It's not the guns, it's the culture

So two days ago two American policemen shot and killed a boy carrying a plastic toy gun. The policemen were probably all trigger happy because of the recent Nevada school shooting where a pupil went on a shooting spree, thinking that this boy was also on his way to do something similar.

There is something really out of whack in America. I mentioned at the beginning of the year about America's "gun-threat": the case of a kindergarten kid getting in trouble for blowing bubbles with a toy bubble "gun", a 6-year old boy getting suspended for making a "gun gesture" with his fingers, and a fifth grader getting in trouble for having a paper "gun".

Now I'm not trying to make light of the recent school shootings, but let's get it clear -- it is not because of guns. There are many countries in the world with lots of access to guns, yet kids don't go on shooting sprees.  Take South Africa for instance, where illegal guns are rampant, but I can't remember any case of a mass killing by a pupil. In fact, mass killings are quite uncommon in South Africa -- a country infamous for its high violent crime rate. Or think of Switzerland. Time Magazine reports:

Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.

These killing sprees are therefore not a gun thing. It is, it would seem, a culture thing. Something else is at play in America. Possibly a culture of violence.

The philosopher John Kozy explains it as follows in his essay Violence: The American Way of Live:

The United States of America was conceived and nurtured by violence.
Americans not only engage in violence, they are entertained by it.
Killing takes place in America at an average of 87 times each day. Going to war in Afghanistan is less dangerous than living in Chicago.
The Romans went to the Coliseum to watch people being killed. In major cities, Americans just look out their windows. Baseball, once America’s national game, a benign, soporific sport, has been replaced by football which is so violent it destroys the brains of those who play it. Violent films, euphemized as action flicks, dominate our motion picture theatres and television sets. Our children play killing video games.
So do you really believe that gun control will miraculously make America into a tranquil nation? Do you really believe that outlawing products and practices will make Americans peace loving? A culture cannot be changed by laws, change requires a sustained effort over several generations. Are Americans  up to the task?

Sorry to give the spoiler to his essay, but Kozy doubts that Americans can change such a deeply ingrained culture. It just worries me, though, because the USA is a cultural trendsetter and their most prominent export is pop-culture.

And the increased police brutality is scaring me. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?!

No Child For Sale

No Child For Sale infographic by AndrewDavies.

Mmm . . .

James Madison (1751–1836)

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance.” ― James Madison

Want to know what is wrong with the world economy? Just listen to James Madison, the fourth president of the United States of the America, and “Father of the Constitution”.

The North Korean Threat

Image Source

A number of concerned family and friends have been texting me, asking what the situation here in Korea is like--if I am safe? So I decided to quickly respond in this post.

The first important thing to realize is that the two countries are technically still at war. However, since 1953 when the countries agreed on a seize fire, the peninsula has been relatively peaceful. Of course there had been the occasional incident, just to underscore the point that the two countries are still at it, but has been mostly symbolic rather than truly serious. Particularly North Korea has felt a need to bark up the tree every so often. I guess it is good for their suffocating economy and every dictator knows it helps to keep the masses in check if you keep them focused on an outside threat. It is not altogether different from what even democracies are doing, for instance America's constant focus on the terrorist threat.

Regardless of North Korea's recent war talks, in both South Korea and North Korea life is continuing on as usual--whatever "life as usual" means for these two countries respectively. In South Korea it means that people are still going to work early and coming home late, the K-Pop stars are still dancing provocatively, and kimchi is still eaten by the tons. The new South Korean president has issued a statement that South Korea would unwaveringly retaliate to any North Korean attack if it occurs, but that is to be expected of a leader, and especially of a new one. President Park was only elected a few months ago. She also said that girls that show too much skin in their daily fashions will get a $50 fine. Politicians say many things about many things.

Basically, I'm not too concerned and I don't think my life is in any more danger than it would have been had I lived in South Africa. In fact, I think South Korea is by and large much safer than South African, even with the North Korean threat.

Now, it is not wholly impossible for war to occur. America and South Korea's joint military exercises are definitely displays of threat, which is putting the jittery North Korea on edge. Particularly the United States' stealth bombers which had been flying over the Korean peninsula of late could cause a trigger-happy, insecure boy-dictator to act irresponsible. Whether the North Korean leader is indeed trigger-happy and insecure I do not know. I doubt he is stupid though. He must know that a war would be the end of him. American and South Korean forces far out weigh North Korea's outdated arsenal of weapons and a war would mean the end of the Kim-regime just as the Iraqi war meant the end of Saddam Hussein.

So what would make me sit upright in my chair? Well, if North Korea suddenly expel or imprison the South Korean workers at the Kaesong Industrial Region. This is basically an industrial complex just north of the North Korea-South Korea border (i.e. in North Korea). North Koreans and South Koreans both work at the industrial complex. The moment we see North Korea shut down the complex, or deny South Korean workers access, or imprison South Koreans at the complex--that is when I will worry about war on the peninsula. Since the industrial complex started in 2003, production there has not stopped even during the most tumultuous back-and-forth bickering between the two countries.

The latest news is that it is still "Business as Usual at the Kaesong Industrial Park", although some say that there is some tension in the air.

Another element that could also suggest actual trouble is China's reaction. China is North Korea's main and probably only ally. This means that China has the best insight into North Korean politics. Beijing and Pyongyang also have a defense treating, so that the one would come to the other's aid in time of war. What is worrying is that China has been sending military towards the North Korean border since the middle of March. In other words, China is backing up its promise to aid North Korea in a time of war. What we are seeing here is both the United States of America and China are showing solidarity to their allies. If war action were to take place in Korea, it would be a world war, not merely a local war, affecting everyone around the world.

Which Francis?

Image Source

The new Bishop of Rome has chosen the name Pope Francis I. Most commentators assumes that he chose this name in honour of St Francis of Assisi, but I am doubtful. The new Pope is a member of the Jesuit Order founded by Ignatius of Loyola. In the early Jesuit Order there were six prominent figures, one of them was Francis Xavier, a co-founder of the Jesuit Order, and later to be canonized as Saint Francis Xavier. If the new Pope was going to name himself after a Francis, it is more than likely after his Jesuit ancestor St Francis Xavier, someone from his own order, rather than St Francis of Assisi founder of the Franciscans, another order. The Jesuits are extremely loyal.

Does it matter whether he named himself after St Francis of Assisi or after St Francis Xavier? Well, anyone that knows a bit about the Jesuit Order will tell you that it surely does matter. We live in exciting times.

Then again, I may be wrong . . .

Government Is Like Fire

Not too long ago I re-posted a tweet by Gerald Celente on another social network site I use for family and familial friends. Nearly immediately people asked me about it. I guess mostly because of the tone of the post—I practically never voice negative comments, trying instead to share my life in a positive manner.

This is what Gerald Celente tweeted:

@geraldcelente How disheartening & disgusting. Otherwise functional adults still believe in phony political religions & worship their 2-bit political gods. 

There is no particular reason why I reposted this other than that I agree with Mr Celente. I find it very sad that people still actually have faith that their politicians are going to save them. How long will it take for people to realize that there are nothing special about politicians? They are very flawed and selfish, just like the rest of us. We need not, in fact we should not, look up to them. Anyone with the ambition to become a politician is not to be trusted. Their ambition is often a reflection of their megalomania. People who want to rule over other people are the worst kind of people to have as rulers.

By extension, just as we cannot trust politicians, we cannot trust governments, for governments are merely institutionalized politicians. I'm not saying that we ought not have governments. Unfortunately governments are a necessary evil. However, I am adamant that we ought not trust governments, especially not those types of government who has this silly notion that they are there to “govern”. The only government that is remotely trustworthy—and I say this with a bad taste in my mouth—is the one that knows its place, which is to serve the people, not govern the people. That is why we call people working in government public servants. Any other type of government should be feared and put in its place.

Government is like fire. It is very useful as long as it is strictly confined to its place of purpose: the fireplace, the stove-top, the lantern. In all these cases it has a particular function and is specifically controlled. The moment the fire moves outside of purposefully limiting borders it must to be quenched with absolute determination and resolution, otherwise it will become all-consuming and destructive. And even while it is functioning within its assigned borders it must at all times be considered as dangerous and watched closely. And it seems, I'm not the first person to thinks so. While searching online for an appropriate picture to include with this post I found to my surprise that George Washington made the exact same analogy:

Image Source

The Gun-Threat

You know that this gun-law thing is going crazy when you see news like this:

• A 6-year old boy gets suspended for making a gun gesture with his fingers.
• A 5th grader gets into trouble for being in the possession of a paper "gun".
• A kindergartner is suspended for using a bubble blower "gun".

By the way, that girl blowing bubbles was ordered to get psychological evaluation during her suspension. For blowing bubbles! Get this, this toddler, speaking about shooting another kid with bubbles with her pink Hello Kitty Bubblegun is accused of "terrorist threatening". And I thought I had a master's degree in Creative Writing! Seriously, it is so bizarre it ought to be part of some sci-fi short story anthology. The idea that a toddler blowing bubbles is equated with terrorist activities is warning us of a civilization gone mad. I don't know if I should laugh at the absurdity or cry at the ludicrousness. 

Gay Marriage and the Separation of Church and State

Image Source

Gay marriage is a hot topic these days, in particular in the United States where the issue will be decided upon by the Supreme Court. So herewith, my two cents:

Personally I think this is a matter where there is confusion between the powers and authority of Church-and-State and that this issue is one that mixes Church-and-State. The United States was built on the idea of the Separation of Church and State, something I especially support. The history of mankind is full of examples of the evils that result when a proper distance between Church powers and State powers is not adhered to.

Why do I say this whole marriage controversy is a Separation of Church and State issye? I say so because there is confusion between the religiously sanctioned marriage covenant, and the state sanctioned civil union. See, in the past the clergy would announce something like this: “By the authority invested in me by God, I now pronounce you Husband and Wife.” The clergy has the authority to oversee a covenant between three parties: the couple towards each other, and the couple towards God. Their marriage is a covenant, a sacred promise, that they make to each other and to God. Somehow, this covenant became mixed up with a legal contract between partners that is enforced by law where a government official can declare: “By the authority invested in me by the State, I now pronounce you legally bound.” For some reason, the civil union became a “civil marriage” where the government official could “marry” couples and clergy could “legally bind” couples. It is this concept of a “civil marriage” which I disagree with because it brings together a legal contract (“civil union”) with a religious covenant (“marriage”) and pretends as if they are the same thing, which they are not. A civil union, which is a legal contract, is based on the authority of an earthly government, the State. While a marriage is based on the authority of a religious system, God. The two ought to stay separate functions.

How do I feel about homosexual marriages? Well, the same way I feel about heterosexual civil unions. They are two separate couplings (one being a legal contract and the other a religious covenant) that should or should not be obliged by the separate authorities that oversees such matters. You do not need one to have the other—i.e. you can get married during a religious ceremony or you can get a civil union by signing a legally binding contract, or you can do both. If you want to be legally bound to someone, then you should get a civil union. This is a legal contract between two parties and it doesn't differ in any way from any other legal contract between two parties, whether they are of a personal nature or a business nature. If you want to make a religious covenant with another person, then go to the religious authority that oversee and condone the type of covenant you wish to make, and if one sect (i.e. one denomination) doesn't condone your coupling, find one (another denomination) that does. And in truth, depending on your religion, you don't even need to have a clergy present. Two people can by themselves make a covenant between themselves and God—no clergy or government authority need to be involved—it is a matter of the heart.

In short: People, regardless of their sexuality that want to be legally bound to each other should sign a legal contract by getting a civil union. Similarly, people that want to make a religious promise of fidelity towards each other, should engage in a marriage covenant. Keep the Separation of Church and State by keeping these two matters distinct.

Read a thought provoking article by a gay man who is against gay marriage, here.

So what do you think is happening over there with Palestine and Israel?

And what you hear in the news all the time is that Israel as a sovereign right to protect itself. From whom? And what about other nations?

Nobel Peace Prize -- Shameful

I don't usually use this blog for political comment. I have another platform for that. However, I'm just aghast with the direction the Norwegian Nobel Committee is moving in. It is as if they have completely lost their moral compass. How can they offer the peace prize the European Union? This is the same organization that is run by the international bankers who are basically enslaving Europe, where independence and democracy has practically become non-existence. The real democracy we are seeing in the EU are the millions of people rioting in the streets against the crisis created by the banking oligarchs. And when the people protest they are bludgeoned by riot police. Is this the type of peace the Nobel Peace Prize is given to? Apparently the prize was given to the European Union for its commitment to peace in Europe; clearly a very myopic view of peace, for how dare we forget the powerful EU countries that have been involved in wars over the past decades. Is France and England's involvement with the United States in the ungrounded attacks on Afghanistan so quickly forgotten?

Of course, after the previous rediculous nomination of the Peace Prize to someone that has not yet contributed to any actual peace, what can we expect?! If the Nobel Peace Prize stands for anything of value, it ought to revoke President Obama's Nobel award, for not only has he failed to discontinue the wars he promisted to bring to an end, he has actually increased America's wars -- starting one in Lybia and expanding one into Pakistan.

Clearly the Nobel Peace Prize has become nothing but a sham. Maybe this is what it had been all along, I was just too enammered with the idea to see it before. But after the last two laureattes, even the blind can see that the Norwegian Nobel Committee are merely acting as spin doctors for a global elite.

I'm disgusted!

I promise my next post will be on something of little consequence. Like the concerts I attended this past week.

Such Brave Macho Policemen

I remember when I was in school—probably the early years of high school—we had to give a presentation about the occupation we wanted to pursue one day. I wanted to be a nano-engineer. My best friend at the time, Keith McKenzie, wanted to be a microbiologist. “Small things interest great minds,” he used to say and one doesn’t get much smaller than microbiology and nano-engineering.


But there was a clear pattern I recognized in what the other boys wanted to be, particularly the bullies, delinquents, and the generally scholastically inept boys: they wanted to be policemen. Reading the news, I have to conclude that a noticeable percentage of the type of people that goes into the police force is indeed these types of people—people driven by their lust for power over others, people that want to be in positions of authority in order to continue their bullying.

Image Source

Take these examples from the news: In England police tasered a blind man, in America an 8-month pregnant woman was tasared after using expletives towards a cop, and lets not forget the cop that kicked a pregnant women recently after she complained when her sibling got tasered. Oh, and did you hear about the man that got tasered for having a seizure?! The police commanded him to keep still, but having a seizure attack he was obviously not able to do so, so they just went ahead and electricuted him. The victim (and I'm using the word "victim" deliberately) suffered a heart attack and brain damage from this ordeal. Wow these are such tough strong manly men. They taser blind people, the pregnant, and the sick. They really make me feel safe now! Thank you brave Mr. Policeman for protecting me from those dangerous blind, pregant, and physically ill people! (Pardon my sarcasm, but this is really getting to me.)

Then there are all the police brutality towards protestors around the world (e.g. Greece, Egypt, Kuwait, Kosovo, Indonesia, Multan, and many other places). South Africa, my country of origin, has made the headlines recently over police brutality during a protest by miners that turned violent. (Here is a synopsis of the mining unrest in South Africa; and here is an overview of police brutality in the South African context.)

There is much that can be said about police brutality—there are many contextual factors that should be kept in mind. I'm not saying that police ought not at times opt for a more hands-on, i.e. violent, option. However, I honestly think that one variable that cannot be ignored is that a significant percentage of the people attracted to this career is not in it because they have a profound sense of justice and wish to keep the peace, but rather because they have a power fetish and get off from exerting their authority over others.

"God Bless this Mess" -- Sheryl Crow

The Group

I try to think the best of people. I'm sad to admit that it is not always easy and not something I have always done with a fair amount of consistency, but I'm glad that I'm improving. As Joyce Meyer is fond of saying: "I'm not where I ought to be, but thank God I'm not where I used to be!" So at an interpersonal level I can say that I'm not really a judgemental type of person. I try to accept people for who they are regardless of their religions, creeds, and what not. It is, I think, partly this reason why I have so many diverse friends, ranging from atheists to religious folks; from Catholics to Protestants to followers of Islam or Wicca or Buddhism; from artists to mechanical engineers to philosophers to artisans. 


Yet while I can love diverse individuals, I often find myself much less optimistic of humanity as a whole, and of political powers in particular. I see humanity as innately selfish, and politicians (as the figureheads of groups) as inherently power-hungry mongrels that ought to be distrusted. There is therefore a peculiar paradox at play: individual humans I accept, but groups of humans banded together I mistrust. 


Why exactly this is the case I do not know, but it is a motif that I recognise in myself as something that is taken over into various contexts. I enjoy individual sports, but not group sports. I enjoy intimate social moments with friends (one, two, three people), but am not very fond of big parties. I value individuality and praise people that dare stand out from the crowd, but am disappointment with all the "sheeple" that just follow the popular streams. 


My distaste in the "group" may have started very early. I remember for example instances when I was still at school and having very civil and pleasant one-on-one conversations with a fellow schoolmate, just to have this person turn into a bully when in a group -- a type of menacing wolf-pack mentality that brings out the worst in a person. Think of football hooligans who are often separately nice individuals, but turn into crazed bastards when they are part of the mob. For similar reasons I distrusts fraternities, political parties, religious groups, and so on. Any congregation that creates a homogeneous entity where the individual is assimilated into the group and the group becomes the new grand organism makes me feel uneasy.


Yet, with all my aversion to the group, I know that the group is not all evil. Sometimes groups are good: People do sometimes come together for a shared altruistic goal. I love music and music is often the result of people working as a group together. It is of course significant that I should especially love jazz music, where the individual musicians never give up their individuality, nevertheless, there are positive groups, of which music and the arts abound. I know of groups of people that raise money for charity, to build houses for the poor, or schools or hospitals. Spontaneous groups of people that come together in times of crisis to help one another. 


What should be the difference in these altruistic groups, and those other groups? In part, I guess, it is the we-against-them attitude that so often occur with a group. What makes a group a group is that the group-members should share something, some identifiable trade. Something that makes the group different from people that are not part of the group. This focus on difference is often the cause for the antagonism against anything that is not the same. The magic of an altruistic group seems to be an outward focus, rather than an inward focus. A group that comes together to build a school in a rural community is not focussed on themselves and what makes them unique, but is outward focussed. Their goal is altruistically other-focussed. Unfortunately my disapproval of groups is based on the fact that there really are so few altruistically other-focussed groups. Most groups are formed with an inward focussed attitude and selfish goals.


As an outsider living in a group-oriented society like I do (here in Korea), one gets to perceive the interesting nature of groups. One get to see the ugliness of groups, but also the encouraging characteristics of groups. Like is often the case in real life, groups are not all evil or all good. I often say that I have a love-hate relationship with Korea, I guess in part because there are aspects of Korean culture and society that often irks me up the wrong way, but then there are other aspects of the culture that is heart warming to see and experience. 


Although it will still take a very long time before I get over my near reflexive distrust of the group, I am slowly learning to accept that groups can be forces of good, that groups are not necessarily always the sandboxes of devils. The spirit of a group may very well be guided by angels, by altruistic principles, too.

Hacked . . . uhm, no cracked . . . and back online

One of my websites got hacked recently.

It is not a particularly damaging hack; it merely replaced the entry page with the hacker's signature page. There are two things I find peculiar about this. The first is that this hacker (which in my opinion is merely an amateur cracker) should decide to graffiti this particular website. The vandalized webpage is the long term project I'm working on, Literary Terminology, which is an open encyclopaedia dedicated to literary terms and theories. The project is in its first phase which is in Afrikaans, but will eventually be expanded to Dutch and English. The reason I find this attack strange is because hackers (real ones, not amateur crackers) live by an ethical code, known as the Hacker's Ethic -- one I also subscribe to.

Part of the Hacker's Ethic is the free and open dissemination of information. This is exactly what LiteraryTerminology.Com is about -- providing free quality information. I therefore see this attack as a childish one by a cracker, not a hacker. This "hacker" is definitely not one, I believe, worthy of using the Guy Fawkes mask that is used by Anonymous supporters, which he so proudly pasted on my front page.

The quasi-anarchist in me is quite in favour of the Anonymous when for challenging the world's corrupt and dictatorial governmental regimes and for fighting for Internet freedom. The hacktivist group known as Anonymous act within the Hacker's Ethic. They wouldn't attack a site like mine. First of all, LiteraryTerminology.Com does not really present anything offensive to their sensibility -- nothing for them to became activistic about, and secondly, this website is not connected to any government organization. Basically, we are too small a fish for them to bother with. And we are in fact standing for exactly what Anonymous propagates, the free access to information. Even though LiteraryTerminology.Com has still not officially launched and is still in it's first phase of construction (there is not even a logo yet!), students in South Africa have already started to use it as an Afrikaans source of information on literary terms and theories -- and it is probably the only such dedicated source on all of the internet!

So in short, I believe this "hacker" is only a wannabe Anonymous-member. Interestingly enough, I know that the hacker is probably a 21 year old kid from Saudi Arabia. (Do Saudis have something against Literary Theory in Afrikaans?) I know his probable nationality because he is so proud of hacking into my little website, that he posted it on YouTube to show off his awesome hacking ability and his YouTube profile states his age and country of origin.



At around 0:50 you can see him google for LiteraryTerminology.Com, click on the link, and then show his audience the hacked page with his signature and even email address. Of course I emailed him, just to question his clear misunderstanding of the Hacker's Ethic.

Being in the middle of grading exam papers and simultaneously working on the page layout for a magazine I really don't have the time to try and figure out how to fix the page, so I made a temporary "under construction page" and then thankfully a friend of mine quickly stepped in and easily fixed the problem by replacing some files. (Thanks Franco!)

Things are back to normal over at the LiteraryTerminology.Com -- but there are still more work to be done in the first Afrikaans phase of the project. There are still more literary terms that we have that need to included, and general quality checks that need to be done, and some of the information is outdated and need to be updated. The next phase will be a simultaneous one of adding material we have from Dutch and then starting a cross-translation. The third phase would be to translate the material in English, where upon we will reassess the project. I've been busy on this project for about 3 years now, and a little hiccup like the recent one is not about to stop it. I pray that God will prevent any serious problems preventing us from finishing this useful project. 

Bop Chapman Died

I've been following Bop Chapman, editor of the International Forecaster for a number of years. While I'm not an avid reader of financial and economic trends, I do like to stay abreast of world movements and therefore seek out critical thinkers like the late Bop Chapman. I'm not a subscriber to the International Forecaster, but I did make it a habit of finding and listening to Bop Chapman interviews.

Chapman had been in the international investment arena for many decades and were tied in with very powerful people that included presidents of countries and business tycoons. What we could "learn from Bop Chapman", as one blogger puts it is that "banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs and a handful of other big banks are the tip of the iceberg of an illuminist corporate cabal . . ." Another blogger states: "We have to honor those who endured making huge sacrifices, attempts on their lives, who were ridiculed and ostracized exposing the global elite and their corrupt system." Chapman was one of these . . . having had attempts at his life on more than one occasion.


SBWire summarizes Chapman's basic economic legacy as follows:

Bob Chapman, who was known for his accurate predictions recommended investors move their money to safety. Bob recommended that people allocate a third of savings into precious metals, such as silver and gold non-numismatic bullion coins. He believed that by moving money into hard assets, an investor will be able to save the purchasing power of their dollar. By holding gold and silver this will prevent the loss of assets due to the depreciating fiat currency. Fiat currencies have an inverse relationship with precious metals. As the dollar is devalued, silver and gold prices increase. No currency has ever lasted more then eighty years and all currencies eventually meet their demise.

Chapman's predictions of gold trading, along with some other trend researchers that I follow, had been motivational in me advocating investing in gold as well, and if you did so, you would have made a good profit by now. There may be a downturn in gold, but with QE3 looming, gold is sure to increase in value once more. His and the information provided by others have also been the source of some of my own decision making, for instance causing me to travel some places instead of other places in order to avoid unnecessary conflict and loss of money. If nothing else, he inspired me to live more frugally in these economically and politically unstable times.

I cannot pretend to have had any emotional attachment to Mr. Chapman -- to me he was just a wise oracle that I listened to on radio shows about once a week. I will definitely miss his sensible insights though. And while I did not know him, like anybody that have lost a dear one, I can empathize with his family and wish them well.

US & ROK Soldiers Parachuted into North Korea?

Image Source

So there are two articles out there. The one news report says that the commander of US special forces in South Korea, Army Brigadier General Neil Tolley, admitted to sending in a combined team of US special forces and South Korean special forces into North Korea to gather intelligence about underground military installations. In another news report, Colonel Jonathan Withington from the US Forces Korea' public affairs office denied this, saying that "No US or ROK (Republic of Korea) forces have parachuted into North Korea" and that Brigadier General Tolley had been quoted out of context.

Which is it?

North Korea is Changing: USBs & K-Pop

Image Source

I have for a very long time believed that reunification between North Korea and South Korea is very unlikely and growing increasingly improbable as time goes by. My chief reason for thinking so is because the two countries have hardly any cross-pollination, causing them to drift further and further apart culturally. The results is that although North Koreans and South Koreans share genetics, otherwise they are becoming increasingly different. In only the number of years I have lived in South Korea I can see a difference in how Korea was in 2006 (the first time I came to Korea) and now six years later. If a culture can change so much in half a decade, imagine how much it can change in six decades, and just as South Korea has evolved in one direction, North Korea has evolved in a completely different direction.

The big difference between the separation of East Germany and West Germany with North Korea and South Korea, is that while Germany was split physically, there wasn't a complete cultural split. The East Germans were still able to receive radio and television broadcasts from West Germany, so that the East Germans were keeping up with the cultural development of their neighbours. The same is not the case for the Koreas. The North Korea regime blasts its airwaves with scrambling signals that prevents the North Korean citizens from receiving broadcasts from South Korea. So over the six decades North Koreans have had very little exposure to what is happening in South Korea. For a long time all that most of them knew about South Korea is the propaganda lies they received from the North Korean dictatorship.



Things are changing and the thing that is causing the change is USB-drives. The small data-sticks that are smuggled in from China are used to share South Korea pop-culture: K-pop, movies and dramas. If ever North Koreans thought that the South is an impoverished puppet of America, then K-pop and South Korean television are the cure. The American influence (in the form of hip-hop and other fashions) is undeniable, but if there is one thing that these South Korean mass media do not depict is that South Korea is an impoverished country. Far from it. The cars, the clothes, the technology, the recreations in South Korean mass media are dripping with affluences and excess.



And so I believe change in North Korea is inevitable. While millions of North Koreans go hungry, go cold, and are oppressed, they are becoming increasingly aware that their Southern neighbours are living the good life. (Many homeless and poor South Koreans may disagree, but that is besides the point.) The North Korean regime is based on the lies that the whole world is out to get them and that the South is a poor puppet state controlled by the American Imperialists. What the North Korean populace is slowly realising is that most of the world don't even think about North Korea, and that South Koreans are clearly better off, what ever else they may think about democracy and imperialism. And let's not for a moment forget the terrible power of greed and and lust for hedonistic decadence, that is so part of the human psyche. For North Korean men watching South Korean music videos, it must be like watching porn! K-pop videos just ooze sex and decadence.

Change is coming. If actual reunification will ever occur, I don't know. I still believe it is quite unlikely. But nevertheless, change is coming to North Korea—of that I have little doubt. It may not reunify, but the Hermit Kingdom will open up.

South African Coat of Arms

A character in Merlin, with a tattoo on his left arm.

I was watching the final few episodes of season 4 of the BBC series Merlin and a tattoo on the arm of one of the characters caught my eye.

A digitally enhanced
close-up of the tattoo.

Yes, it as none other than the South African Coat of Arms! Such anachronisms--one of the hall marks of Postmodernism--get's me all giddy. The average Joe watching the series would not recognize the tattoo for what it is. Who would have thought that the Coat of Arms could make for such a cool looking tattoo?

I've personally always liked the new Coat of Arms. From a purely graphic design point of view, it is a well thought through design. (I originally studied graphic design, and although I don't work in that field full time any more, I still have an appreciation for good design.)

The dawning sun, a symbol for both Africa and for a new beginning, crowns the Secretary Bird. The bird spreads its wings open in triumph and hope. The Secretary Bird is a bird of prey indigenous to Sub-Sahara Africa, known for it's unique way of killing its prey by kicking it to death. In the emblem the spear and knopkierie, two traditional weapons that also symbolize authority, act as the Secretary Bird's legs. The weapons are reclined into a guarded cross, indicating that they are used for defence, rather than offence.

The body of the Secretary Bird is both a diamond and a protea. The former representing South Africa's mineral wealth, and the latter referring to South Africa's flora. The protea is South Africa's national flower. Over 90% of all protea are found only in South Africa, in the Cape Floristic Region.

In the centre of the emblem, together with the spear and knopkierie is the traditional shield, a symbol of protection. Displayed on the shield are two human figures holding hands, symbolizing friendship, reconciliation, and unity and community. The figures are of Khoi-San (Bushmen) people, the first inhabitants of Southern Africa. I find this particularly touching that these truly indigenous South African people should be honoured in this way. The motto at the bottom of the shield is written in the Khoi language, "!ke e: /xarra //ke". It means "unity in diversity", referring to South Africa's multicultural community.

The ears of wheat symbolizes South Africa's agriculture--the bedrock of the country's health. They also signifies sustainable growth.

Finally the elephant tusks refers to the country's wildlife. Elephants are also symbols of strength and wisdom, while ivory represents longevity.

Sadly, this rich Coat of Arms also contains many ironies. The idea of a better life for all, a new beginning after the oppression of the previous regime, is quickly fading as the new regime, the current governing party, is becoming increasingly more corrupt. The reclined weapons that should indicate peace now seem to indicate the governments impotence to defend against the terrible violent crimes that plague the land. Especially suffering under these violent crimes are the agricultural industry. The systematic killing of farmers are also destroying the country's self-sufficiency. Instead of symbolising agricultural health, the ears of wheat are transformed into wreaths for graves. The illegal trade in ivory causes the butchery of elephants for their tusks and rhinos for their horns by poachers. The tusks that should symbolize longevity, now becomes reason for their premature death. The shield and the figures holding hands regularly seem to be and ideal only and the Khoi-San people are still some of the most marginalized, underprivileged people in South Africa.

Then, of course, there are the conspiracy theorists that believe that the Coat of Arms is a design chosen by the New World Order, seeped with occult symbolism.

Image Source

I'm not sure that I am truly convinced about this; however, there is that Eye-of-Providence on the pyramid. The fact that it is so conspicuously red, clearly indicates something sinister, doesn't it?

The Eye-of-Providence, also known as the All-Seeing-Eye, is also found on the American Dollar Bill.

Jacopo Pontormo's "Supper at Emmaus"
Circa 1525

In Byzantine and traditional Christian art, the Eye-of-Providence functions as a symbol for the omniscience of God, and the triangle is an icon used for the Trinity.

However, the symbol was not an authentic Christian icon. The Roman Church took it (and many other symbols) from paganism. The earliest version of the "eye" is probably the Eye of Horos, which symbolizes the Egyptian Sun-God, Ra.

That the Freemasons and other secret fraternity's often make use of the Eye-of-Providence as one of their icons is well established. If the little red triangle on top of the pyramid in the South African Coat of Arms is indeed a reference to the Eye-of-Providence as is also found in the American One Dollar Bill, then there may be room for suspicion that the powers-that-be in South Africa are not necessarily the ones doing the posturing in the media. As with most governments that are infiltrated by the New World Order, for example the United States of America, the politicians are merely puppets that dance to the strings of other, higher powers.

But, back to the South African Coat of Arms, it is fun to see that it makes for an interesting tattoo! And I enjoyed seeing it in the magical world of the Merlin-series.

If You Don't Get This, You Can't Be My Friend

Image Source

Ingredients for Staying Up All Night

Here are some things to make you worry and if you are particularly acute, keep you from falling asleep.

• Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria: The troops are supposed to stop the uprising in Syria that is supposedly part of the so-called Arab-Spring uprisings from last year. The scary thing about this is that this puts America and Russia at odds with each other. The United States supports the protests in Syria, while Russia clearly supports the Syrian government. At the same time, the USA has confirmed their continued support of Israel, if they chose to attack Iran. On the other hand, both Russia and China have indicated their support of Iran. These major world players are starting to position themselves for what could easily escalate to WWIII.
• Obama signed the "National Defense Resources Preparation"-Act, bringing America continuously closer to a police-state (that is if you are not of the opinion that it is not a police state already). Keep in mind that the President can already declare anybody a "threat to the state", allowing the military to assassinate you without judge or jury. 
• Made any anti-war comments recently? Be careful what you say and where you do it. A British teenager got himself arrested when he made such comments on Facebook.
• The FBI is urging coffee shops to report cash papers to authorities, since the use of paper money is a terrorist trait. One cannot make this up!
• DARPA's director will soon be a Google executive. Yes, way not just go ahead and officially merge Big Brother with the biggest information gatherer in the world.

If I wasn't in a rush, I could have easily added another five ingredients for increasing your nightmares.