US tries to catch Rwanda genocide suspect, gets blamed for his escape and informant death

This story epitomizes the anti-American animus so prevalent in The Guardian. “Bloody end as trap for man behind massacres backfires: US attempt to catch tycoon blamed for slaughter of 800,000 in Rwanda results in death of key informant”.

The United States government spends time, money and other resources trying to catch someone who financed the massacred of 800,000 Rwandans in 1994. They offer a $3 million reward. A Kenyan businessman agrees to help so he can get the bounty. He gets killed. The US gets blamed. Typical.

Why are the US bothering? Clearly there is nothing in it for them except blame when it goes wrong, so why are they financing and helping to catch this man? What possible good does it do the US to pursue and bring to justice a Rwandan genocide suspect?

Their own security is under grave threat. I am sure the American tax payers would rather their tax dollars are spent on self-defense rather than trying to seek justice for a bunch of unappreciative Africans.

Also see the anti-American hate doggerel ‘poem’ by Harold Pinter in the same newspaper today.

Here they go again,
The Yanks in their armoured parade
Chanting their ballads of joy
As they gallop across the big world
Praising America’s God.

There is more, unfortunately, and I am not making this up. It really IS that bad.

Met start to nail ethnic mafia

Radical action was needed to slow the murder rate in the capital, which is growing rapidly due to drug mafia violence. No doubt there will be moans from the £95,000 a year lay race advisors, who like the old Soviet political commissars, have to be consulted before these sorts of actions can be taken.

I read somewhere yesterday (or the day before) that the lay race advisors were not consulted before the Finsbury Park raid. Damned right. They should have no veto and are a massive security risk. They can find out after the fact.

I also read today in the Guardian that “One of the world’s leading Islamic scholars denounced the police raid as “a desecration” yesterday. Professor Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the president of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, condemned Islamist extremism but added: “This does not justify the police to desecrate the sanctity of the mosque, the house of God should not be stormed in this way. Have the police in Britain ever stormed into a church?”.

If the Professor had bothered to read about the raid, he would know that the worship area was not entered, only the offices of the Mosque. It is the equivalent of raiding the vicars cottage or the priests offices rather than storm troopers kicking over the sacristy and pissing of hosts. And yes, churches have been raided. More would be raided if they harboured terrorists and counterfeiters, but they don’t.

Common misunderstandings of memes (and genes): The promise and the limits of the genetic analogy to cultural transmission processes

By Francisco J. Gil-White (fjgil@psych.upenn.edu ; http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/)

Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.

Short Abstract: ëMemeticsí suffers from conceptual confusion and not enough empirical work. This paper attempts to attenuate the former problem by resolving the conceptual controversies. I criticize the overly literal insistenceóby both critics and advocatesóon the genetic analogy, which asks us to think about memes as bona-fide replicators in the manner of genes, and to see all cultural transmission processes as ultimately for the reproductive benefit of memes, rather than their human vehicles. A Darwinian approach to cultural transmission, I argue, requires neither. It is possible to have Darwinian processes without genes, or even close analogues of them. The cognitive mechanisms responsible for social-learning make clear why.” MORE

Lessons from the fall of an empire [FT]

“It is the time of year when people are casting about for good books to read to resolve the current perplexity. If you are sitting in Washington, there are few guides to the unique position of the US, whose military expenditure exceeds that of the next 14 countries combined.

The most frequently cited historical parallels, Britain and its 19th-century pax Britannica, or 16th-century Spain, the first country to grasp New World prosperity to dominate the Old World, do not really fit modern America. Both were locked in rivalry with other nearly equal European powers: France and (in the British case) Germany.

Washington readers could do worse than go back to a study of the first real exerciser of unipolar power, the Roman Empire. The book to read is Edward Gibbon’s classic study, whose first volume was (by chance) published in 1776, the year of the signing of the American declaration of independence. Gibbon’s advice immediately looks quite attractive and relevant to today.” MORE

Rover Scruton on American and British conservatism

“For the conservative temperament the future is the past. Hence, like the past, it is knowable and lovable. It follows that by studying the past of America — its traditions of enterprise, risk-taking, fortitude, piety and responsible citizenship — you can derive the best case for its future: a future in which the national loyalty will endure, holding things together, and providing all of us, liberals included, with our required sources of hope.” MORE

The aphorisms of T.H. Huxley

Here is a sample from the first few “pages”:

Proclaim human equality as loudly as you like. Witless will serve his brother.

Thoughtfulness for others, generosity, modesty, and self-respect, are the qualities which make a real gentleman

Logical consequences are the scarecrows of fools and the beacons of wise men.

The only freedom I care about is the freedom to do right; the freedom to do wrong I am ready to part with on the cheapest terms to anyone who will take it of me.

“Learn what is true, in order to do what is right,” is the summing up of the whole duty of man, for all who are unable to satisfy their mental hunger with the east wind of authority.

There is no alleviation for the sufferings of mankind except veracity of thought and of action, and the resolute facing of the world as it is when the garment of make- believe by which pious hands have hidden its uglier features is stripped off.

History warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions.

No delusion is greater than the notion that method and industry can make up for lack of motherwit, either in science or in practical life.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.

“I take it that the good of mankind means the attainment, by every man, of all the happiness which he can enjoy without diminishing the happiness of his fellow men.”

Hitler on how to start a mass movement

“If a movement proposes to overthrow a certain order of things and construct a new one in its place, then the following principles must be clearly understood and must dominate in the ranks of its leadership:

Every movement which has gained its human material must first divide this material into two groups: namely, followers and members.

It is the task of the propagandist to recruit the followers and it is the task of the organizer to select the members.

The follower of a movement is he who understands and accepts its aims; the member is he who fights for them.

The follower is one whom the propaganda has converted to the doctrine of the movement. The member is he who will be charged by the organization to collaborate in winning over new followers from which in turn new members can be formed.

To be a follower needs only the passive recognition of the idea. To be a member means to represent that idea and fight for it. From ten followers one can have scarcely more than two members. To be a follower simply implies that a man has accepted the teaching of the movement; whereas to be a member means that a man has the courage to participate actively in diffusing that teaching in which he has come to believe.

Because of its passive character, the simple effort of believing in a political doctrine is enough for the majority, for the majority of mankind is mentally lazy and timid. To be a member one must be intellectually active, and therefore this applies only to the minority.

Such being the case, the propagandist must seek untiringly to acquire new followers for the movement, whereas the organizer must diligently look out for the best elements among such followers, so that these elements may be transformed into members. The propagandist need not trouble too much about the personal worth of the individual proselytes he has won for the movement. He need not inquire into their abilities, their intelligence or character. From these proselytes, however, the organizer will have to select those individuals who are most capable of actively helping to bring the movement to victory.

The propagandist aims at inducing the whole people to accept his teaching. The organizer includes in his body of membership only those who, on psychological grounds, will not be an impediment to the further diffusion of the doctrines of the movement.

The propagandist inculcates his doctrine among the masses, with the idea of preparing them for the time when this doctrine will triumph, through the body of combatant members which he has formed from those followers who have given proof of the necessary ability and will-power to carry the struggle to victory.

The final triumph of a doctrine will be made all the more easy if the propagandist has effectively converted large bodies of men to the belief in that doctrine and if the organization that actively conducts the fight be exclusive, vigorous and solid.

When the propaganda work has converted a whole people to believe in a doctrine, the organization can turn the results of this into practical effect through the work of a mere handful of men. Propaganda and organization, therefore follower and member, then stand towards one another in a definite mutual relationship. The better the propaganda has worked, the smaller will the organization be. The greater the number of followers, so much the smaller can be the number of members. And conversely. If the propaganda be bad, the organization must be large. And if there be only a small number of followers, the membership must be all the larger – if the movement really counts on being successful.

The first duty of the propagandist is to win over people who can subsequently be taken into the organization. And the first duty of the organization is to select and train men who will be capable of carrying on the propaganda. The second duty of the organization is to disrupt the existing order of things and thus make room for the penetration of the new teaching which it represents, while the duty of the organizer must be to fight for the purpose of securing power, so that the doctrine may finally triumph.

A revolutionary conception of the world and human existence will always achieve decisive success when the new Weltanschhauung has been taught to a whole people, or subsequently forced upon them if necessary, and when, on the other hand, the central organization, the movement itself, is in the hands of only those few men who are absolutely indispensable to form the nerve-centres of the coming State.

Put in another way, this means that in every great revolutionary movement that is of world importance the idea of this movement must always be spread abroad through the operation of propaganda. The propagandist must never tire in his efforts to make the new ideas clearly understood, inculcating them among others, or at least he must place himself in the position of those others and endeavour to upset their confidence in the convictions they have hitherto held. In order that such propaganda should have backbone to it, it must be based on an organization. The organization chooses its members from among those followers whom the propaganda has won. That organization will become all the more vigorous if the work of propaganda be pushed forward intensively. And the propaganda will work all the better when the organization back of it is vigorous and strong in itself.

Hence the supreme task of the organizer is to see to it that any discord or differences which may arise among the members of the movement will not lead to a split and thereby cramp the work within the movement. Moreover, it is the duty of the organization to see that the fighting spirit of the movement does not flag or die out but that it is constantly reinvigorated and restrengthened. It is not necessary the number of members should increase indefinitely. Quite the contrary would be better. In view of the fact that only a fraction of humanity has energy and courage, a movement which increases its own organization indefinitely must of necessity one day become plethoric and inactive. Organizations, that is to say, groups of members, which increase their size beyond certain dimensions gradually lose their fighting force and are no longer in form to back up the propagation of a doctrine with aggressive elan and determination.

Now the greater and more revolutionary a doctrine is, so much the more active will be the spirit inspiring its body of members, because the subversive energy of such a doctrine will frighten way the chicken-hearted and small-minded bourgeoisie. In their hearts they may believe in the doctrine but they are afraid to acknowledge their belief openly. By reason of this very fact, however, an organization inspired by a veritable revolutionary idea will attract into the body of its membership only the most active of those believers who have been won for it by its propaganda. It is in this activity on the part of the membership body, guaranteed by the process of natural selection, that we are to seek the prerequisite conditions for the continuation of an active and spirited propaganda and also the victorious struggle for the success of the idea on which the movement is based.

The greatest danger that can threaten a movement is an abnormal increase in the number of its members, owing to its too rapid success. So long as a movement has to carry on a hard and bitter fight, people of weak and fundamentally egotistic temperament will steer very clear of it; but these will try to be accepted as members the moment the party achieves a manifest success in the course of its development.

It is on these grounds that we are to explain why so many movements which were at first successful slowed down before reaching the fulfilment of their purpose and, from an inner weakness which could not otherwise be explained, gave up the struggle and finally disappeared from the field. As a result of the early successes achieved, so many undesirable, unworthy and especially timid individuals became members of the movement that they finally secured the majority and stifled the fighting spirit of the others. These inferior elements then turned the movement to the service of their personal interests and, debasing it to the level of their own miserable heroism, no longer struggled for the triumph of the original idea. The fire of the first fervour died out, the fighting spirit flagged and, as the bourgeois world is accustomed to say very justly in such cases, the party mixed water with its wine.

For this reason it is necessary that a movement should, from the sheer instinct of self-preservation, close its lists to new membership the moment it becomes successful. And any further increase in its organization should be allowed to take place only with the most careful foresight and after a painstaking sifting of those who apply for membership. Only thus will it be possible to keep the kernel of the movement intact and fresh and sound. Care must be taken that the conduct of the movement is maintained exclusively in the hands of this original nucleus. This means that the nucleus must direct the propaganda which aims at securing general recognition for the movement. And the movement itself, when it has secured power in its hands, must carry out all those acts and measures which are necessary in order that its ideas should be finally established in practice.

With those elements that originally made the movement, the organization should occupy all the important positions that have been conquered and from those elements the whole directorate should be formed. This should continue until the maxims and doctrines of the party have become the foundation and policy of the new State. Only then will it be permissible gradually to give the reins into the hands of the Constitution of that State which the spirit of the movement has created. But this usually happens through a process of mutual rivalry, for here it is less a question of human intelligence than of the play and effect of the forces whose development may indeed be foreseen from the start but not perpetually controlled.

All great movements, whether of a political or religious nature, owe their imposing success to the recognition and adoption of those principles. And no durable success is conceivable if these laws are not observed.” [“Mein Kampf” by Adolph Hitler, Chapter 11]