The state of World War IV

WWI – 1914 to 1918

WWII – 1931 to 1945

WWIII – 1946 to 1991

WWIV – 2010 to ????

There were some premonitions of WWI before 1914, in that era of the Imperial Powers painting as much of the map their color until the tensions in Europe grew so great as to create a tinderbox waiting for a spark.  That spark could have come from nearly anywhere, but was at Sarajevo with Arch-Duke Ferdinand.

WWII properly starts with Imperial Japan seeking to extend its power into Manchuria from the holdings it had garnered from previous conflicts with Russia.  That invasion and subsequent warfare is not considered by those in the West to have been part of WWII until Pearl Harbor, yet Japan had set its goals to hold off the USSR, capture foreign held overseas territories of other powers (UK, France, Holland) and generally expand its power in that region. That started in Manchuria in 1931 and would only end with the defeat of Japan in 1945.

The Cold War was global in scope, had many small wars contained within its context (Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan) and would eat up much in the way of productivity from the US and USSR that, while not all-out total war, was one of an earlier age of proxy wars.  These proxy fights were in all hemispheres and nearly every continent and would move the world from nuclear weapons delivered by aircraft to thermonuclear devices delivered by missiles to tactical nuclear devices delivered on foot with, thankfully, none of those devices being used as anything other than status symbols.  No one can rightly tally the death toll of all the proxy conflicts, those egged on by the two sides, and those taking advantage of Super Power stalemates to inflict their own brand of horror that no one would stop lest it turn into a mass conflagration.

World War IV starts out with a rising of tensions between Nations, mostly via 'terrorism' or the rise of Private War returning on land and at sea.  Unlike WWII we see no movement of armies to conflict for resources but, instead, see Private organizations using non-National systems to attack Nation States.  That is the fallout of the Super Powers doing nothing to stem the rise of such organizations and even fostering them for their own political reasons.  This has started the wholesale change-over of governments in North Africa spreading across venues in the region in what was called the 'Arab Spring' , starting with Tunisia.  From there came Egypt overthrowing its dictator and protests spreading to such places as Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Oman and Lebanon. 

The private organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood had been around since after WWI and had gained support in the post-WWII era from Saudi Arabia.  As an organization the Muslim Brotherhood espouses a radical form of Islam that is very repressive and does not respect civil rights as known in the West.  Over their time they have spun off multiple terrorist organizations like HAMAS and al Qaeda from its membership, and HAMAS is directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood via their charter.  From that time when Super Powers ignored terrorist organizations, unless they backed them, of course, the earliest organizations were the PLO, FARC and HAMAS.  Of these the PLO is now nearly gone as it has turned into a kleptocratic organization in the Palestinian Territories, FARC has long since stopped being about spreading Marxism and is now just a large narco-terrorist organization that is being reduced year on year and forced out of its home base in Colombia, and it is only HAMAS that has been able to adhere strictly to their blood-drenched ways as they have firm ideological backing from members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Iran changing from a Cold War satellite Nation to an Islamic one was of little benefit to the USSR when it happened but a global body blow to the US, the Super Power Iran was aligned with.  Iran has spawned its own terrorist organizations, the best known of which is Hezbollah, which acts as a puppet overseas para-military force for it, helping to spread its own version of Islamic fundamentalism in the doing.  Iran has allies in its conflict with the West and they include Syria and now the semi-Communist Venezuela.  They are aided, to a degree at least, by Russia and China who see Iran as a foil to the US but may not really be enamored of the idea of an Iran with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles.  It is thought that Iran may have gotten its hands on an old USSR era nuclear warhead but lacks the necessary codes to use it and, thusly, examine its technology.  Of course the blueprints for a nuclear device can be had on the black market courtesy of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan the 'Father of the Islamic Bomb'.

Military venues are not the only ones for this conflict which is global.  Other venues include economics, sociology and criminal corruption.  These play out in the now imploding Western Socialist regimes that put into place taxation and power schemes that now have bankrupted Nations (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland), are leading others into societal collapse (France, UK, Germany), both of which foster the spread of virulent Islam via the importation of radicalized workers from overseas and speed the decay of the local societies as they offer no incentives to be self-reliant and breed State dependence.  The question is which is collapsing faster: the societies or the States?  In truth they go hand-in-hand as dependence based social structures do not reward innovation, do not reward ingenuity and, instead, reward leisure time and pointless non-productive activities.  If the Roman Empire had debauchery to go with its Breads & Circuses, modern Europe has self-indulgence to go with its socialized medicine and retirements.

Other Nations in Africa, South America, Asia as well as large parts of the US and Canada see versions of this.  Russia has a lack of birth rate, relatively low productivity and an economy controlled by Oligarchs who are not bolstering the infrastructure of the Nation or its society but looking out for themselves.  In China an authoritarian regime imposes a non-economical birth rate, no controls over pollution, backwards agrarian systems and exploitation of its mobile youth (now growing older) to create vacant cities, vast power projects and gets rampant inflation, unrest and and internal social decohesion as its rewards.  No one will live in the make-work cities and if a few more bad years of Dust Bowl crop years hit, that will couple with a dying out agrarian culture and lead to mass upheaval within China, itself.  Marxism in South America is applauded until an economic crisis puts the currency and population at risk as happened decades before in Argentina, this is being done in Venezuela and Brazil can only stop this with its massive oil production until the Marxists there, too, decide to grab the golden ring and find that it is Fool's Gold only.

This societal collapse of Enlightened Western Ideology to the Marxist form of ideology has been an ongoing attack on the Enlightenment for nearly 150 years and more if the French Revolution is included  as a predecessor to it.  If this form of societal attack is included in the World War IV timeline, then the measurement of the start of WW IV gets pushed back a few years further to the 2007-08 global economic crisis.  That crisis was a culmination of decades of Progressive and Marxist policies pushing unsustainable 'entitlements' out of government's doors and onto populations.  This form of attack is a slow one, attacking not just the economy of a Nation but the moral support for the work ethic and achievement of individuals.  The greatest boom and expansion of liberty by the removal of manual toil happened with the Industrial Revolution and in the over 250 years since it began the greatest expansion of wealth, health and movement away from back crushing work has been witnessed.  Marxism offers all of the rewards, none of the pain and offers no way to sustain an economy to gain such ends: it is as much a religion as it is an ideology, as it only has a basis in faith within its environs of thought not with the actual world around it.

There has been some speculation of an economic Pearl Harbor on the US in the 2007-08 timeframe, that could only have happened with a highly centralized set of government programs in the housing industry.  Those programs set up the removal of local oversight of loan guarantees via the creation of GNMA, and that allowed government programs to go through quasi-governmental organizations (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) via such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and its follow-ons.  This produced a 'bubble' in the US economy that would only be the first to show up due to government intervention in areas where governments have little understanding, knowledge or capacity to learn.  The 'Housing Crisis' of the 2007-08 timeframe brought on extra-constitutional measures to combat it, in the form of bailouts that were misrepresented when asked for, and direct payments to failing banks that had been forced into giving ever larger loans for houses that had very little extra real value to them.  Those nasty gears to ruin the economy are still in place in the US, but it is only the first and smallest of bubbles coming along through the economy.  It is to be followed by a higher education bubble that already is seen and dwarfs the housing bubble, and then a medical and retirement set of bubbles that have been decades in the making.  The shock of each of these on the US economy will be  huge, the ripples throughout the globe will be catastrophic.  It didn't really take a genius to stage an economic Pearl Harbor in the US as it was already headed for a major banking disaster due to government policy: it may have come a few months sooner due to outside actors wishing ill intent, but they could only precipitate what was going to happen, not cause it in the first place.

From the size, scope and scale of the events in WW IV, we can discern that this is a war without borders, without boundaries, where there is no respect for the non-violent nor the neutral, and everyone is at risk from those wishing to exert power over others.  It did not start with vast armies, navies and air forces attacking factories and then cities because the weapons being utilized play on something far more powerful than any bomb, any weapon: human nature.

The target is Nations but only in the understood context of what the basis for the Nation actually is.  A Nation is not a State, per se, although once it gets to a certain size it gains such apparatus.  The State is just the way to run a Nation, but the Nation basis goes further back than that in depth.  A Nation is only society when writ large, amongst multiple communities, but they are not needed to actual create that society as society begins further back and down than merely a collection of neighborhoods or cities.  A Nation is not any single city nor town, either, nor just a neighborhood although one gets closer to the actual scale with that last part, it is also a larger structure built upon something smaller.  Once one breaks a neighborhood down, street by street and block by block, we get to individual structures and within them reside families.  Pushing down to the family we get to see the beginning of the Nation State and, as said before, the State is only the apparatus to run a Nation.  Thus the Nation begins with marriage and those first bonds upon which we agree to set aside our negative liberties with respect to each other and not exercise them to the detriment of either.  With that bond the Nation is formed and it is a necessary prerequisite to the family and it is here that the attacks of World War IV are aimed.

It is aimed at you and your loved ones.

It is aimed to get you to act in an uncivilized manner towards your fellow man at all levels, to remove the patina of civilization from your spirit and put you back into a barbaric, animalistic state of being.  This is outlined in al Qaeda's playbook The Management of Savagery, which I looked at a bit previously a few years ago.  It is a system of wide-ranging attacks ranging from terrorism to internal societal corrosion to allow al Qaeda to influence the direction of that society toward decay and into a state of savagery which would then leave it open to control.  This is what worried the 18th and 19th century Great Powers and caused them to foreswear using Privateers because of the risk of them going Pirate.  In the 20th century that foreswearing meant going directly to funding Pirates, which we call 'terrorists' who were extra-National actors with no controls upon them whatsoever.  It turns out the worries of the old Great Powers was correct, but that the 'cure' turned out to allow a worse disease by going directly to unaccountable actors in the first place.  Perhaps a bit neater in its directivity, yes, but far, far worse in long-term results.

By the confluence of stupidity that allowed such non-National actors to rise up during the Cold War, by seeking to corrode societies via Marxist pay-off schemes, and through insane allocation of local power to the most distant form of government (that of the Nation State) the results upon individuals is one that requires much in the way of moral fiber and certitude to even stand up against this torrent of abuse.  The decay of civilized norms as seen in neglecting to address 'terrorists' in the Cold War or WW III, was just an artifact of the larger 'Politically Correct' movement in the West by Leftists.  This is coupled with the Leftist 'march through the institutions' of education, unions and government (if they were not already compromised to begin with) to consolidate a repressive mode of approaching speech, determining what topics were 'sensitive' (and thus to be avoided or papered over with a form of Newspeak), and determining who was and was not 'fit' for society.  In the institution of the press, the Left has wielded inordinate power by acting as a gatekeeper for decades on news, commentary and in those individuals they hold up for applause and those they just never mentioned.  Taken together, PC speech codes have infested multiple societies and have acted to repress freedom to discuss topics as wide ranging as 'how do we confront terrorism?' to 'how many teachers does it require to teach a class?' to  the use of the term 'racism' when it is applied to non-racially defined groups and organizations (like Hispanics or Muslims).  By conflating ethnicity with race, the modern Left has done a grave disservice to Western society and has acted as an internally corrosive force that has set aside topics of vital interest to the citizenry that cannot even be mentioned lest one be seen as 'racist'.  In fact doing that dilutes the term of 'racism' when it is applied to multiracial ethnic groups, which also dilutes the power of its use when further conflations are included with it: the Left not only destroys the language of their opposition but also the one of their own making.

Standing up against such PC concepts which bombard you on a constant basis, and often is used in the absence of ever talking about a subject, means that the general citizenry is left unprepared for the problems that they as individuals and members of society will have to face.  It doesn't take a direct attack on religion or marriage to do this, although those are signposts on this road of disestablishing cultural norms, just simply making topics of wide ranging concern being beyond the pale to talk about in any meaningful way.  As Orwell pointed out, the end of Newspeak is Duckspeak, and if much of the repetition of magical phrases deploying racism, sexism, class warfare and other such items to denigrate anyone speaking about problems in those realms start to sound like quacking, it is because that is what it is.  Quacking.  Not coherent speech but the attempt to stop others from speaking coherently on a topic.  This, too, is a part of WW IV being waged upon you.

Attacks upon citizenry used to happen by foreign governments waging war upon Nations, this is now being done by governments upon the governed or by private organizations centered around tyrannical ends upon everyone.  Together the Left and Islamic organizations (Nation and non-Nation) seek a downfall of the Enlightenment Western Ideology based on Christianity and Individualism, and the attack is quite direct and blatant in these opening years of WW IV.  With that said those who are non-Western and non-Christian are also targets in a more active way as seen in places like Syria, Iran, Egypt, and India.

While this all sounds very bleak, I have also pointed out that the countervailing, indeed civilization enhancing forces, are already in play as seen in Dawn of a New Era.  That you are reading this is done due to multiple parts of this countervailing set of forces that are, in themselves, neutral tools but have civilization enhancing effects.  Moore's Law and Metcalfe's Law both push power up in scale for the individual via the cost per circuit on a printed circuit board and the power scaling of networks and intnernetworking. The proportion of civilized and skilled users of these tools tend to drive them in a certain direction, while those using them for ill and with malicious outlook are few.  Yet these tools of computer and network technology can be directly targeted via manmade weapons that cause an EMP and by natural sources like a CME.  The former would move WW IV into the 'bombs and guns of Nations' phase which would tend to be thermonuclear and swift, while the latter would level all of civilization on a rather deep basis.  The former would yield mere hundreds of millions dead within a year or two, while the latter would yield billions dead and perhaps as much as 2/3 of humanity in a year.  Hostile forces, in going after the infrastructure of modern civilization can bring modern civilization crashing down with rather serious effects upon those doing the acting.  Nature can do that to all with no malice at all.  Those waging such war do not think through its effects or may feel immune to it due to magical thinking processes dealing with religion and faith.

By using these tools, however, a number of effects are noticed, some of which appear to pre-date the widespread use of computers and networks and were built upon older and more centralized systems.  Concepts of Accelerating Change, Feiler Faster Theses and Disintermediation all started in the pre-Internet era and were noticed of effects of mass communication and dissemination of knowledge.  In a cumulative fashion they are representative of another concept I examined in Persuasion and Marketing called the Noosphere.  This was presented by by Vladimir Vernadsky and Teilhard de Chardin as the 'sphere of human thought' and it bears a striking resemblance to the World Wide Web save that it is something that has no physical existence.  The World Wide Web and Internet can be seen, conversely, as a physical manifestation of the Noosphere, not the cause of it. 

As an individual you take part in the Noosphere by being human and alive and the Noosphere serves as a non-substantial repository of human process knowledge available to all mankind.  It does have physical manifestations in such things as learning new tasks or in how fast you, as an individual, have adapted to a constantly ON information stream by processing information to knowledge faster than you did just a year ago.  The amount of information you can process through to end conclusions is, today, a huge factor more than you could a decade ago due to the nature of the medium involved and its interconnectivity.  If you were relegated to just a limited means of processing it, however, you would be swamped with information and be unable to make heads or tails of it.  Instead you have changed how you think very rapidly in the past decade and now conceptualize change of information in a very different way than a decade ago or just a bit before that in the hardcopy only era.  No one taught you how to do this.  No one gave you the set of mental tools to do this.  You found them on your own and did so faster than the group just before you did.

You would think that Progressives would laud such rapidly evolving and changing increase in capacity to understand the world around you and yet, instead, they do their best to utilize older means and methods of thinking that are not well adapted or even suited to the modern era.  And while Islamists do utilize this media and set of systems, adapting a rigid ideology and religious viewpoint to it... just like their Marxist and Progressive counterparts.  If they adapted they would lose their rigidity, their assurance of superiority and be required to rethink their approach to the world.  You do that constantly as it is a part of your natural born liberty and freedom to do so and you embrace it to partake of this rapidly expanding body of knowledge and process thought.  To do that requires a sense that tyranny isn't something that solely comes from outside of yourself, but from inside, as well.  Those who seek to utilize this new set of media and thinking process to ill ends find themselves confronted faster and deeper by those rejecting such tyrannical thinking modes and preferring, quite openly, freedom and liberty for mankind.

Because that is the path to victory.

Moral assurance within yourself when coupled with a highly ethical set of self-restraints upon your negative liberties then garners you the freedom to create a Nation and, within that, a greater society for all.  Nations and individualism do not go away in this, as the Progressives and Radical Islamists seek via their ancient negative bent,  but we come to a greater understanding of each other and then refuse to paper over the differences, avoid the hard topics and, most importantly, seek to live within our means while still offering charity to all in need.  If this is, indeed, a war being waged for your very spirit, your very soul, across all levels of culture, society, technology and governance, then it is you who must wield those might tools of liberty that are born within you.  While bombs, bullets, and tyrannically asinine ideologies are involved, they are the reactionaries to liberty and freedom seeking to crush your spirit and, when they can't do that, to take your life, instead.  This is a form of total war that doesn't involve mass production of war materiel, nor vast armies sent across the landscape to deal with enemies but is, instead, centered on you and your ability to adapt and renew your spirit constantly.  As your enemies are grimly remorseless in their backwards views, so you must be the smiling beacon of remorseless freedom and liberty and confront the clenched fist with an open hand.

While I am frustrated with these enemies at all levels, I do not hate them as they are so close-minded that they refuse to think that others can govern themselves.  In that doing they show themselves to be the ones lacking self-governance and want to hide that through power over others.  Some of these enemies are horrible, yes, but all of them are pitiful and to be pitied for their lack of civilized understanding that no government can make men good and that no religion can force you to be moral.  By seeing the world in those ways these enemies of mankind show themselves again for what they are: barbarians, tyrants and despots.  They seek your fear.  They seek your submission in silence.  I give them pity and openly for they could be much better people if only they learned how to control themselves and saw that this is the greatest way to create the greatest good for all mankind.

This World War will have an end date.

Either with the end of mankind.

Or with our venture beyond our home into that unforgiving wilderness that requires you to be civilized or it kills you most quickly.

I will be the good soldier in this war and defend myself so I can help others with an open hand.  The racking of the bolt is to remind the uncivilized that there are penalties to be paid, and it is best not to incur them in the first place.

If it sounds like a duck...

This is a personal position paper taking up space here while Blogger gets its beta act together and finds some way to transfer Dumb Looks Still Free... which, considering that this started on 9 DEC 2006 is more than just a bit longer than a 'fast and easy' upgrade ought to take. Still, there is no such thing as an easy upgrade. 9 DEC 2006 in the morning. And with giving me scads of emails that *congratulations* you have moved successfully over to Blogger Beta, etc., etc. Yes, those arrived by the tens... the hundreds... and then soon followed by the scads of emails that said, basically, a problem had occured and maybe things were all not so bright and cheerful, etc., etc. and that they would get on it RSN. So, while DLSF is in the betweener limbo, and has a post all prepared for it, I decided to post here for a bit... so, a definite Personal Position Paper. Not The Jacksonian Party Policy.

Yet.


There has been a disturbing tendency over the last few decades to degrade the meaning of words and phrases away from their original meanings so as to lessen those meanings and generalize such words to the extent that they become meaningless. By moving the necessary bar to employ such a word as, torture say, it has shifted from its medieval meaning of thumbscrews, the rack, and iron maiden past its modern uses of attaching electrodes onto body parts with intent to cause pain via electrical stimulation, to that of being made to run around naked or to have a bag of water put into one's mouth until a choking sensation stimulates deep fear. Somehow when you go from the idea of bamboo slivers under fingernails to naked human pyramids, something just gets lost in the transition. There is a difference between bodily mutilation without anesthesia and some social humiliation. To me these are two entirely different realms in which using the concept of 'torture' to cover humiliating treatment is a total degradation of the word and concept of 'torture'.

This has gone so far as to suggest that one of the more standard criminal interrogation techniques, lack of sleep, is 'torture' when applied to terrorist suspects held in military custody undergoing military investigation. A very strange thing, this juxtaposition of 'torture' and repeated and continuous lack of sleep... now would this be defined as 'involuntary'? I would assume so. Long-term? Yes, that would be necessary, too. Disorienting? Most definitely. And since 'torture' is pointless, so decry those who say that such sleep-deprivation is torture, then even if used by professional interrogators, it just yields to an inhuman and inhumane condition upon the subject. Now, what if you had that going on for two years, say? Beyond horror, isn't it?

A very strange thing, this 'torture' concept, as purported by its advocates on this part of it. Because that is my life due to organic brain functions that have tripped off a latent familial condition that has not manifest itself with anything like the sort of problems I have had for at least 3 generations. And it had a sudden onset far past the normal time for such, when it is a non-genetic based problem. Lack of restful, recovering sleep to any fair degree or the return of stamina, coupled with sudden attacks of loss of the voluntary motor functions and resulting loss of muscle tone. Yes, utterly pointless and beyond my control, very disorienting to see reality and dream become a fluid whole and no dreams ever coalescing from the vast wasteland of my sleeping hours. I do hold up pretty well under this constant, ongoing assault against my will and consciousness. Would you call this 'torture'? It fits all of the definable characteristics of those who point to such AS 'torture'. And yet, from this vast grayness that is my life I can fairly say that this is NOT 'torture'... and those cataleptic attacks are most coercive and beyond my control or ability to control my body and be conscious throughout them. Horrible, isn't it? From my position, which is fairly staked and claimed in this netherworld of no respite do let me say that using 'torture' to describe this is an insult to me. Pointless, coercive, draining and with no sign of respite nor cure nor much amelioration though the WORST of it is under control. You should have seen what I was like when it was uncontrolled, for the symptom list I have given you is the current, very mild and ameliorated form of this condition of mine. For about 8 months of that it was far, far worse. While I would wish it upon no one, I would not describe anything close to THAT condition as 'torture'.

Such has it been with other concepts, like 'Civil War' which has had a centuries long history of meaning: One organization within a Nation raises a flag and new concept of Governance, takes control over territory, puts up new Government, hands out uniforms and actively opposes the existing Government in all things in an attempt to either secede or to overthrow the existing Government and replace it with the new one. That has been a pretty stable meaning since the War of the Roses through the English Civil War the Spanish Civil War and the US Civil War. Even the folks in Lebanon had this idea down pat when you saw individual neighborhoods standing up with flags and ruling councils and identification markers so you could tell who was who. By trying to shift that between disorganizations that actively oppose each other and the current Government and offer nothing better to replace it nor any open alternative nor raise a flag nor put on uniforms, what you do NOT have is a 'Civil War'. Throwing out centuries of meaning just to get an emotional 'feel good' about saying something is a 'Civil War' when it is not, is destructive to the import of the concept itself.

War, as a concept, has also been degraded as it is moved from the realm of armed conflict to such things as: poverty, cancer, diseases of various sorts, illegal drugs and the heartbreak of psoriasis. Some of the illegal drug users and agents and growers and refiners do, indeed, get into conflicts, but a 'War on Illegal Drugs' somehow gets the mental picture of pills growing arms and legs and marching around with miniature weapons. Trying to stop a social ill or disease is definitively NOT war, no matter what else it *is*. People may still die from diseases, but this is known as dying from that disease or due to use of arms in an illegal activity. What it is NOT is a conflict against a Nation or its People. Mind you nuclear devices would be a great 'cure-all' but I do doubt that anyone is looking to employ those in the mis-stated conflicts.

Onwards we finally get to: terrorism. Here you do have a problem, especially when it is endemic but is leading nowhere. Terrorism is, at heart, illegitimate warfare against a Nation or People of a Nation. It is not just illegal as a civil crime, but it is an illegitimate use of warfare without forming the necessary foundations to give it credence. Terrorists that actually raise up a flag and so on, and do those things necessary to form Government and be accountable are 'revolutionaries' or 'secessionists' as they are putting up a new Government with which to combat the existing one. Now, some people have put forth that there is, within the definition space of civil governments that depend upon multiparty elections, this idea known as: Legitimate Armed Political Party.

That is, however, an oxymoron as NO State will allow any political group to go about in an armed fashion so as to intimidate and otherwise disrupt civil society. Using such intimidation tactics is an undermining of the meaning of 'civil society' and of 'legitimacy'. Political parties stand or fall on this thing known as 'ideas' which form something known as 'policy', which is then put to another thing known as 'a vote'. Does the concept of 'Armed Party' fit into this?

Civil disorder in societies can erode to the point of semi-lawlessness as was seen in Weimar Germany. There, in the late 1920's and early 1930's, various factions took up arms with which to assert control of segments of the population so as to 'capture' their vote. Individual 'Party Wardens' had neighborhoods that they sent goons in to ensure that the populace kept to the party line. As these groups proliferated a form of conflict evolved that involved: intimidation, threats, coercion, torture, and assassination, as well as outright extortion and murder. One of these armed parties killed its way to the top, which meant the largest single faction in the parliament, and then used its position to take over the Government so as to use it to clear out opposition to its rule. Thus an armed party that had a plurality, but nowhere near a majority, usurped power outright for itself and repressed the population once it did so. The legitimacy of the regime that followed brings into question the very concept of 'Armed Political Party' as it acted more as local strongmen to coerce their way into power on the majority of the population. Do note that the concept of 'mandate', which is to get an overwhelming majority of the votes while still having viable opposition, does not apply: mere sub-majoritarian plurality is not a mandate to do a wholesale change to Government, but is a chance to perform caretaker duties and, perhaps, negotiate some reforms into place.

Thus the conception of 'Legitimate Armed Political Party' comes to mean: able to kill your way to power, seize Government and use the power of Government against the majority of the population. That is a total undermining of civil society, by having a minority determine how the majority should live if power is seized and not shared amongst such parties as are necessary to get a coalition majority into place. Plurality coalitions are rarely a 'mandate' unless they have presented a front *before* the election in which the Coalition seeks to reform or change Government in part so as to perform necessary functions that allow the population to lead a civil life without fear *from* Government.

Here is 'terrorism' transformed into 'Legitimate Armed Political Party': they are one and the same. Terrorists look to erode the civil structure of a Nation and so does an armed political party. They both use the tools of terror and coercion upon the populace of that Nation. They both seek to undermine the Government, although terrorists just in general by creating the social atmosphere of terror while the armed political party combines *that* with then forcing its way into the Governmental structure. Both promise that if they just 'get their way' that everything will be fine... just accede to their demands and you will have nothing to worry about... save your life and liberty.

Now, what would one say if a minoritarian faction were armed by two allied Nations, so as to influence the politics of that Nation? Well, that would be meddling in the affairs of that Sovereign State now, wouldn't it?

And what if that minoritarian faction were ARMED by those two allied Nations, so as to use coercion upon the People of that Nation and to threaten its Neighbors? That would be the usurping of the Sovereign control of Armed Forces within that State, would it not?

Let us further suppose that this faction forms a political party, and coerces its way via local, neighborhood control into a minority position in the major elected body of its Nation. Would that not be outside interference in the direct running of a Sovereign State due to the influence being used by those outside Nations?

Actually, that sounds pretty hostile and would actually give rise to Casus Belli upon BOTH those outside Nations. Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? Yet many will claim that this backed party representing the interests of the two outside Nations is 'legitimate' because they have used their ability to coerce and bribe that segment of the population. And yet that is the very problem of the Spanish Civil War in spades, as it had multiple outside Nations looking to back sections of the population in Spain so as to overthrow the legitimate government and take power. The USSR and Mexico supported by the Communist International put actual fighters into Spain, as did the Germans and Italians aided by Portugal and Ireland with assent from the Roman Catholic Church. Now THERE was a problem of interference, bar none... this thing with Hezbollah is pretty damned minor compared to that fiasco. And yet the illegitimate intrusion of Foreign Nations was just as wrong then as it is NOW. Legitimacy for civil government is *not* gained through the barrel of the gun, but via the assent of the governed. So, if Hezbollah really meant to be a part of the civil structure in Lebanon it would lay down its arms and support the Government of Lebanon to *protect them*.

Yes, the juxtaposition of that is intentional. While Lebanon was finally coming out of its Civil War, that was spurred on in more than a little bit by the presence of the PLO and its being supported by Syria, when the PLO was leaving the Syrians immediately worked a deal with Iran to support Hezbollah. Thus the Palestinians were used as pawns by Syria and Iran to work their Foreign Policy, and when their utility was coming to an end they immediately sought to make a new pawn in Lebanon to carry out their will as they were too cowardly, as Nations, to openly go about their Foreign Policy against Israel. While many decried the interference by outside Nations in Spain, today that is just seen as 'forming a legitimate armed political party'.

So where does that leave these concepts?

Torture, it appears, is turning into something given meaning to by Monty Python's Flying Circus and their depiction of the Modern Spanish Inquisition. Soon we will be having such implements of 'torture' as the Comfy Chair brought out! But only after poking with the 'Soft Cushions', but to finally end up at the 'Dish Rack'.

For 'Civil War' we have already seen it denigrated in its use to mere office politics and to long term squabbles between folks inside such dangerous organizations as the Rotary Club and YMCA. Yes, yea and verily do those squabbles amongst factions meet up with the modern ideal of 'Civil War'.

And 'Armed Intervention into the Affairs of Another Nation'? Mere building up of a political minority via the use of terror technicques so as to be seen as a terrorist group... it is just *internal* to the Nation, not external.

How will we ever come to terms with the 'Old Fashioned' sort of 'Civil War' if it is so demeaned as to mere squabbling in private organizations? Perhaps a modifier could be used to identify it, such as a 'Plus Civil War' for when any actual, physical violence happens. And a 'Double Plus Civil War' for actual open warfare between factions. And then 'Ultra Double Plus Civil War' for the real 'Old Fashioned' Civil War between competing governing ideals amongst a People.

This new outlook on language actually has a terminology to it: Newspeak.

From George Orwell's 1984.

And how do its modern day practitioners sound? Well, Orwell's description is better than mine:

One of these days, thought Winston with sudden deep conviction, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face.

Winston had finished his bread and cheese. He turned a little sideways in his chair to drink his mug of coffee. At the table on his left the man with the strident voice was still talking remorselessly away. A young woman who was perhaps his secretary, and who was sitting with her back to Winston, was listening to him and seemed to be eagerly agreeing with everything that he said. From time to time Winston caught some such remark as 'I think you're so right, I do so agree with you', uttered in a youthful and rather silly feminine voice. But the other voice never stopped for an instant, even when the girl was speaking. Winston knew the man by sight, though he knew no more about him than that he held some important post in the Fiction Department. He was a man of about thirty, with a muscular throat and a large, mobile mouth. His head was thrown back a little, and because of the angle at which he was sitting, his spectacles caught the light and presented to Winston two blank discs instead of eyes. What was slightly horrible, was that from the stream of sound that poured out of his mouth it was almost impossible to distinguish a single word. Just once Winston caught a phrase -'complete and final elimination of Goldsteinism'- jerked out very rapidly and, as it seemed, all in one piece, like a line of type cast solid. For the rest it was just a noise, a quack-quack-quacking. And yet, though you could not actually hear what the man was saying, you could not be in any doubt about its general nature. He might be denouncing Goldstein and demanding sterner measures against thought-criminals and saboteurs, he might be fulminating against the atrocities of the Eurasian army, he might be praising Big Brother or the heroes on the Malabar front -- it made no difference. Whatever it was, you could be certain that every word of it was pure orthodoxy, pure Ingsoc. As he watched the eyeless face with the jaw moving rapidly up and down, Winston had a curious feeling that this was not a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the man's brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck.

Syme had fallen silent for a moment, and with the handle of his spoon was tracing patterns in the puddle of stew. The voice from the other table quacked rapidly on, easily audible in spite of the surrounding din.

'There is a word in Newspeak,' said Syme, 'I don't know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse, applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.'

- George Orwell, 1984, Chapter 5.

For that is what is now heard... 'torture'... quack!

'Civil War'.... quack!

'Legitimate Armed Political Party'.... quack!

For those going quackers, you are using duckspeak.

And have joined Big Brother in the ranks of Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism in the destruction of the language so that it no longer means what it says.

When your time comes to be vaporized who will speak up for you?

Because there will be no words left to describe your fate.

Just the sound of quacking.