before that time the whole diplomatical system was way more irrelevant(less people so a much bigger census eg.) and presumably based on conventions. Sorry if i give to much historical background or provide a perspective, this part of the history of the politically implemented lie i find specifically interesting.

Fight against rasism and hate.

So what am i aiming for? Personally i am all for prevention of catastrophical curves in politics, so i am against the forced poverty to maintain a labour force,
but i am also against discrimination, or (what i think israel did) the creation of a discriminating society.
Now israel is nothing, a spot on the map, but as i already repeated myself, it got a disproportional place in the media. Any discriminating society should be so targeted.
And that is a problem obviously. Since as far as i know all societys know the mechanism of discriminating their neighbouring people, or even the ones slightly more remote. (a better militairy strategy over the centurys)

Usually they do both, discriminate close (our belgians, israelis palestineans) and further (our and israels "muslim fanatics" and "arabs"). I actually think we discriminate everything that is not dutch. Belgians most explicitly, but as we also like them it only states we think worse of the rest.
Even anti-judaism is very close to the surface. I do not completely understand the reasons for it. I tend to relate the nr of jewish communitys through europe somewhat, for the rest? some kings etc. that used them as a black sheep (and bank), early notion of religious paranoia.

But why it boils so close to the surface i really don't understand.
At one point in my writing life i had decided to involve israel, to drag it before the court of truth that i am describing, the result was utterly embarrasing.

Even people that apparently understand my social reasoning immediatly, didn't stand out for antirasism. I am still surprised over the fierceness of anti-judaism.
However i reach a hand, when i pose that messing up the truth does irreversible damage in the person you try to mess it for. Although i don't understand the rasist result, i do understand the anger of the powerless. But why not an anger against palestine, but against jews?

Well honestly i think the media, and the jewish ones between, have more of an interest in antijudaism then in changing the state of palestine.
Otherways i can't explain it. People do forget phrases in 2 or 3 generations, and the criticality against rasism is sufficient that an emancipated media politics would not have this result. I explicitly include arab media before the westerners that will want to (lie) "think otherways".

That is a thing you could generalise: People only think as bad as they are told to.
After that they are just wonderfull, noble, honest, beautifull, valuable, special people. The criminal argument is not apropriate as it got way to much variables to be part of the same curve. And anyone with the nerve to ever meet a 'real' criminal knows these are very human too.
(i tend to blame environmental factors and educational circumstance for 99% of criminality)

There is however in criminality a similar mechanism at work:
As the "labour ethics" <- dunno if that is english, "arbeids ethiek" in dutch,
requires poverty to have readily and willing slaves, it induces criminality.
That is not only empiric, it is also obviously politically true.
For a national government to raise criminality the nr of measures available to do so are innumerable. And since people scare for crime, it is an excellent excuse for more militaristion in our societys. However even that is not the major reason to induce crime in the poor. The major reason is it is much easier to create prejudices against people involved in (so-perceived) crime, then it is to silence a political opponent through other means.

So by marginalising the disagreeing people, you also kill the political opposition before it grows.
This is not meant as a manual for fascism so please use it before powers in the world abuse it on you.

Actually at points i have met people (myself included) that have been implicitly and even explicitly urged by the social security to commit crimes. However according to that would be a mistake. Once a "criminal" on the record; you loose every right you might still think you had, so it only a efficiency measure to kill the poor quicker.

Just that endpoint of the policy of the lie, is that now politics is thinking every unthinkable thing just to eliminate poor (generally unslavish),criminal and other people.
That is not even pure malvolence, it's also just the result of the curve, of that way of believing what you are told.

incident:

(could not think of the english word. Wich reminds me how the translations of relevant entrys for manipulation politics have disappeared from dictionairys
examples: verduistering (a form of often highlevel swindle, i went for "purloin" in the end. Or this one: "kwaadaardigheid" it just does not translate in the dictionairys i first find on google).

Anyhow these politics are well aware of what they are doing, and have their excuses ready....
malvolence is not a "nice" word why do i want it???

what a malvolent question! I want it to fight it ofcourse, and i don't know it because it is not *my* way of doing. Give us back our words please.