tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post5890831353712818229..comments2023-09-01T09:38:54.262-04:00Comments on Dumb Looks Still Free: What don't you know, and why won't they tell you?A Jacksonianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-83864315638140482312007-09-27T12:44:00.000-04:002007-09-27T12:44:00.000-04:00Harrison - Thank you... this is the sort of thing ...Harrison - Thank you... this is the sort of thing I write when I really don't have much of anything to write about. I've been off/on digging through documents, trying to track down names and organizations and such from various angles and nothing was coalescing. So I just started in with the sort of 'What have I been up to?' deal and as I wrote a few things started to come together.<BR/><BR/>One of the deeply troubling things about this is the amount of non-review by others, outside the 'conspiratorial fringe', this sort of deal gets. I mean there are literally dozens of sites with all sorts of strange conspiracy theories attached to this and weeding through them is a chore. A basic and deep understanding of mine, coming from the computer and systems analysis realm is:<BR/><BR/>"Lots of small, simple things that are understandable in and of themselves, form complex interactions when they work together."<BR/><BR/>I am sure that there is some sort of real name to that, but I'm too tired to JFGI. This comes from my multiple backgrounds, each in things that have this outlook as it describes the actual world very well. In geology you cannot understand plate tectonics as a revolutionary theory until you understand what came before it and *why* it took key pieces of strange information to suddenly revolutionize our view of the world. Coming into 1954 geology was full of so many 'exceptions to the rule' that there were only a few rules left... by 1974 the entire field had a new, coherent and integrated system of understanding that explained all of the 'exceptions' and gave us new things to look for. Without the few key pieces, the change in view does not happen. Before those pieces it was very much like trying to get a conspiracy going... yet when the new information was available, all the artificial structures invented disappeared.<BR/><BR/>This is true of cellular automata, also, that can each have its own specific reactions that are simple, and yet, taken collectively, do extremely complext things. It is that attitude I take with all of this, from Transnational Terrorism to Organized Crime to the use of money to gain political advantage. Each of these is, in actuality, understandable in and of themselves: taken as a whole they can thwart complex systems meant to safeguard Nations and the law, because they operate in means not accountable to either.<BR/><BR/>Those complex systems can have guidance, and it is that guidance that becomes apparent as the system works. In regards to the tech transfer to China via Loral, that was extremely simple: President Clinton signed a waiver to over-rule DoD. He did that due to the financial backing of multiple individuals who, themselves, had connections with the PLA. In that case the financial incentive to President Clinton outweighed the accuracy that China would garner for their warheads. Money, for the PLA and Chinese government, worked there for influence and has proven an effective transnational venue for them. That is why the approximately 1/3 of Hsu's money that is unaccounted for (by my estimation ~$70 million) and the time he spent 'on the run' are interesting and critical. I discount the Guay Guay trading company as it is outside of his 'garment industry' venue and requires a detailed knowledge that is more towards understanding the shop floor than the salesmanship. So his place and money remain unaccounted for.<BR/><BR/>The burden of ovesight, and accountability, are ones that were not properly done in the Senate by Fred Thompson. He just disqualified himself with that, as demonstrated connections with the PLA and missile tech transfer are grounds for Impeachment. That is an accountability system in the Constitution and no matter how much he talks up that venue, he failed while he was in it. I will not vote for a man who claims understanding of the Constitutional system and yet does nothing to ensure that his role as Senator is fulfilled within it.<BR/><BR/>Both of those are relatively simple to understand with the actors involved, the money transfers and the political power situation of each. It is, from the outside, complex: on the inside each actor does as their needs indicate. This speaks very ill of the entire Clinton machine and it being beholden to overseas interests as seen in: Hsu, Chatwal, Jinnah, Tendo Oto. Their individual influences have been sought by the Clintons for themselves and their cronies, and the money funneling is deliberate by them. It is noted that their money movements and influences are often at odds with that of George Soros and his monied forces, which have their own view of things starkly different in many ways from the Clinton view, although no less corrupt in my view. Operating separately, each with their own purposes, agendas and backers, they come to common confluence on some things and dagger points on others.<BR/><BR/>That is a description of factionalization of a political system: when unaccountable forces that never seek office or who do but have unaccountable backers, seek to gain purely partisan and strictly ideological goals to the exclusion of others. As both those organizations have a different suite of supporters and backers, they become their own communities that have high overlap, but few cross-adherants.<BR/><BR/>Then there are the monied interests of independent actors, like Jackson Stephens, who undermines both major parties with his, I am sure in his view, patriotic work. Yet that work ends up getting him in company with some of the worst the transnational scene has to offer, and makes his money basis a starting point for any that can gain his favor.<BR/><BR/>For those living in this system, the ability of those in political power by such means is troubling: they offer to make 'life easier' by removing decisions and choices from the individual and centralizing them to government. I started looking at that with a <A HREF="http://thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2007/09/insurance-assurance-and-prosperity.html" REL="nofollow">recent article</A> and intend to do a follow-up... but the idea that some ways to 'help Americans' via 'health insurance' is actually the cause of the 'health care problem' and not a solution. By proposing such things that have highly unaccountable actors in it, the burden of cost of the system rises, the accountability falls and the disaffection with the entire system grows. These changes have affected the adherance of the population to democracy itself, and <A HREF="http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/06/history-is-not-inevitable.html" REL="nofollow">the US is in a dangerous position</A> because of that. This current outlook and system will not hold because of that, yet by background anything which changes the power structure to further disenchantment is only a temporary 'partisan' victory, and a cause for a system to shift into a 'change state'. I would now describe the US as 'metastable': having all outward signs of stability and yet being one vectored force towards sudden and dramatic change.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, as other democracies have demonstrated, this is almost always a change for the *worse*. Like walking to the edge of a snowpack to get that exalted view... you may soon find yourself buried in the avalanche you started.<BR/><BR/>By not adhering to principles of accountability and sticking to them, by enforcing views on what is and is not acceptable for National politics and by trying to change the rules in regards to 'soft money' and treating non-persons in favor of persons, the US has built a house of cards. The structure of the government has also changed, which has also contributed to the weakness of the structure. A US descending into chaos is the worst thing that can happen to the world, as its stability has kept the lid on a number of places for decades. Yet that is what we are heading towards without firm adherance to *anything* as a Nation.<BR/><BR/>We have seen nothing like this since the Shaysites inside the US... and Weimar outside of it. Both of those got hard changes: one to survival the other to global war.A Jacksonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-13618170449474718432007-09-27T10:59:00.000-04:002007-09-27T10:59:00.000-04:00Excellent piece of investigative work, kurt. Kudos...Excellent piece of investigative work, <B>kurt</B>. Kudos!<BR/><BR/>Is this the surreptitious institutionalisation of clientelism that we are witnessing here, in light of the growing realisation that more and more political figures are becoming ever less conscientious in their dealings with foreign parties - where they are supposed to identify contracts whereby the acquisition of US technology, weaponry or classified material as part of the package is deemed to be unacceptable because it constitutes an outright violation of the fundamental interests of the Nation-state?<BR/><BR/>Again, I pause and consider whether each citizen truly believes there is such a thing as "fundamental interest" of the Nation-state, since interests of the collective are a product of the deliberate process of defining what is most beneficial to the Nation-State, and so no particular interest is inherent. Still, is it so difficult to conceive of the outcome that exporting such material might just strengthen an outsider against your own state? Common sense is found wanting.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps there is such a thing as being 'too burdened' with the truth - a defense instigated by the notion that overbearing scrutiny of the government would hinder its functionality and efficiency. Yet it cannot be emphasised enough that governance is itself fundamentally recognised as a BURDEN foisted on by the people as so conceived by Locke and Rousseau. The government in a republic has the less-than-admirable obligation to carry this burden of responsibility, to remain accountable to the people. <BR/><BR/>In this era of glamour, glitz and prestige associated with campaigns and elections, the glorification of power as an end in itself is corrupting the principles of those whom we naively assume to seek it as a means for strengthening the national interest. No longer is governance seen primarily as a burden (as it should); leaders would rather alleviate it and make their lives a little easier by accepting these contracts, sources of funding and support. What aspiring candidates seem to share is the perception that after acquiring power, responsibility should be 'outsourced' so that such burdensome restrictions will not interfere with the effectiveness with which they tackle their job. <BR/><BR/>What then, of the <I>utility</I> of laying off this burden? What does it do to our system, our principles of leadership? It might seem pessimistic to say this, but perhaps scepticism should be of the default position when scrutinising these aspirants.Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17688001023588334672noreply@blogger.com