- A look at a historical perspective on mercenary groups, and a timeline of Blackwater's own history.
- The otherwise-normal job benefits contractors lose out on, plus a piece on the employment advantage Blackwater has over law enforcement agencies.
- Character pieces on a couple of contractors who work for Blackwater, first-hand accounts of Blackwater agents in combat in Iraq, and the revealing transcript from fatal helicopter accident.
- Selections from the 55-page contractor handbook, plus facts about the company,
- Visions of the future for Blackwater, an article on their operations in post-Katrina New Orleans, and their financial practices and ties to Halliburton.
- An interview with billionaire founder Erik Prince, as well as a look at the head honchos of the company.
The depth of that series is astounding. I would highly recommend it to any person wishing to explore the current trend toward the privatization of our military. There, I said it; please read up for yourself and formulate your own opinion (if you dare).
-----
Beyond my personal interest in political occurences and international affairs lies a deeper philosophy, one which I have endeavored to embody, not only through dedicated epistemological rigors, but also by example of my actions toward others on a regular basis. I will define the basis of my philosophy as such: human beings should help other human beings. Sounds simple, does it not? Well, as I have learned over the progression of the past several years, it is surprisingly difficult to convince people that they should help one another. It is the distinct separation which I believe distances my agenda from that of the people around me. This rift I must accept, for I believe an attendant political ideal of personal liberty must compliment my philosophy (which I will refer to as "universal compassion").
As a matter of pre-emptive self-defense, I feel it is necessary to distinguish myself from those whose ideals may coincide with mine at some level. I prefer to manifest a larger agenda than one which is simply political, socio-cultural, or scientific. I deny the concept that these fields of human organization exist independently of one another. Of course, the fields' inner workings are, by design, interdependent on the inner workings of the others--political entities will seek to entreat whatever constituency they represent through new sociological and scientific manipulations of their kingdoms, while scientific and sociological fields will continue to exist, in whatever form, to appease the masses with an interpretation of the world around them. This is neither a good nor a bad thing; since organizations have existed since the beginning of recorded history whose sole purpose was the explanation of our relation to the natural world, it seems a safe assumption that these organizations will proliferate and mutate in correlation with whatever changing forms human civilization may come to take.
Keep in mind that these organizations, whatever form they take, will be constantly building on the practices and beliefs of the organizations and societies which preceded them. Assuming that we, as humans, are the only species which has demonstrated the effect of a generational learning continuum (few, if any, animals demonstrate the ability to rationally comprehend their species' history), we must assume that we have the largest known base of stored knowledge. Thnk about it: because we have developed a system of gathering history and analyzing its effects on the present, we are the only known species capable of molding and crafting not only the present, but our own future. This puts us in a uniquely complicated situation, being the only species with this power and having no other example to operate by. It is a difficult process, and an imperfect one to boot. This can be frustrating in a very large way, for you and I are the unwilling participants and administrators of the Human Experiment. We define our own future, even if we don't want to, because we are burdened with the inescapable burden of self-awareness and the almost instinctual desire to better perceive the universe surrounding our own private microcosms.
"But I really don't care about those other jerks across the ocean," you may say. Indeed, though many of us take little time to worry about the plight of of billions of our brethren who are starving and dying on the other face of this tiny blue orb, most of the people I've encountered have a great deal of compassion for their families, friends, and even their local geographic area. Personal relatability, most of all, forces us to examine the background behind people's actions and behaviors. Consider your own emotions when a close friend or family member is involved in an accident, seriously injured, or killed. Does our grief at another's pain represent a deeper bond with them, or is it a selfish mourning at the loss of one of our favorite everyday comforts? I postulate that if it is to be believed that another person can gain personal growth or enjoyment from their association with me, there is a tenable net benefit to the interaction. I also proffer that people are naturally social because this is a natural state of things, to be one with the people around you and benefit from their company. So while our self-interest may play a part in our preferred modes of social interaction, people are naturally inclined to relate to one another on the basis that they share complimentary interests or styles. Is it ludicrous to assume, based on this, that we are part of a larger web of social interactions which are undertaken for the purpose of bettering people, understanding them, or developing some social cohesion with them?
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not naive enough to suppose that people are all pursuing interests which are for the betterment of humankind. That is precisely my issue; while people naturally tend to group together and support one another in some way or another, they continue to exist within false divisions and categories. Rather than recognizing our existence as a mutually-evolving "social organism" (if you will), we continue to support divisive mechanisms which are designed to limit the natural symbiosis of our relations and instead purport to set us against one another over petty differences. To quote the timeless martyred president, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." By all means, we are different people. Such is the spice of my day-to-day existence, without which I would be sourly resigned to my status as a cog in the machine. I embrace the concept of diversity within our culture, but I believe we should correlate diversity with togetherness, to a common end. For instance, though my area of study may be different from a musician or a lawyer, there are similarities between all areas of interest which seem to pervade throughout time and bind us together in the purpose of bettering the world. We seek to better ourselves through adoption of a profession which suits us, and we aim to excel in that area. In a perfect world, this would be the ultimate embodiment of democratic education: completely egalitarian pursuit of personal betterment by virtue of limitless academic resources in whatever areas of study a person might care to explore.
In a perfect world. Unfortunately, as I noted before, human social evolution is an imperfect and jerky process. Advancement can occur in leaps and bounds, in many areas at once or in one particular field, but only if the conditions are correct. History certainly seems cyclical in that respect, by virtue of the establishment of (relatively) long-lasting periods of political stability, usually at the hands of a few hegemonic powers. The important distinguishment to make, when examining historical cycles, is to observe the advancements within a particular field of study during the reign of certain groups. Quite obviously, scientific advancements aptly exhibit the political and social agendas of their time, whether by complicit association with forces of politics, or in direct opposition with the views of the mainstream. Galileo and Copernicus were considered heretics in their time, and their observations form the basis upon which Astronomy, and our tenuous modern scientific understanding of the perceivable universe, still rests. This makes for an interesting anecdote, but few stop to consider the implication it has for our modern scientific acheivements. With revolutions in scientific understanding come political and social revolutions, since every new invention and discovery necessarily forces our previous knowledge into obsolescence. This is a reassuring idea, since conceivably our society will always have a historical and scientific perspective on its own existence. Ergo our development is nearly guaranteed, on the basis that new means for understanding and application of that understanding will naturally evolve from our discoveries.
But our development is not completely fool-proof, in that it can be halted, diverted, or manipulated by whatever social agenda is impressed upon it. This is glaringly apparent from any quick skimming of a history textbook. Humanity is a resilient organism, and it will most likely persist as the hardy, self-reliant being that it purports to be. But our existence is not merely a gratuitous predestined state of affairs. It is nothing short of pretentious to claim that our existence serves no purpose, or that it serves only our purposes. Logically, if humanity existed for no purpose, then our imperative would be to destroy ourselves, lest we be tricked into a pointless, absurd triviality which would mock the very machinations and forces which maintain the universe we have come to be part of. This is a dangerous mode of thinking, possibly suicidal, so if we believe self-preservation (either societally or individually) to be our primary objective, then we must accept that our existence has some purpose, even if we are not capable of grasping it; there are infinitely larger, and simultaneously infinitely smaller processes which we are a part of, and I believe that this alone indicates that our existence is not merely gratuitous, but perhaps represents a mathematical or scientific probability which we are not aware of. To attempt to represent meaning deistically will always seem lacking to me, since it will forever be an answer which exists irrespective of the question. If I can ask "why," "what," and "how," and get the same answer for all three, alarms start ringing in this incredibly intelligently-designed organic computer of mine.
So, we either exist to serve a larger purpose or our own purpose, right? Well, I'd like to find, as I would with most things, an appropriate synthesis between the needs of the one and the needs of the many. To this day, I have yet to find a theoretical or moral stance which effectively argues why we should not operate with the concept of the greater good in mind. If not the greater good, then who's good? A quick examination of our circumstances will reveal that we, as intelligent, communicating animals, will be much more effective on a grand scale if we operate in numbers. Many people will always be more capable of enacting large projects than few people, and we certainly face problems which are common to the whole of society, yet escape the attention of those at the top. Allow me the benefit of a proposing a hypothetical situation which is not entirely unreasonable:
Suppose, hypothetically, that there existed enough resources on this planet to adequately care for the entirety of its population-humans within the larger biosphere. Now, imagine that, instead of equilibrium occuring, the most intelligent and geographically populated species chose to eradicate large populations from their shared biosphere, and monopolize the entirety of the resources for their own use. But here's the ultimate irony, this species doesn't even conserve the resources for the betterment of their species, but for a select few whose agenda would never coincide with those of majority. One would hope that those select few had a damn fine grasp on what actions would be best for the future of their species, though all the factors would indicate that they actually have a very low opinion of the many common relatives who are striving and scraping for even an adequate meal.
But enough of the soap-box rhetoric. It'll get me in trouble. At a very deep level, I believe that the right to self-determination and individuality IS inalienable, as well as mutually beneficial. I would not be the person I am today if it weren't for the individuals who bless me with their comments and dialogue on a regular basis. It would not do if these people had not developed their own philosophies and ideals, because these different modes of thought are the lifeblood of my own learning process. Without exterior impressions of my own behavior, it would be impossible to guage the impact my actions have upon others. I believe that we should, as most do, recognize that our ability to enact change usually is limited to our immediate surroundings and those that we are closely associated with. Certainly, I doubt that my writings here will have any impact on the majority of the world. I do recognize that those who I choose to associate myself with and those who choose to associate themselves with me will most likely find this personally relevant, to some degree.
And this is where I will position the crux of my thesis: the sythesis between my larger obligations and those to myself. For if I am to believe myself a member of this society, I should endeavor to serve a cathartic purpose. It is in my own best interests that the society around me be adaptive to serve my interests, as well as the interests of those in my immediate vicinity. To this end, I am in acceptance of the reality that my needs may coincide or depart from theirs, but that we should come together to form cohesion on the issues where we find common ground. Yes, I do recognize your sovereign right to make your own decisions, and I respect that right, for it is one which I claim as my own. I also recognize the inherent rights of our apropos symbiotic relationship, and will forever attempt to find a proper way to relate to others which neither forces my will upon them, nor implies any expected return on my "investment." Emotional investment goes both ways, as I think most couples will attest, and decisions which harm one party in a relationship will naturally work to the disinterest of the other party. Though this may seem a glib reappraisal of a karmic ideology, I think it is a natural inference that people will not be happy if most of the people around them are in a bad mood.
Allow me to restate my appreciation for those members of my closest personal circles who may find the opportunity to read this at some point. It would be foolish of me not to recognize their contributions to my own personal state, one which I am quite fond of and have no intention of altering, other than to advance my understanding of and cooperation with others. Of course, every person I encounter has the potentiality of teaching me an important lesson, and any appraisal of reality would be lacking if it did not include the larger majority of society, with whom I will probably have no personal interaction. I can honestly say that my life is enriched by the consistent procession of different characters and conversations, piloting my thoughts to accept new methodologies which may have previously been unattainable.
This, I strongly believe. In order to fully understand other people, it is necessary to suspend judgement to some degree. I say "suspend," because it is critical that we be allowed to judge our circumstances in order to learn. However, we must also recognize that our judgements are nearly always tainted by biases and colorings which we may not even consciously process. You see another person, and you immediately make assumptions as to their economic status, heritage, and identity, almost as an automatic motion. This is not necessarily as bad as some would have you believe. While it may affect your initial perception of someone to think that they are wealthier than you, it does not have to distort your interaction with that person. This is where suspension becomes critical; if we try to free ourselves of our natural processes for differentiating people from one another, there is no thinking involved in our interactions with them, only assimilation. We must understand that people's differences represent a sequence of individual events leading to the present incarnation of that person. With this in mind, we can interpret their actions and thoughts to be the manifestation of their background, but this is what should eliminate any discrimination or bias from our interactions with them. If we accept that people are from different backgrounds, then as a matter of fact their mind will operate with a different set of presuppositions, but it should be our objective to form a bridge between our presuppositions and theirs, to see where ours fall short and how we can improve ourselves from their learning.
This is, in essence, how our society maintains a generational learning curve, but what I propose is a conscious effort to assimilate beliefs and ideas which are foreign or strange to us. It is difficult to examine a situation critically from within its confines, but to step outside and view one's entire belief structure from the view of another is radically revealing. Not to mention scary as hell, because foreign concepts and modes of thought are uncomfortable and, by definition, more difficult to relate to. The next step is the adoption of another's beliefs and ideals, if only for a test run. This can be enough to drive some insane, because to see yourself from behind another pair of eyes is nearly impossible to accomplish, and often the picture doesn't jive with the one previously imagined.
So I will not hold it against any of you to disagree with me, or to ignore the hell out of my ideals. They are, after all, not your own. But I will respectfully posit that in considering yourselves rational, thinking beings, you should at least consider that acceptance of new ideas will keep you ahead of the curve. I do not propose a massive reorganization, revolution, or rebellion against the society we live in, but rather an acceptance of our inescapable bonds to one another. I care very little about our minute disagreements, but I would like to see what we can accomplish together.
Some may think that my philosophy is quite coincidental with the oft-quoted "Golden Rule." Au contrare, I find that the Golden Rule's critical failing is its lack of an ethos. Rather than justifying one's actions toward another as a matter of personal choice and ethical contemplation, our choice is made for us because we must imagine how it would feel to be treated well or poorly by ourselves. Quite an ironic image, and a positive excercise. I agree that we must consider the impact of our actions on others, but it seems a selfish trick that we could only imagine our impacts on others as they apply to us. "Doing to others" what you want them to do to you would seem to leave a whole bunch of people unhappy. Treating other people the way they want to be treated seems a whole deal more respectful.
I suppose, at the end of this, that I should apply my ideals to a political or social spectrum. As best as I can explain it, I believe that I have an obligation to my civilization which transcends my personal agendas or motives. So, the inevitable question becomes what I can do to best serve this society. Well, if I believe in self-determination and the right of a sentient people to educate themselves, I would consider myself an enemy to forces which would seek to deprive people of liberty or of their ability to think freely and clearly for themselves. However, I also believe that human society, in its current incarnation, is on the cusp of a dramatic realization about itself. To interfere with the natural progression of events would be presumptuous, to say the least. Therefore, to avoid undue manipulation or control of the opinions of others, it is my primary objective to facilitate the education and self-determination of the people; not to force these upon them, but to open the door so that the masses can recognize their own abilities and dreams, and come to realize them.
I believe that governments, businesses, and other organizations should exist to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around. It seems pretty rational for the society to dictate the means of its own progression. Despite the usual fears that the people are not fit to govern themselves, I ask you, as the people, who knows your needs better than you? Who better to represent the ideals of people than the people themselves? If the people are stupid, then why aren't we educating them? That question nearly answers itself.
If my motives are not clear by this point, I fear they never will be. On the contrary, I fear my motives are crystal clear, and they will be swallowed up in a sea of apathy. I have been lectured, many times to date, on the general disillusionment of the population and their lack of interest in my ideals. On the other hand, it may be that I am espousing a philosophy which is entirely common, and this will be received as "the same old claptrap." Well, my friends, it is time for me to ask you: why are you so disillusioned? Why is it that you don't want to care about the rest of the world? Is it just more comfortable to sit in your recliner and bitch about your electrical bills while you waste hours of your life away in front of the neo-Orwellian televisor? Postman put it best when he stated that Big Brother would never need to watch us if we were constantly enticed into watching him.
Perhaps my plea for sanity will be lost in this sea of incomprehensible gobbledegook. If this is the information age, and the internet is indeed the nexus for accessing a new generation's wealth of knowledge, perhaps it is only fitting that my insignificant cries be forever cached on some far-off server in New Delhi or Bangkok. I still have faith that we will somehow find a way to make sense of this mess eventually. Until then, I will continue sending my thoughts out to community as a whole. Don't lose hope, our final destination is somewhere better (though the layover in hell may take awhile). I don't mean this in the sense of some cosmic predestination, as I've said before; it's a gradual evolution, as most things go in the universe. However, we cannot get caught up in some "big picture" perspective when we're still trying to lay down a base coat on the canvas. Our individual actions do have meaning, and they do alter the greater order of things, however minutely. Our impact on the future will dramatically affect the outcome of this whole experiment, and we do have a larger obligation--not only to the society we live in, but to the society which will come to be as a result of our actions today.
Summarily, my opinion might be a load of horse shit. All I ask is that you think rationally of a reason why it is, rather than writing me off in the too-common judgemental method. Ask yourselves and ask your peers, where do I fit into all this? Am I a cog in the machine, an individual with my own agenda to fuck society, or an individual who embraces society and hopes to improve it?
No comments:
Post a Comment