Imported government rule, or unpredictable uprising?

Pakistanis may be forced to choose between accepting the imported government that was imposed by the removal of PM Imran Khan, or setting a course into destabilisation as the West’s agents and local traitors use any trick to keep control.

Some commentators such as George Galloway (tweet deleted but I linked it when it was still live, anyway) seemed to suggest there could be some sort of conflict breaking out between the people and the imported government of Shehbaz Sharif. The demand of everyone concerned is just that there should be an election soon, rather than an acute political conflict, but how likely is a peaceful and valid election to happen in a country just recently subjected to US-led regime-change? It seems more likely that protesters would have to fight, just for this modest demand to be met. The question then is, is it really worth it?

State effective at suppressing the people

One must consider that any organised aspect of mass disobedience is always suppressed quickly if the state takes serious action to stop it (this applies in any country). The people themselves are never a sufficient force for regime change (or in this case, restoration), which is only ever orchestrated successfully by people with foreign backing or substantial state-like powers, regardless of how much support they have among everyday citizens.

When people, such as Donald Trump’s supporters in the United States, believe too much in American national founding myths and consequently think that popular disaffection alone can result in regime change, they are invariably disappointed. Real regime change, or even a successful movement, is coordinated by organised actors, whether for good or evil ends.

It is clear that the Shehbaz Sharif government (likely with the blessing of the Democrat-controlled White House) is okay with treating Imran Khan supporters in a repressive way via arrests, much the way Trump's supporters were treated after the Capitol Attack.

Even the most unpopular regimes are able to maintain their grip on power, only really losing it if they cannot maintain the living standards, food supply and necessities that keep the people indebted to their power.

If it were to happen, the only likely regime change or even guarantee of prompt elections in Pakistan would have to probably come from the intervention of the Pakistani Army, who are accused anyway of playing a big role in removing Imran Khan in the first place. And a scenario of the Army or security forces mutinying, even to side with the people, is dangerous, especially considering the possible foreign involvement of the US and its ability to sponsor violence if it does not like such a change of power.

First and foremost, the top concern should be that people of Pakistan should stay safe, even if it results in a puppet regime. It is a difficult moral choice between being a subservient nation for the sake of order and safety, or a defiant nation that could risk chaos and strife.

All stability is precious

Pakistan is by no means exceptionally vulnerable or contemptible, even as a US puppet. Britain is also not its own master, compelled by what are arguably pro-American and pro-European traitors into ignoring the national will or treating it with disdain, as seen with Brexit. It seems to be in our character that we make the choice for stability rather than for confrontation on an insurmountable issue, because people are just more worried about anarchy than injustice, and we have always been this way.

What marks good people apart from the kind of psychopathic warmongers who drive US foreign policy plotters and their coups is the view that stability is a precious oasis in a chaotic world. Order is invaluable to the lives of the vast majority of people, however suffocating the status quo may be to an idealist. US warmongers and Neocons cannot hold such a view, because their distorted morals hold that mass death and misery on any scale and for any duration are justifiable to satisfy their often crazed and anarchistic political demands (which are often based on propaganda and fakes anyway). They are uniquely evil among sentient beings for this reason (the only other faction like this being ISIS, which many Neocons were apologists for in Syria). Responsible players need not be like them, and should instead opt for stability and reconciliation even when their political wishes are not quite met.

Uprisings and acute political conflicts are tolerable only if the alternative is known to be worse. If the imported government in Pakistan creates intolerable conditions for the nation because it places Western masters over the people, then the time is right that the people and state must take risks to save themselves. Until then, everything should just be subjected to a risk-benefit assessment, with any sort of dramatic regime change or restoration being understood to be a dangerous course.

Read More »

Bill Gates needs to get what he deserves

Bill Gates seems to have developed an obsession with the conspiracy theories about him, while doing nothing to address them. His own obsession now goes far enough that everyone can be forgiven for taking an interest in those theories, too.

Back at the start of this month, Gates objected to Elon Musk’s desire to ease the moderation policies on Twitter. He seemed to be specifically pleading for his own protection from conspiracy theorists who propagate claims regarding his bizarre continuous attempts to involve himself in health policy, with which this billionaire software designer has no expertise.

Bill Gates' conspiracy theory obsession

Bill Gates asked of Musk, “How does he feel about something that says ‘vaccines kill people’ or that ‘Bill Gates is tracking people?’”, which is telling. This reveals that Gates’ main concern about medical disinformation and malpractice is all about himself. For him, it is not about whether members of the public have access to the accurate and diverse sources of information they deserve or their understanding of science is boosted. He has shown no interest in that issue.

On Saturday, a very unfavourable hashtag was trending on Twitter about Bill Gates.

As an entrepreneur, Bill Gates should take note. Now, as always, he is at the mercy of consumers. Demanding harsh control over what opinions those consumers can express among themselves, when the entire capitalist model depends on them making choices, is folly for one whose career success was based on the consumer's whims.

Bill Gates' scientism

To be on the wrong side of millions of people is dangerous. To cultishly repeat that being on the side of science is best, in the face of millions of worried people, is a disservice to science. It creates the impression that the natural sciences have carved in stone unchanging answers fundamental questions, and have now developed some social role to compel society into obedience, which is hardly a service to scientific inquiry or the public perception of science. Scientists are not parental figures and nannies, and no credible scientist ever assigned himself such a role. They do not compel the public to do anything, as society only ever consented to give them the role of investigators and sources of counsel. Right now, scientists are aware of many things that compromise people's health, and they do nothing about them, because that is not their purpose, which is only to inform.

Bill Gates’ condescending attitude puts him at risk of the millions of unscientific people he feels it is safe to mock, and who may eventually take worse action than yelling at him. Conspiracy theorists may seem like a laughing matter to those who know better than them, but the ones doing the mocking should take a look at what conspiracy theorists have actually done throughout history. It is not a pretty thing, to be in their sights.

Conspiracy theories are no laughing matter

Conspiracy theories are not new, or an internet phenomenon. Before the internet, they were conveyed in pamphlets. Historically, they are linked to eventual justifications for massacres and the rise of extreme ideologies, as most genocides and civil wars feature them as a key part in the formation of the prerequisite extreme views. They are possibly the single most radicalising phenomenon, not just in modern extremism but in history's most extreme revolutionary violence and massacres. As such, the current approach of denigrating conspiracy theorists and dismissing them as incompetent, even as they come to encompass half the population in places like the United States, presents a grave danger. 

Most people would be very worried for their safety if they were accused of the diabolical things that Bill Gates is being accused of. However, this man seems to expect so little initiative from the people who accuse him of murder, that he is completely unconcerned.

Gates' persistent mockery of the fears of a growing number of people across the world, and continued involvement in health policy despite unnerving so many people, actually suggests he has a personality that is bizarre and maybe sociopathic (unable to empathise with or understand the fear he creates). This is a factor that likely only increases many people’s discomfort with him. Many people likely sense stench about him, and it is why they buy into paranoid claims about him.

If conspiracy theorists are mistaken, Bill Gates' best way of correcting the problem is still to withdraw from all his involvement or interest in health policy, as a way to reassure people, and apologise for the fears he created. This would actually do more to encourage vaccines than all his previous involvement in promoting them to date.

How Bill Gates can help

Bill Gates’ story is one of success with consumers. He should take note of his benefactors, and be aware that upsetting them and provoking them can have consequences just as as significant for his life as creating products for them.

Eventually, the crowds must be placated rather than dismissed, even if it means diminishing the authority of capable meritocrats and their role in society. Otherwise, uncontrollable and murderous crowds are inevitable.

Part of the role of leaders is to actually have the trust of society. If half the population really begins to believe Bill Gates is a murderer and a monster, this means that his most stabilising role in society is actually to keep his mouth shut and fade from public view, as would suit public safety and his own safety.

Read More »

Frank Herbert's Dune and the future of monarchy

Are better forms of governance really inevitable, and is progress itself inevitable? Thousands of years from now, will people still look at the ideas most people consider progressive now, and agree that they are so?

In a previous post, I talked about the British constitutional monarchy and how some feel now is the time to put an end to it. Yet some interpretations hold that there is nothing inevitable or even necessarily good about political and social change, and that in fact there is no clock pacing our civilization forward to a better time.

Reactionary science fiction

In Frank Herbert's 1965 novel Dune, adapted to a movie in 1984 by David Lynch and again in 2021 by Denis Villeneuve, we are presented with a world apparently tens of thousands of years in the future. It is some fine escapism because so little resembles our world today. Nothing important, divisive or aggravating in today's society exists in that world. Even the Earth itself is a distant memory, never mentioned in any dialogue or being a passing thought of any character.

The characters in Dune are motivated by values that would be alien to most Western audiences, and affected by conflicts between ancient forces that will not exist for us for many thousands of years. They follow traditions that, to us, don't even exist yet or mean anything to us.

Despite how strange it may seem, the political system in the distant future worlds of Dune is very clearly based on our own past. Rather than advancing forward to increased liberty, inclusiveness and kindness, darker aspects of humanity have won out. Feudalism has made a return, with no mention of democracy. Capital punishment seems to be commonplace, as are torture, duels and assassination.

But is this regression really possible? Can values that protect the flourishing of a sovereign people indeed be forgotten and replaced simply with the base desire to rule as a monarch? What historical precedent exists?

It isn’t unusual for things to get worse

The best example might be the Greek and Roman civilizations. Each of them established a democratic order for a time. Both Athens and Rome, in their heydays, were determined to maintain a constitution that prevented the abuse of power. The Romans loathed the idea of a monarch, and yet the ultimate evolution of their system turned out to be an empire of absolute rule. This later developed into a system of absolute spiritual rule in addition to temporal rule, under the Emperor Constantine, once Rome turned Christian. Can that kind of social change, driven by such fervour, really be considered progress?

When the meaning of change, changes

The defining difference between the left and right in politics - the progressive and conservative - is their attitude towards whatever set of reforms and changes are the order of the day. It has nothing to do with a particular set of ideas, ideologies or values but simply one's response to whatever social changes are held to be new and pertinent at the time, by a majority of people. In revolutionary France, the advocates of harsh nationalism were also the ones advocating increased rights for common people. Nationalists were considered the political left, attempting to redefine the people as sovereign rather than the monarch. Opposing them. the political right were the defenders of the old order of the monarchy and the church.

As the classical liberal reforms and changes that were once considered revolutionary came to pass, they came to be accepted and written into constitutions such as the American constitution. They aged and became associated with a stable order. In becoming old, these once-revolutionary ideas that had been loathed and fought against by conservatives became the new order the conservatives would defend.

Many views of politics are stuck in the Twentieth Century, because of the dramas of the Second World War and the Cold War. They imagine the political left to be a static set of ideas, essentially socialism or Marxism as applied in the Soviet Union, and imagine the political right to consist of permanent defenders of classical liberalism’s old maxim of life, liberty and property. This becomes confused, however, when modern issues like those surrounding LGBT rights come into the picture, because those would fit into the right-wing ideology based on the above definition, yet are staunchly opposed by the American right because they are contrary to tradition. Tradition is really the main defining feature of the right, rather than a prioritisation of individual liberty. A person on the right merely advocates classical liberalism as tradition.

What constitutes tradition changes, depending on who won out in the previous struggle. In countries that adopted Marxist systems of government, youthful rebellion and subversion came to be associated with Western influence and capitalism. On the other side, in countries that maintained Western capitalism, change has been associated for a long time with socialist movements and the youth were drawn to them, even rallying behind Jeremy Corbyn in the UK before his downfall.

We all want to be a character in some special story

Whether or not something is held to be a form of progress is entirely dependent on what thing challenges the established order. If democratic governments were in power for long enough, revolutionary movements would quickly see something new and promising in the idea of monarchy and wish to reimplement it. Social change is inevitable, but it doesn’t have to make sense or be consistent with past change, and it is normal for it to be awful.

Left vs right, liberty vs order, is simply defined by generational difference and possibly even boredom with what came before. You could have a society with no faults, and the energetic next generation would still find ample things to complain about and try to alter that society into something possibly worse or less stable just so they can feel special in the attempt.

Nobody wants to live in the end of history, or to do nothing about their world. They all want their lives to feel like a story where the world was set right at last, even if this means they must advocate regression or simply nonsense to get that sensation.

Get new posts by email:

Powered by

Read More »