Le syndrome d’empiètement

Posted: March 6, 2023 in Philosophy
Tags: , , ,
0

Par Richard Martin

Je suis en train de développer un nouveau concept que j’appelle le “syndrome d’empiètement”. J’appelle cela un syndrome par analogie avec un syndrome médical, où les signes et les symptômes apparaissent ensemble chez les individus, sans nécessairement impliquer l’existence d’une étiologie commune. Je n’ai pas l’intention de laisser entendre qu’il s’agit d’une quelconque forme de perturbation ou de maladie, qu’elle soit physique ou mentale. Je l’utilise simplement comme une métaphore.

Le syndrome d’empiètement décrit des réseaux de croyances qui se chevauchent, selon lesquels les élites nationales et/ou mondiales (ou d’autres acteurs malfaisants, généralement cachés) tentent (et dans certains cas, réussissent) d’empiéter sur les droits et libertés individuels, en particulier le droit de gagner sa vie et de contrôler son propre corps. Nombre de ces croyances semblent former des réseaux de concepts, phrases, mèmes, récits, histoires et explications qui se soutiennent mutuellement. Elles ont tendance à se chevaucher ou à apparaître en combinaison chez les individus, qui ont ensuite tendance à partager ces croyances, principalement par le biais d’interactions en ligne et de médias sociaux, ce qui les renforce et crée une communauté de croyance.

Voici mon point de vue initial.

1. La résistance aux mandats de vaccination de Covid. Remarquez que je n’ai pas dit “anti-vaxxers”, qui désigne les personnes qui sont contre les vaccins en général. De nombreuses personnes ont été incommodées, offensées, sceptiques et/ou effrayées par le vaccin Covid et les mandats de vaccination. Beaucoup n’étaient pas et continuent de ne pas être contre les vaccins s’ils ne sont pas obligatoires et ne menacent pas leur gagne-pain. Certains résistants aux vaccins Covid ont même pris les vaccins et les rappels eux-mêmes, ainsi que des vaccins pour d’autres maladies. Ils considéraient simplement cela comme un empiètement majeur sur la liberté personnelle et contraire au serment d’Hippocrate. Je ne dis pas qu’ils ont raison ou tort, mais cela semble être la conviction qui les motive.

2. Contre le soutien et l’assistance matérielle/financière/militaire de l’Ukraine. Les personnes qui promeuvent ce réseau de croyances adhèrent pour la plupart aux points de discussion russes sur la façon dont l’invasion russe de l’Ukraine est supposée être la faute de l’OTAN. Je ne m’étendrai pas davantage, mais vous pouvez en lire plus dans ces articles : Les “tankies”, ces apologistes de l’impérialisme russe et Non, l’OTAN n’est pas responsable de l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie. Cette attitude semble découler de la crainte que la guerre en Ukraine ne se transforme en une guerre mondiale en raison du soutien apporté à l’Ukraine par les États-Unis et l’OTAN. Je ne pense pas qu’il s’agisse d’une peur irrationnelle, mais elle semble provenir de la désinformation, du partage non informé de bribes de médias sociaux et d’une mauvaise connaissance de l’histoire et de la stratégie. Il convient d’y répondre en fournissant des connaissances de base valables, étayées par des arguments solides qui traitent également des probabilités.


3. Avoir soutenu et/ou participé au convoi des camionneurs l’hiver dernier pour protester contre les obligations de vaccination imposées par le gouvernement et les restrictions aux voyages transfrontaliers, notamment en ce qui concerne les camionneurs canadiens dont le travail consiste à faire la navette avec les États-Unis. Le problème fondamental n’était pas que les gens étaient contre la vaccination Covid en soi, mais plutôt les impacts négatifs sur les camionneurs qui choisissaient de ne pas se faire vacciner. À cela s’ajoutait un mécontentement général à l’égard des arrêts de production en cas de pandémie et des perturbations économiques et de l’appauvrissement qu’ils entraînaient pour de nombreux Canadiens. Tout cela a été renforcé et amplifié par ce qui semblait être de l’agit-prop russe pour exploiter la situation.

 4. L’anti-woke. De nombreuses personnes pensent qu’une attaque contre les institutions et la culture occidentales traditionnelles est en cours, alimentée par des idéologues et des militants marxistes. Je ne m’étendrai pas davantage sur ce sujet à ce stade, mais il suffit de dire que je suis personnellement d’accord avec de nombreuses critiques du wokisme. Et s’il vous plaît, ne me demandez pas de définir le wokeness. Cherchez par vous-même.

5. Croyances anti-mondialistes/anti-WEF. Ce sujet est trop complexe pour être abordé ici, mais il fait également partie du syndrome. Ma pensée actuelle est qu’il semble provenir d’une peur profonde de perdre son autonomie, d’être infecté par des virus de l’esprit, des mèmes et d’autres “contaminants”, y compris du corps physique et du corps politique. Je suis en train de développer ces idées et j’écrirai davantage à leur sujet lorsqu’elles seront prêtes.

6. Le système financier mondial. Le dernier phénomène qui fait partie du syndrome d’empiètement que je propose est la croyance que les élites politiques et sociales contrôlent le système financier mondial pour exploiter les gens ordinaires. De nombreux bitcoiners entrent dans cette catégorie, mais pas tous. De plus, cette position semble être minoritaire. Je détiens personnellement des bitcoins dans mon portefeuille et je pense qu’ils ont beaucoup d’utilité et qu’ils continueront à se développer et à évoluer.

Je n’ai pas l’intention de déprécier l’un de ces complexes de croyances. J’observe simplement une concomitance de phénomènes, dont beaucoup semblent avoir un certain fondement, preuves à l’appui. Je ne suis pas d’accord avec le tour de victoire que prennent actuellement certains résistants aux vaccins en raison des preuves scientifiques contradictoires concernant l’efficacité des vaccins Covid. Il est encore trop tôt pour le dire et le poids de la preuve reste en faveur des campagnes de vaccination. La question de savoir si les mesures de confinement et les vaccins obligatoires dans certaines institutions et organisations, publiques et privées, étaient justifiés devrait faire l’objet d’un débat scientifique et de recherches supplémentaires. Cette question ne peut pas être réglée par le partage des médias sociaux et la surenchère.

La plupart de ces complexes de croyances ne semble pas encore avoir donné naissance à des mouvements sociaux ou politiques, mais cela ne signifie pas que cela n’arrivera pas. Par ailleurs, je ne pense pas que l’utilisation d’une étiquette telle que “droite alternative” (alt-right), “extrême droite” ou “conspirationniste soit utile. Ces tactiques engendrent des conflits plutôt que la compréhension.

J’écrirai davantage à ce sujet et sur des questions connexes au fur et à mesure que ma réflexion évoluera.

Encroachment Syndrome

Posted: March 6, 2023 in Philosophy, Powerful Ideas
Tags: , , , , ,
0

By Richard Martin

I’m developing a new concept I call “encroachment syndrome.” I call it a syndrome as an analogy to a medical syndrome, where signs and symptoms appear together in individuals, without necessarily implying an understanding or acceptance of common etiology. I don’t mean to imply any form of medical disturbance or illness, either physical or mental. I use it merely as a metaphor.

Encroachment syndrome describes overlapping belief networks, to the effect that national and/or global elites (or other nefarious actors, usually hidden) are trying (and in some cases, succeeding) to encroach on individual rights and liberties, especially the right to earn a livelihood and to control one’s own body. Many of these beliefs appear to form networks of mutually supporting concepts, phrases, memes, narratives, stories, and explanations. They tend to overlap or appear in combination in individuals, who then tend to share these beliefs, mainly through online interactions and social media, which reinforces them and creates a community of belief.

Here is my initial take.

1. Resistance to Covid vaccine mandates. Notice I didn’t say “anti-vaxxers,” which refers to people who are against vaccines in general. Many people were inconvenienced, offended, skeptical, and/or fearful of the Covid vaccine and vaccine mandates. Many weren’t/aren’t against the vaccines if they are not obligatory and don’t threaten their livelihood. Some Covid-vaccine resisters even took the vaccines and boosters themselves as well as vaccines for other conditions. They just viewed it as a major encroachment on personal liberty and contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. I’m not saying they’re right or wrong, but that seems to be the motivating belief.

2. Against support and material/financial/military assistance of Ukraine. Individuals who promote this belief network mostly adhere to Russian talking points about how the Russian invasion of Ukraine is supposedly NATO’s fault. I won’t elaborate further, but you can read more in these articles: On Tankies and No, NATO Isn’t Responsible for Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine. This appears to stem from a fear of the war in Ukraine expanding into a world war because of US- and NATO-led support for Ukraine. I don’t think it is an irrational fear, but it appears to stem from disinformation and uninformed sharing of social media snippets and poor knowledge of history and strategy. It should be addressed by providing valid background knowledge supported by sound arguments that also address probabilities. See the following article on How to Argue Properly.

3. Supported and/or participated in the Truckers’ Convoy last winter in protest at government vaccination mandates and cross-border travel restrictions, especially as applied to Canadian truckers whose work involves driving to and from the USA. The basic issue wasn’t that people were against Covid vaccination per se, but rather the negative impacts on the truckers who chose to not get vaccinated. It was compounded by general dissatisfaction with pandemic shutdowns and the economic disruption and impoverishment this caused for many Canadians. This was all leveraged and amplified by what appeared to be Russian agitprop to exploit the situation. I wrote about this in February 2022: The Current Situation and What Is the Link Between the Russia-Ukraine Crisis and What Is Happening in Canada.

4. Anti-wokeness. Many people believe that there is an attack against traditional Western institutions and culture underway, fed by Marxist ideologues and activists. I won’t go into this more at this point, but suffice it say that I personally agree with many criticisms of wokeness. And please don’t ask me to define wokeness. Look it up for yourself.

5. Anti-globalist/anti-WEF beliefs. This is too complex to go into here, but it is also part of the syndrome. My current thinking is that it appears to stem from a deep-felt fear of losing one’s autonomy, of being infected by mind viruses, memes, and other “contaminants,” including of the physical body and the body politic. I am in the process of developing these ideas and will write more about them when ready.

6. Global financial system. The final phenomenon that is part of the encroachment syndrome I’m proposing is the belief that political and social elites control the global financial system to exploit ordinary people. Many bitcoiners fall into that category, though not all. Moreover, this appears to be a minority position. I personally hold Bitcoin as part of my portfolio and believe it has a lot of utility that will continue to develop and evolve. Here are some links about Bitcoin: Riot Platforms Brief on Bitcoin to White House; The Bitcoin Revolution and What It Means for Africa; and Bitcoin and “Crypto” in General: The Crux of the Issue.

I don’t mean to belittle any of these belief networks. I’m simply observing a concurrence of phenomena, many of which appear to have some grounding in fact and evidence. I don’t agree with the victory lap some of the vaccine resisters are taking right now because of conflicting scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of the Covid vaccines. It’s still too early to tell and the weight of evidence remains in favour of the vaccination campaigns. Whether the lockdowns and compulsory vaccine mandates in some institutions and organizations, public and private, were warranted, should be a matter for scientific debate and further research. This can’t be settled by social media sharing and one-upmanship.

Most of the belief networks do not yet appear to have spawned any social or political movements, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t or won’t. Also, I don’t think using a label like “alt-right,” “far right,” or “conspiracy theorists” is helpful. Such tactics result in conflict rather than understanding.

I will write more about this and related matters as my thinking develops.

How to Argue Properly

Posted: March 5, 2023 in Powerful Ideas, Professional Development
Tags: , , , , ,
1

By Richard Martin

I had a run in with someone yesterday on Linked In who was responding with fallacious and demonstrably false arguments to a guest blog by Quentin Innis titled On Tankies. Quentin wrote the text in frustration at the obstinacy of Western apologists of Russian aggression, terrorism, and imperialism and to provide responses to the most common “talking points” excusing Russia’s invasion and destruction of Ukraine and bullying of NATO countries.

Why did I have a run in? Simply because I too am tired of having to read and respond to uninformed and illogical statements concerning Russia’s destructiveness, aggression, threats, and coercion by individuals who can’t argue a point properly. I just can’t take these people seriously.

I admit it. I lose my cool sometimes, but that’s because claiming “moral equivalence” or spouting “what-about-isms” are a waste of time. Worse, they pollute public dialogue and debate because they are off topic, unethical, and play right into the hands of foreign powers seeking to undermine our national defence, security, and institutions.

Uninformed statements are put forth by individuals trying to debate with serious authors and experts as counterpoints to well-argued and evidenced arguments. The problem is that the so-called counterarguments or debating tactics are nothing more than rehashed talking points from Russia’s lies, threats, and misdirection. Those repeating them have not bothered to read any history by actual historians or reporting by credible, professional journalists. They just assume that what they have heard in a sound bite or a read in a tweet is true and worthy of debate. It isn’t.

For example, there is a popular, but false and uninformed “argument,” that NATO threatens Russia. There is no need to elaborate on the ignorance and stupidity of this statement further. It should be enough to read Quentin’s article or my own of 19 February 2023 on why NATO is not the aggressor, Russia is. A wannabe debater also stated that the war in Donbas is a civil war. No, it isn’t. It was instigated by Russia in early 2014 in response to the Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine and continues as part of Russia’s invasion and war against Ukraine since then, especially since 24 February 2022. Apparently, that individual had never heard of Russia’s “little green men,” a.k.a. Wagner Group or the illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014.

These types of uninformed and false claims are easily refuted by doing a quick search on Wikipedia (or through other online sources, including mainstream media). For example, see Little green men: Russo-Ukrainian War; Russian occupation of Crimea; and War in Donbas (2014-2022). At the very least, reading such articles should give one pause that the situation and historical background is much more complex than can be encapsulated in sound bites and tweets. It should also cause someone to think that maybe they don’t have enough background information to make a proper assessment of the soundness of pithy catchphrases and 10-second videos on YouTube™.

But that is apparently too much work for some people. After all, why try to develop a deeper understanding of the historical and political background of a social problem when you can just repeat something that sounds clever and feeds into your pre-existing biases, cynicism, fear, and anxiety about war and conflict? I get it. War is hell, but the fact that you don’t like war and fear it doesn’t make it disappear.

Another false claim I’ve read is that, somehow, “NATO invaded Afghanistan.” It is part of a wider trend of presenting “moral equivalence” statements as serious counterarguments. In logic this is known as the “tu quoque” fallacy: Literally, “so did you!” Anyone who has children knows that the go-to defence after being caught doing something wrong or dangerous is to claim that “He/she/they/you started it/did it too/did it first.” Can we see how puerile that is?

It is a logical fallacy because it doesn’t address the proposition, logic, or evidence that is adduced by the author of the original argument. In simple terms, saying that so-and-so does it too doesn’t counter the logic or content of the author’s position. It merely deflects it in an attempt to hijack or confuse the debate. What started as a presentation of evidence and logically linked propositions leading to one or more conclusions becomes a discussion over something unrelated to the intent of the original author or one putting forth an argument.

If someone wishes to debate or discuss whether NATO “invaded” Afghanistan or not, or anything else for that matter, fine. Go ahead, state your starting position in your own article or post. Don’t contaminate others’ writings with your sophomoric tactics in an amateurish attempt at debate. Put it on your own website or blog! See if someone will take you up on it. On the other hand, if you wish to engage in genuine dialogue, debate, or commentary on an article or post with its author, you should at least try to be on point.

For instance, say someone wishes to debate the author of an article that provides reasoned arguments, with propositions, logical links, and evidence in favour of his position. The way to do that is to address the content of the text and its logic. If the original author says that Russia invaded Ukraine and provides logical arguments and evidence in favour of that position, the correct way to debate or discuss these is to provide counterevidence and genuine counterarguments. Highlighting the original author’s faulty logic or reasoning is also fair game, so long as one has valid points to make.

But showing a map of Europe that indicates the year that countries joined NATO doesn’t prove or argue in favour of NATO aggression. It may be the case that the expansion of NATO as indicated by the map is evidence of anti-Russian sentiment. But it doesn’t follow that the sentiment proves that the countries involved, or the NATO alliance, are aggressive. The opposite is the case. The eastern European countries and their citizens were and remain so concerned about Russian aggression and coercion that they asked to join NATO and were accepted by consensus of then member nations. Moreover, defensive alliances are specifically mentioned as legitimate and inhering in the right to self-defence in the Charter of the United Nations, which the Russian Federation claims to uphold.

Furthermore, one must weigh any claims within a wider political, economic, and social context. NATO was in Afghanistan to lead the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), under a UN Security Council resolution. Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council, and could have vetoed it, but didn’t. ISAF was thus the result of a wide international consensus that assistance to the Afghanistan government was needed for a variety of reasons. In addition, there were non-NATO countries that participated in the operation.

But even if that were not the case, even if NATO had “invaded” Afghanistan, that still would not constitute a sound argument in debating someone about Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. That’s simply a “non sequitur,” which translates as “it does not follow.”

The final point I wish to address is about qualifications and expertise. We live in a society where everyone’s opinion on just about any matter seems to be taken seriously. The problem is this: Not everyone’s opinion is valid. There is a psychological phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It states that the less some people know about a topic, the less these same people claim expertise.

The most interesting aspect about the Dunning-Kruger effect is that most people, when learning more about a topic, develop less confidence in their knowledge and expertise. They obviously realize that their initial impressions and reactions were uninformed. Then, as they acquire more and more knowledge and experience, their confidence level rises again, but never to the levels of the ignorant who claim expertise with little or no real knowledge. 

Knowledge is a universal acid; it dissolves overconfidence born of misinformation and ignorance. It also gives us humility. Socrates claimed to be the wisest man in all of Greece, not because he knew a lot, but specifically because he realized that he didn’t know everything, or even very much. This type of humility would be valuable to anyone who wishes to debate well-informed experts, who have the knowledge and practical experience to make reasoned judgments.

I will debate anyone who shows humility. Sometimes I need to be reminded of the need for humility. Whether we’re debating the Russo-Ukrainian War, pandemic policies, or anything else, these should be the bottom line. I’ll respect you, if you respect me.

RIOT Platforms Brief on Bitcoin to White House

Posted: March 5, 2023 in Economics
Tags: , , , ,
0

The attached paper was shared recently on Twitter by Pierre Rochard of Riot Platforms. It is an excellent primer on Bitcoin and overview of some of the financial, technical, and economic issues surrounding its adoption and development. I have taken the liberty of combining the screen grabs Rochard shared on Twitter into a single pdf file. I’m assuming he won’t mind.

Bitcoin is not going anywhere, as it is a superior global medium of exchange, store of value, and digital asset. We must realize that there is Bitcoin and its 2nd layer transactional network known as Lightning, and then everything else. All other other “cryptocurrencies” are either failed “altcoins” (a.k.a. shitcoins), scams, or unregistered securities.

Bitcoin is the first, and still the only, fully digital commodity. New applications are being developed every day in an open source environment.

Riot-Platforms-Brief-to-White-HouseDownload

Les « tankies », ces apologistes de l’impérialisme Russe

Posted: March 4, 2023 in Geopolitics, History, War
Tags: , , , ,
1

Par Quentin Malcolm Innis, contributeur spécial au blogue

Je n’aurais pas pensé qu’un an après le début de la guerre de Poutine contre l’Ukraine, il y aurait encore des gens pour défendre la Russie.  Surtout après Bucha, après que le VDV russe ait été révélé comme une collection de meurtriers, de violeurs et de voleurs, je ne sais pas comment quelqu’un peut défendre la Russie ou plaider en sa faveur.   Cependant, certaines personnes apprennent lentement, alors voici une compilation des arguments des tankies, avec quelques réflexions en réponse.   

Pourquoi des tankies ?  Le terme « tankie » provient des malheureux gauchistes qui ont défendu les invasions russes de la Hongrie en 1956 et de la Tchécoslovaquie en 1968.  Pour défendre leur prémisse simpliste du « bien de l’URSS », ils ont été contraints par les circonstances de ces invasions d’effectuer une série de pirouettes intellectuelles, dont certaines ont été ressuscitées pour tenter de justifier l’invasion actuelle de l’Ukraine par la Russie.  Ces tentatives ont de nombreuses variantes, mais voici sept des plus populaires.  

La menace historique de l’Occident.  La Russie a été envahie par des pays occidentaux à trois reprises au cours des 210 dernières années, à commencer par l’invasion de Napoléon dans le cadre de la deuxième guerre de Pologne en 1812.  Toutefois, au cours de cette même période de 210 ans, la Russie a été impliquée dans au moins 39 autres guerres.  

1812.  Il est vrai que la Grande Armée de Napoléon a envahi la Russie en 1812.  Cependant, toutes les guerres commencent par des manœuvres diplomatiques et, avant l’invasion, Napoléon et le tsar Alexandre Ier se sont disputés au sujet du retrait d’Alexandre du blocus continental, principale arme stratégique de Napoléon contre l’Angleterre.  L’invasion française de la Russie commence lorsqu’Alexandre lance un ultimatum à Napoléon lui demandant de retirer les troupes françaises de Prusse et du Grand-Duché de Varsovie en avril 1812.  Napoléon a refusé, et la deuxième guerre de Pologne a suivi.  

1914.  Si les causes de la Première Guerre mondiale sont multiples et complexes, l’événement qui a précipité la guerre est l’assassinat de l’archiduc François-Ferdinand d’Autriche-Hongrie et de son épouse en 1914.  Le 23 juillet, les Autrichiens ont soumis à la Serbie une liste de demandes qu’ils savaient inacceptables, afin d’obtenir un prétexte pour la guerre.  Le 25 juillet, les Serbes ont accepté toutes les demandes autrichiennes sauf une, mais les Autrichiens ont affirmé que cette réserve équivalait à un rejet de leurs demandes et ont déclaré la guerre le 28 juillet.  Les Russes se mobilisèrent pour soutenir la Serbie le 30 juillet, les Allemands se mobilisèrent à leur tour, et la guerre fut lancée.  Les Russes se retirent de la guerre qu’ils ont contribué à déclencher en 1917, permettant aux Allemands de transférer leurs forces sur le front occidental pour l’offensive de mars 1918, et de presque gagner la guerre.  

1941.  L’opération Barbarossa, l’invasion allemande de la Russie, débuta le 22 juin 1941.  C’est une surprise pour les Russes, car ils supposaient que les Allemands respecteraient les termes du pacte Molotov-Ribbentrop, signé le 23 août 1939, qui permettait à l’Allemagne et à la Russie de démembrer la Pologne en attaquant simultanément.  Son flanc oriental étant sécurisé, Hitler se tourne alors vers l’ouest, envahissant la majeure partie de l’Europe occidentale et isolant l’Angleterre.  La Russie joua ainsi un rôle clé dans la réalisation des plans allemands, donnant le coup d’envoi de la guerre la plus sanglante de l’histoire.  

La Russie prétend être la partie lésée dans ces guerres, alors qu’elle en a déclenché une et précipité les deux autres en lançant des ultimatums qu’elle savait inacceptables pour la puissance adverse.  À cela s’ajoute la liste des attaques russes contre leurs voisins.  

2014 : Ukraine

2008 : Ossétie et Abkhazie en Géorgie

1994 – 1996 et 1999 – 2009 : Tchétchénie

1979 – 1989 : Afghanistan

1968 : Tchécoslovaquie

1956 : Hongrie

1953 : Allemagne de l’Est

1939 : Estonie, Finlande, Lettonie, Lituanie, Pologne, Roumanie

1929 – 1930 : Afghanistan

1921 : Géorgie

1920 : Azerbaïdjan

1917 – 1921 : Estonie, Finlande, Géorgie, Kazakhstan, Lettonie, Lituanie, Pologne, Ukraine

1905 : Japon

C’est sans compter la guerre civile russe, les annexions après les Première et Seconde Guerres mondiales ainsi que l’implication dans diverses petites guerres, y compris, plus récemment, en Syrie.  Il est évident que la Russie ne peut prétendre à l’innocence, mais qu’elle a plutôt été un prédateur constant de ses voisins.

La Russie est actuellement menacée par l’expansion de l’OTAN.  L’OTAN est, par conception, une alliance défensive et n’a pas pour mandat d’envahir d’autres pays.  La Russie possède des armes nucléaires ; bien que trois membres de l’OTAN soient des puissances nucléaires, l’OTAN elle-même ne l’est pas.  L’OTAN fonctionne par consensus, ce qui signifie que tous les pays devraient accepter une invasion de la Russie.  L’OTAN aurait également besoin d’une résolution des Nations unies pour organiser une telle invasion.  La Russie fait valoir que l’adhésion de l’Ukraine à l’OTAN pourrait placer des armes nucléaires lancées depuis le sol à moins de 1 000 kilomètres de Moscou, mais la réalité est que les États-Unis peuvent déployer des bombardiers équipés de missiles de croisière à charge nucléaire, une menace bien plus grande, à moins de 1 000 kilomètres de Moscou n’importe quel jour de la semaine.  L’OTAN est une organisation volontaire qui permet aux pays de demander leur adhésion en fonction de la perception qu’ils ont de leurs besoins.  Adhérer ou non à l’OTAN est un choix que les Ukrainiens peuvent faire, comme Poutine l’a lui-même reconnu dans son essai « Sur l’unité historique des Russes et des Ukrainiens ».   Refuser ce choix aux Ukrainiens, c’est les priver de leur autonomie et interférer avec leur droit à l’autodétermination. 

La Russie a le droit d’intervenir dans les pays voisins.  Nous vivons dans un monde post-Wilsonien, où nous avons convenu que les pays possèdent un droit à l’autodétermination.  Affirmer que la Russie a le « droit » d’intervenir dans les affaires intérieures de ses voisins viole ce droit à l’autodétermination.  Essentiellement, cet argument se résume à la loi du plus fort.  L’humanité a évolué au-delà de cela ; c’est pourquoi nous avons les Nations unies et pourquoi le recours légitime à la force nécessite une résolution des Nations unies.  Argumenter que d’autres pays interviennent auprès de leurs voisins est une réponse puérile. Si les Américains ont tort d’utiliser la force sans résolution de l’ONU, alors les Russes ont également tort.  

L’Ukraine n’est pas un vrai pays.  C’est l’essentiel d’un essai que Poutine a publié en juillet 2021, intitulé « Sur l’unité historique des Russes et des Ukrainiens ».  Dans cet essai, Poutine affirme que l’Ukraine a, historiquement, fait partie de la Russie et que les Ukrainiens n’ont donc pas d’identité nationale.  Mais l’Ukraine est antérieure à la Russie : Kiev a été fondée en 482, Moscou en 1147.  Les Ukrainiens sont-ils donc russes, ou les Russes sont-ils ukrainiens ?  Poutine consacre beaucoup de temps et d’efforts à construire un récit liant l’Ukraine et la Russie, affirmant que l’Ukraine moderne est une création de l’Union soviétique et soulignant les similitudes de langue et de religion.  Mais il admet que, dans d’autres parties du monde, des personnes partageant la même langue et la même religion existent en tant que pays différents, citant les exemples de l’Allemagne et de l’Autriche, et du Canada et des États-Unis.  Malgré tous ses efforts pour construire un récit dans lequel les Ukrainiens et les Russes ne forment qu’un seul peuple, Poutine admet l’existence de l’Ukraine, affirmant le droit de l’Ukraine à l’autodétermination dans sa déclaration finale : « Et ce que sera l’Ukraine, c’est à ses citoyens d’en décider. »  Donc, si Poutine admet que l’Ukraine et la Russie sont des pays distincts, concède que des personnes partageant une religion et une langue communes peuvent vivre dans des pays distincts, et concède le droit du peuple ukrainien à l’autodétermination, pourquoi ordonner l’invasion de l’Ukraine ? 

L’Ukraine est dirigée par des nazis.  C’est évidemment faux ; l’actuel président ukrainien est juif.  Le président Zelenskyy est de langue maternelle russe et est diplômé en droit de l’Université économique nationale de Kiev.  Il a remporté les dernières élections avec 73,23 % des voix, battant le candidat soutenu par le Kremlin, Petro Porochenko, qui avait été poussé par les médias russes et approuvé par Poutine.  Le président Zelenskyy a engagé des négociations avec la Russie pour mettre fin à la guerre en cours, sur la base de la mise en œuvre des accords de Minsk 1 et 2, mais, comme nous le savons maintenant, les Russes n’ont pas négocié de bonne foi pendant cette période.  Zelenskyy semble avoir été surpris par l’escalade russe de la guerre le 24 février de l’année dernière, mais il s’est adapté rapidement et a organisé une réponse ukrainienne extrêmement efficace.  Il a fait campagne sur un programme de lutte contre la corruption et a poursuivi le nettoyage du gouvernement ukrainien en écartant plusieurs politiciens et bureaucrates de haut rang.  Le grand-père du président Zelenskyy, Semyon Ivanovych Zelenskyy, a servi dans l’Armée rouge, atteignant le grade de colonel dans la 57e division de fusiliers motorisés des Gardes.  Le père et les trois frères du colonel Zelenskyy sont morts pendant l’Holocauste, après que les troupes allemandes ont réduit leur maison en cendres.  Selon Statista, en novembre 2022, la cote de popularité du président Zelenskyy était de 91 % chez les 15-34 ans, de 85 % chez les 35-54 ans et de 79 % chez les plus de 55 ans.  Dans l’ensemble, ce n’est pas l’image d’un nazi, d’un fauteur de guerre ou d’un dirigeant inepte.

Les accusations de néonazisme se fondent sur le parti Svoboda, qui a remporté 2 % des voix lors des dernières élections nationales et détient un siège au sein de la Verkhovna Rada, le Parlement ukrainien, qui compte 450 membres.  Il n’y a pas de chambre haute dans le système ukrainien, et les membres sont élus selon un système combinant représentation proportionnelle et de scrutin majoritaire à un tour, avec 50 % des membres provenant de listes de partis et 50 % élus dans des circonscriptions.  Le soutien électoral de Svoboda a connu une tendance à la baisse depuis le pic atteint en 2012 alors qu’il avait obtenu 10,45 % des voix.  

L’Ukraine est le “pays le plus corrompu d’Europe”.  Ce n’est pas le cas.  Selon le classement de Transparency International, le pays le plus corrompu d’Europe est la Russie, qui se classe au 137e rang avec un score de 28.   L’Ukraine quant à elle est classée 116e, avec un score de 33.

C’est une guerre par procuration entre la Russie et les États-Unis.  Comme je l’ai noté ailleurs, c’est une guerre de la Russie contre l’Europe.  Poutine est motivé par le pouvoir et est terrifié à l’idée de le perdre.  Les États-Unis soutiennent-ils l’Ukraine ? Oui, bien sûr.  L’OTAN soutient-elle l’Ukraine ?  Encore une fois, oui.  Mais il ne s’agit en aucun cas d’une guerre par procuration.  Cette guerre a commencé avec l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie en 2014, en violation du Mémorandum de Budapest de 1994, dans lequel la Russie, ainsi que le Royaume-Uni et les États-Unis, ont accepté de garantir la souveraineté de la Biélorussie, de l’Ukraine et du Kazakhstan en échange de l’abandon des armes nucléaires par ces trois pays.  La Russie a violé cet accord à plusieurs reprises ; le Royaume-Uni et les États-Unis le font respecter.  L’Ukraine n’est pas un pantin de l’Occident ; c’est un pays qui se défend contre une attaque, comme le permet l’article 51 de la Charte des Nations unies.  Prétendre que l’Ukraine est un pantin la prive de sa faculté d’agir et constitue une tentative de créer une fausse équivalence morale.  

N’oubliez pas qui vous soutenez.  Si ce qui précède ne vous convainc pas, rappelez-vous que la conduite indique la moralité ; les Russes se sont conduits de manière barbare et atroce.  Si vous voulez toujours soutenir les Russes, c’est très bien ; mais comprenez qui et ce que vous soutenez.  

Dès le 25 février 2022, Amnesty International a estimé que les attaques contre Vuhledar, Kharkiv et Ouman étaient susceptibles de constituer des crimes de guerre.  Alors que les forces ukrainiennes ont repris des villes et des villages, des preuves de viols et de tortures ont été mises au jour.  Les forces russes enlèvent des enfants et les renvoient en Russie, où ils sont adoptés par des familles russes.  Les forces russes ont enrôlé des civils dans les territoires occupés et les ont utilisés comme chair à canon, les envoyant au combat avec un minimum d’équipement, de formation ou d’encadrement.  

Le bureau du procureur ukrainien a recensé 39 347 crimes de guerre présumés commis par les forces russes.  Plus de 600 suspects ont été identifiés, et des procédures judiciaires ont été engagées contre 80 d’entre eux.  Les autorités ukrainiennes ont jusqu’à présent jugé 3 membres des services russes, qui ont tous plaidé coupable.  

Les forces russes ont délibérément pris pour cible des civils, des biens culturels (protégés par le droit international humanitaire) et des infrastructures essentielles, notamment des hôpitaux, des écoles et des abris.  

Il y a eu trois allégations de crimes de guerre commis par les troupes ukrainiennes ; ces allégations font l’objet d’une enquête de la part des autorités ukrainiennes, en vue d’engager des poursuites si cela se justifie.   Jusqu’à présent, les autorités russes ont refusé d’enquêter sur les allégations de crimes de guerre commis par les troupes russes.  

Pendant ce temps, l’effet sur la société russe s’accroît.  Depuis 1992, 58 journalistes russes sont morts, dont 38 en conséquence directe de leurs activités professionnelles.  Les Russes sont désormais passibles d’emprisonnement pour avoir ne serait-ce que qualifier l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie de guerre, et des milliers de familles russes ont perdu des fils et des maris pour une cause défaillante. 

La Russie est engagée dans une guerre illégale, non provoquée et injustifiable en Ukraine.  Ses soldats se sont comportés comme des criminels.  Rien ne justifie les actions de la Russie, et si vous êtes encore un apologiste de la Russie, vous êtes du mauvais côté de l’histoire. 

© 2023 Quentin Malcolm Innis

On Tankies

Posted: March 4, 2023 in Geopolitics, History, War
Tags: , , , ,
2

A guest article by Quentin Malcolm Innis, CD

I would not have thought that, one year into Putin’s war on Ukraine, there would still be people defending Russia.  Particularly post-Bucha, after the Russian VDV has been revealed as a collection of murderers, rapists, and thieves, I’m unsure how anyone can defend Russia or advocate on Russia’s behalf.   However, some people are slow learners, so here’s a compilation of tankie arguments, with some thoughts in response.   

Why tankies?  The term “tankie” derives from the hapless left-wingers who defended the Russian invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.  To defend their simplistic premise of “USSR good” they were forced by the circumstances of these invasions to perform a series of intellectual backflips, some of which have been resurrected as attempts to justify the current Russian invasion of Ukraine.  These attempts have many variations, but following are seven of the most popular. 

The Historical Threat from the West.  Russia has been invaded by the West three times over the past 210 years, starting with Napoleon’s invasion as part of the Second Polish War in 1812.  However, in that same 210-year period, Russia has been involved in at least 39 other wars.  

1812.  It is true that Napoleon’s Grand Army invaded Russia in 1812.  However, all wars start with diplomatic manoeuvring, and in the lead-up to the invasion, Napoleon and Czar Alexander the First had been bickering over Alexander’s withdrawal from the Continental Blockade, Napoleon’s primary strategic weapon against England.  The French invasion of Russia began when Alexander issued an ultimatum to Napoleon demanding that he remove French troops from Prussia and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw in April 1812.  Napoleon refused, and the Second Polish War was declared.  

1914.  While WW1 had multiple and intersecting causes, the event that precipitated the war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in 1914.  On 23 July, the Austrians submitted a list of demands to Serbia that they knew would be unacceptable, to secure a pretext for war.  On 25 July, the Serbians accepted all but one of the Austrian demands, but the Austrians claimed that the caveat amounted to a rejection of their demands and declared war on 28 July.  The Russians mobilized to support Serbia on 30 July, the Germans in turn mobilized, and the war kicked off.  The Russians then tapped out of the war they had a hand in starting, allowing the Germans to switch forces to the Western Front for the March offensive of 1918, nearly winning the war.  

1941.  Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of Russia, began on 22 June 1941.  This came as a surprise to the Russians, as they assumed that the Germans would abide by the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which had been signed 23 August 1939 and allowed Germany and Russia to dismember Poland by attacking simultaneously.  With his Eastern flank secured, Hitler then turned to the west, over-running most of Western Europe and isolating England.  Russia thus played a key part in enabling German plans, kicking off the bloodiest war in human history.  

Russia claims to be the aggrieved party in these wars, even though they enabled one and precipitated the other two through issuing ultimations that they knew would be unacceptable to the opposing power.  Set against this the list of Russian attacks on their neighbours.  

2014: Ukraine

2008: Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia

1994 – 1996 and 1999 – 2009: Chechnya

1979 – 1989: Afghanistan

1968: Czechoslovakia

1956: Hungary

1953: East Germany

1939: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania

1929 – 1930: Afghanistan

1921: Georgia

1920: Azerbaijan

1917 – 1921: Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine

1905: Japan

This does not count the Russian Civil War, annexations after the First and Second World Wars as well as involvement in various smaller wars, including, most recently, Syria.  It’s obvious that Russia has no claim to innocence but has instead been a consistent predator on her neighbours.

Russia is currently threated by NATO expansion.  NATO is, by design, a defensive alliance, and has no mandate to invade other countries.  Russia has nuclear weapons; although three NATO members are nuclear powers, NATO itself is not.  NATO operates by consensus, which means that every country would need to agree to an invasion of Russia.  NATO would also require a UN resolution to mount such an invasion.  Russia argues that Ukraine joining NATO could place ground-launched nuclear weapons within 1000 kilometers of Moscow, but the reality is that the US can deploy bombers with nuclear-armed cruise missiles, a much greater threat, within 1000 kilometers of Moscow any day of the week.  NATO is a voluntary organization which allows countries to apply for membership based on that country’s perception of need.  Joining or not joining NATO is a choice that Ukrainians can make, as Putting himself acknowledged in his essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”.   Denying Ukrainians this choice denies them agency and interferes with their right to self-determination. 

Russia has a right to intervene in neighbouring countries.  We live in a post-Wilsonian world, where we have agreed that countries possess a right to self-determination.  Arguing that Russia has a “right” to interfere with the internal affairs of its neighbours violates that right to self-determination.  Essentially, this argument boils down to “might makes right.”  We have evolved beyond that; this is why we have the UN and why the legitimate use of force requires a UN resolution.  Arguing that other countries intervene with their neighbours is a childish response. If it’s wrong for the Americans use force without a UN resolution, then it’s also wrong for the Russians.  

Ukraine is not a real country.  This is the gist of an essay that Putin published in July of 2021, titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.”  In this essay, Putin argues that Ukraine has, historically, been a part of Russia, and that Ukrainians therefore have no national identity.  But Ukraine pre-dates Russia: Kyiv was founded in 482; Moscow in 1147.  So are Ukrainians Russian, or are Russians Ukrainian?  Putin spends a considerable amount of time and effort constructing a narrative linking Ukraine and Russia, making the claim that modern Ukraine is a creation of the Soviet Union, and pointing to the similarities of language and religion.  But he concedes that, in other parts of the world, people sharing language and religion exist as different countries, citing the examples of Germany and Austria, and Canada and the United States.  Despite his best efforts to construct a narrative in which Ukrainians and Russians are one people, Putin admits to the existence of Ukraine, averring Ukraine’s right to self-determination with his closing statement: “And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.”  So, if Putin admits that Ukraine and Russia are separate countries, concedes that people sharing common religions and language can live in separate countries, and concedes the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination, why did he invade? 

Ukraine is run by Nazis.  Obviously untrue; the current Ukrainian president is Jewish.  President Zelenskyy is a native Russian speaker and graduated from the Kyiv National Economic University with a degree in law.  He won the last election with 73.23% of the vote, defeating the Kremlin-backed candidate, Petro Poroshenko, who had been pushed by Russian media and endorsed by Putin.  President Zelenskyy engaged negotiations with Russia to end the ongoing war, based on implementing the Minsk 1 and 2 agreements, but, as we now know, the Russians were not negotiating in good faith during this period.  Zelenskyy appears to have been caught by surprise by the Russian escalation of the war on 24 February of last year, but adapted quickly and has organized an extremely effective Ukrainian response.  He campaigned on an anti-corruption platform and has pushed ahead with cleaning up the Ukrainian government, removing several high-ranking politicians and bureaucrats.  President Zelenskyy’s grandfather, Semyon Ivanovych Zelenskyy, served in the Red Army, reaching the rank of colonel in the 57th Guards Motor Rifle Division.  Colonel Zelenskyy’s father and three brothers died in the Holocaust after German troops burned their home to the ground.  According to Statista, as of November 2022, President Zelenskyy’s approval rating was 91% for those 15 to 34, 85% for those 35 to 54 age, and 79% amongst those over 55.  All in all, hardly the picture of a Nazi, a war-monger, or an inept leader.

The charges of neo-Nazism are based around the Svoboda party, which won 2% of the vote in the last national election and holds one seat in the 450-member Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament.  There is no upper house in the Ukrainian system, and members are elected using a system which is a mix of proportional representation and first-past-the-post, with 50% of the members coming from party lists and 50% elected from constituencies.  Voting support for Svoboda has been trending downwards since peaking in 2012 at 10.45% of the vote.  

Ukraine is the “most corrupt country in Europe”.  It is not.  According to Transparency International’s ratings, the most corrupt country in Europe is Russia, ranking 137th in the world with a score of 28.   Ukraine ranks a 116th, with a score of 33.

This is a proxy war between Russia and the US.  As I’ve noted elsewhere, this is a war by Russia against Europe.  Putin is motivated by power and is terrified of losing it.  Is the United States supporting Ukraine? Yes, of course.  Is NATO supporting Ukraine?  Again, yes.  But this is by no means a proxy war.  This war started with Russia invading Ukraine in 2014, in violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Russia, along with the UK and the US, agreed to guarantee sovereignty for Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan in exchange for those three countries giving up nuclear weapons.  Russia has repeatedly violated that agreement; the UK and the US are upholding it.  Ukraine is not a proxy for the West; it is a country defending itself from attack, as permitted by Article 51 of the UN Charter.  Claiming that Ukraine is a proxy denies Ukraine agency and is an attempt to create a false moral equivalency.  

Remember who you are supporting.  If the foregoing does not convince you, then remember that conduct indicates morality, and the Russians have conducted themselves in a barbaric and atrocious manner.  If you still want to support the Russians, that’s fine; but understand who and what you are supporting.  

As early as 25 February 2022 Amnesty International identified attacks on Vuhledar, Kharkiv, and Uman as likely to constitute war crimes.  As Ukrainian forces have recaptured towns and villages, evidence of rape and torture has been uncovered.  Russian forces are kidnapping children and sending them to back to Russia, where they are adopted by Russian families.  Russian forces have conscripted civilians in the occupied territories and used them as cannon fodder, sending them into battle with minimal equipment, training, or leadership.  

The Ukrainian Prosecutor’s office has documented 39,347 alleged war crimes committed by Russian forces.  More than 600 suspects have been identified, and proceedings have been initiated against 80 of these suspects.  The Ukrainian authorities have so far tried 3 Russian service members, all of whom pled guilty.  

Russian forces have deliberately targeted civilians, cultural property (protected under international humanitarian law) and critical infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and shelters.  

There have been 3 allegations of war crimes committed by Ukrainian troops; these are being investigated by the Ukrainian authorities, with a view to conducting prosecutions if warranted.   So far, Russian authorities have declined to investigate allegations of war crimes committed by Russian troops.  

Meanwhile, the effect on Russian society increases.  Since 1992, 58 Russian journalists have died, 38 of them killed as a direct result of their professional activities.  Russians are now subject to imprisonment for even calling the war a war, and thousands of Russian families have lost sons and husbands to a failing cause.  

Russia is engaged in an illegal, unprovoked, and unjustifiable war in Ukraine.  Their soldiers have conducted themselves as criminals.  There is no justification for Russian actions, and if you are still a Russian apologist, you are on the wrong side of history.  

© 2023 Quentin Malcolm Innis

Subversion des institutions et de la société canadienne par le Parti communiste chinois

Posted: March 3, 2023 in Geopolitics
Tags:
0

Par Richard Martin

Je considère maintenant comme un risque à forte probabilité et à fort impact que la Chine a mené et continue de mener des opérations d’influence et de subversion contre les Canadiens, le gouvernement canadien, les politiciens et peut-être même des fonctionnaires clés.

Je développerai mon raisonnement dans un article de blog, mais ce qui suit peut être considéré comme un sommaire initial.

D’un point de vue bayésien, à mesure que de nouvelles preuves apparaissent, nous devons réviser notre estimation de la probabilité. En outre, nous devons également tenir compte de nos connaissances de base tirées du comportement historique de la Chine et d’autres éléments.

Par exemple, si nous supposons que nous n’avons pas de connaissances préalables sur les capacités et les intentions de la Chine, les preuves initiales ne concernent que l’interférence potentielle. Disons 50/50.

Si l’on ajoute d’autres éléments de preuve, et si chacun d’entre eux est également à 50/50, ou même légèrement plus probable selon l’hypothèse de subversion par la Chine, les probabilités en faveur d’un comportement et d’une intention néfastes ne sont toujours pas écrasantes.

Mais si l’on ajoute maintenant nos connaissances générales sur la Chine communiste, les capacités et le comportement passé du Parti Communiste Chinois ainsi que les objectifs déclarés, la probabilité préalable de l’hypothèse de la subversion, de la capture de l’élite et de la coercition chinoises augmente considérablement.

Des preuves supplémentaires allant dans le sens de cette hypothèse n’ajouteraient pas grand-chose à notre évaluation globale de la probabilité.

La question est alors de savoir quelles preuves réfuteraient l’hypothèse d’une intention non hostile de la Chine. Il appartient maintenant à ceux qui prétendent qu’il n’y a rien à voir ici ou que cela reste en dessous d’un seuil de préoccupation de fournir les preuves et les arguments en faveur de cette affirmation.

Autrement dit, il est temps de prouver que la Chine n’est pas hostile.

Chinese Subversion of Canadian Institutions and Society

Posted: March 3, 2023 in Political Philosophy
Tags: , ,
0

By Richard Martin

I now consider it a high-probability, high-impact risk that China has conducted and continues to conduct influence and subversion operations against Canadians, the Canadian government, politicians and perhaps key officials. I will develop my reasoning in a blog post, but the following can be considered the tl;dr version for now.

From a Bayesian perspective, as new evidence emerges, we must revise our estimate of probability. In addition, we must also consider our background knowledge from the historical behavior of the CCP and other evidence.

For example, if we assume that we have no prior knowledge of CCP’s capabilities and intentions, the initial evidence is only about potential interference. Let’s say 50/50. If we add other evidence, and each is also 50/50, or even slightly more likely under the assumption of CCP intent, the odds in favor of CCP’s harmful behavior and intent are still not overwhelming.

But if we now add our general knowledge of Communist China, the CCP’s capabilities and past behavior, and stated goals, the prior probability of the Chinese subversion, elite capture, and coercion hypothesis increases substantially. Additional evidence in support of this hypothesis would add little to our overall assessment of probability.

The question then becomes what evidence would disprove the hypothesis, and the null hypothesis of non-hostile Chinese intent can be dismissed. It is now up to those who claim that there is nothing to see here or that it remains below a threshold of concern to provide the evidence and arguments for this claim. In other words, it is time to prove that China is not hostile, rather than the other way around.

Jason Lowery’s Novel Theory of Power Projection in Nature, Society, and Cyberspace: An Initial Reaction

Posted: March 1, 2023 in Economics, Powerful Ideas, Readiness & Strategy, War
Tags: ,
0

by Richard Martin

I’ve started reading Jason Lowery’s master’s thesis on the national security implications of Bitcoin (Softwar: A Novel Theory on Power Projection and the National Strategic Significance of Bitcoin). I’m a little over halfway through the work, and I find that the insights I’m gaining on almost every page are mind-blowing.

This article in not intended as a full review of Lowery’s book or a critique of his thesis. My purpose is to start reacting in writing to his overall thesis and providing commentary and analysis of the insights I’ve been gaining from it. I’m inspired to do so by the impact his thesis is having on my thinking as well as those “reaction” videos that are so prevalent on YouTube®. I will address these to Jason through Linked In and Twitter, in the hope of starting a fruitful dialogue.

With the publication of Softwar, Lowery presents a novel theory on power projection in nature, human society, and the cybersphere. The latter is where Lowery gets into the national security aspects of Bitcoin. I’ve not yet gotten to that part of his thesis, so I will leave that aside for now.

With that said, there is plenty to digest in the book about power projection in nature and society and its implications for peace, security, and prosperity. In a nutshell, Lowery claims—convincingly—that power projection is fundamental to the genesis, evolution, and survival of life in general and of all organisms.

This may seem self-evident, but his formulation of what he calls “primordial economics” is compelling, as he bases it on physical power. Physical power is measured in watts, the amount of energy transformed or, alternatively, work performed in each second (1 watt equals 1 joule per second; the joule is the unit of work produced by a force of 1 newton to displace a mass by 1 meter; 1 newton is the force required to accelerate a mass of 1 kilogram at a rate of 1 meter per second per second). In other words, physical power is defined as the rate of displacement of mass over distance.

As we can see, basic physical concepts are all based on mass, energy, space, and time. Lowery equates the physical with the real. If there is no displacement of mass, or transformation of energy, then the phenomenon isn’t physical and is within the realm of human imagination and mentation, and therefore abstract. While we could possibly quibble about these conceptions, Lowery’s purpose is to advance the discussion by providing functional definitions of physical power and abstract power, and he succeeds in that respect. I will address abstract power and its relationship with physical power in a future installment of this series, as I’m still digesting it.

To survive and prosper, organisms must project power so they can acquire and consume resources while simultaneously protecting themselves from being attacked and consumed by other organisms. This is summarized in a simple mathematical expression:

BCRA = BA / CA, where

  • BCRA stands for Benefit-Cost Ratio of Attack. The higher an organism’s BCRA the greater the likelihood that it will be attacked and consumed by another organism.
  • BA stands for Benefit of Attack and represents the resource payoff for an organism of attacking or consuming the prey organism or object of consumption. The higher an organism’s BA for any given value of CA, the higher the BCRA.
  • CA stands for Cost of Attack and represents the “price” the prey organism or object of consumption imposes on attacking or consuming organisms. The higher an organism’s CA for any given value of BA, the lower the BCRA.

An organism with BCRA greater than 1 is attractive to a predator, and the higher the ratio, the more attractive it is as prey. Conversely, an organism with a BCRA between 0 and 1 is unattractive as a potential object of attack and is much less likely to fall prey to a predator trying to consume it for its resources. In simple terms, an organism with a BCRA below 1 is likely to inflict a high cost and even potential death on the predatory organism. The closer the ratio gets to 0, the higher the probability that the organism will survive attack by another organism. This is the essence of what Lowery calls “primordial economics.”

Now, I’d like to propose that Lowery’s formulation can in fact be construed as a formal statement of what Ludwig von Mises called “praxeology,” the science of human action. Mises theorized that human beings act to relieve felt uneasiness. Resources (food, water, vitamins, etc.) for energy and matter and the imperative to survive and prosper are the driving forces of human action, and life in general.

In this sense, Lowery’s primordial economics can be viewed as a more general statement of Mises’s notion of praxeology (human action), one that applies to the entire living world. Organisms must survive and thrive, and to do so they must feed and breed, and secure their existence against predators and entropy. The basis for this is power projection.

I won’t address the details of his exposition and argument, but it strikes me as a way to reconceptualize the relationship between war/politics and exchange/economics. Austrian economists, especially the more libertarian types, tend to see war/politics and exchange/economics as mutually exclusive categories. However, Mises always saw economics as being the most well-developed part of praxeology.

For Mises, praxeology is the science of human action, and economics is part of praxeology, specifically the tool to analyze market exchange (catallactics), the division of labour, and other categories of human action unhindered by coercion. This approach then undergirds the analysis of the effects of coercion—i.e., politics, violence, and war—on unhindered economic action.

The following diagram summarizes how I see the relationships between each of these concepts. Power projection includes praxeology, which includes economics, which includes catallactics (the study of market exchange).

There are implications of this conceptualization for peace, security, and prosperity. I will address these in another instalment along with other insights and reactions to Lowery’s thesis on power projection.

The Bitcoin Revolution and What It Means for Africa

Posted: February 23, 2023 in Uncategorized
0

By Richard Martin

Introduction

Bitcoin is a monetary and financial revolution on an international scale. Ready or not, it is affecting individuals and countries around the world. It’s therefore wise to understand how it works and what the most relevant use cases are.

Launched with little fanfare in January 2009 and first used in a commercial transaction in 2010, Bitcoin trades at around US$24,000 as I write this in late February 2023, having peaked at over US$60,000 in 2021.

The price of Bitcoin is volatile, but growing numbers of individuals, institutions, companies and even countries are looking to profit from the exponential growth and adoption of the Bitcoin network. In June 2021, the Salvadorean parliament passed a law granting Bitcoin legal tender status in the country, on an equal footing with the US dollar. Since then, there have been indications that other governments in Latin America and Africa are considering El Salvador’s example with a view to similar policy changes. 

Bitcoin belongs to a class of assets known as “cryptocurrencies,” or “crypto.” In fact, bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency, invented and launched before all others. The thousands of other cryptocurrencies are just derivatives or pale imitations of the original. In other words, there is bitcoin and there is everything else, referred to as “alt-coins” or, less gloriously, “shit-coins”. The focus of this article will be on Bitcoin only as I believe it is the only serious contender to compete as a new world currency.

I’ll begin with a bit of history. I will then outline the functioning of the Bitcoin network and its monetary unit, bitcoin (BTC).[1] A brief analysis of Bitcoin’s monetary and economic characteristics follows. We will then look at some promising applications of the Bitcoin network and the BTC currency in Africa. We will show how Africans can use it to make fast, easy, and virtually free financial and commercial transactions at global and local levels, as well as to harness off-grid electrical power to benefit local populations.

Bitcoin presents an unprecedented opportunity for Africans to become rich and prosperous by leveraging alternative, yet legitimate, financial, and monetary rails to those of the current international financial system made up of the IMF, World Bank, BIS, SWIFT, and other structures.

Some History

Bitcoin represents the first opportunity to save and transact internationally in hard currency since the gold standard fell in 1914. Hard money is money that cannot be increased in quantity at will. In other words, hard money exists in limited quantities and cannot be increased without considerable effort and investment in capital and financial and human resources.

Before the modern era, which began in the sixteenth century, trade and wealth accumulation were based on material goods such as livestock, minerals, furs, wheat, seashells, and various other valuable goods. Precious metals, especially gold and silver, became the most valuable currencies over time. This is what economists call commodity money, with gold and silver being the currencies used as the standard for all trade, savings, and investment in capital goods.

Silver is scarce compared to other metals. But it is also very useful in industrial processes and is used in many products. As a “people’s currency,” there has always been enough silver. Gold, on the other hand, is rare and difficult to mine. It is the most durable, beautiful, and malleable metal. It is therefore the most suitable for making art objects, jewellery, coins, scepters, and crowns.

Precious metals are very difficult to produce, requiring the search for rich deposits and veins at the far reaches of the planet, advanced industrial processes for refining and high-capacity processing, and considerable investment. The annual amount of silver produced and used in industrial applications is significant. The value of silver is higher than that of the more commonly used metals, such as copper and nickel. Gold, on the other hand, is very scarce, with average annual production amounting to only about 2% of existing above-ground stocks. Experts estimate that almost all the gold produced since the dawn of civilization is still in existence. Most of it is in the form of stored bullion, used as long-term collateral and reserves by the world’s major central banks. Gold therefore maintains its value at a relatively high level and is still a basic investment for the wealthy.

Archaeological excavations have unearthed caches and tombs filled with seashells, gemstones, jewellery, weapons, and precious metals, first copper and silver, then gold. Gold has always and everywhere been the ultimate store of value, symbolising power, beauty, authority, and life itself. Therefore, if silver was considered the currency of the people, gold was the currency of kings and other magnates.

In contrast, the current international monetary system is based entirely on a pyramid of fiat currencies with the US dollar at the top. A fiat currency is a currency that has no commodity value. Its use and legal tender are entirely dependent on government decrees and laws. Governments can also create unlimited amounts of fiat currencies through central banks and other means of economic control. History has repeatedly shown that this can lead to hyperinflation and economic devastation, with all their negative consequences.

How Bitcoin Works

Bitcoin is a system consisting of two distinct but related elements. The first is a worldwide network of computers that is decentralised, robust, and resilient. The other element is the monetary unit produced and traded on the Bitcoin network, known as bitcoin. Its symbol is BTC. We will deal with both elements in parallel, as one cannot exist without the other. When we want to talk about Bitcoin, capitalised, as a computer network, we will specify that we are talking about the “Bitcoin network.” We will refer to it as bitcoin or BTC when referring to bitcoin as a monetary unit or currency.

I will not discuss the technical aspects of the Bitcoin network and BTC currency unit. There are already very thorough treatments that will give the reader an idea of the mechanics of the network and its technical operation (Ammous, Saifedean, The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking, Wiley, 2018). Instead, to highlight the characteristics that distinguish the Bitcoin network and BTC from other existing monetary systems and financial networks, I will limit myself to a functional description of the Bitcoin network and BTC.

The Bitcoin network was announced on October 31st, 2008, by an individual or a group – no one knows for sure – under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. The first bitcoin (BTC) was mined by Nakamoto on January 3rd, 2009. Since then, thousands of miners around the world have been producing BTCs with the help of Nakamoto’s software.[3] The first transaction using BTC as a currency took place in May 2010. A man in Florida bought two pizzas for 10,000 BTC. The network’s software and protocol have been under development and refinement ever since.

There is no single entity in control of the Bitcoin network, be it an individual, a group, a company or even a state. Despite this, there have been several attempts to gain control of the network or change the way it operates, but all have been thwarted. Some states, notably China with its ban on bitcoin exchanges and miners in China, have tried or are trying to interfere with the operation and scope of the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin network absorbs the impact, but the protocol and software governing its operation have resisted these attacks by adapting automatically without human intervention.

The key to this resilience can be attributed to several factors, including the network’s inherent decentralisation and near-total automation. In fact, the only way the bitcoin network can function is in a decentralised and automated manner. The network automatically reacts and adapts as soon as any individual or group, no matter how powerful, attempts to influence or change the protocol, software, or rules of operation. Even the smallest elements in the Bitcoin network can resist change in the face of concerted campaigns by the larger players. In summary, the Bitcoin network requires almost total unanimity among node operators and miners for any change in its operation. 

The best comparison for Bitcoin is the Internet. Since its inception in the late 1960s, the Internet has become increasingly resilient, robust, and powerful. It has penetrated all areas of commerce, politics, society, and technology on a global scale. The most powerful states in the world try to influence and control the Internet, but save for a few exceptions, they have not been able to impose total censorship on a permanent or even complete basis. Internet nodes still manage to survive and resist these attacks, and communication and data transfer channels override state-imposed restrictions. Consider the famous VPN software and the Tor network, which allow users to hide their location to access officially banned websites and services. The Internet and the Web are a bit like the Wild West, and that’s the way most users like it.

Even China, who built its Great Firewall to limit the free flow of information internally and externally hasn’t entirely succeeded. Internet data flows must go through terrestrial channels, i.e., fibre-optic cables. But what will happen when satellite communications go global and terrestrial networks become obsolete or supplemented? It is a safe bet that the Internet will continue to function and will continue to spread. Since the Bitcoin network is the “Internet of money,” we can expect that it will survive any attack or attempt at influence for a long time.

Bitcoin consists of three elements: “miners,” “node operators,” and the Bitcoin “blockchain.” “Miners” are companies that use specialised, ultra-powerful computers to generate millions of random numbers per second, which vary in difficulty depending on the overall capacity of the network. As the number of miners and the number of transactions on the network increase, the level of mathematical difficulty increases in a parallel fashion. A decrease in the number of miners or transactions results in a decrease in the level of difficulty. A miner quickly propagates his solution to the Bitcoin network when he announces that he has generated the correct random number, regardless of its difficulty. Node operators must then confirm that the transactions are valid for the winning miner’s block to be added to the blockchain.

The Bitcoin blockchain provides a permanent and immutable record of all validated and confirmed transactions. A new block of validated transactions is added to the blockchain at an average rate of once every 10 minutes. The blockchain is archived by all full nodes in the network, including the miners. As a result, there can be no fraudulent transactions (e.g., spending the same amount of money on two different purchases), and the blockchain is completely public and visible to anyone who wants to see it.  The blockchain permanently records all transactions and can be viewed by anyone who wishes to verify its contents. With the Bitcoin network’s blockchain, there is no real possibility of accounting fraud, as it would have to be done in full view of the node operators and miners. This would result in fraudulent transactions being rejected almost immediately.

Bitcoin’s Monetary and Economic Features

The 10-minute validation of transactions is considered by some critics of Bitcoin to be far too slow. However, transactions on the Bitcoin network should be compared to traditional international money transfers, which can take several days and incur significant fees, rather than to bank cards and other credit instruments. We will come back to this point when we look at how the Bitcoin network compares to more traditional financial channels.

We have already mentioned that “miners” are those who search for a random number and group transactions on the bitcoin network into blocks for addition to the blockchain. Miners need to use specially designed and very powerful computers to find the random number by brute force. This requires an ever-increasing investment in computing equipment. In addition, all these computers consume electricity to power application specific integrated circuit microprocessors (ASICs) and cooling systems.

Miners need to be compensated for these expenses and investments. Therefore, the Bitcoin network is designed to “reward” the miner who comes up with the correct random number every 10 minutes and has all the transactions in its block accepted as valid. When the winning block is validated by the Bitcoin network nodes, it is added to the blockchain and the miner who created it receives a predetermined number of bitcoins (called the coin base transaction) and the transaction fees paid by those whose transactions are included in the block.

When the Bitcoin network was first launched in 2009, all that was needed to find the necessary random number was an ordinary computer. But as more miners and nodes joined the network and the number of BTC transactions grew exponentially, competition intensified. A miner now needs thousands of hyper-specialised, ultra-powerful computers to have a reasonable chance of finding the random number that validates their transaction blocks. Miners that are too small to deploy enough computing power independently are forced to shut down or join miner pools. They hope to get a share of a block reward from time to time when their pool is successful in finding the random number and having their block of transactions validated and added to the blockchain. 

A bitcoin miner’s life isn’t easy. Competition is fierce and capital requirements are significant and rising. The reason there are so many miners is that the return on investment can be enormous, especially during turbulent times, such as the reduced computing power brought about by the Chinese government’s bitcoin mining ban in 2021. Miners who can access reliable and inexpensive power will benefit in the short to medium term, especially in times of chaos.

So far, we have said very little about the monetary unit of the Bitcoin network, bitcoin token (abbreviated BTC). The reason is simple. Talking about bitcoin as a currency doesn’t really make sense without first describing the whole network and the systems that make it possible. It is like talking about the US dollar without mentioning the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, or the World Bank. The same goes for all other national currencies: the pound sterling, euro, Chinese yuan, Swiss franc, and even the world’s lesser currencies (Canadian dollar, rouble, etc.).

The most important monetary feature of the Bitcoin network is this: There is a fixed number of bitcoins. No matter how active the Bitcoin network becomes, the maximum number of bitcoins that will ever be “mined” is 21 million, no more, no less. Since the creation of the first Bitcoin block in January 2009 (known as the “genesis block”), the Bitcoin network has been producing bitcoins like clockwork, even in the face of concerted efforts by several individuals and miners to lift the limit. Moreover, every four years or so, the coin base transaction, the miners’ basic payment, is halved. For the first four years, the coin base payout was 50 BTC every 10 minutes. But on 28 November 2012, after its first four year, the coin base payout automatically reduced to 25 BTC every 10 minutes. In 2016, the payout to winning miners was reduced to 12.5 BTC, and in 2020 to 6.25 BTC every 10 minutes. The next halving will probably occur during April 2024, whether anyone likes it or not, and will therefore be 3.125 BTC every 10 minutes for the following four years.

According to experts, the last satoshis will be mined in 2140. The growth of the BTC money supply will therefore be asymptotic. At the beginning of 2023, more than 19 million bitcoins have been generated, leaving less than 2 million to be mined over a period of 120 years!  This fact is of great importance for the Bitcoin network, as there will never be more than 21 million BTC in circulation. The Bitcoin currency cannot be devalued by inflation; it can only increase in value, not only in relation to existing national currencies (USD, GBP, CHF, JPY, EUR, CAD, AUD, etc.), but also in relation to the goods and services that can be purchased with bitcoins and satoshis now and in the future.

In other words, if BTC becomes a common currency, it will only increase in value in real terms. While most economists are still sceptical, an increasing number of are of the opinion that the network can effectively replace not only national currencies, especially the US dollar, as the international reserve currency, but even gold, the longest-lived store of value.

There are many current applications that are of vital interest to Africa and Africans, regardless of whether the Bitcoin network or currency becomes the monetary standard of the future. These will be the subject of the final part of this article.

How Africans Can Benefit from Bitcoin Now

There are two applications that have great potential for Africa and Africans. The first is to use the Bitcoin network to conduct commercial and financial transactions globally, bypassing central banks and centralised channels such as the SWIFT network or companies such as Western Union. The second is to use bitcoin mining to invest profitably and sustainably in hydro, wind, or solar power for off-grid electricity generation.

The Bitcoin Network as an Alternative Financial and Monetary System

The current international financial and monetary system consists of a network of central banks (with the US Federal Reserve at the apex), international financial institutions (IMF, WB, BIS), communication protocols (SWIFT) and financial and banking companies around the world. This system was set up in the decades following the Second World War. It has been refined ever since to facilitate international financial and trade exchanges. The world has benefited greatly from it, but there are growing shortcomings that undermine the potential for economic and commercial growth and investment in less developed countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

It’s beyond the scope of this article to describe these shortcomings in detail. But one example illustrates the limitations of the current system of international payments. Case in point: Western Union.  First, the parties to the transaction must provide a great deal of confidential information, including the reason for the money transfer. Second, there is a fee, which can be a significant proportion of the transferred amount. Second, the recipient may have to travel to a Western Union office, which may be a considerable distance away. In addition to the transaction and exchange fees, there may also be personal security risks and travel costs associated with this.

Western Union offers several ways to send money electronically. However, it is also important to note that a significant proportion of the population in sub-Saharan Africa remains unbanked. This makes sending and receiving electronic money difficult. Only about 55% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa had a bank account in 2021, according to the World Bank. However, 33 per cent had a mobile phone account, the highest proportion in the world.  But there are still obstacles. And they are costly to overcome.

There is therefore huge potential and opportunity for any business to reduce transaction costs, speed up transactions, limit personal risk and reduce obstacles and interference from international, governmental, and commercial authorities. The Bitcoin network is a more than viable option in this regard. Moreover, there are already companies using its economic and financial potential to transfer large sums of money globally at negligible or very low cost. One example is the service enabling money transfers between individuals in the US and Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana, provided by the US company Strike (strike.me) and its African partner Bitnob. The cost is virtually zero (although there are always exchange costs) and the transfers are made directly between individuals in local currencies at the speed of light. There is no need to go to a bank branch or disclose too much sensitive information and data.

Other companies are beginning to develop innovative services that allow Africans not only to acquire a virtual bank account, but also local and international transactions, minimising the impact and risk of distance, reducing costs, and minimizing surveillance and unwanted intrusions. Examples include Bitcoin Ekasi in South Africa, which aims to build a community around local use of the Bitcoin network, and Bitcoin Manchankura, which enables mobile phone transactions using bitcoins and satoshis. 

It should be noted that the latter companies are based in South Africa. Their target markets are mainly English-speaking countries in Africa. So far, there do not seem to be any companies offering similar services in the French-speaking parts of Africa. This is an opportunity to be seized, particularly in CFA franc zone countries.

Leveraging the Bitcoin Network to Boost Off-Grid Electrification

Africa’s hydro, wind and solar potential is vast but remains untapped, not least because of a lack of capital to invest in infrastructure and a lack of confidence among investors and operators that they will be able to recoup their investments and cover their operating costs. In the Democratic Republic of Congo alone, the hydropower potential is estimated at over 100,000 MW. This would require the construction of hundreds, if not thousands, of mini and micro hydropower plants.

This is where the Bitcoin network comes in with an innovative solution for small-scale hydropower in sub-Saharan Africa. How, might you ask? The logic is simple, but powerful, and can be illustrated by the US company Gridless, which seeks to invest in micro-hydro in Africa to provide local electricity without the need to invest billions in building large-scale infrastructure, requiring decades of financing with massive financial, economic, environmental, and political risks and costs.

Access to a reliable and affordable source of electricity is essential for bitcoin miners. To this end, many miners, either alone or in partnership with other users, are connecting to unused hydroelectric plants or other unconventional energy sources in more developed countries. Some use non-marketable natural gas to power mini-turbines near wellheads, to generate relatively inexpensive electricity. Others are turning scrap tires into fuel that can be used to power generators that in turn can power their computers. Meanwhile, a nuclear power plant in the US has started mining bitcoin with excess electricity at times of low market demand.

The biggest challenge for small-scall power generation in sub-Saharan Africa is finding the capital to build and connect to regional or national grids. Then, to maximise sustainable, profitable operation, there must be a minimum assured demand for the operator. Bitcoin mining provides an assured buyer for the electricity generated. This can fund a significant portion of the initial investment and provide operating revenue until local demand ramps up over time. Bitcoin mining thus provides a means of generating revenue until the local electricity market is sufficiently attractive to justify longer-term investment and operation. In this way, electrification in Africa can be driven by local electricity supply and demand combined with the long-term development of the Bitcoin network.

This model of electricity investment and operation alone will not solve Sub-Saharan Africa’s electrification problem, but it is an interesting way forward among a range of options and tools. Compared to the financial and monetary services described in the previous section, this is still a very uncharted and underdeveloped area. However, the potential is there, and all options should be considered and explored.

Conclusion

This is a long article, but we’ve only begun to scratch the surface of the possibilities offered by the Bitcoin network and its native currency, bitcoins/satoshis. We have explored the economic, technical, and monetary workings of the Bitcoin network. This was only preliminary to describing the two most important ways in which Bitcoin can be used in Africa.

We described Bitcoin’s potential to facilitate financial, commercial, and monetary transactions. Several examples of innovation and success have been identified, but it is important to recognise that the commercial potential for companies and entrepreneurs who seize the opportunity to better serve Africans from all walks of life are abundant.

The huge potential for electrification through the Bitcoin network and the mining of bitcoin has also been highlighted. The trend is still in its infancy. It will be interesting to see the development of the few projects that are under way, especially those of Gridless. Anyone can invest, innovate, and take advantage of Bitcoin’s financial, commercial, technical, and economic leverage.

As mentioned, the Bitcoin revolution is underway. Bitcoin offers Africans an unprecedented opportunity to become richer and more fulfilled by taking control of their own destiny through cutting-edge, decentralised, and empowering technology.

[1] Each bitcoin is divisible into 100,000,000 satoshis, named in honour of the pseudonymous inventor of the Bitcoin network. Satoshis, or sats, can be further subdivided into microsats, i.e., .001 sat.

[3] The original and most frequently used implementation of the Bitcoin software is known as Bitcoin Core, and has been improved many times since its first publication on github.

Older Entries
Newer Entries