The Woodshed Republicans screw up

What did the election results mean? There are two sides to this question: what caused the election results, and what will follow from them?

What caused them was the Republicans went to pot the last two years. They betrayed their core values - small government, accountability, immigrations reform, even sexual propriety. Remember, there's a double standard. Barney Frank did far worse than Mark Foley ever dared, but he's still around. Life's not fair, in case you didn't know that. The Republicans blew off their base, and their base took it badly. So badly, that they sought to punish the Republicans by voting for something even worse.

What, you say? I'm just spinning? No, look at some threads on Red State from the summer months. The evidence is plain. The comments were full of talk of how we'd teach the Republicans a lesson, and then bring them all back in 2008. And conversations I've had in meatspace (the real world) back this up.

Call these the Woodshed Republicans. There are a lot of them. I've met many. (I don't recall whether I came up with that term myself. Google comes up empty.)

Add to that the fact that most Democrats who won ran on a moderate to conservative platform. By the way, the Democrats deserve credit for that. If only they'd go the whole way and simply ditch the Left, we'd be in business with a working two party system again.

A referendum on the war? It's not that simple. How then can you explain Lieberman's victory? No, that won't wash.

The people embracing Democrat values? Oh, please. The Democrats were running *away* from those values! It was an overwhelmingly negative campaign season, on both sides. There were no positive values to speak of.

In summation, the Democrats didn't win so much as the Republicans lost.

So much for causes. Now, on to consequences. Here I have nothing but bad news.

Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House. Already she's talking about how only the ideologically pure will be permitted to be on committees. Forget the newly elected conservative Democrats. They won't be in charge. And she's already moving to replace a reputable committee chairman with a disreputable one. And there are more crooks and pork barrel kings to come. There's your culture of corruption.

Nancy Pelosi is an extreme ideologue, a Left wing lunatic. And now she's in power. The people voted for center-right Democrats, but they got Nancy Pelosi. Bait and switch. And anyone who was paying attention could have seen it coming. Can the Woodshed Republicans be blamed for being angry with the Republican incumbents? No. But they can be blamed for how they dealt with their anger. Every outrage Pelosi perpetrates in the next two years will be as much their fault as hers. Such are the wages of moral daintiness.

Expect even more big government spending. Expect even more government meddling in personal affairs. Expect more graft and influence peddling. And expect a cut-and-run foreign policy that will demolish our international credibility, embolden terrorists, betray our troops, and set the cause of freedom back yet again.

So we'll vote them all out in 2008, and the Democrats will be finished as a party. Big deal. By then the damage will be done. Some of it will take years to undo. Some of it will never be undone.

And another thing. If you were unhappy with your incumbents, wouldn't it have made more sense to boot them out in the primary?


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)
... tacitus.org

Why they attacked us

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home; an evil fate."

- the Koran, Sura 9

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

- Omar M. Ahmad, board chairman of CAIR

The latest al Qaeda video states more explicitly than ever what was obvious to some of us from the beginning. The reason the Islamist terrorists hate us is that we are not Muslim. They hate us because we don't put bags over our women's heads and lock them indoors. They hate us because we allow gays to live. They hate us because we like to choose our own religion. And because we eat ham sandwiches. This is hard to wrap our heads around, because it makes no freaking sense. So we cast about for other explanation. Could we have have offended them somehow? Other than by eating ham sandwiches, that is.

We need to remember this. There have been an awful lot of lies spread around 9-11. I don't mean just the obviously loony conspiracy theories. These are nothing to worry about because hardly anyone will believe them anyway. No, a dangerous lie is a lie that the more impressionable - but not totally insane - sort might actually believe, if you repeat it often enough and loudly enough. For instance, the lie that they attacked us because of all the things we evil imperialists did tho them. We started it, the Jihadis claim. And the hate-sick Left are glad to second this. In fact, they lost no time. I vividly remember the outpouring of hate on Kuro5hin on September 12, 2001. The European posters said, in as many words, that we had it coming and it served us right. And they're still saying it. (Forget the squandered goodwill. It was just momentary official politeness. No sincerity to it at all.)

Well, as long as we're bringing up history, let's look at the whole history. Osama bin Laden mentioned the Crusades and the "tragedy of Andalusia," meaning the reconquest of Spain by Spaniards. That's a lot further back than they'd like us to look. So let's look back further still.

When the Prophet's corpse was barely cold, Muslims, having dispensed with Coptics in Egypt and various other nations in their part of the world, began to conquer Christian lands in Europe. This was the Jihad. (Jihad, by the way, is what would be a Crusade if a westerner or Christian undertook it against Muslims.) They finally met their match at Tours. But that was only the beginning.

In the 11th century, Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land came under attack from the Seljuk Turks. In self defense, Christendom undertook the First Crusade. That's right. Muslims started the Crusades.

And so it went. Various Muslim empires sought to conquer all they could. Their non-Muslim victims were given a choice - either convert or suffer second class status and the systematic exploitation known as dhimmitude. (Much of the more recent rhetoric omits the dhimmitude option. It's convert or die.) They conquered the decadent Byzantine Empire, and advanced well into what is now eastern Europe. But they never quite wiped out the West. And what was left of the West responded to the challenge, growing stronger and tougher.

The high water mark for Islamic empire was the 1683 siege of Vienna. Europe banded together and drove off the attackers. From that point on it was a slow decline for Islamic civilization. The Barbary Pirates made a nuisance of themselves, as did the remnants of the Moguls, but that was pretty much it for a few centuries.

The West was perfectly happy to let the Ottoman Empire alone. But then, in World War I, that doddering civilization chose the wrong side. As punishment, the victors carved it up into little pieces. Iraq, by the way, was one of those pieces. Then the victors - unwisely - decided to set up all these pieces as sovereign nation states. There was an anti-imperial fever raging at the time. The British Empire couldn't ditch its holdings fast enough. Not that it bought them any good will. Quite the opposite.

Around this same time period, the West discovered vast oil reserves throughout the Arab world, and helped develop them, making the upper strata of Arab society very, very rich. As a show of gratitude, these governments nationalized the oil fields, and denounced the economic imperialists who had made this wealth possible.

In 1948, the few Jews living in Palestine were given their ancestral land back as their own state. Many other Jews that had survived the Holocaust came to join them. Since the land had few inhabitants, there was plenty of room, but because Arabs hate Jews, it didn't matter how much room there was to spare. Israel had a tough time of it, but survived.

In Egypt, Sayyid Qutb did for Islam what Kierkegaard had done for Christianity: he declared it dead, and in need of resurrection. From this, he went on to call for another world war, a final Jihad to exterminate the unbelievers - that is, pretty much everybody. Qutb never managed to get this Jihad rolling himself, but many other groups caught the spirit of his... er, thought.

In 1972, in Munich, the sore losers among the Muslim world discovered a new way of coping with their ongoing humiliation: murder. The age of Islamist terrorism had begun. Since then, it's been escalating terror attacks, and tepid, passive-aggressive responses from various U.S. Presidents, culminating in 9-11.

Since 9-11, America has gotten seriously ticked off and taken the fight to the enemy. In the process, we've needed to topple any thugocracy that gives aid and comfort to the fanatics. (A lot of people don't like that. Well, get it over it. We didn't start this, but we intend to finish it. We're fed up, and we don't need to ask ourselves why. We know why.)

So, whenever anybody tells you Arabs and Muslims are angry at us because of our imperialist aggression, now you know exactly what they're talking about. They're talking about the fact that they picked a fight with us, and we had the bad grace to win, so now they want a rematch. That's our imperialist aggression. Are we all clear on that now?

Of course, not all who call themselves Muslims are this unsportsmanlike. But the ones that aren't, aren't the ones that are giving us trouble. The ones that are giving us trouble, hate us because we didn't let them conquer the world.

To put it another way, it's not about us. It's about them.

So, how do we make them feel better? Actually, there's nothing within reason we can do to appease them. Even converting won't help, because professing Muslims slaughter professing Muslims all the time. The Koran says they shouldn't (Sura 49) but they do anyway. They rationalize it by declaring other sects to be not true Muslims. And no one can belong to all the sects at the same time!

What can we do, then? Well, nothing calms a religious fanatic down quite like a bullet in the head.

Just a suggestion.

And now, a thought from another thinker:

"Anyone who lost their 'innocence' on September 11 was too naive by far, or too stupid to begin with. On that day, we learned what we ought to have known already, which is that clerical fanaticism means to fight a war which can only have one victor."

- Christopher Hitchens

I say:

Occasionally Hitchens is wrong; most of the time he's right. But he's never muddled. On this issue, he sees the truth clearly, and expresses it clearly.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Regimes, legitimacy, and humanism

As I've stated before, I am a humanist. This gives me a premise from which to reason about... oh, anything of real importance. for example, foreign policy.

But before I detail my views on foreign policy, I need to define some more terms.

The United States is often bitterly attacked for meddling in the affairs of other nations. On what grounds? On shifting grounds. I could refute their complaints, but that would just lead us down the rabbit hole. So let's take it from another angle. Just what stance toward other nations *would* be reasonable?

It depends on what particular other nation you're talking about. For you see, all nations are not equal. Not even close.

What is a nation? In some contexts, the word denotes a tribe or ethnic group. Well, I'll talk about tribalism in some other article. These days the controversy mostly concerns our attacking or deposing "the government of a sovereign state."

Well, what's so special about the government of a sovereign state? The anarchists would say, nothing. But I reject anarchism. I simply don't see it as in humanity's best interests, because it fails to allow for the darker side of human nature. Outside of Utopian fantasies, a state of anarchy is a very unpleasant one, generally ending in an equally unpleasant tyranny. No, thank you.

Remember my humanist principle. That is good which serves human needs and interests. A sovereignty is good to the extend that it serves humanity, and bad to the extent that is it harms humanity. And it should be plainly obvious that not all sovereign governments are equal in this regard.

Let's look at an example. Some very silly - or perhaps disingenuous - people ask, rhetorically, "isn't it hypocritical to deny Iran nuclear weapons when the United States has nuclear weapons?" No, it isn't. And here's why. The united States is a democratic republic. It has popular sovereignty. Well, maybe you don't care for it personally, but it's popular enough. Lots of people here like democracy. Iran does not have popular sovereignty... yet. The people of Iran are not seeking nuclear weapons for defend themselves. An Iranian person named Ahmadinejad is seeking nuclear weapons so he can wipe Israel off the map and start Armageddon.

See the difference? No? Well, never mind.

Anyway, I really don't think the present regime of Iran having a nuclear program is in the best interest of humanity.

So, where's the dividing line? I think history has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that popular sovereignty is better than brute force, that the rule of law is better than the rule of raw power, and that a free society is more likely to be prosperous and peaceful than is an unfree society. A democratic republic, with the rule of law and human rights, such as we have in the West, is a legitimate sovereignty, to be prized above all else. Anything less than this, is less legitimate. A thugocracy, such as the former Ba'athist empire of Saddam Hussein, has no legitimacy or value at all. A murderous dictator has no rights in a humanist system. None at all. It's simply a matter of when we get around to exterminating him. Likewise Kim Kong Il. Likewise the Janjaweed. Likewise the countless tribal warlords in Africa. Likewise Fidel Castro. If they won't grant their subjects and victims basic human rights, why should we have the slightest consideration for them?

Now, it doesn't necessarily follow from this that we should go around toppling the thugocracies of the world. At least, it doesn't necessarily follow from *only* this. More on that in a later post. For now, let's just say this: if we want to remove one of these bastards from power, for any reason, there is no question of the right to do so. You may object on other grounds, but not on grounds of the rights of sovereign nations. From a humanist perspective, that simply doesn't apply.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

A declaration of humanism

I am a humanist. My entire philosophy, and all of my political and social opinions, are derived from certain axioms. I believe there are epistemological truths and there are moral truths. And the foundation of all my moral truths is humanism.

Humanism is one of those words that get repeatedly hijacked, raped, and then slandered as a whore. Different groups use the word to mean different things, spreading confusion about the word and its meaning. This always seems to happen to words and phrases that stand for something about which people have strong feelings: love, truth, justice, quality, liberty, liberalism, conservatism, humanism. So I will need to define my term, at length.

Let's start here

Excerpt:

Philosophical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest. Sub-categories of this type include Christian Humanism and Modern Humanism.

I say:

That's me. I implicitly reject any point of view that despises or hates humanity. Call this anti-humanism. Yes, I know some of them are probably kidding. In fact, anyone who dares say in as many words that he wishes the human race would go away is probably either making a bad joke, or is Friedrich Nietzsche. This is one of things you just don't admit in polite society. It's like admitting you like to grope small children, or that you just murdered your grandmother and stuffed her in a large mason jar. If it happens to be true, you keep it to yourself.

No, anyone who really despises humanity is not likely to trumpet the fact. If you want him to admit it, you've got to catch him off guard. And if you do, he'll simply say that's not what he meant, and change the subject. At least that's what happens when I try it.

How do you recognize someone who won't admit his true feelings? Follow the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy takes two forms: either the hypocrite says A and then says B, where B logically contradicts A, or he says A and does B, where B contradicts A. That's how you spot a hypocrite. Now, how do you know which is his sincere position, A or B? Well, if B is an action, then it's pretty straightforward. There is no such thing as an insincere pattern of action. But if both A and B are words, it's a lot trickier. Observe the pattern of his words. Which gets upheld more, and which does he contradict more? Anyone can misrepresent himself, but it takes effort, and no one can do it comprehensively. A lie spread thin enough becomes faintly transparent.

There are certain ideologies that *implicitly* hate humanity. Environmental extremism is an obvious one. Some people just behave and speak as if endangered frogs are more important to them than people. Some of them gladly endanger people on behalf of the frogs. The rest will simply endanger human jobs and livelihood on behalf, of, oh, owls or something. Will they say so in as many words? Not bloody likely. But they will say things that add up to it, and they will act accordingly. And then there's the body language, the averted eyes, and the stammer.

Other ideologies are a bit more clever. They masquerade *as* humanism. Remember that phrase: "human need and interest." What exactly constitutes human need and interest?

A sincere humanist tries to understand human nature, and thereby determine human need and interest. In insincere "humanist" comes up with his own definition of human need and interest, and then invents a theory of human nature to support it. Let's look at some examples.

A cursory study of human nature reveals than man is both an individual and a social creature. In short, he is an individual functioning within society. There is a dynamic tension here, and it invites two abuses: ignoring the one side to emphasize the other, and ignoring the other side to emphasize the one. And, lo and behold, both these abuses can easily be found!

Ignore man's need for a decent, civil society, and focus only on his need for autonomy. The result: Objectivism! Sorry, no, Nathaniel Branden isn't really an Objectivist!. And yes, I know Ayn Rand admitted the need for some government and and a certain type of human interaction. But what she advocated falls far short of what I would call a human society.

Ignore man's need for autonomy, and you have either Communism, fascism, or some other totalitarian system. Downplay man's need for autonomy, and you have socialism, or at least excessive government involvement in private affairs.

(Charles Schultz summarized the collectivist mindset nicely: "I love mankind; it's people I can't stand.")

Now let me concede a point. There is much evil in human nature. It will do no good to deny it. But there is also much potential for good in humanity. This is another dynamic tension at the core of human nature. Because good is, by definition, something that ought to be encouraged, and evil is, by definition, something that ought to be discouraged, I define human interest as follows:

That which tends to increase the numbers and lengthen the existence of the human race, which encourages the growth of all that is good in human nature, and contains or defeats what is evil in human nature, that is human interest.

And I define human need as: whatever is required to further human interest.

Definition: A sham humanism is any ideology that substitutes something for human need and interest - as I have defined then - and claims that thing is best for humanity. (Could they be honestly mistaken? If so, wouldn't they have come to their senses by now?) I've just given two examples. But there are so many possibilities here, we can't enumerate them. So let's list at some categories:


1. Those which deny or downplay the need for man to live in a civil society.

2. Those which deny or downplay the need for each human being to be his own person to some extent.

3. Those which deny or downplay the need to resist evil.

4. Those which restrict the legitimate concern of a human being to anything less than humanity as a whole, be it the self, the family, the tribe or the nation state.

5. Those who angrily advocate models for social order that are known to be contrary to human interest.
(To be a socialist two centuries ago may have been forgivable. But there's no excuse nowadays. We all know better.)

6. Those who have no regard for beautiful art.

7. Those who have no regard for human reason.

8. Those who would deny any man the right to seek self improvement in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.

9. Those who would deny any man the right to seek happiness in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.

10. Those who would deny any man the right to seek God in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.

11. Those who would forbid any criticism of a philosophy, ideology, culture or system of government, where that criticism is by the criterion of human needs and interest. (It's jingoistic to love your country without a good reason.)

12. Those who would either attack or defend a philosophy, ideology, culture or system of government, other than from the standpoint of human needs and interest. (It's not jingoistic to love your country if your country happens to be one of the better ones.)

I oppose all of these. And I make no apologies for it.

And there's misanthropy. I define a misanthrope as an anti-humanist who hasn't bothered to adopt or formulate a sytem of thought to give structure (or cover) to his attitude.

So, I care about what's best for humanity. Everything else is secondary to me. I am an unrepentant speciesist. I exploit helpless animals, as well as helpless plants. And oh, what I do to helpless inanimate objects!

I will not worship any god that is not humanist. If such a god exists, there's no point in humans worshipping him. What's in it for us?

Are there other other life forms in the universe, more intelligent than we? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. So far SETI's come up empty, and it's not for want of trying.

Now, some final notes about types of humanism:

Excerpt:

The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence.

I say:

A semantic red herring. Philosophy vs religion is a distinction which I have never found useful in trying to understand anything.

Excerpt:

Now, while Secular Humanists may agree with much of what religious Humanists do, they deny that this activity is properly called "religious." This isn't a mere semantic debate. Secular Humanists maintain that there is so much in religion deserving of criticism that the good name of Humanism should not be tainted by connection with it.

I say:

That cuts both ways. This is a double standard. For it to be a mere semantic debate would be a step up.

Excerpt:

The fact that Humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox. Another is that both Religious and Secular Humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point of eschewing faith altogether. The dichotomy between reason and faith is often given emphasis in Humanism, with Humanists taking their stand on the side of reason. Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather as an alternative way of being religious.

I say:

I value human reason as far as it goes. But it seems unrealistic to me, to pretend that human reason is capable of understanding all there is. Besides, it would probably violate Goedel's Imcompleteness Theorem. Faith is a substitute for reason. Religion is a crutch. But sometimes we need to make do with substitutes, and sometimes we can't walk unaided. It won't much help human needs and interests to pretend that the human condition is other than it is.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

The problem with "respect"

Everybody wants it, but no one can define it.

Excerpt of an excerpt:

Whenever American officials are able to talk to Iranians about what it is that they would want from a Grand Bargain, and whenever American citizens are able to talk to Iranian officials about what it is that they would want from a Grand Bargain, one of the foremost things that the Iranians invariably say is, "Respect." In my own conversations with Iranians, in and out of government, I have found that it is usually the first of their demands -- and they often say it immediately and then have to think hard as to what their other demands might be. "Respect" is an abstract concept that needs to be made tangible if it is going to be part of a deal. So, like good negotiators, the Americans inevitably ask, "What do you mean by respect?" Typically, the Iranians cannot define what respect would be, but they are full of illustrations of disrespectful American behavior that would have to end for Iran to be willing to accept a Grand Bargain. For instance, the Iranians never fail to observe that saying that Iran was part of an "Axis of Evil" was disrespectful. The sanctions are disrespectful. Criticizing the (flagrantly rigged) February 2004 Majles elections for being flagrantly rigged was disrespectful. Any criticism of Iran's internal affairs, such as its kangaroo-court judicial procedures and its arrest of political dissidents on ridiculous charges, is disrespectful. A senator calling Iran the world's worst terrorist state is disrespectful. American newspapers writing articles about problems in the Iranian economy is disrespectful. The State Department stating that Iran supports terrorism rather than acknowledging that Iran is a victim of terrorism (both of which are true) is disrespectful. Claiming that Iran is harboring Al-Qaida personnel is disrespectful. I have personally heard every one of those statements made by Iranians in response to my question as to what "respect" means . . .

I say:

This is the behavior of thugs. They implictly define respect as backing down. There's no such thing as mutual submission. It's strictly zero sum. In order for A to "respect" (submit to) B, A must endure "disrespect" (dominance) from B.

Decent people don't play such games. We give respect to those who have earned respect. And we strive to earn respect for ourselves. Thugs demand respect on the basis of power. Cowards give it on this basis. But decent people see beyond raw power.

And thugs do *not* deserve respect. Or anything else they're liable to demand.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

The rabbit hole of contentiousness

"I refute it thus" - Hume

Suppose you say two plus two make four, and someone challenges you on it. "Prove it!" he says.

Now supposing you humor him. First you try some abstract deductive demonstration from number theory. "Obfuscation! Gobbledegook!" he cries. Then you demonstrate with two pairs of pennies. "Coincidence!" he says. You repeat the demonstration with two different pairs of pennies. "Dumb luck!" You do it ten more times, and maybe he grudgingly admits... "Okay, maybe it work with pennies. But I still don't buy the general principle!"

It could be worse, actually. You show him two pairs of pennies, together. "See? Four pennies!" "What four pennies! I don't see any four pennies!" What then?

Unless you're almost as loony as he is, you tell him to go to hell.

This is what I do. But what's the principle here? The principle I see is: that which is self evident needs no proof.

What, you don't agree? Okay, let's try some exercises. Prove to me conclusively, from incontrovertible scientific evidence, the following list of assertions:


1. A is A

2. Two plus two make four.

3. A proposition cannot be both true and untrue at the same time and in the same way.

4. You exist.

5. I exist.

6. The universe exists.

7. Evil exists.

8. Man is an irrational animal.

9. Tom Cruise is not terribly bright.

10. The Moon exists.

11. Culture exists

12. Burden of proof is a treacherous thing.

13. You just proved to me numbers 1 through 12.

14. You just proved to me numbers 1 through 13.

15. You just proved to me...

No matter what proof you offer, I will not accept it. In fact, I'll get increasingly abusive and contemptuous, and call you all sorts of names, starting before you even offer any proof, simply for making the assertions. Then I'll quote Nietzsche or Derrida as if it *that* proves something. And when we get to number 13, I'm *really* gonna start giving it to you!

It's not that I disbelieve. I'm only pretending to. So... what are you gonna do about it?

What? You don't want to play this game? Okay. It is kind of a stupid game, after all. Just concede that there are some assertions that don't need proof, and we can move on.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Hack China!

In Google, China and the Cult of Mammon I identified the broader enemy, Mammon, and the specific target, the Communist regime of mainland China. I also hinted at the means of attack. Now I will go into more detail. But first, I need to define some terms.

First, the *players*. There's us - we in the free world who are willing and able to act. Then there's the enemy, the ChiCom government. There are also the people of China. Let's divide these into the active dissidents and the masses. Finally, there are collaborationists - corporations that are helping the ChiComs stay in power.

Now, the tools of the enemy. They are *censorship and fear*. We can't attack the main part of fear directly. The people of China need to overcome this themselves. Those we call "dissidents" have already done so. But we can attack censorship. (And by way of attacking censorship, we can undermine the fear a bit. To weaken censorship is to visibly weaken the regime's control, hence its prestige, hence its capacity to intimidate the populace.)

The censorship has internal and external components. *Internal* censorship is when the regime prevents its subjects from talking to each other. *External* censorship is when the regime prevents its subjects from communicating with the outside world.

The censorship has two modes: prevention and intimidation. *Prevention* is when the regime uses technical means to make communication physically difficult or impossible. *Intimidation* is fear - fear of punishment if you engage in proscribed communication. Intimidation depends on being able to spy on communication, and being able to track down the participants. When Yahoo rats out a dissident, they are collaborating in the intimidation.

The communication which censorship opposes has two *aspects*: accessibility and searchability. Accessibility means the communicator can distribute information in a way that an intended communicant can receive it if he knows how to find it. Searchability is the ability of a would be communicant to find such information without knowing in advance exactly where to look for it.

Searchability is what Google's latest collaboration threatens. In order to read something, you have to know where it is. And knowing where it is, is in itself information, and can be censored.

Communication comes in three *scopes*: public, group and private. Public communication is publishing - making information available to anyone who wants to read it. Group communication is communicating to a select group. Private communication is sent to a single individual.

The communication has *choke points*, at which it is vulnerable to censorship. These are routers, gateways, and, as far as searchability is concerned, Web search engines. When a router or gateway filters transmission, the code that accomplishes this is called a *firewall*.

There are means of working around all of these. But it's not easy. I insist that it's possible and worthwhile, but it's not easy. A future post will go into detail about the state of the art. For now I'll just name the concepts involved. Don't worry if you don't understand all the terms here. If you're curious, you can Google (with luck!)

Every choke point seizes on some identifying aspect of a message. Call these the *shibboleths*. A router or gateway uses and IP address - the address of a computer on the Internet as a shibboleth. Another shibboleth used here is a port number. The way to defeat these is to use a *peer-to-peer* network, that does not use a fixed port number. A peer-to-peer network is a network within the Internet, by which various nodes (computers on the network) find each other and exchange data.

A more insidious choke point is *content*. Google refuses searches on certain keywords. More advanced firewalls (and be sure, China has them) filter on keywords in the data being sent. The way around this is encryption. Encryption also makes private communication possible, if you use it properly.

Now what about public communication? You've got a message that you want to get out to all of China, and that means the authorities can see it to. How to do so without revealing yourself, and ending up in the gulag? What you need is an encrypted peer-to-peer network that uses *multiple hops* so that the recipients don't know where the message came from. Because, sooner or later, the authorities will discover the network and view the public information on it, by the same means that everyone else does. If the network is properly designed, they will find a *node* but that won't help them track down the sender of any given message.

So, we need a peer-to-peer network with multiple hops, encryption, and a search mechanism. We need to extend it into Communist China. We need to grow the network once it's there. It's not much use until it gets large. Ideally, every person in China who has a PC should have access to this network. In practice, the regime is going to find about this network at some point and try to shut it down. But they can't shut it down all at once because they can't find it all at once. So we need a network that will grow itself faster than they can kill it off.

When the network gets large enough, censorship in China will be unworkable. In its early days, the component that's actually in China will be small. Most of those on it will be the dissidents. Once the network has put down roots, the dissidents can spread by any way they choose. We just have to get it to them in the first place, preferably without breaking any of our society's laws. (We can work on getting the laws changed at our leisure.) One way to do this is by what I call a *benign trojan*.

A benign trojan is a piece of software to run a node of this network, plus the addresses of a few existing nodes, called seed nodes, all hidden in something else. Something the authorities won't object to their citizens downloading. Perhaps some other sort of software, or an innocent looking file. It could be as simple as renaming the file. But the dissidents who stumble upon it will be able to figure out what to do with it. They'll extract the payload, and start up the nodes. Think of it as sneaking a hacksaw past the guards in a cake. (A regular trojan takes over the computer for malicious purposes. A benign trojan doesn't take over the computer, it helps take over a society.)

Once it's there, it will spread, perhaps by more benign trojans, perhaps by other means of the people's own devising. But won't the regime notice? Won't they try to shut down or block the Web sites with the benign trojans from the free world? Won't they lean on the Mammon worshipers here to get those files taken down? Yes, they will. And the files will be taken down. But it will be too late.

What will the regime do next? Try to hunt down the nodes. And they're bound to find some of them. But if we've designed the software right, they'll never find them all. New nodes will come into existence faster than they can track down the old ones.

And then what? They can stop the external component of the communication only by disconnecting the internet from the global Internet. That will devastate their economy, thus weakening their position. Remember what happened to the Soviet Empire when Reagan got stingy with the aid?

And there will still be the internal component. The only way to shut that down is to shut down the nationwide internet. Economy weakened still further. The government looking weak. Looking desperate. The very fact of their taking such drastic actions will tell the people just what the regime most wants the people *not* to know: that the rulers are afraid.

Shut it all down, or don't shut it all down. Either way, they lose.

The hard part is designing the software right. People have tried.. But they always leave out something important. That's why I've tried to enumerate every factor here. Have I missed anything? Let's have some peer review. Be as merciless as you like in your comments, so long as you make sense. Tear my work apart, and I'll patch it back together again later. When it gets to the point that you can't tear it apart, that will the time to start writing code.





Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/23//hackchina.html