Es possibile que le structura de nostre cerebro determina nostre credentias politic?

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, Spanish, English)

Scientistas britannic discoperiva que il pare haber un “forte correlation” inter le credentias politic de un persona e su structura cerebral.

Iste investigation identificava duo areas del cerebro cuje grandor, il pare, se trova associate con le ideas e le valores politic del individuo.

Le studio, dirigite in le Instituto de Neuroscientia Cognitive del Universitate de London, analysava le imagines de scannatores de resonantia magnetic de 90 studentes.

Le participantes anque respondeva a un questionario sur lor credentias politic.

Post comparar le resultatos, le scientistas trovava que le studentes qui se describeva como plus liberal e con un ideologia del leve monstrava un plus grande densitate de material gris in un region del cerebro appellate le cingulo anterior.

E le juvenes qui se describeva como conservative e con ideologia del derecto habeva un amigdala (le structura cerebral associate al processamento emotional) plus grande.

Le investigatores non sape, nonobstante, si le structura de nostre cerebro determina nostre credentias politic o si nostre credentias politic se disveloppava primo e plus tarde habeva un certe influentia in le structura de nostre cerebros.

¿Es posible que la estructura de nuestro cerebro determina nuestras creencias políticas?

Científicos británicos descubrieron que parece haber una “fuerte correlación” entre las creencias políticas de una persona y su estructura cerebral.

Esta investigación identificó dos áreas del cerebro cuyo tamaño aparentemente está asociado con las ideas y los valores políticos del individuo.

El estudio, llevado a cabo en el Instituto de Neurociencia Cognitiva de la Universidad de Londres, analizó los escáneres de imágenes de resonancia magnética (IRM) de 90 estudiantes.

Los participantes también respondieron a un cuestionario sobre sus creencias políticas.

Tras comparar los resultados, los científicos encontraron que los estudiantes que se describieron a sí mismos como más liberales y con una ideología de izquierda mostraron una mayor densidad de materia gris en una región del cerebro llamada el cíngulo anterior.

Y los jóvenes que se calificaron como conservadores y con ideología de derecha tenían una amígdala (la estructura cerebral asociada al procesamiento emocional) más grande.

Los investigadores no saben, sin embargo, si la estructura de nuestro cerebro determina nuestras creencias políticas o si nuestras creencias políticas se desarrollaron primero y más tarde influyeron en la estructura de nuestros cerebros.

Is it possible that the structure of our brains determines our political beliefs?

British scientists discovered that there seems to be a “strong correlation” between a person’s political beliefs and his or her brain structure.

This investigation identified two brain areas whose size is apparently associated with the ideas and political values of the individual.

The study, conducted at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of London, analyzed the MRI scans of ninety students.

Participants also answered a questionnaire on their political beliefs.

After comparing the results, the scientists found that students who described themselves as having a more liberal and leftist ideology had a greater density of gray matter in a brain region called the anterior cingulate.

And young people who described themselves as conservative and having a right-wing ideology had an amygdala (the brain structure associated with emotional processing) that was larger.

The researchers do not know, however, whether the structure of our brains determines our political beliefs or whether our political beliefs were developed first and later on influenced the structure of our brains.

Le population del Statos Unite ha opiniones dividite sur le fundator de Wikileaks.

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, Spanish, Portuguese)

Le fundator del sito Wikileaks, Julian Assange, ha provocate reactiones diverse in le opinion public american.

Le governamento American jam ha accusate Assange de esser irresponsibile de colocar vitas in risco con le publication de presso 250 mille messages secrete inviate per diplomatos del Statos Unite initiate le fin de novembre.

Ma non omnes possede ille opinion. Multes considera que Assange es un specie de heroe, disponite a currer riscos pro exponer le veritate.

Nunc, in un sondage facite per le magazin “Time” con su lectores, Assange appare como le plus votate pro le titulo “Personalitate del Anno”, concedite annualmente per le magazin.

Secundo un sondage facite per le rete de television ABC News e le “Washington Post”, nonobstante, plus que duo tertios del americanos affirma que Wikileaks prejudicava le interesse public al publicar documentos secrete del governamento.

Secundo le sondage, sex in cata dece americanos crede que Assange deberea confrontar accusationes criminal pro haber publicate le documentos.

A população dos Estados Unidos tem opiniões divididas sobre o fundador do Wikileaks.

O fundador do site Wikileaks, Julian Assange, tem provocado reações diversas na opinião pública americana.

O governo americano já acusou Assange de ser irresponsável e colocar vidas em risco com a divulgação de cerca de 250 mil mensagens secretas enviadas por diplomatas dos Estados Unidos, iniciada no fim de novembro.

Mas nem todos compartilham dessa opinião. Muitos consideram Assange uma espécie de herói, disposto a correr riscos para expor a verdade.

Agora, em uma enquete feita pela revista “Time” com seus leitores, Assange aparece como o mais votado para o título de “Personalidade do Ano”, concedido anualmente pela revista.

De acordo com uma pesquisa encomendada pela rede de elevisão ABC News e do “Washington Post”, no entanto, mais de dois terços dos americanos afirmam que o Wikileaks prejudicou o interesse público ao divulgar documentos secretos do governo.

De acordo com a pesquisa, seis em cada dez americanos acham que Assange deveria enfrentar acusações criminais por ter publicado os documentos.

The population of the United States has divided opinions about the founder of Wikileaks.

The founder of the website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has provoked mixed reactions in American public opinion.

The U.S. government has accused Assange of being irresponsible and putting lives at risk by disclosing some 250,000 secret messages sent by diplomats from the United States, starting in late November.

But not everyone shares that view. Many consider Assange a hero, willing to take risks to expose the truth.

Now, in a poll done by Time magazine with its readers, Assange emerged as the one most worthy of selection as “Person of the Year”, awarded annually by the magazine.

According to a survey commissioned by television network ABC News and the “Washington Post,” however, more than two-thirds of Americans say that Wikileaks harmed the public interest by disclosing secret government documents.

According to the poll, six in ten Americans think Assange should face criminal charges for having published the documents.

Lula critica Obama e su politica pro le America latin.

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, Portuguese, English)

Le presidente del Brasil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, criticava, durante un conferentia de pressa, le position del Statos Unite verso le America latin e diceva que le leader American, Barack Obama, non ha monstrate ulle capacitate pro haber relationes constructive con le region.

“Il me pare que le americanos senti que illes pote dominar le America latin proque il sempre ha habite relationes imperialiste inter le Statos Unite e le paises povre”, dice Lula durante un conferentia de pressa in le Palatio Presidential. “Ille relation debe cambiar se. Io ha dicite a Obama que le nationes del America del Sud sta a organisar lor relationes economic de un maniera extrememente democratic, que es simile al principios de organisation del Union Europee e que le Statos Unite debe comenciar a tractar le nationes del America latin con le respecto que es debite a illes como paises soveran.”

Lula diceva que ille spera que Obama venira al Brasil in 2011, criticante le facto de que le administrationes del Statos Unite quasi nunquam usa lor alte functionarios e diplomatos plus importante pro gerer su relationes con le America latin.

Lula anque diceva que ille non ha ambitiones de esser le presidente del Brasil un altere vice. “In 2014 io vole Dilma pro continuar a esser le presidente del Brasil. Il es juste e legitime que un presidente qui sta a gerer le governamento effectivemente debe continuar a governar.”

Lula critica Obama e sua política para a América Latina

O presidente do Brasil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, criticou, durante uma conferência de imprensa a posição dos Estados Unidos para a América Latina e disse que o líder americano, Barack Obama, não tem mostrado qualquer capacidade de de ter relações construtivas com a região.

“Parece-me que os americanos sentem que podem dominar a América Latina, porque sempre houve relações imperialistas entre os Estados Unidos e os países pobres”, disse Lula durante uma conferência de imprensa no Palácio Presidencial. “Essa relação tem que mudar. Eu disse a Obama que as nações da América do Sul estão organizando as suas relações econômicas de uma maneira extremamente democrática, que é semelhante aos princípios de organização da União Europeia e que os Estados Unidos devem começar a tratar as nações da América Latina com o respeito que lhes é devido como países soberanos.”

Lula disse esperar que Obama venha ao Brasil em 2011, criticando o fato de que as administrações dos Estados Unidos quase nunca usam seus altos funcionários e diplomatas mais importantes para gerir as suas relações com a América Latina.

Lula também disse que não tem ambições de ser presidente do Brasil mais uma vez. “Em 2014 eu quero Dilma para continuar a ser presidente do Brasil. É justo e legítimo que um presidente que está gerenciando o governo efetivamente deve continuar governando.”

Lula criticizes Obama and his policy for Latin America.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticized during a press conference the position of the United States toward Latin America and said the American leader, Barack Obama, has not shown any capacity to have constructive relations with the region.

“It seems to me that Americans feel they can dominate Latin America because there have always been imperialistic relationships between the United States and poor countries”, Lula said during a press conference at the Presidential Palace. “This relationship has to change. I told Obama that the nations of South America are organizing their economic relationships in a supremely democratic way that is similar to the principles of organization of the European Union and that the United States must start treating the nations of Latin America with the respect that is due them as sovereign countries.”

Lula said he hoped Obama would come to Brazil in 2011, criticizing the fact that administrations of the United States almost never use their senior officials and most important diplomats to manage their relations with Latin America.

Lula also said that he had no ambitions to be the president of Brazil once again. “In 2014 I want Dilma to continue to be the president of Brazil. It is just and legitimate that a president who is managing the government effectively should continue governing.”

Lula evalua e summarisa omne su complimentos in le presidentia brasilian in un discurso de television pro le populo de su pais.

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, Portuguese, English)

In su ultime discurso al populo brasilian como presidente del republica, Lula diceva que durante su duo mandatos, su governamento creava 15 milliones de empleos, augmentava le salario minime per 67%, augmentava le offerta de credito a 48% del Producto Interne Brute (PIB), e elevava le reservas national a un total de quasi US$300 billiones, dece vices plus que quando ele deveniva le presidente del pais. Ille anque produceva “le major advantiamento social in le historia del pais”.

Le presidente diceva que ille esseva confidente que le nove governamento de Dilma Rousseff, que se instalara in Brasilia le prime die de januario, va a continuar a facer le progressos realisate durante su propria administration.

“Mi felicitate le plus grande es saper que nos va a ampliar omne iste conquestas. Mi fide se basa in tres fundamentos: le richessas del Brasil, le fortia de su populo, e le competentia del presidente Dilma. Illa cognosce como nemo lo que esseva facite e como expander le disveloppamento economic, social, e cultural del pais.”

Lula terminava le pronunciamento evitante revelar lo que ille facera post su presidentia.

“Non me demanda sur mi futuro, proque vos jam me ha date un grande dono. Demanda me alternativemente sur le futuro del Brasil, e crede in illo”, diceva ille. “Mi felicitate se trovara sempre attaccate al felicitate de mi populo!”

Personalmente, io crede que le historicos eventualmente concludera que Lula ha essite un del presidentes le plus importante in le historia del Brasil. Ille ha demonstrate que le expression “ordine e progresso”, que appare in le vexillo brasilian, non es parolas vacue, ma un description exacte de lo que ille ha complite durante su administration. Lula eventualmente deveniva un statista de un importantia international, e io spera que eventualmente ille devenira le secretario general del Nationes Unite!

Lula avalia e resume suas realizações na presidência do Brasil em um discurso televisionado final para o povo de seu país.

Em seu último discurso ao povo brasileiro como presidente da república, Lula disse que durante seus dois mandatos, seu governo criou 15 milhões de empregos, aumentou o salário mínimo em 67%, aumentou a oferta de crédito para 48% do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB), e elevou as reservas nacionais a um total de quase US$300 bilhões, dez vezes mais do que quando ele assumiu o cargo. Ele também acrescentou que seu governo também produziu “o maior avanço social na históia do país”.

O presidente disse estar confiante que o novo governo de Dilma Rousseff, que irá se instalar em Brasília, no dia primeiro de janeiro, vai continuar a fazer os progressos realizados durante sua própria administração.

“A minha maior felicidade é saber que vamos ampliar todas estas conquistas. Minha fé se alicerça em três fundamentos: as riquezas do Brasil, a força do seu povo e a competência da presidenta Dilma. Ela conhece, como ninguém, o que foi feito e como expandir o desenvolvimento econômico, social e cultural do país.

Lula encerrou o pronunciamento evitando revelar o que fará após a sua presidência.

“Não me perguntem sobre o meu futuro, porque vocês já me deram um grande presente. Perguntem, sim, pelo futuro do Brasil e acreditem nele”, disse ele. “Minha felicidade estará sempre ligada à felicidade do meu povo!”

Pessoalmente acredito que os historiadores irão eventualmente concluir que Lula tem sido um dos presidentes mais importantes na história do Brasil. Ele mostrou que a expressão “ordem e progresso”, que aparecem na bandeira brasileira, não é composta de palavras vazias, mas uma descrição exata do que ele realizou durante sua administração. Lula conseguiu tornar-se um estadista de porte internacional, e espero que finalmente ele vá se tornar o secretário-geral das Nações Unidas!

Lula evaluates and summarizes his accomplishments in the Brazilian presidency in a final television address to the people of his country.

In his last address to the Brazilian people as president of the republic, Lula said that during his two terms, his administration created 15 million jobs, raised the minimum wage by 67%, increased the supply of credit to 48% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and raised national reserves up to a total of almost $300 billion, ten times more than when he took office. He also added that his administration has also produced “the biggest social advance in the history of the country.”

The president said he was confident that Dilma Rousseff’s new government, which will take over the country in Brasília, on January 1, will give continuity to the progress made during his own administration.

“My greatest joy is knowing that we will continue to expand these achievements. My faith is grounded on three pillars: the riches of Brazil, the strength of its people and the powers of president Dilma. She knows, like nobody else, what has been done and and how to expand upon the overall economic, social, and cultural development of the country.

Lula ended the statement without revealing what he will do after his presidency.

“Do not ask me about my future, because you already gave me a great gift. Ask instead about Brazil’s future and believe in it,” he said. “My happiness will always always be linked to the happiness of my people!”

Personally I believe that historians will eventually conconclude that Lula was one of the most important presidents of in the history Brazil. He has shown that the expression “order and progress,” which appears on the Brazilian flag, are not empty words but an accurate description of what he has accomplished during his administration. Lula succeeded in becoming a statesman of international stature, and I hope that eventually he will become the secretary general of the United Nations!

The ten most important ways of manipulating the public, as catalogued by Noam Chomsky

This post started out with my restatement of Noam Chomsky’s list. I noticed that it drew a lot of hits, so I have been supplementing it with videos.

In the tradition of annotated bibliographies, I have written brief notes before all these videos to give you an idea of their contents. This, I hope, will help you decide whether they are worth taking the time to watch. You will note that these YouTube videos can lead to other videos. I invite you to explore them.

I intend to keep on appending new videos to this post as I discover really good ones that are reasonably well structured and clearly express some solid information, so you may want to come back to it from time to time to see what I have added to it.

Introduction to Chomsky’s ten points:

Noam Chomsky, a fearless critic of the wealthy elite that governs the United States, has compiled a list of the ten most common strategies for using the media to manipulate the people of America.

In the past our communications media have created or destroyed social movements, justified wars, tempered financial crises, and encouraged or destroyed some other ideological currents.

Chomsky has compiled a list of the ten most important tools for manipulating our media. Basically, they encourage stupidity, promote a sense of guilt, create distractions, or construct artificial problems and then magically solve them. Their principal goal is to determine what are legitimate topics and what are illegitimate ones in our public conversations about political policy.

Here are the ten most important techniques:

(1) The strategy of distraction:

The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction diverting public attention from important issues and changes controlled by our political and economic elites using the techniques of overwhelming the public with continuous distractions and insignificant information.

Distraction strategy is also essential to kill off public interest in the essential knowledge of science, economics, psychology, neurobiology, and cybernetics.

This technique also diverts public attention away from our real social problems by emphasizing matters of no real importance. The idea is to keep the public very busy, with no time to think about the most important principles and the core facts behind our social problems.

(2) The creation of problems, followed by the offer of solutions:

This method essentially emphasizes symptons while hiding underlying causes. For example, it emphasizes urban violence or the details of bloody attacks without investigating the causes of these problems. It also creates and manipulates crises that involve economics or violence to encourage the public to accept as a necessary evil the reduction of social rights or the dismantling of public services.

(3) The gradual strategy:

This basically involves gradually implementing destructive social policies which would be unacceptable if imposed suddenly on the public. That is how the the radical right’s new socioeconomic conditions were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s. They include the minimal state, privatization, precariousness, flexibility, massive unemployment, reductions in the purchasing power of wages and guarantees of a decent income. All these changes would provoke a generalized revolt if they had been applied all at once.

(4) The strategy of deferring:

Another way gain public acceptance of unpopular decisions is to present them as “painful but necessary” to gain public acceptance for their future application. This is similar to the gradual strategy. It is easier to accept future sacrifices instead of immediate slaughter–first, because the effect is not felt right away.

Later on, the public is encouraged to believe that “everything will be better tomorrow” and that future sacrifice will be unnecessary. This gives the public more time to get used to the idea of changes to their disadvantage and and their acceptance of them with resignation when the time comes. This strategy was very popular in the Soviet Union in its five-year plans, for example.

(5) Treating the public like little children:

A lot of advertising and propaganda uses childlike speech and children’s intonation, as if the viewer or listener were a little child or mentally deficient. The principle is that if people are treated as if they are twelve years old or younger, they tend to react without a critical sense the way children do.

(6) The encouragement of emotional responses over reflective ones:

This is a classical technique for short-circuiting rational analysis and encouraging critical reflection. It also opens the door to the unconscious for implanting ideas, desires, fears, anxieties, compulsions, and desired irrational behavior.

(7) Bombarding the public with trivia to keep them ignorant:

It is important to make people incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to enslave them. The quality of education given to the lower social classes is deliberately kept as poor and mediocre as possible so that they can be manipulated like sheep.

(8) Encouraging the public to be happy with mediocrity:

This involves encouraging the public to believe that it is is fashionable to be stupid, vulgar and uneducated while encouraging everyone to believe that these characteristics are the essence of the wisdom of the ages.

(9) Encouraging guilt and self blame:

This is an exceptionally perverse strategy. It involves constantly scolding people for their own misfortune because of the failure of their intelligence, their abilities, or their efforts so that they will not examine the structural defects of a social and economic system that enslaves them.

One of the most perverse controlling myths of American society is that if you work conscientiously and long enough, then you will be successful and grow rich. This does happen occasionally to some people, and their success is widely publicized in the media. The few times that this happens, all of us are constantly reminded that if these people can do this, then we can too.

Of course, if you work hard and don’t grow rich, then the problem, of course, is that you didn’t work hard enough or weren’t smart enough and ended up a loser. So no matter what happens to you, the myth remains intact, and America remains a land of opportunity and the greatest country in the world.

(10) Getting to know individual people better than they know themselves:

Over the past fifty years, scientific advances have generated a growing gap between public what the public knows and the knowledge of dominant elites. Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the “system” has gained a sophisticated understanding the physical and psychololgical nature of people. This knowledge is cynically used to manipulate the public as if they were sheep.

……………

Below is an excellent video in which Noam Chomsky briefly explains the structure of the U.S. political system and how it works:

……………

In this video Chomsky discusses how meaningless slogans such as “Support our troops in Iraq” work to prevent any real thought at all about why we are fighting there, and then he explains related ways of keeping our population from thinking about our national policies in general.

……………

Here is a video that explains how the Republican and Democratic parties prop each other up like an upside down “V” controlled by the rich in our country, enabling them to determine what are “legitimate” issues and what are not, excluding vital concerns of importance to the general public.

……………

This video is an excellent example of how conservatives and progressives prop each other up. Both would be very boring if they didn’t have antagonists.

http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=5819

(I am sorry that you will have to copy the URL of this video to get to it. For some reason, WordPress did not automatically provide a link to it because of some mysterious glitch in its software.)

……………

Scaring the people you rule: an old trick of statecraft:

It is an old trick of statecraft to scare people you rule and to divert their attention from their domestic problems by starting small foreign wars abroad that you can easily win.

An example of this is the Falkland Islands war started by the ruling Junta in Argentina in the early eighties. Here is a brief description of this war from Wikipedia:

“The Falklands War started on Friday, 2 April 1982, with the Argentine invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. Britain launched a naval task force to engage the Argentine Navy and Argentine Air Force and retake the islands by amphibious assault. The conflict ended with the Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982, and the islands remained under British control.”

One of our local newspapers in Los Angeles published a brief satirical poem in the style of a song from a Gilbert and Sullivan musical. I found it hilariously funny and impossible to forget. Here it is:

We are the lads from Argentine;
We lead the junta that’s so very mean.
We stormed the islands to seize the crude,
And diverted folks’ attention from the cost of food.
We stormed the islands so cleverly
That soon we will be fighting with the Queen’s Navy!

Anyhow, below is a video in which Noam Chomsky explains similar tactics that we used to bomb Granada, conjure up ridiculous scenarios about Nicaragua and Saddam Hussein being imminent threats to the United States, and other similar scare tactics to bamboozle the American public and take their minds off of pressing domestic issues of economic oppression:

……………

How eleven corporations control our new media, and how news stories are scripted just like commercials. Does this make you want to kick the TV habit?

……………

The following video exposes the myth of the liberal media. Basically, this myth is an instance of the big-lie technique. First you assert that the media have a liberal bias. Then you debate about the extent of that liberal bias. This keeps people from examining the companies that own the media and how they control the content produced by the media they own and hence control.

……………

Our war crimes versus others’ war crimes:

Whenever a group of people fights to overthrow an established government, if you like them, you call them freedom fighters. If you don’t like them, you call them terrorists. If you aren’t sure, then you call them guerrillas.

In the following video, Chomsky shows how our war crimes are good war crimes merely because we commit them. If they are committed by others, however, then they are bad war crimes. The very worst war crimes, of course, are the ones committed against US, no matter what we did in the past to provoke these retaliatory responses.

……………

In this video Noam Chomsky discusses the vacuity of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Basically, Obama gave us slogans like “hope,” “change,” and “unity” on which we could write whatever we wanted. As events have turned out, Obama has shown himself to be as greatly obligated to the polyarchy that governs our country as his Republican opponent and has disappointed many people who hoped for significant change in his administration. I myself feel sorry for Obama. I think he is much like someone selected to be captain of the Titanic after the ship hit the iceberg that sank it.

……………

In this video Chomsky discusses why Obama bailed out the banks (they gave even MORE money to his campaign than they gave to the Republican one). This illustrates the futility of our national elections. He then discusses other matters relating to our destructive foreign policies:

……………

In this video Chomsky comments on how campaign donations can be used to predict policy. The banking industry, as I noted previously, gave more money to Obama’s campaign than they did to McCain’s. That is why Obama has thrown so much money at the banking industry.

Chomsky also correctly predicted that the Supreme Court would give our corporations the right to buy elections directly instead of indirectly. He also discussed the absurdity of the way our legal system considers corporations to be persons but not undocumented aliens.

He also goes into the how this status of undocumented aliens as non-persons enables Democrats and Republicans to fight over who could be more severe in denying rights such as education and medical care to these people.

……………

In this video Chomsky discusses why people in the Middle East hate the United States. It involves our wanting to control oil extraction there and how we keep brutal dictatorships in power if they support us in these policies.

He notes that President Eisenhower discussed this hatred with a group of people in an effort to improve our image there. (As is typical, we considered this a public-relations problem.) At least some in the group concluded that improving our image there would be hard to do because the Arabs had valid reasons for hating us.

……………

In this Video Chomsky discusses Iran. He notes that we invaded Iraq, and that Iran is helping Iraq out. But this is no different from the help we gave the Afghanis when the Russians invaded their country.

He notes that many Americans forget that we overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran during the Eisenhower administration and installed the Shah in power. The Shah was a son of a bitch, but (as Franklin Roosevelt said about Anastasio Somoza, the brutal dictator of Nicaragua) he was OUR son of a bitch.

Chomsky notes that Americans feel that THEY own the world. So when we help kick the Russians out of Afghanistan, that’s okay. But when the Iranians help the Iraqis to kick US out of THEIR country, that is not okay.

Chomsky also notes that for us it is not okay for Iran to have the bomb. But it is okay for our ally, Israel, to have 200 of them. He also discusses other problems throughout the world involving atomic weapons.

……………

I said earlier that I feel sorry for President Obama because he is like a person elected to be captain of the Titanic after the ship hit the iceberg that sank it. Right now, we are spending our way into bankruptcy in a way the Soviet Union did before its own collapse. Dmitri Orlov, the author of “Reinventing Collapse, The Soviet Example and American Prospects” discusses this possibility/probability in this interview.

(If you want more information on Orlov, his thinking, and his publications, there is a Wikipedia article about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Orlov)

……………

In this video Dmitri Orlov compares the U.S. economy to a sinking ship with the crew diving into the engine room to try to get its diesel engines to run on seawater. The basic tasks of society will be to supply the basics, such as food, shelter, and transportation to an impoverished society. It is hard to know exactly how we will do this, but there will probably be wrenching changes as there were in Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

……………

PFC Bradley Manning called a great deal of unexpected attention to himself when he decided, on his own, to release to Wikileaks documents that should have been kept in the eyes/ears of those governmental officials who were sworn to, and privy to that information.

The psychological torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning, who has now been imprisoned for seven months without being convicted of any crime, mirrors the breaking of the dissident Winston Smith at the end of “1984.”

Manning is being held as a “maximum custody detainee” in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. He spends 23 of every 24 hours alone. He is denied exercise. He cannot have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Army doctors have been plying him with antidepressants.

The cruder forms of torture of the Gestapo have been replaced with refined Orwellian techniques, largely developed by government psychologists, to turn dissidents like Manning into vegetables.

We break souls instead of bodies. This method is much more effective, and it leaves no marks the way physical torture does. Now we can all be taken to Orwell’s dreaded Room 101 to become compliant and harmless. These “special administrative measures” are regularly imposed on our dissidents, including Syed Fahad Hashmi, who was imprisoned under similar conditions for three years before going to trial.

The techniques have psychologically maimed thousands of detainees in our black sites around the globe. They are the staple form of control in our maximum security prisons where the corporate state makes war on our most politically astute underclass: African-Americans.

Below is a video with a brief description of the conditions of Manning’s confinement:

Io ha retornate a mi apartamento.

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, English)

Io ha retornate a mi apartamento post mi intervention chirurgic cardiac.

I have returned to my apartment after my heart operation.