Something More Destructive than Nitroglycerin- or Enriched Uranium-based Explosives

Monday, October 18 2010 @ 09:40 AM JST

Contributed by: Y.Yamamoto

You know what - there are weapons even more dangerous than nuclear devices or biochemical substances; they have been developed for the use in more covert hostilities including cyber-warfare.

The unconventional weaponry they use in modern-day battlegrounds is more of corrosives or toxics than explosives.
These agents are by far more perilous than any other weapon for the following two reasons:

● There is an ample supply of this type of weaponry. It is available to everybody and everywhere at affordable prices. Normally it doesn't cost you anything more than your cheap soul.
● More often than not, they are invisible. That also means you can't really identify your enemy.

This always constitutes a formidable challenge to organizations responsible for national security. While overt cyber attacks by Chinese or revelations of military secrets by the likes of WikiLeaks are relatively easy to handle, the hardest part lies somewhere else.

U.S. Cyber Command, for one, is at a loss over who it is really fighting against, let alone what for. Head of "USCYBERCOM" Gen. Keith Alexander cannot even tell what his invisible enemy's target would be and what weapons the enemy is equipped with.

To me, however, it's easy to answer the last question; the weapons most commonly used against him are information spread around, verbally and visually, in every layer of cyberspace. In short, they are words and images.

If there is anything in which USCYBERCOM can find consolation, it is the fact that hordes of cyber warriors are giving it a helping hand from every corner of the country, and even from the other part of the globe, including Oslo, Norwegian capital.

Most recently, a highly-acclaimed Chinese dissident named Liu Xiaobo was enshrined as the year's Peace Prize laureate by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Liu's wife Xia reportedly quoted her husband as saying, "This prize goes to all of those who died on June 4, 1989," when she visited him in prison.

Very touching, isn't it?

You can't figure out how the Lius are going to share the prize money of SEK10-million with the deceased, but stupid Americans of both camps have wasted no time to gush over their empty rhetoric about a free China.

Ironically, Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan was not so enthusiastic about Liu's feat in deference to his Chinese boss, Wen Jiabao. He reportedly said: "My view is that the release [of Liu from prison] is desirable, but in what form we should seek this will need to be discussed."

Setting aside the absurd remarks made by the Japanese idiot for now, I wonder if you have read the now famous Charter 08 signed by 350 pro-democracy activists including Liu. If you haven't, I think you better forget it for good.

It would be a total waste of time to examine the wordy manifesto because as anyone can easily predict, wornout, empty, banal words, such as representative democracy, universal suffrage, humanrights and freedom, are scattered all over the Charter. These reform-mongers based it all on an outdated and watered-down ideology that dates back to the days long before the Internet took hold.

And what is totally missing there is a clear vision of a free China and the real life of 1.3 billion individual citizens living there. It's as though they think a change in the political system will automatically bring about change in people's way of thinking and living, while in fact, it's the people that change the system.

This way these obscurantists are constantly turning the Internet into a "disenabler" of real change whereas it's potentially a powerful enabler of it.

Unfortunately, it was nothing new that the Oslo-based Committee had discredited itself by crowning leading ideologues such as Liu.

In his will, Alfred Nobel said to the effect that the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who "shall have done the best work" to promote peace. But the Committee seems to have rewritten Nobel's will like this:

"The prize should be awarded to a person who talked most frequently and audibly about peace, freedom and humanrights. Whether or not the person has actually delivered on his promises should not affect the Committee's decision."

As a result, it now looks as though the Committee sponsors an annual speech contest. You just splash flowery words about an oppression-free, nuclear-free and emission-free world, from your toolbox, which is actually an arsenal filled with digitalized TNT or fissile material, on notable websites, or better yet, through the mainstream media. And you become eligible to be nominated by the Norwegian Committee.

It still remains a mystery why Mahatma Gandhi was passed over every time he was nominated. Among other years he was shortlisted, 1948 was the year he had already been assassinated by a fellow Hindu for his unique contribution to India's independence. No one could deny that "The Father of India" had done "the best work" by that time.

The same is true, perhaps to a lesser degree, with Ronald Reagan who missed the medal in 1990 when Mikhail Gorbachev was singled out for the well-deserved laurels.

In my previous post, I talked about my way of classifying people I have known in person into four types. Every once in a while, however, we see a man of integrity like Gandhi or Reagan who I would classify into a fifth category.

But actually, an increasing number of dignitaries who hadn't made any outstanding contribution to Nobel's cause have been awarded the Prize. They included Henry Kissinger (1973), Eisaku Sato (1974), the Dalai Lama (1989), Aung San Suu Kyi (1991), Yasser Arafat (1994), Kim Dae-jun (2000), Kofi Annan (2001), Jimmy Carter (2001), Al Gore (2007) and Barack Obama (2009).

It is true that saner people have sometimes blamed the Committee for giving these liars the prestigious awards. But, in fact, their criticism is somewhat misplaced. No matter how it's disgusting to see these Norwegian bastards discredit themselves, they have the right to tarnish their own reputations because they are the fiduciaries of a privately funded program, after all.

Instead, it's self-proclaimed opinion leaders of the "international community" that should take the blame for having created a rotten climate where the winners of the speech contest need not be held responsible for carrying through their pledges.

They will never admit that it's not flapjaws such as Obama and Liu, but fully-committed individuals like Gandhi and Gorbachev, that can change the world for the better, sometimes at the cost of their own lives. And more importantly, it's always people, real and living ones, that put the finishing touches on the change they have started.

Thanks to the proliferation of toxic weapons available to them, these political racketeers and pundits, practically retained by Washington or Beijing, have been able to instill into people's hearts and minds a delusive idea that a fierce warfare is underway between ideologies.

But what's going on in the real battleground is one fought between propagandists whose primary mission is to preserve the status quo and ordinary people who seek fundamental change to Pax Americana.

Comments (1)