Delusion Fields

When Eric Arthur Blair wrote the novel 1984 he cemented himself into the Twentieth Century as one of the great writers.

It is now 2014, some thirty years from the date that was the title for this work and one has to ask the question:

Is life imitating art ?

There are some other examples of this frightening world that we live in today, such as Brave New World, Blade Runner and Soylent Green, to name a few. To reflect upon these works specifically Nineteen Eighty Four, one is left with very strong mixed emotions regarding our current situation and where we may be positioned as a species in another thirty years. Our Western culture is one of hedonistic narcissistic overindulgences and self gratification, whereby, through an insatiable appetite for consuming the latest product and or service in pathetic attempts to achieve a satisfactory level of being satiated, in a lifestyle that is shallow, false and unsustainable, we are left highly dependent upon technology and over medicated in a regime of anti-oxidant, multi-vitamin & anti-depressant pills.

The golden utopia of tomorrow is what we are spoon fed via the intravenous drip that is attached to us twenty four seven and is our pager, cell phone, tablet, laptop or flatscreen television. We gossip and discuss the most insignificant details about some individual who has randomly floated to the surface and been portrayed as a unique human, and we do this for five seconds before we dump them for the next person and or gadget. Terms such as retail therapy in our spiritual quest for happiness and the meaning of life we have accepted and made to be our best friend.

Yesterday, BTW we downloaded the latest widget that is available to us for 99 cents so that we can have a more functional easier life 24/7 but let us not get carried away here for we need to keep this post in a KISS format. CCTV for security and peace of mind so that in the event that we are raped, robbed or murdered, the authorities can peruse the footage before it goes viral on Youtube or Instagram or becomes a Tweet and maybe, just maybe goes to trial. What a sad day it is when Blade Runner is a world wide televised court room scene in the Republic of South Africa involving the manslaughter or murder of a young woman.

If we are to look at our world today and describe it in one word what one word would that be ?


The writers preference here is Hamartia as a description for the whole tragic situation and current state of affairs. The disturbing truth about describing our world today in this one word, is that it is so, through a calculated deliberate set of circumstances and not through some comedy of human errors. The tragedy is that we have become what we have become and we are left to surf this wild steep trajectory of the Twenty First Century with no social backbone of reform and we place our hopes and dreams into the hands of tyrants and technology.

When Nineteen Eighty Four was first published 1949 circa, the Great Depression and World War Two had occurred and we humans set about building a better tomorrow. Somehow we have lost the plot in where we have allowed ourselves to wander and now we are most certainly lost. Aristotle wrote about this Hamartia as a tragic flaw and indeed we humans are flawed and our history proves how vicious, complex and self absorbed we truly are as a species. Brother against brother and state against state as we live in a morally bankrupt modern world and the welfare of man is in a state of eternal conflict.

How then does the world become balanced again and move away from the dystopia that currently exists. If human beings are truly to become evolved, if we are truly to move towards a global self actualisation, then what cathartic exercises do we need to undergo or to religiously follow. The dumbing down of society has been an ongoing well orchestrated highly successful execution of oppression and population control by multi-generational power brokers from both church and state. The proletariat, us mere mortal folk who are the modern serfs, require a long term plan of strategic moves in a R evolution to take back our future and our children’s tomorrow.

 The Great Global Backlash

Nouriel Roubini |

Anaemic economic recovery has given populist parties

an opening to blame foreign trade and foreign workers

“In the immediate aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, policymakers’ success in preventing the Great Recession from turning into Great Depression II held in check demands for protectionist and inward-looking measures. But now the backlash against globalization—and the freer movement of goods, services, capital, labour, and technology that came with it—has arrived. This new nationalism takes different economic forms: trade barriers, asset protection, reaction against foreign direct investment, policies favouring domestic workers and firms, anti-immigration measures, state capitalism, and resource nationalism. In the political realm, populist, anti-globalization, anti-immigration, and in some cases outright racist and anti-Semitic parties are on the rise. These forces loath the alphabet soup of supra-national governance institutions—EU (European Union), UN (United Nations), WTO (World Trade Organization), and IMF (International Monetary Fund), among others—that globalization requires. Even the Internet, the epitome of globalization for the past two decades, is at risk of being balkanized as more authoritarian countries—including China, Iran, Turkey, and Russia—seek to restrict access to social media and crack down on free expression”.

One does not need to be violent or to wage a war against government and state. If we are truly to move forward towards a better world with equality and sustainability, then we simple ordinary citizens need to unite together as one mob, with one voice to achieve our one objective, in the utopia that we deserve and can truly create. Presently we are a fractured fragile 7,300,000,000 mob of sheep that are just surviving and when we can become a well rehearsed finely tuned and well honed collective, we shall then, not just survive, but, we shall truly live.

Freedom Liberty Egalitarian

Live it love it life… 

Peace Rock Love

So Sincerely Sorry

Sorry is the Hardest Word

This is just a preamble to Gareth Evans piece – JAN 28, 2014 4

The word alone is such a powerful concept. Just the mention of these five letters in this combination increases the heart rate in either fear or in delight. There is much associated with this word and in this first quarter of the 21st Century have we evolved as humans and become self actualised for just a nanosecond of time, enough to turn on the light.

Sorry let me check that the energy source is green first before I turn on the light. Okay now that we are using solar power to write this post my conscious is clear and so there is no need for me to say sorry for using fossil fuels in this instance. If you are an academic or professional then read on with the understanding that this is not some intellectual discourse, pseudo or otherwise.

This idea of sorry being the hardest word to say is merely one way of viewing the word and the associated ideas that go with it. If we look at the concept and idea of the word, then may it be from the opposites of fear and delight (security). In the first instance it may be from a fear perspective that we associate and perpetuate the loathing for the use of the word. May be we have been biased in such a way that through multi-generational conditioning, fear is a sign of weakness or some form of subordinate positional stance.

Then there is the possibility that one can adopt an antipodean  stance through the association of ideas like, forgiveness (Mandela) or an apology to indigenous Australians (Aborigines). The idea of ‘sorry’ being something that is part  of bridge building, negotiations, conflict mediation and resolution that is empowering, gives strength and shows wisdom is another way of relating to this word.

Sorry, have you got the time to continue reading because I refuse to say sorry here for the verbose style of this post, because it is well imbued and part of the nature of the writer. It is far easier to say sorry and feign sincerity in our modern world. Sorry for tapping your telephone or for the accidental bombing of innocent civilians. Whatever, get over it and sorry.

Sorry for the Bombing

Sincere Sorry in Silence

Sorry is the Hardest Word


Sorry expressed sincerely as an expression of guilt or remorse and in recognition of sorrow.

I’m sorry I really do not know much about saying sorry nor saying please as they are associated with a weak position out of my own fear. 

Sincerely Sorry

Sincerely Sorry

Brave Budget Behest

Lip Service



Prevention is better than cure…

heck we all know that

and prevention in the short-term may be the more expensive option.

But over the lifetime of something it may be the cheaper alternative.


Who said that there was going to be a bubble burst in America in 2017 ?


If there are systemic flaws in America will they blame the Obama era or will they leave him alone, not because he was the first African-American President but more so that he tried to make it matter and in two terms tried to make a difference.

The mid terms are coming up in America and one questions who is there to replace the current president and to take on the responsibility of leading the country through challenging turbulent seas. There is not one strong leader who can lead in America, not because there aren’t any dynamic leaders of vision and strength, but because there are other influences in America and the president is merely one person at the apex.

Budget requests & demands from a myriad of sources for all worthwhile programs from health & education to defence and cyber-security. I have no bias towards America but what I do have is a keen interest in where they are headed and how they are hopefully going to be proactive rather than reactive during the remainder of the Obama era.

What will political science academics and foreign policy analysts anticipate will be the word from the State Department & the White House during 2014 & the end of the second term ? Will it be not what is said but what is not said that will be of importance. One questions what the Middle East will look like in 2017 and will  the American people be involuntarily dragged into another global conflict.

          images (4) 


Whilst the words well delivered as they may have been by Barack Obama have a positive spin, that spin one questions.

Let us hope & pray that a dead cat bounce does not happen.


Transformative Tyranny (Tyrannosaurus rex ) Terror


Tyranny (Tyrannosaurus rex ) Terror


To change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose.

The government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.

Any period of frightful violence or bloodshed

likened to the Reign of Terror in France.

Tyrannosaurus Rex  –  A large, carnivorous dinosaur that walked on two legs. 

Its name is from the Greek words meaning “tyrant” and “lizard”and the Latin word for “king.”


The African Union has member states which comprise Saharan and Sub Saharan countries – http://www.au.int/en/member_states/countryprofiles

( no guarantee accuracy of information )

The history of African countries can be divided into three periods.

Pre Colonisation – Colonisation – Decolonisation.


During the Scramble for Africa in the late nineteenth century, Western European powers divided Africa and its resources into political partitions at the Berlin Conference of 1884-85. By 1905, control of almost all African soil was claimed by Western European governments, with the only exceptions being Liberia (which had been settled by African-American former slaves) and Ethiopia (which had successfully resisted colonization by Italy). Britain and France had the largest holdings, but GermanySpainItalyBelgium, andPortugal also had colonies. As a result of colonialism and imperialism, Africa lost not only its sovereignty, but also control of its natural resources like gold and rubber. Europeans often justified this using the concept of the White Man’s Burden, an obligation to “civilize” the people of Africa.[citation needed]

Critics say that the process of African decolonization from the 1950s to the 1970s turned what were relatively well-ordered and peaceful territories administered by the efficient bureaucracies and legal traditions of the Western European empires into violent, inefficient and corrupt socialist dictatorships or right-wing family dictatorships with little regard for international rule of law and human rights and riddled with civilturf wars, barbaric political purges, mass refugee crises, famines and ethnic conflict.[2] –



Decolonisation and a brief look at Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) post Mugabe 2014. It must be noted here that this is not a diatribe regarding either the country or the current leader of Zimbabwe.

It is a brief look at the future and there are several possible scenarios for Zimbabwe, from peaceful to armed conflict.

His Excellency Robert Gabriel Mugabe the President of Zimbabwe is the only president of Zimbabwe, since it gained independence from Britain in 1980.

Right now, two broad factions are thought to be jockeying for position. The moderates, led by vice-president Joyce Mujuru, dominate key positions within the party leadership and seem to have significant grassroots support. The hardliners, under the direction of perennial eminence grise Emmerson Mnangagwa (now the justice minister), have the advantage of ruthlessness and a tight grip on the all-important security services.

In July 2013 Zimbabwe held an election that saw the current ZANU-PF (Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front) government retain power under the leadership of Mugabe. The opposition party MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) no longer has the possibility of being an effective opposition party, relegated to spending time lost in the political wilderness. There currently is no opposition party to the current government.  http://www.zanupf.org.zw/

H.E. R.G. Mugabe is about to turn 90 years of age in one month and whilst there are those who believe that he is mightier than Jesus Christ because we are still waiting for Christ’s return, Mugabe has died and been resurrected many times. We are mortal and there will come a time when the news will report the passing of ‘Cde Bob’. It is this period that is of concern to political analysts because of the ineffectiveness in Zimbabwe of the African Union & S.A.D.C.

The Republic of South Africa under the current Zuma government is facing an election this year and it is probable that the current government will not be retained. There are external influences that will not be discussed here because they are classified and not for general broadcast. These vested external influencing factors are far greater than the African Union and involve China, Russia & Brasil along with some other countries.

Currently there are far bigger global strategic defence issues that take a priority such as these examples – South China Seas, Syria, South Sudan, Egypt, Iraq and others not mentioned.

This year is the year to build bridges. The Western media portrays Zimbabwe in a certain way and we therefore have a preconceived notion of what the country is like. What do you know about Zimbabwe and have you ever visited the country ?

One questions why the Australian & American governments do not do more to reach out to Zimbabwe and to work in a collaborative and consultative approach to assist in the transition that will take place at some stage.

The are three ‘T’ words in the heading of this post which were used to gain attention and there are also three ‘T’ words that could have been selected…Truth, Trust & Transparency.

History will be the only way of knowing the future of Zimbabwe and H.E. R.G. Mugabe will be recorded as the freedom fighter who lead the country out of the colonial repression that existed under the Ian Smith government.




The following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s34zjI77_TQ

is recommended by the writer as background noise.

The new American Idol: Should the US rule the world?

A new article makes the case for the US as the world’s de facto government.

It might not have seemed necessary in the 21st century to ask or answer such a ridiculous question. After all, European colonialism, in the last half of the prior century, collapsed politically, morally, and even legally. Its pretensions were thoroughly exposed and totally discredited. As well, the Soviet empire fell apart.

And yet there are those who muster the temerity to insist that – even now – it is the US’ global governing authority that enables the degree of security and prosperity in the world today. Not surprisingly, the proponents of this conception of world order as dependent on US military, economic, diplomatic, and ideological capabilities are themselves American. It is even less surprising that the most articulate celebrants of this new variant of a self-serving and totalising imperial approach to security and prosperity are situated either in US academic institutions or in its principal media outlets.

I consider Michael Mandelbaum to be the most unabashed and articulate advocate of this American “global domination project” that he felicitously calls “the world’s de facto government”. He champions this role for his country in book after book. Recently Mandelbaum has restated his argument in a short essay, “Can America Keep Its Global Role?” that appears in the January 2014 issue of Current History. His thesis is straightforward: “[The US] provides to the whole world, not only its allies, many of the services that governments furnish to the countries they govern.” Or more simply, “…the US stands alone as the world’s de facto government.”

[The US] provides to the whole world, not only its allies, many of the services that governments furnish to the countries they govern.- Michael Mandelbaum

Unappreciative masses?

It is crucial to take note of the claim that, unlike past empires and hegemonic states, the US alone has undertaken a systemic orstructural role, and is not to be understood as serving only those states that are allied by friendship, values, and binding arrangements. In this respect this novel form of world government, although administered from its statist headquarters in Washington, claims to be meta-political, and should be appreciated by all as promoting the betterment of humanity. It is a cause of some wonderment, then, to account for polling results from around the world that indicate, time and again, that the US is viewed as the most dangerous country from the perspectives of peace and justice.  It would seem from the Mandelbaum worldview that “They just don’t know how lucky they are!”

What makes Mandelbaum so cocky about the beneficence of the US’ global role? It is essentially the conviction that it is US military power underwriting the established order that avoids wars and protects countries against aggressive behaviour by states with revisionist foreign policy goals. More concretely, Europe can rest easy because of the US military presence, while Russia as well, can be assured that Germany will not again seek to conquer its territory as it tried to do twice in the last century. Similarly in the East Asian setting, China is deterred from imposing its will regionally to resolve island and territorial disputes, while at the same time being reassured that Japan will not again unleash an attack upon the Chinese mainland.

There is some plausibility to such speculation, but it seems more like the dividend of alliance relationship in a historical setting when recourse to war as a solvent for international conflicts seems more and more dysfunctional. And it doesn’t pretend to work with a rogue ally such as Israel, which seems willing to attack Iran whether or not the White House signals approval.

The complementary claim about providing a template for global economic prosperity is also misleading at best, and likely flawed. The US presides over a neoliberal world order that has achieved economic growth but at the price of persisting mass poverty, gross and widening inequalities, unsustainable consumerism, cyclical instability, and a rate of greenhouse gas emissions that imperils the human future.

Beyond this, the US’ role is praised for using its capabilities “to counteract the most dangerous trend in twenty-first century security affairs: the spread of nuclear weapons to countries and non-state actors that do not have them and would threaten the international order if they did”. What is not mentioned by Mandelbaum, and suggests strongly the absence of anything resembling “world government” is the inability of existing global policy mechanisms, whether under US or other auspices, to solve pressing collective goods problems.

I would mention several: poverty, nuclear weaponry, fair trade, and climate change. Neither imperial guidance nor the actions of state-centric policymaking initiatives have been able to serve the human or global interest. This would demand, at the very least, nuclear disarmament, enforceable restraints on carbon emissions, and the end of agricultural subsidies in North America and Europe.

Somehow, the politics of self-determination and procedural democracy are fine for state/society relations, but when it comes to governing the world democracy it is quite okay to base the system on global authoritarianism.

Myopic vision of the world

Mandelbaum, and similar outlooks that conflate national and global interests, seem blind to the tensions between what is good for the US and its friends and what is good for the world and its peoples. And no more serious blindness, or is it merely acute myopia, exists than does the Mandlebaum contention that the greatest danger from nuclear weapons arises from those political actors that do not possess them rather than from those that have used such weaponry in the past, and continue to deploy nuclear weapons in contexts of strategic concern. One can only wonder about the absence of the word “drone” in Mandelbaum’s account of why the world should be grateful for the way the US globally projects its power!

There are additional difficulties with Mandelbaum’s global vision, including a glaring internal contradiction. He praises the US for exerting a pro-democracy influence throughout the world. While this praise is partially deserved, it, however, fails to note either the inconsistencies in its application or the complete failure to consider the consent of the peoples and other governments in relation to US de facto world government.

I doubt that there would be many supporters of the Mandelbaum prescriptions for governing the world in Moscow and Beijing despite the benefits that are supposedly bestowed upon Russia and China. Somehow, the politics of self-determination and procedural democracy are fine for state/society relations, but when it comes to governing the world democracy, it is quite okay to base the system on global authoritarianism.

In depicting the future, Mandelbaum calls our attention to three scenarios that bear on his thesis. In what he calls “the most favourable of these”, those that have most to gain, namely, Europe and Japan would assist the US, and lighten the burdens of world government. Such a prospect is really thinly disguised alliance-oriented, although in a presumably less conflictual global setting. He does not view this future as the most likely one. The least favourable would be a challenge from China that would induce a return to balance of power world order in which countervailing alliances would produce a security system that resembled international relations during the Cold War.

Status quo

Mandelbaum, nonetheless, assumes that the Chinese are too wily to opt for such a risky future. What he views, as most likely, is a continuation of the present arrangements without great help from allies or much hindrance from adversaries. The unknown, that he does acknowledge, is whether the American public will continue to finance such a system of world government given its setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as growing domestic pressures to cut public spending and reduce taxes in response to the burdens of a rapidly ageing population.

It is well to appreciate that this new discourse of imperial duty and prerogative is framed as a matter ofglobal scope. This is genuinely new. Yet it is quite old. Throughout the evolution of modernity, the West has always cast itself in the role of being the saviour of the whole of humanity. In the colonial era this gift to humanity was described as the “white man’s burden” or proclaimed to be the “civilising mission” of the West. As those living in the global south are well aware, this lofty language provided the rationale a variety of forms of violent exploitation of the non-West. For Mandelbaum is offering the world a new rationale for Western dominance under the heading of “de facto world government”. It purports to be a service institution for the world. It is nowhere acknowledged that a disproportionate amount of the violence, militarism, and appropriation of resources and wealth emanates from the US.

If persuaded by Mandelbaum’s argument, the peoples of the world and their leaders should be grateful that the US is shouldering the responsibilities of governing the world. I would expect that the more likely emotion of non-American readers is to be dismissive, and to wonder how such arrogance can withstand the facts that this pretence of US guardianship of global interests has so little positive to show for itself in recent decades.

Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

The above article is from:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/new-american-idol-should-us-rule-world-201411852842910837.html  (18 Jan 2014 )

If America is no longer capable of maintaining its position in the world then who will be the ‘New World Order’ ?

This is the first quarter of the 21st Century. Is this merely a transitional period between war and peace ?