Friday, November 20, 2009

This site has migrated


The Heretic, the forerunner of all following sites, will stand as an 'archive' of the previous writings of the present site.

The Inquisitor

Sunday, February 11, 2007

In brief: Capitalism & Communism


To make the most of ourselves at the expense of others is to make the least of ourselves.


To make the most of others is to make more of ourselves.

To compromise the intellectual and spiritual progress of my neighbour is to compromise the quality of her/is contribution to the intellectual and spiritual progress of myself. Thus, to love another as much as I love myself is to indeed love oneself to the utmost. Perhaps that was what the Christ had in mind when he gave us the 13th Commandment - "Love thy Neighbour as thyself".

The value of moral values lies not in itself but in the Value it enables us to acquire.


Friday, January 19, 2007

On Chavez and the Communocratic Ideal

Rule by decree passed for Chavez
Friday, 19 January 2007, 00:23 GMT

"President Chavez has vowed to deepen his "Bolivarian revolution"
Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting President Hugo Chavez the power to rule by decree for 18 months.

Mr Chavez said he wants to approve "revolutionary laws" to enact sweeping political, economic and social changes."


To Rule By Decree is to claim prior and relative infallibility.

That goes directly against the Communist Ideal which has, at its heart, the appreciation of the fact - the certainty of the fallibility of humanity. The one certainty that it might be allowed to indulge in is in the resolute acceptance and implementation of Communocracy[author's term] - that is, democracy observed within Communistic auspices that forbids one to do unto another that which one would not have done unto oneself. This translates, in socio-economic terms, to the outlawing of capitalism and its consequential, Bourgeoiscracy.

Just as the Bourgeoiscratic construction and experience of reality has seen the harnessing of human imagination and all its myriad of potentials for the purpose of irrigating the fields of Capitalist enterprise, the Communocratic vision has to appreciate the importance and indispensability of unrestrained human imagination in furthering and realising the Communalist cause. Hence, it will have to harness human imagination and all its myriad of potentials for the purpose of relieving it of its harness, and thus, realising its multifarious potentials. This can only be done for the people and by the people. Thus, the need to maintain Communocracy lest Power held by a single person, on the basis of her/his prior belief in her relative infallibility, lead to the future belief in her/is continuous infallibility. This can only lead to the mutation of such a state into that of a State Capitalist system.

Whilst Hugo Chavez may be armed with the best of intentions, his sight will inevitably be blighted by the Human Precondition - fallibility. By claiming the right to Rule by Decree, he validates that which has supported the Capitalist scheme of things for centuries - the arrogant claim to infallibility. And by doing thus, he keeps alive the Spirit of Capitalism in this generic fashion. S/he who maintain a generic ideal such as this, keeps open the conduits via which it may transmutate into the self-serving perspectives that currently nourish the hadean fields of Capitalism.

If there is one thing I can be certain of, it is the certainty of the Precondition of my Humanity - my fallibility.

~the Heretic~

Friday, January 12, 2007

Look Hu's Talking

Shock in China and Japan over Saddam’s Hanging

"The United States considers itself the patriarch of the world," it wrote. "Whenever someone doesn't please its eyes or obey its words, it will use its own ways to punish them, imposing sanctions or using force."
- xinhua, the official chinese news agency on the execution of saddam

The summum bonum of Chinese History

And this coming from a country world renown for human rights violations such as the harvesting of organs from prisoners, the execution of more people per annum than those carried out by the rest of the world put together, the using of thugs to clear land of its inhabitants, forced abortions officially imposed upon women bearing their second child, etc, etc.

Of course, the intention behind the aforementioned tirade is clear. It is a typical nationalist strategy to vilify other nations for the purpose of further reinforcing the local populace's patriotic gravitation towards one's own 'home and country'. When all other nations are perceived as relatively less desirable, 'our own home and country', despite its shortcomings, is still the preferred choice. This is that which makes citizens of such nations put up with far more injustices than they otherwise would.

The execution of Saddam gave the Chinese yet another opportunity to call for international respect for the sovereignty of nations and observance of the principle of non-intervention. It seems that those who cry out for non-intervention are usually those who flout this principle continuously when it comes to their own citizens and whom are well known for human rights violations. Those who do not keep hankering after international non-interference and observance of the principle of sovereignty are those who use their observable and verifiable observance of human rights to argue for non-intervention. These nations are those that supply Reason as an argument for non-interference as opposed to human-rights violating nations who use the principle of non-interference as a reason in itself.

This, however, is not surprising coming from a Chinese nation as its inhabitants are most adept at observing traditions for tradition sake – which is nothing more than a shortcut past critical thought. Such an unthinking people, socialised into such propensities via a culture that had been molded by the chinese elite over 2 millennia to perpetuate the status quo in the longest surviving state in the world, naturally view precepts and principles as reasons in themselves as it is the way of those who adhere to traditions simply because they are traditions. This is what we may view as the observance of a ‘culture of practice’ as opposed to a relatively open-eyed ‘practice of culture’. This elite-centred culture, that views all humanity as pawns for the self-aggrandizing ambitions of its leaders, are thus naturally shocked when the leaders of other nations, as opposed to the people, are treated in such a manner.


wiki - human rights in china

Monday, January 08, 2007

In Defence of Saddam

“To leave the bases for tyranny unchallenged is to become the abettors of its consequences.”

"made in the USA"

Firstly, Saddam, or any individual, ought not to be tried for crimes upon the application of laws that were not applicable in Iraq at the time of its commission.

Secondly, to apply International Laws and Conventions on Human Rights whilst recognising local variants of punitive reaction implies that whilst Laws and Conventions ought to be equitably applied, the sentences meted out does not.

Sovereignty and the Complicity of Nations

With regards to the first point,

…Saddam, or any individual, ought not to be tried for crimes upon the application of laws that were not applicable in Iraq at the time of its commission.

One cannot be held accountable for actions which were not by definition, ‘crimes’, within a particular milieu and time wherein they were committed. Saddam and his entourage of bereted cardinals were, at the time, the Sovereigns of Iraq, and thus, by definition, cannot commit any crime against itself. Hence, it is the idea of Sovereignty which the UN ought to take issue with. If the UN and other so-called ‘champions of democracy’ fail to effectively take up the Democratic cause internationally and even in the face of abusive and murderous local sovereignties, whilst citing ‘sovereignty’ as a reason for non-intervention or international restraint – and especially where they are able to do so – (though this does not mean that the idea of ‘Democracy’ has been fully explored and defined.) then it cannot hold tyrants responsible for their undemocratic actions. Rather, it is their conveniently timed subscription to the belief in the sacredness of local sovereignty that is to be faulted.

To leave the bases for tyranny unchallenged is to become the abettors of its consequences.

This makes, amongst others, the US, the UK and the UN – when historical facts are taken into account – the First Cause behind Saddam’s regime and his murderous schemes. Where a perpetrator of a crime against humanity and her/is international supporters are allowed to hide behind or cite the ‘hallowed’ idea of the ‘sovereignty of nation-states’ – which is supported institutionally by the UN and its directors (US et al) – for their actions and inaction to do as s/he pleases time and again, and with the full knowledge of those purporting to ‘champion democracy and freedom’ and police the international coliseum of nation-states, these parties, besides being liable to charges of abetting the actions of tyrants by their inaction, cannot seek to enforce punitive proceedings against them unless they themselves are placed in the dock beside the accused. If these parties insist in holding these tyrants liable for their actions, they are, in effect, tacitly asserting their right to ignore crimes against humanity, whilst reserving the right to enforce removal and retribution as and when it suits their interests. Every would-be tyrant is thus nurtured by not being opposed effectively when s/he kills a handful, and is yet brought to trial under international auspices or hypocritical ‘coalitions of the willing’ when s/he most predictably graduates to crimes of greater salience or when s/he compromises the interests of powerful states.

The point is obvious. When we do effectively little when one individual is killed by a tyrant, we have given her/im carte blanche to kill more – American and British actions and inactions with regards to this is well-documented in this and a multitude of other cases. It is thus nothing short of gross hypocrisy to step in much later and enforce ‘justice’. We become ‘abettors’ where we were able to have stopped these crimes much sooner but refrain from doing so. Our direct complicity is further argued for by our profiting from the reign of these tyrants long before their removal – which is the case in this instance.

Prior enforcement of the law and a clear statement of the consequences that may be faced if one transgresses it are significant factors arguing for the universal validity and sacredness of Laws. Where these are absent, trials and sentences, when a ‘crime’ is thus allowed to be committed, become little more than attempts to ignore and detract the masses from considering the impact of its own apathetic complicity in the crime and to reinforce the grounds upon which such evils may yet again arise in the future.

With regards to the second point,

…to apply International Laws and Conventions on Human Rights whilst recognising local variants of punitive reaction implies that whilst Laws and Conventions ought to be equitably applied, the sentences meted out does not.

Laws are justified, amongst others, by minimum and maximum sentences attached to each should they be transgressed. The ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ sentence must not be dependent on the locality of the accused but the crime. Where this cannot be observed, either the Law or the sentence becomes inapplicable or we risk allegations of double-standards and compromise its perceived integrity.


In view of the above, Saddam’s trial becomes nothing short of a travesty of justice as witnessed by the incongruence between Saddam’s actions and the local non-criminal status of these actions at the time of their commission; the incongruence between the application of international laws and the sentence; and the complicity of the parties behind the prosecution of Saddam’s crimes in the past by either their relative nonchalance or their direct involvement via their support of him and his regime despite their being aware of his continuous violation of human rights. It is these abettors that made Saddam possible. It is these supporters that ought to have been the first to be led to the gallows.

Hence, the sentence awaiting Saddam, should he be convicted, becomes yet another means via which the powers are seeking to accomplish their self-serving goals in localities which they would not be able to push through in others. i.e. as also witnessed in Americans torturing and murdering individuals in countries where regimes similar to Saddam’s reign. In other words, knowing full well that they will not be able to kill Saddam if the trial was to be continued within the jurisdiction of an International Court, they have allowed him to be tried where the murderous agenda of criminal America may be carried out.

The question we ought to be asking is not if Saddam will get a Fair Trial, but if Saddam’s Trial is Fair. Our answer will determine if the forces behind a phenomenon such as Saddam will continue to ply their trade undeterred into the future.

This article was first written in early 2006. Since then, Saddam’s murder has been carried out by American-led terrorists. The hadean American Empire has yet again successfully sought and effected exoneration for itself via the blood of its spawn.


Q&A : Saddam on Trial

Thursday, December 07, 2006

The Fallacy of 'Per Capita Income'

In brief,

In considering per capita incomes, one would have to take into account, amongst others, the 'per capita debt'(debt which is enforced upon all via, amongst others, housing/education costs) and 'per capita liabilities'(amongst others, healthcare costs). Thus, an individual earning 'less' in a semi-socialist state than her/is counterpart in a bourgeoiscratic one may actually be earning more in real terms than the latter.

It is not what one earns but how much of it one gets to keep unconditionally, and how much of what is taken away comes back to oneself that determines the significance of research done on ‘per capita incomes’. Without taking this into consideration, comparisons between countries is nonsense.


'per capita incomes' may have the effect of allowing a significant proportion of the population to think that the stated (local) high 'per capita income' is an amount that may be aspired to as it is already a local reality - albeit applicable to only a small sector of the local population. In other words, since it is supposed to be the 'per capita income' for the particular country, it may be perceived to be an amount that anyone of the local populace might aspire to. This may have the effect of perpetuating the miserable conditions suffered by many amongst the local populace - especially if the 'per capita income' figure is bloated by the amount earned by a small proportion of the population - since little will be done to agitate for the closing of the chasm between the rich and poor.

Of course, to realise this, the respective populations have to be in possession of significant ‘per capita' and 'per individual' intelligence.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

The Paradox of 'Top Givers'

The Guilty

Businessweek published a list of what they term, ‘The Top Givers’, which, amongst others, included Bill Gates. What Businessweek forgot to mention is that many of these ‘Givers’ and ‘philantropists’ also range amongst the ‘Top Expropriators’ – that is, those who take what does not belong to oneself in the first place whilst being extremely successful in doing so.

In Truth,

A ‘Top Giver’ is one who ranks amongst the least of the Takers. This is not to say that the least amongst us ought to give the most from the limited pool of resources that we are allowed to retain after the expropriators have performed their traditional and most absorbent ablutions in them. Rather, we ought to bring about a system where ‘Top Givers’ are not undone by their simultaneously and oxymoronically being ‘Top Takers’. Where the amount expropriated via ‘taking’ exceeds ‘giving’, the latter becomes nothing but insincere and insufficient restitution.

We ought to aspire towards a society where everyone is a ‘Top Giver’ where ‘taking’ equals ‘giving’. This can only be so where the disparity between ‘taking’ and ‘giving’ is eradicated with extreme prejudice. And this can only be achieved by complete and utter eradication of the disparity between classes via the eradication of class-based systems.

When one thinks about it, for global misery to be attributed to nature, we cannot have a sector of society taking more than it gives. If this is the case, then we can never say that we have done everything that is humanly possible to eradicate misery. It is the humanitarian disbursement of that amount that makes up the difference between what is taken and what is given that argues for us having done our best.(i.e. we take a $100 and give $20, we are short of $80 in our purported attempt to eradicate global suffering.)

For a slideshow of some of those who hold the difference between taking and giving in their bloated coffers, and who, with the connivance of the political, economic and psychological infrastructure of the capitalist system, have perpetuated the conditions that give rise to millions of deaths annually, go here.