Iranians working on "dark energy."
Jack Sarfatti
Mike Turner in April 2003 Physics Today prematurely said it is not
possible to "bottle dark energy." I suspect he is wrong. There is
evidence out there that someone has already bottled it.
On May 8, 2004, at 2:47 PM, carlos castro wrote:
I forgot to give you the references in gr-qc about an interesting paper
about the Black-Hole Bomb and super-radiancy. I cannot find it. But
perhaps you could.
Do try to look at the paper hep-th/0404118 = no cosmological
constant, no dark matter, no quintessence.... etc......only Gauss-Bonnet
Gravity to have expansion. Higher derivatives is what you have in
Conformal Weyl Gravity. I think you will be curious to look at those two
papers.
Best wishes
Carlos
Yes, thanks. I think the paper is not correct in it's basic idea.
However it's good to see alternatives.
They must also explain the dark matter. It's not enough to explain only
the dark energy. Also my explanation for both is simpler and uses only
standard physics and is testable very close to experiment. Also my model
has immediate implications for exotic propulsion in sense of NASA BPP.
So far the null results of the CDMSII experiment shooting down the false
positives of the Italian measurements in
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040503/040503-7.html is very good for my idea.
The "null" CDMSII is my "Michelson-Morley experiment."
No motion of Earth through ether, no clicks of dark matter detectors
with the right stuff.
There are recent claims of a 30 km/sec (if I remember number right)
effect in Michelson-Morely, however that may be a Hubble flow GR
correction to SR?
Michael Varney
"Jack Sarfatti" <sarf...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%6dnc.65253$Re6....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
Idiot.
Robert J. Kolker
I think Jack is crazier than a Mexican Jumping Bean at a Mariachi
festival. To bad we do not have playwrights like Aristophanes anymore.
Someone like that could do a grand number on Jack.
Bob Kolker
John Smith
The Iranians have already completed their work on all Dark Energy, except
they call it "Lost in the Dark" energy.
They were not able to shed any light on the subject, and all research money
just went into a black hole.
They have now declared it to be an Open Source Project and have asked J.
Sarfatti to bring his brilliance into the project.
However, most think that it will remain in the dark, because "it" simply is
not there.
It has also been indicated by the same Iranians that the BelginCongoinists
also have a Dark Energy project, which is building a electrical energy plant
in Africa.
Choubab...@Lardsmount.education.unit
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:Txdnc.35$5F5....@news.uswest.net...
Harlow
Ministry of Propaganda to Reelect 43
http://www.honestreporting.com/a/What_is_Bias.asp
Here are the "7 Violations of Media Objectivity":
1.) Misleading definitions and terminology.
By using terminology and definitions in a way
that implies accepted fact, the media injects
bias under the guise of objectivity.
2.) Imbalanced reporting.
Media reports frequently skew the picture by
presenting only one side of the story.
3.) Opinions disguised as news.
An objective reporter should not use adjectives
or adverbs, unless they are part of a quotation.
Also, the source for any facts and opinions
should be clear from the report, or alternatively
it should be stated that source is
intentionally undisclosed.
4.) Lack of context.
By failing to provide proper context and full
background information, journalists can dramatically
distort the true picture.
5.) Selective omission.
By choosing to report certain events over others,
the media controls access to information and manipulates
public sentiment.
6.) Using true facts to draw false conclusions.
Media reports frequently use true facts to draw
erroneous conclusions.
7.) Distortion of facts.
In today's competitive media world, reporters frequently
do not have the time, inclination or resources to properly
verify information before submitting a story for publication.
************************************************************
Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center,
3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 Fax: 317/920-4789
http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp
Code of Ethics
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe
that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and
the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is
to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair
and comprehensive account of events and issues.
Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties
strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.
Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's
credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to
ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the
Society's principles and standards of practice.
************************************************************
The S&M War
Are the Abu Ghraib photos 'wanton' acts of deranged individuals -- or the very
latest in 'black propaganda'?
by Justin Raimondo
http://antiwar.com/justin/
The pictures just keep coming at us: the latest batch of Iraqi humiliation
photos appeared this [Thursday] morning in the Washington Post, along with a
story revealing that the newspaper has come into possession of "more than
1,000" images, a mix of ordinary "travelogue" shots and depictions of Iraqis in
various states of naked prostration.
Iraqi prisoners squirm on the prison floor in the buff, clotted together like
worms on a wet sidewalk, while burly American guards loom over them, poking and
prodding; a female soldier holds a leash at the other end of which is an Iraqi
neck. These images, avers the Post, are "further visual evidence of the chaos
and unprofessionalism at the prison," and one is initially inclined to concur.
But a question inevitably arises: Why?
Why did these miscreants -- mostly lower-level grunts -- take pictures of their
own misconduct? This is behavior that makes absolutely no sense. Surely they
knew the pictures would get out, and get them in major trouble. The Post offers
a few clues:
"The new pictures appear to show American soldiers abusing prisoners, many of
whom wear ID bands, but The Post could not eliminate the possibility that some
of them were staged."
Staged -- for whose benefit?
Are these sickening photos the products of a Vast Antiwar Conspiracy, designed
to discredit an already discredited war? Or is something else going on here?
Let us leave this question aside until last, however, and take up another issue
raised in the Post piece, which informs us that "it is unclear who took the
photographs, or why." Yet not everyone involved seeks refuge in agnosticism.
The families of the accused, and their lawyers, are quite certain about who
authored this outrage:
"Lawyers representing two of the accused soldiers, and some soldiers'
relatives, have said the pictures were ordered up by military intelligence
officials who were trying to humiliate the detainees and coerce other prisoners
into cooperating.
"'It is clear that the intelligence community dictated that these photographs
be taken,' said Guy L. Womack, a Houston lawyer representing Spec. Charles A.
Graner Jr., 35, one of the soldiers charged.
"The father of another soldier facing charges, Spec. Jeremy C. Sivits of
Hyndman, Pa., also said his son was following orders. 'He was asked to take
pictures, and he did what he was told,' Daniel Sivits said in a telephone
interview last week."
This is hardly evidence of "chaos" and "unprofessionalism." Quite the contrary,
it indicates that this whole bizarre business was carried out intentionally and
quite professionally -- it was, in short, a policy endorsed by higher-ups.
The reality of occupied Iraq -- that it is really one big prison presided over
by its American overlords -- is readily apparent to anyone who has been paying
attention. Regular readers of Antiwar.com won't have missed a series of reports
from Iraq filed by Kathy Kelly, of Voices in the Wilderness, and Mike Ferner,
with the Christian Peacemakers Team, who went there shortly after the
"liberation" and documented widespread abuses. People have been treated in
Iraq's prisons pretty much as they've been treated outside of the prisons: like
dirt.
Last year, Kelly interviewed two Palestinian students resident in Iraq who has
been arrested and held without charges for two months. Their crime, as Kelly
related, was being Palestinian:
"'It was inhuman, the way they treated us,' said Fadi. 'For the first seven
days we were given no food or water.' On the first day, they were handcuffed
and taken to the Hasan Al Bakr Palace where they stayed overnight on wet
ground, outdoors. 'We tried to bury ourselves in the sand to keep warmer,' Fadi
recalled. 'All the time they were pointing their guns at us. They made us feel
that we are going to die now, they gonna kill us now.' The next day they were
taken to Saddam Airport where they were again held outside, in the cold,
without food. 'They were laughing while they were searching us and throwing us
on the ground. They took pictures of us which they said they would send back to
their families in the U.S. .'"
One wonders if they ever sent those photos back home -- or if they were taken
for other purposes. In any case, the mistreatment of prisoners, and the
American penchant for recording their own brutality on film, is nothing new.
Nor is the element of sexual perversion.
The Taguba report lists rape and abuse of imprisoned children among the other
crimes committed by the MPs and their enablers, but this is old news. Child
abuse as a key aspect of the "liberation" was revealed by Kelly on Antiwar.com
back in December:
"'There were 13 year old kids in with us,' Fadi said. 'Sometimes they would
throw candies from their humvees, shouting 'Bark like a dog, and I'll throw you
the candy'..Some of the small children were crying in the night, asking to go
home to their families. We were trying to get them quiet.'
"'Some of the prisoners were criminals, thieves. They put the children with
them. Some of them tried to abuse children. We told the guards, they started
laughing. One prisoner tried to rape a kid and he refused, so they made a cut
on his face."
A piece by Mike Ferner, who traveled to Iraq with the Christian Peacemakers,
documented the ubiquitous brutality of the American occupation in
heartbreakingly matter-of-fact prose published here in February:
"We return to the cars and drive a short distance to our next stop, a slightly
larger farmhouse on the edge of the village. It is the home of Yasseen Taha, a
33 year-old farmer who attended evening classes at the University of Baghdad's
Islamic Studies program.
"On October 17, Yasseen's brother, Aziz, and his wife, Majida, were shot and
killed by troops from Lt. Col. Sassaman's base, according to Yasseen's uncle,
Muhnna Azazzal, who spoke with us. On that day at about 4:00 p.m., U.S. troops
and tanks stationed at the former Iraqi airfield three kilometers south of the
Taha home, came from that direction toward the village, 'firing randomly,' said
Azazzal.
"Yasseen's younger brother, Aziz, a fourth-year student in the University of
Baghdad's English Studies department, was struck by one of the bullets and
mortally wounded. Yasseen's wife, Majida, knelt to help her brother-in-law and
was hit by a bullet and killed instantly. She left three children, the youngest
15 days old. Aziz died within two hours, but in the meantime, Azazzal said,
U.S. soldiers surrounded the scene, telling neighbors to keep back and denying
Aziz any first-aid. Aziz's sister, Asmaa, said that she witnessed the carnage
that day. Seeing her brother shot and bleeding to death, she began to cry
hysterically. An American soldier responded by firing his rifle into the ground
near Aziz' dying body 'to mock my grief,' she said."
Ten days after these horrific murders, Yasseen was arrested by U.S. troops. It
seems that the "liberators" had been recently attacked in the vicinity -- gee,
who would thought? -- and Yasseen was a prime suspect, "having lost two family
members to Army shootings." As of February, Yasseen was still rotting in Abu
Ghraib prison. He is not allowed any visitors, and, although no formal charges
have been filed, his uncle says he heard from released detainees that Yasseen
stands accused of "terrorist acts."
One needn't make any overt move to resist the terroristic sadism of the
occupiers to be labeled a "terrorist." The potential is sufficient. This is a
"preemptive war" -- with a vengeance.
Another piece by Ferner documents the razing of Abou Siffa, a village 30 miles
north of Baghdad, in a campaign that resembles nothing so much as a Nazi
pogrom. I have been skeptical of allusions to the Third Reich in describing
acts carried out by U.S. soldiers in this war, just as I have long thought
comparisons of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Adolph Hitler are over
the top, But what, I ask you, does the following account, rendered by one
Mohammed Al Taai, remind you of?:
"'On December 16, at 2:00 am, on a rainy night, all the houses in this village,
about two dozen, were surrounded by U.S. troops in tanks and humvees. They
surrounded the fields of the farmers by tanks and they destroyed the fences of
the fields,' Mohammed tells the six people from Christian Peacemaker Teams who
have come to document detainees' stories.
"'They destroyed the doors of the houses and of the rooms. At night usually the
doors of the bedrooms are locked, so they kicked the doors in and destroyed
them by their weapons. After that they gathered the men, beating them severely.
One was an old man and they smashed his glasses, and for that old man they had
to guide him.'"
It is a reenactment of scene that might first have been played out in Central
Europe during World War II:
"Rounded up in the raid were two attorneys, 15 schoolteachers, men in their
80's, a blind man, an elderly man so frail he had to be carried by the soldiers
-- virtually all the men of Abou Siffa. They even apprehended police officers
and three children."
Every dinar and dime was stolen from the detainees, and all were transported to
the Abu Ghraib prison, where, as of early February, most remained.
The pretext for the initial raid was to capture a top Ba'athist official who
had taken refuge in the village, but after Kais Hattam was taken into custody,
on December 16, the Americans returned twice -- on December 31 and January 2 --
to level more buildings, and deliver a message to the remaining inhabitants:
"In the December 31 and January 2 terror strikes on Abou Siffa no men were
apprehended -- there were none left. 'There was no resistance during the
raids,' Mohammed said, making the violence and fury with which they were
executed the more mysterious. Then one of the villagers added, 'The soldiers
warned the people that they will make this area 'just like the land of the
moon--it will not be good to plant--it will be like the desert.'"
Like the Romans who ploughed salt into the soil of Carthage, so that nothing
would ever grow there again. That is the strategy the crazed "liberators" of
the Iraqi people have unleashed on their bewildered charges -- to grind Iraqi
faces into the dust and celebrate their abasement before American power. This
is true sadism -- when the aggressor gets a kick, almost a sexual thrill, out
of inflicting physical pain and suffering on others. It is sick -- and it is
our policy in Iraq.
The real mystery here is why anybody is surprised at the photos coming out of
Abu Ghraib. They merely illustrate, in particularly graphic form, the impulses
and motivations behind our entire war policy in the Middle East. Humiliation
before the invincible hegemon is the central strategic conception behind the
War Party's imperial project -- and the seemingly endless flow of bizarre S&M
porn now appearing on the front pages of newspapers worldwide only makes sense
in this context.
We are supposed to believe that this was the military equivalent of a frat
house "prank," as Rush Limbaugh put it, a bunch of out-of-control kids
thoughtlessly damaging U.S. relations with the Arab world without supervision
or sanction from their superior officers. That is a load of malarkey. No one
could possibly believe that the 1,000-plus photos in the Post's possession, and
whatever others are out there, could remain secret for long.
What is undoubtedly a black mark on the reputation of the American military,
and on this administration's ability to know and control what's occurring on
the ground in Iraq, looks to me very much like a black propaganda campaign
designed to demoralize not only Iraqis but the entire Arab world. One major
neoconservative talking point in the run-up to war was that the Arabs only
understand the language of power: you can't negotiate or reason with them, you
have to conquer them -- and, once conquered, they have to be kept down. This is
precisely the methodology used by the Israelis on their Palestinian helots, and
in my last column I detailed some evidence that the torturers of Abu Ghraib may
had training and other help from Israeli "advisors."
The conception of shame as a key element of Arab warfare was explored in a
paper on "the Arab mind," by David Leo Gutmann, emeritus professor of
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences at Northwestern University Medical School,
in Chicago, purporting to describe "Arab psychology" -- just as a Nazi
theoretician might explore "Jewish psychology." Writes Gutmann:
"The traditional Bedouin created a nearly pure ''Shame'' culture, whose goal
was to avoid humiliation, and to acquire sharraf -- honor. Thus, the goal of
the Bedouin raid is not to finally win a war, for such inter-tribal conflict is
part of the honorable way of life, and should never really end. The essential
goals of the raid are to take wealth -- not only in goods, but also in honor -
and to impose shame on the enemy. Any opponent worth fighting is by definition
honorable, and pieces of his honor can be ripped from him in a successful raid,
to be replaced by figments of the attacker's shame. The successful attacker has
'exported' some personal shame to the enemy, and the enemy's lost honor has
been added to the raider's store."
A "calculus of shame" and sharraf seems to be at work in this business of the
photos: by projecting these shameful images of powerless, feminized Arab men,
the balance of sharraf tips in favor of the counterinsurgency. As Gutmann
theorizes:
"This calculus of shame and sharraf is an important element in all Arab
warfare, whether waged by Saddam Hussein, Yasir Arafat, or a Bedouin sheik. In
particular, that same dynamic drives the Arab preference for irregular over
conventional war. Irregular tactics - spiced with Terror -- have on occasion
defeated regular armies; but win, lose, or draw in the military sense, terror
tactics can be a far more efficient means of meeting psychological goals -
i.e., shedding shame and capturing honor - than all-out war."
So the way to crush such an insurgency is to make humiliation unavoidable, and
so load the Arabs down with shame that they will be rendered pacific
psychologically. If you think this is too far out to be taken seriously, the
authors of this study, published last year by the American military, don't seem
to think so, since they cite Gutmann's calculus of shame as a key element in
their analysis.
In describing the tactics of "the enemy," the following passage from Gutmann's
piece weirdly prefigured the appearance of the porno-photos:
"The terrorist's actions have the effect of imposing shame on the same enemy
whose people he kills. A major aim of terrorist operations is to bring about
the symbolic emasculation of the enemy's military and civilian populations.
Thus, as the enemy non-combatants give in to their fear of terror attacks and
huddle passively at home, they become vulnerable to the terrorist's boast,
recently broadcast by Hamas: 'We will win, because the Jews love life too much,
while we love death." At this point, the terrorist has succeeded in multiple
ways: Insult has been added to injury, and his enemies have been
psychologically castrated, symbolically re-gendered into women."
If those photos represent anything, symbolic emasculation certainly fits the
bill. Forced to wear women's clothing, simulate homosexual acts, and undergo
other forms of degradation, it looks like the calculus of shame is being turned
back on the Iraqis. Is someone utilizing Gutmann's theories to turn the
terrorist equation on its head? By using "the leverage of the Arab shame
dynamic," as Gutmann puts it, against the insurgents -- and the pool of
possible recruits, i.e. the entire Iraqi population -- the Coalition can
psychologically castrate and "re-gender" them into women, thus effectively
pacifying the country (and, eventually, the entire region).
I fully realize that this sounds more than a bit farfetched -- but, then again,
this whole matter is so completely bonkers that no other explanation makes much
sense. It is all too imaginable that some in positions of power latched on to
Gutmann's cockamamie theory, or a reasonable facsimile, and ran with it -- all
the way to the lower rungs of Hell. It's just the kind of "scientific" lunacy
that naturally enthralls the bureaucratic-military mind, and, with all
Gutmann's talk of "genetic" and "hardwired" tendencies in the Arab mentality,
has enormous appeal for the neocons. As the investigation proceeds, and the
legal cogs begin to turn, I won't be at all surprised to learn that, far from
representing random acts by troubled individuals, what the Abu Ghraib photos
document is a sickness that runs deeper, and reaches higher, than any now
imagine.
-- Justin Raimondo
************************************************************
Shame, Honor and Terror in the Middle East
By David Leo Gutmann
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 24, 2003
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10489
The rush of Arab guerrilla fighters to Iraq following the defeat of Saddam's
regular forces has mobilized a corresponding rush of pundits to the media
outlets, eager to instruct us as to why the Arab Street is so angry with
America. For the most part they name the usual suspects, the
"Marxist--Lite" factors that our academicians and Middle East experts
are comfortable with: that ours was a Capitalist war for oil; that we
are seen as the new Western colonialists; that we support the settler
state, Israel, against the dispossessed Palestinians, and so forth.
Mention is rarely made of long-established Arab military traditions,
or of irrational features of Arab psychology, particularly their
profound vulnerability to shame, and loss of honor.
In regard to military history, the Arab's preference for guerrilla
over conventional war reflects a long tradition, one that began in
antiquity, with the Bedouin raiders. Their way of war- brilliantly
described by T.E. Lawrence in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom -- is
based on hit and run forays by camel-mounted Bedouin who appear
suddenly out of the desert, tear up an unsuspecting enemy camp,
and then disappear back into the waste, carrying "honorable"
loot: thoroughbred horses, camels and women.
The traditional Bedouin created a nearly pure "Shame" culture,
whose goal was to avoid humiliation, and to acquire sharraf -
honor. Thus, the goal of the Bedouin raid is not to finally win
a war, for such inter-tribal conflict is part of the honorable
way of life, and should never really end. The essential goals
of the raid are to take wealth -- not only in goods, but also
in honor - and to impose shame on the enemy. Any opponent
worth fighting is by definition honorable, and pieces of his
honor can be ripped from him in a successful raid, to be
replaced by figments of the attacker's shame. The successful
attacker has "exported" some personal shame to the enemy,
and the enemy's lost honor has been added to the
raider's store.
This calculus of shame and sharraf is an important element
in all Arab warfare, whether waged by Saddam Hussein, Yasir
Arafat, or a Bedouin sheik. In particular, that same
dynamic drives the Arab preference for irregular over
conventional war.
Irregular tactics - spiced with Terror -- have on occasion
defeated regular armies; but win, lose, or draw in the
military sense, terror tactics can be a far more efficient
means of meeting psychological goals - i.e., shedding
shame and capturing honor - than all-out war.
Here are some reasons:
First off, guerrilla warfare is the only form of combat in
which Arab fighters regularly outperform the West. Little
wonder then that irregular conflict, blended with terrorism,
has always been the default military option for the Arabs,
and one which they eagerly take up after their regular
armies have been humiliated in the field. Thus, the
Palestinians, backed by the whole Arab world, turned to
terrorism after the calamitous defeat of the Egyptian,
Syrian and Jordanian armies in the Six-Day's War, their
fantasy being that the Fedayeen would redeem Arab honor
and give Allah another chance to crush the Jews.
Secondly, In terms of spiritual as against purely military
goals, the irregular fighter never really loses. At the
battle's end Goliath may own the bloody field, but David
the stripling is always the moral victor. By crushing David,
Goliath only adds to his own shame; and even if he loses,
David always adds to his honor. For if David falls, his honor
can never be smirched or stolen; and as a martyr he casts
irrevocable shame on those who killed him.
The effectiveness of terrorist irregulars would no doubt be
increased if and when they acquire weapons of mass destruction.
But until then, their material impact is limited. They kill a
few soldiers and civilians; they scare off some investors and
tourists. But it is in the moral domain, on the battleground
of David and Goliath, that they have a destructive effect far
beyond their numbers.
Thirdly, the terrorist's actions have the effect of imposing
shame on the same enemy whose people he kills. A major aim of
terrorist operations is to bring about the symbolic emasculation
of the enemy's military and civilian populations. Thus, as the
enemy non-combatants give in to their fear of terror attacks
and huddle passively at home, they become vulnerable to the
terrorist's boast, recently broadcast by Hamas: "We will win,
because the Jews love life too much, while we love death." At
this point, the terrorist has succeeded in multiple ways:
Insult has been added to injury, and his enemies have been
psychologically castrated, symbolically re-gendered into women.
But for the terrorist to succeed militarily (as well as symbolically
and psychologically) he needs to recruit supporters in the enemy camp.
Shame societies avoid humiliation and attract support by blaming others
for their defeats. Once established, their Victim Identity achieves for
them two major goals: it triggers the rage that fuels the worst terrorist
outrages, and it mobilizes the terrorist's natural allies in the enemy
camp. Thus, even as the victim posture reduces the Arab's shame, it
provokes a predictable and corresponding guilt reaction among the
"progressive," peacenik elements of the enemy society. The voices of
"Peace Now" and "Move On" zealots are heard, all of them shedding their
own guilt by accusing their fellow citizens of driving the victims of
oppression to terrorism. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom
fighter" becomes the dove's mantra. In this manner, the progressives
become useful idiots for the terrorists. As "transmission belts" they
abet the terrorist's mission of spreading guilt, shame and defeatism
among the target population. Egged on by a leftist media that deplores
the struggle as a "quagmire," the terrorized, demoralized civilians
soon demand an end to the long, costly, inconclusive struggle.
Finally, like the French in Algeria, the Soviets in Afghanistan, and
the Israelis in Lebanon, the humiliated enemy, defeated by a
numerically inferior but spiritually superior force, would slink away,
carrying the burden of Arab shame with them as they go.
This is the catastrophic outcome that we are now approaching in
Iraq. A premature American pullout would ignite a wave of Jihadist
triumphalism, and bring on terrorist attacks, complete with WMD,
that could soon render intolerable most urban life in the West.
The military effort against terrorism is vital, but not enough;
we have to fight on the psychological /spiritual/ conceptual
fronts as well. Where to begin?
Only regime changes towards democracy can break up the natural,
hard-wired linkage between shame, victimhood and terrorism that
we find in the Islamic societies. The sentimental symbiosis between
the shame society's "victims" and the "Liberal Guilt" subcultures of
the targeted democracies is equally "genetic," hence unbreakable.
But there is a third crucial link in the terror chain that is not
hard-wired, that can be weakened: the dialogue between the
Jihad-friendly "liberal" elites and their larger, usually
conservative audience, the citizens who consume their classroom
lectures, their editorials, their politicized news reports and
films. When, in a democracy, this citizenry loses heart, then the
military war against terror is soon abandoned.
In a democracy we cannot, even in wartime, interfere with the free
expression of defeatist, "Amerika" bashing sentiment; but we can,
in ways consistent with the First Amendment, mount rhetorical
counterattacks, from the conservative and centrist
camps, that neutralize its demoralizing effect.
If we are to defeat terror, a kind of regime change is required:
on our campuses, in our press, and in Hollywood. And responsive
to that need, previously silenced voices are being heard.
Organizations like Students for Academic Freedom, FIRE, Campus
Watch, ACTA and the National Association of Scholars are
fighting the good fight for free speech on our thought-policed
campuses; and networks like Fox News are providing pulpits for
informed conservative opinion on TV. Perhaps most hopeful of all,
a lively and uninhibited blogger's Samizdat offers new internet
outlets, unmonitored by the Thought Police, for a new generation
of gifted commentators who gleefully and intelligently refute the
pious orthodoxies of the pro-jihad Left.
Finally, the battle against terror is won or lost at home.
If we refuse to be guilty about the war that we have to fight,
and if we can refuse the temptation of a shameful retreat, then
we will eventually prevail on the fighting fronts as well.
David Gutmann is Emeritus professor of Psychology
and Behavioral Sciences at North-Western university
Medical School, in Chicago. As a clinician, he has
practiced and taught intensive psychotherapy.
As a researcher, he has studied universal or
"Species" trends in human development across a
variety of peasant societies. He is currently
investigating patterns of aging among Israeli
kibbutz members.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10489