Bradley Manning and Julian Assange

The problem with history is that so few people read it or understand it so society is doomed to endlessly repeat the mistakes of the past. We see this in the wars that have plagued Europe for a thousand years, we see it in the political corruptions that brought down Rome and Byzantium, we see it in the rigid tyrannical governments that have dominated the Middle East, and now we are seeing the lessons unlearned from the French Revolution being taught once again by Julian Assange and the Cold War Lessons being taught once again by Bradley Manning.

Guy Burgess was a homosexual and member of the “Cambridge Five.” A Soviet Spy ring headed by Kim Philby. This group spied for the Russians before, during, and after the Cold War. It was composed of both MI5 and MI6 intelligence officers all of whom had hard left ideals beginning in their University days. Of these Burgess was certainly the most unstable and unpredictable and in addition to his overt homosexuality he was an alcoholic.

Burgess was the son of a Naval Officer and attended Eton, The Royal Naval College, and Cambridge. His poor eyesight kept him from continuing his military training. One would have thought that his obvious homosexuality would have kept him out of military training as well as his subsequent career in the foreign and intelligence services, but it didn’t. While at Cambridge he became a strong supporter of the communist party and joined a debating society that was strongly Marxist. With the rise of Hitler, Burgess renounces Communism and joins a Pro-Nazi group, apparently in an effort to hide his pro-Marxist and pro-Soviet views. He begins his career working for the BBC and with the opening of WW II he is transferred to MI 5 to work on war propaganda. His career progresses with assignments in the Foreign Office and for MI 5 in Washington DC.

Even though the events in the USSR compromised his hard left ideals regarding equality and wealth distribution he continued throughout his career to feed secret information to the KGB. His access to secret information was never questioned or compromised in spite of his obvious homosexuality, his past political record, and his raging alcoholism. He ticked all of the boxes normally used to prevent a person access to sensitive information, which brings us to Bradley Manning – a highly unstable young man.

Manning’s father had been in the Navy and Bradley had wanted to join the Army from the time he was a little boy. However, early on he refused to say the pledge of allegiance and rejected all references to God. He was outspoken in class and would frequently have altercations with his teachers. He was small and tormented at school for being “queer”. He threatened his father with a knife and as a result he left the family home living in his truck and holding several low paying jobs. Finally he joined the Army in 2007 and after basic training he was sent to Fort Huachuca where he was trained as an Intelligence Analyst. While there he was reprimanded for posting sensitive information to friends on YouTube. He was then posted to Fort Drum where he began his first homosexual relationship and was introduced to a group of hackers. During this period he had a falling out with his military roommates and screamed at his superior officers and was referred for medical counseling.

In spite of this track record and questions regarding his fitness to be deployed he was posted to Iraq. By the end of 2009 he was clearly showing signs of his instability and was once again referred to a Chaplin for counseling. He started counseling for his “gender” confusion and complaints about being harassed for being gay. He also announced he was opposed to the war and punched a female soldier in the face. He was told he could be discharged from the Army. Before this happened he had already had begun his contacts with Assange and was fully engaged in betraying his country, endangering the lives of fellow soldiers, and under cover agents. Unlike Burgess who at least had solid and long standing beliefs in communism, Manning had no such justification other than spite and a long standing resistance to authority – any authority. What he was doing in the Army and in such a sensitive position is a failure by virtually everyone who came into contact with him. Today he is viewed by the extreme left as a hero when he has no claim to any sort of moral courage and is in fact a traitor.

Julian Assange is a person who does not believe in secrets and professes that no government has the right to any secret. He started hacking into other people’s computers at age 16 apparently with no moral regret because he believed all information should be public. He was caught and convicted although only lightly punished. His hacking had cost the firms he hacked and various governments thousands of dollars in damages. He does not appear to have seen anything wrong with his activities because much like Robespierre, he is so convinced he is right and that everyone else is wrong that he feels guiltless.

He progressed to programming and a member of the open source software movement, and joined a group of hackers who believe all software should be free and there should not be any private ownership. He had a very unstable childhood and never really stabilized as an adult. Like so many in the Open Source movement he is essentially anti-authority and anti-government and does not see that any government has authority to have secrets or any control over him. Consequently he refuses to accept that his actions have any consequences or could cost lives, but if they do then that is simply collateral damage and the responsibility is the government’s and not his.

Robespierre and Assange have similarities. Robespierre believed in equality and democracy and was a disciple of Rousseau. He was passionate in his beliefs to the point where he abandoned his resistance to the death penalty and enforced his ideals by executing those who he felt were resisting his views on the ideal society. Much like Assange is doing today except Robespierre signed the orders of execution while Assange lets other’s do it. Robespierre was viewed as a patriot just as Assange is viewed as a patriot by some, but the reality is that both betrayed their societies. Robespierre was executed for his actions and both Assange and Manning should be seen as traitors and punished accordingly. They are not heroes.

Relationship of Hatshepsut with Thutmosis III

In reading a history of Egypt I once again find some "learned" professor calling Hatshepsut a "usurper" and Thutmosis as being "marginalized" and kept out of power until her death. Of course the real truth will never be known but a little logic is sorely needed on this subject. First of all Hatshepsut took Thutmosis as a little boy and raised him as her son. Queen or peasant the relationship between mother and child is a strong one and not easily broken. When Thutmosis II died his son was very young -- generally believed to be about nine -- a boy. It was his step-mother Hatshepsut who adopted him as her son and had him crowned as Pharoah while she assumed the role of regent. Even though women did not figure in the succession a woman like Hatshepsut, who had been raised to rule could easily have eliminated Thutmosis III had she desired the crown, instead she crowned her step-son as Pharoah.

Thutmosis III ruled with his mother as regent for about two years but it was clear that he didn't like the routine of governing. Like most small boys he clearly wanted to be more active and like many small boys today, he was probably interested in the Army. Consequently Hatshepsut recognized the futility of trying to rule through a small boy and sent him off to the Army while she assumed the crown as Pharaoh but without usurping Thutmosis’s position as Pharoah, so she became the co-ruler. For some this idea of sharing may seem like wishful thinking or stretching the truth, but Hatshepsut ruled for 20 years and Thutmosis III was near thirty when she died and was commander of the most powerful army of the time.

Hatshepsut was Queen with a palace guard and she could have been overturned any time her step-son chose to exercise his rights as Pharoah. Instead he remained in the army and commanded several campaigns in the south. Clearly he loved the army and enjoyed the military life, leaving the governance of the country to his step-mother. Had he thought otherwise he could have claimed his right of governance at any point once he was mature. If further evidence is needed the situation with Senmut the Vizier should be considered. Senmut functioned as the Vizier with almost total power almost from the beginning and certainly had been tutor to Thutmosis while he was prince and even as Pharoah.

Historians have long speculated that Senumt was the lover of Hatshepsut, while this may be true any close examination of Hatshepsut’s actions indicate that she truly believed that she was descended from the Gods and it is unlikely she would have taken on any commoner as a lover. But even if she had it also seems equally clear that he would never have been a candidate to marry her or her daughter or to share power with Hatshepsut. Yet the history of the time shows Senmut’s climb to power from nothing to Vizier and it seems equally clear that he was motivated by power. But Senmut suddenly disappears from sight after a visit with Thutmosis III at his headquarters in the south. Senmut visits Thutmosis then vanishes after this meeting and he is never again mentioned. What happened is not recorded but this meeting and his disappearance seem to be related.

What actually happened at this meeting is lost in history but it doesn’t require a vast leap in logic to assume that Senmut urged Thutmosis to overthrow his step-mother and to assume full power. To anyone kept in the background this might have been a golden opportunity to reclaim what was rightfully his, but for a loving and dutiful son this was an act of treason. However, Thutmosis did not take action against Senmut but undoubtedly he notified his step-mother of what had been proposed by Senmut. Given the disappearance of Senmut immediately after this visit it seems logical that Thutmosis was happy with things just as they were and viewed Senmut as disloyal to his step-mother and a traitor, but it was Hatshepsut who took action not Thutmosis.

This then opens the question that if Thutmosis loved his step-mother then why did he obliterate her statutes and images? For some this is viewed as an angry response and an illustration of how much he hated her. This is the lazy man’s view of events and really doesn’t seem logical when everything is considered. First she was buried in one of the most spectacular tombs in the valley of the Kings. Also not all of her images were destroyed and those that were destroyed were not destroyed until some time after Thutmosis took power. Thutmosis III claimed to reign from the time he was crowned meaning that he viewed the entire period during Hatshepsut’s reign as his, which of course was true. During this period it was common to mark milestones, battles, and accomplishments with statues and writings in temples and on walls. It was these where Thutmosis obliterated Hatshepsut’s name and images claiming these as part of his reign and accomplishments. Other images and references remained intact so these actions were probably not done in anger or retaliation but were politically motivated.

It seems clear when all of the evidence is considered that Thutmosis III loved his step-mother and that they had a sound and loving relationship throughout her life. Thutmosis III was a warrior and is viewed in History as the Napoleon of Egypt. Any General that powerful would not have been marginalized or kept out of power if he chose to take what was rightfully his. Instead he was satisfied leading the army while she took on the burden of daily governance. He clearly loved his step-mother just as she loved him. The idea that Hatshepsut usurped the throne and kept Thutmosis sidelined is an assumption that doesn’t seem to conform to the known facts.

The Euro-Zone Crisis

So the 27 member Euro-Zone members did not reach an agreement on any solution to the ongoing Euro-Zone debt problem and Chancellor Merkel and Germany are being seen as killing the Euro. Why this surprises anyone is a mystery because Germany is the only stable and successful economy in Europe – or at least Western Europe. Essentially the solution has two parts – strict rules governing the fiscal and economic policies of the members and the issuance of “Euro-Bonds”. These bonds would be supported and guaranteed by the Euro-Zone members.

This seems simple and straightforward unless of course you are German. The Euro-Zone members are in love with their socialist programs, they like their 6 week vacations, short work weeks, high salaries, and early retirements. Even feeble attempts to rein in some of these government programs has led to riots in Greece and Italy – the governments might see the necessity for these changes but the recipients – the voters – do not. Of course the German voters see things quite differently since they are the hardworking taxpayers whose taxes have already gone to bailing out Greece and their irresponsible financial commitments. The German taxpayers are simply tired of being the financial savior of countries whose irresponsible financial programs have left them virtually bankrupt and expecting Germany to bail them out.

The Euro-Bond is a great solution for those irresponsible countries because the bonds would be guaranteed by the collective membership. Of course the largest guarantor would be Germany while the greatest abusers would be given breathing space without making any major changes to their cradle to grave programs. Chancellor Merkel sees this as a bad idea and at best a band-aid because it would merely avert the immediate crisis without actually improving the long range economic situation plaguing Europe.

The reality is Western Europe is not competitive in the world markets. Only Germany has an export economy supported by hard working taxpayers, while countries like Greece have tax policies that are laughable. In Greece the individual taxpayer is allowed to simply state how much they earned so the tax revenues don’t even approximate the cost of their government programs. The French – like most socialist governments – see employment as the objective rather than productivity and competitive position. So their solution has been to reduce the work week hours to well under 40 and any thought of increasing that has led to near riots. The supreme irony there is that France still sees itself as a world power and a peer – if not superior – to Germany. Of course France isn’t a basket case like Greece but it is nowhere near the economic power house of Germany.

Germany is emerging as the dominant force in Europe and is rapidly accomplishing the objectives that they failed to achieve in two world wars. Germany is increasingly determining the policies that Europe must follow and the only European government that seems immune to German dominance is the UK. The Fourth Reich is being born.