Having a difficult time right now...

Updating content for my posts are postponed for now. I'm right now accessing this via an internet cafe. My phone connection has been cut off and I'm having trouble paying my bills. 

Dear readers, kindly bear with me for now. I'll sort through all my financial mess and will serve you as soon as it's fixed.

Thank you for understanding. :-)

Education in the Philippines

One of Philippine history’s major myths is that only the Americans brought education to the Philippines. Taking it at face value, it would seem so. Spanish policy emphasized on educating indios with only the most basic education. If Spaniards permitted teaching higher ideals in the curriculum, it will awaken nationalist beliefs detrimental to them. Sure enough, nationalist ideals that ilustrados gleaned from their European education eventually sparked the 1898 revolution.
Truth is, even before the Yankees came, the Philippines had a comparably good public education system. Further improvements came after Gov. Gen. Solano approved the Education Law of 1863. The law mandated pueblos to have gender-segregated schools – at least a pair consisting of an all-boys schools and an all-girls school. Before that, parishes served as the first public schools for the masses – as it was in Spanish colonies like Mexico. But, where in Mexico Spanish was the medium of instruction, in the Philippines it was different. Keeping line with the divide and conquer policy, only the tribal languages served that purpose. The arrival of the Americans reversed that approach – using their language, English, as the new medium of instruction.
What gave rise to the American myth was the way education was extensively used as a propaganda tool. The use of military means to subjugate the rebels was limited. Hence, the Americans were compelled to show Filipinos the benefits of American rule. As a part of the pacification campaign, a massive education drive was undertaken. American teachers brought to the islands – first, on board the USS Sheridan then the USS Thomas – helped in the effort. Teaching in English not only made life easier for the American teachers. It also made it easier for Filipinos to accept Americanized versions of Philippine history to quell nationalist fervor. Education also made it easier for Filipinos to readily accept American thinking and the superiority of the American way of life, further completing the subjugation process. Where the Spaniards deliberately omitted some school subjects to maintain the status quo, the Americans only altered their content to suit their ends (without removing any subjects). The new colonizers refined the tactic of selective education as a colonization tool. In the final days of the revolution, the Americans were successful in subtlety impressing upon Filipinos the futility of the resistance effort – using education. They used it to alienate the masses from the revolutionaries. Once isolated, the revolutionaries surrendered one by one then later tried and executed or exiled. Without the support of the masses from the countryside, the revolution suffered an untimely death.
     Rizal exactly predicted the subjugation and weakening of the Filipino identity in his work, El Filibusterismo. Through its character, Simoun, he foretold the subservience resulting from Filipinos blindly adopting too much of foreign ways through education. Unless Filipinos maintained a healthy and mature attachment to their past, they will unthinkingly perpetuate foreign domination of themselves even after being granted political freedom. When the Americans expanded on the existing school system on their terms that is what happened. But, that isn’t saying American contributions must be entirely shunned because of what was mentioned.
     The question now isn’t whether the Americans forcibly imposed their brand of education or if Filipinos wholly embraced it. A mature wariness on embracing anything foreign must be exercised. History has shown that the Americans (as with any colonizer) will give away anything of value only on their own terms. Filipinos ought to look towards the Japanese on their approach to learning and adopting foreign ways. 16th century Westerners saw Japan as a nation that seemingly embraced foreign cultures wholeheartedly. First, with China (in the 7th century A.D.), then the Portuguese (15th and 16th century A.D.) and later, the Americans (1845 A.D.), they showed how quick they were to yield to alien ways. In reality, their fancy for those rarely extended beyond acquisition of anything useful. In their frequent diplomatic contacts with T’ang China in 618 A.D., Japan borrowed heavily from China – an example being Chinese writing. But that was done to facilitate its adaptation to the Japanese language. The Japanese maintained to keep their culture robustly thriving underneath. Furthermore, whatever they gain is meant to be used against their creators (more so with technology). Their displays of adopting foreign ways were meant to be a screen. It was a way to keep foreigners from imposing their ways through military invasions, maintaining Japan’s centuries of independence. This was in sharp contrast to China at the turn of the century. Her xenophobia and indoctrinated delusion of being the center of the world made her resist modernity. That fatal oversight made her fall prey to the foreign powers, carving zones of influence from her territory in the process. On the other hand, turn-of-the-century Japan made that quick, seamless transition from feudal kingdom into one of the modern world powers. As with then and now, Japan continued to exercise the motto, “foreign knowledge, Japanese spirit”: letting foreign things serve Japan, but never letting it dominate them.

– Cebuano Word Trivia –
Balai – “House” (English); “Bahay” (Filipino); Derived from the proto-Tagala/Visayan word, “balanghai”. It originally referred to the sea-faring vessels of early Filipinos. Since a whole family or clan traveled in a single balanghai, it eventually came to be used as the word for “family” or “clan”. It then came to mean for the word for “village” (from which the derivative word, “baranggay”, is coined).Ultimately, it came to its present usage denoting “house”. In a cultural sense, a family or clan lives under one roof, so it wouldn’t be surprising that in the early Filipino language, the words “house”, “family” and “clan” are synonymous or wholly interchanged. Incidentally, the Tagalog “bahay” is derived from this word – via the Cebuano habit of pronouncing it sans the letter “l” (ba’ai). The Ilocano term for “house” is also “balai”.

Announcements

Though being new is not an excuse in the blogging business, in this instance, it should be so. As you can readers can see, it’s currently a work in progress. There are some posts that need to be cross-linked with others, etc. This provides readers here with a better reading and browsing experience.

     I’m currently working on an expanded version of my article, “A Primer on Black Propaganda”. The version I wrote for this blog and for the Golden Banner is akin to an outline. I’ve yet to include case histories and other strategies, making readers understand the issue a lot more.

So, for those interested about the said article, I’ll keep you posted on any developments. Just come back here to this section from time to time for it. Thank you. 

A Primer on Black Propaganda (5 of 5)

In light of these developments, propagandists are now at risk of being umasked by a more skeptical public. Thus, more subtle and sophisticated approaches to deception are employed. Borrowing from military tactics, deception can be carried out in four forms – namely…

Deceptive exterior – the propagandist wraps his messages with the impression of concern for society’s welfare. In reality, it means to assassinate a target’s character. The target can be made to look as if he’s a threat to a social policy or campaign. Political messages are often framed that way. Naturally, the public instinctively reacts with indignation towards the target. Elpidio Quirino greatly suffered from such media attacks – as with Filipino politicians of today.

Decoys – in military parlance, it’s using a fake target to divert an enemy’s attention to it. In propaganda, it’s unleashing an outrageously accusatory story that the target works to deflect. In the process, he gets to expose himself to other attacks. The nineteenth-century American businessman, Jason “Jay” Gould, was a master media manipulator. His media attacks either baited enemies to waste time refuting them (thus exposing themselves), or force them into moves that play to his advantage.

Camouflage – this attack is best carried out using the media – like social networking sites, as well as phone-in radio and TV opinion shows. As its name implies, propagandists have to be disguised to carry out offensives. By masquerading as ordinary citizens, their statements give the impression of a public supporting a propaganda message. The callers who phone in their opinions to radio or TV shows are an example. That approach provides the benefit of anonymity. It can be argued they give full contact details, making them legitimate. But the reality is that anything can be made up. Since the callers are mostly faceless (only their voices are heard), their identities are constantly doubted. Another variation is the use of surveys and trust ratings. A group can masquerade through it as a public displeased about a targeted personality or cause. But it’s common knowledge that statistical info in surveys are subject to deliberate human errors and statistical manipulation. The authoritative impression afforded by numbers lends it an air of objectivity. Yet, it alone can’t hide a naked truth: the numbers may be there, but it’s the humans behind its computation that’s the problem.

Planted information – this works best with credible reporters and journalists. It used to be that propagandists themselves would plant stories with a propagandistic slant. In the mid-1970s, an expose reported CIA covert press operatives planting pro-American stories in the foreign press. They were keeping in line then with the US aim of preventing communists to win elections in democratic countries. Now, a sinister variation would be relaying these to reputable broadsheets or TV networks. This is done anonymously or through relays kept ignorant of the true intent behind the delivery. It can be argued that that can be confused with the actions of corrupt media people. Yet, there are some who are idealistic: those with the established record of genuine objectivity. It’s exactly their reputation that makes them the ultimate couriers of fabrications. When they come across planted info, they get the impression of uncovering the truth. Their reputation further puts a sheen of credibility to it, casting aside all doubt.

     Outright deception is easy to unmask though. Even a combination of deceptive techniques and approaches can still be uncovered. Furthermore, counter-propagandists can wield unmasked deceptions to their advantage – especially if the propagandist still believes they’re unaware of it yet. To solve that problem, propagandists strive to control the situation on the outset. They do so through the following principles:

Give no respite – before a counter-propagandist moves, his enemy makes an aggressive move to seize the initiative. Propagandists follow it up by applying relentless pressure. They know that chance and the unpredictable maneuvers of their foes can damage their strategy. Putting their counter-propagandist foes on the defensive can eventually demoralize them. Push them into the unknown – putting relentless pressure on counter-propagandists can force them into unfamiliar situations. The pressure forces them into efforts that unwarily expose weak points. Propagandists exploit these to put their foes in dilemmas they know not much to get out off.

Make enemies prone to errors – this naturally follows after the propagandist applies the first two principles. But a propagandist understands why this third principle is essential. His foes rely on a strategy that conforms to their strengths. Furthermore, any respite from his attacks gives the other side sufficient time to assess the situation. Mistakes happen when a foe is too focused on fending attacks of the moment. In such a state, a propagandist can gradually gain control of them.

Be in passive control – when a counter-propagandist realizes he’s being led to fight on the other side’s terms, he’ll act to stamp it out. Hence, subtlety is important to the propagandist. He must lead his foe to believe he still can refute attacks, without realizing that his counter-replies are leading to weaken himself. The pressure they apply is subtle. It is to prevent the obvious impression they’re leading on the other party.

     As one can see, propagandists are highly resourceful. No law can ever discourage them to carry out their activities. The best front line defense against their messages is reasonable skepticism and awareness of their methods.
     Thus, it pays to never take the news blindly.

A Primer on Black Propaganda (4 of 5)

The Mind Manager’s Craft

Black Propaganda doesn’t rely on merely floating a rumor around. A reliable method is needed to put the public under its influence. This is where advertising techniques come in. As much that the principles of military strategy shaped the art of advertising, so it is with waging propaganda.

Propaganda Techniques and Devices

Schiller’s presentation of his ideas was written for his time, when the Internet didn’t exist. Nevertheless, what he wrote still held resonance today. In fact, Schiller amalgamated all known advertising techniques in his ideas. Unfortunately, he didn’t explicitly state them in his book. To know them, another source was drawn upon for those unmentioned techniques: Prof. Serafin E. Macaraig’s, “Sociology in the Philippine Setting”, specifically the chapter on “Public Opinion, Propaganda and Mass Interaction” (chapter 6, page 107). They’ll be combined here to give readers an idea how manipulative messages influence them.

1)      Repetition – commonly used for TV and radio ads, an idea is regularly replayed until it’s permanently recorded in the public’s mind. As to why brands like “Jollibee” and “McDonald’s” are so popular owes much to this technique. Even political messages or ideas are disseminated using this. Speaking of which, repetition isn’t limited to the style of canned advertisements. The essence of this technique is the continuous replay of a core message – regardless of the means employed.

2)      Name calling - it’s putting a label to an idea or summarizes the idea in one word. Calling someone “Mr. Suave” is one example of this. It evokes the idea of the person being a debonair and dashing lover. On the other hand, when George W. Bush called the countries of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil”, he desired to demonize the three as being a threat to the free world.

3)      Testimonial – its use rests on the general human attitude that prominent people know what’s good for everyone. This would be akin to the Filipino sociological trait of deferring to authority. How a Filipino regards the wisdom of his elders is true as well with figures of authority. Authority, especially here in the Philippines, is seldom questioned. Thus, anything they say is immediately accepted as gospel truth by the mere fact of authority alone. It’s for that reason celebrities are tapped to promote an idea to the public. Case in point is the commercial of Safeguard soap, where a representative from PAMET endorses the product’s effectiveness.

4)      Plain folks – this entails identifying an idea to ordinary people. The tagline, “walang mahirap kung walang corrupt”, exemplifies this. But its use isn’t limited to verbal messages. Schiller mentioned the use of “staged events”, where prominent politicians or celebrities would enact much-publicized actions or gestures. Ramon Magsaysay’s presidential campaigns made full use of this technique, going to the most remote baranggay to mingle with voters – with the media reporting them. Those events were meant to buttress his image as being “the man of the masses”, aside from his verbal slogans.

5)      Card-stacking – derived from gambling, where card cheats prepare a deck guaranteeing them favorable odds. In this instance, only one side of the issue is forcefully presented in the message: only partial truths are stated. This technique is used in conjunction with the testimonial technique, so as to add force to the psychological impact of the message. Since this also is (in essence) a form of persuasive argument, it’s used by lawyers to influence the judge or jury to accept their statements.

6)      Glittering Generality – the idea is somewhat like sweeping generalization, only it’s applied to an individual. It is a descriptive label appealing to emotion than logic: akin to calling someone an “angel” but really isn’t. (Mortals may not be perfect, but this technique makes them so…)

7)      Bandwagon – the idea behind this is that the majority is always right. If anyone still recalls the classic advertising ploy of the brand “Beer na Beer”, that is one example (with the line, “7 out of 10 people…”). A recent development has been the use of surveys and trust ratings, like those from Pulse Asia and Social Weather Station. As again, the combination of this technique with another is possible. In conjunction with Card-stacking and the use of testimonials, the average citizen can be driven to easily embrace the message.

To these techniques, Schiller is to add two more: fragmentation and immediacy & overload.

8)      Fragmentation – presenting a chunk of unrelated news items (be it on broadsheet or in multi-segment TV shows) to confuse or divert the reader/audience from controversial social issues of the moment.

9)      Immediacy and overload – since a large volume of tomorrow’s news arrive so fast, the average human mind is unable to process them all – a condition termed as “information overload”. As a result, one’s attention to the news items is lowered, skimming them instead and foregoing comprehension. Inadvertently, that means disregarding truly vital news. And because the nature of news delivery must be “always fresh”, would make a truly important news item instantly irrelevant once tomorrow’s news arrive.

The last two techniques are not consciously applied with conspiracy in mind, unlike the others. In fact, it is an exploitation of a common process in presenting and delivering news. Clumping unrelated news items in a newspaper layout is a practice to infuse variety. Timeliness is also vital, as it will go against journalism’s purpose if not done so. Nevertheless, the status quo has taken full advantage of all these techniques to create a society passive and docile to their aims. Either they use one technique or combine them all to gain society’s acceptable social judgment towards their aims. Ultimately, a social reality develops that is in the status quo’s favor.

     But today’s Information Age has easily neutralized that practice. Any related perspective, info or news item on an issue can be searched and grouped together for an audience. That gives them a clear picture of it. Even news that has been rendered stale by the immediacy technique can still be called up to serve as sources, thus reviving its relevance. 

A Primer on Black Propaganda (3 of 5)

The Five Myths that Reinforce a Manipulative Message

     A manipulative message (as earlier said) has to be “natural”, occurring “inevitably” AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE EVENTS that PROMPTED the MESSAGE – and doing that can be somewhat difficult. Though the average person rarely bothers with scrutiny, some enlightened people do – especially with controversial issues. Any flaw in its TIMING and DELIVERY can expose it, as much as it would a flaw in its creation. Thus, for a message to successfully influence the public’s mind, it must work behind ALL the five myths that Schiller details. But in reading them, one would ask: how true is the reality behind each?

• The Myth of Man’s Unchanging Nature

With Man’s wrongdoings reported 24/7 (murders, robberies, political scandals, etc.), it lends the impression that the public can do nothing. Man’s evil nature is so fixed that reforming him is impossible. But of course, Man CAN change – provided he is given the genuine, appropriate facts and the encouragement to take action upon them. The myth aims to desensitize (i.e. be passive) the masses to acts of wrongdoing – thus, keeping the status quo’s corrupt activities unhampered. But passivity isn’t limited to physical inaction on an issue. Automatically resorting to inappropriate solutions, without thinking critically of it, is another kind of passivity – that of mental inaction. It’s the result of the masses being willfully denied the behind-the-scenes facts of an issue. At the same time, they’re influenced to support a biased view of it. They then end up taking a course of action they believe suitable – based on what they’ve been led to believe. Subjecting political figures to trials by publicity is one instance of exploiting this myth. Just because the news says a public official is accused of a crime, he is already adjudged guilty even before a verdict is delivered – the conclusions being based solely on what was written. Those rash conclusions on character by the public are what brought down Quirino. Of course, there never really was a “golden arinola”. But because of that popular perception, Quirino didn’t stand a chance in the elections. (Elections are an instance of people taking action without critically evaluating a choice.) It was to be decades later that history vindicated him from that cruel gossip.

• The Myth of Neutrality

Are a nation’s societal institutions (i.e. the government, the media, etc.) really that objective towards a social issue of the moment? Anyone answering “yes” to that question is really under the myth’s sway and perpetuating it. The average citizen finds this revelation hard to swallow, but the reality is that these institutions are run by fallible humans. They are bound to use their authority to covertly support a side of the issue they favor. Writer Gemma Bagayaua of Newsbreak exposed the practice of “envelopmental journalism” in the magazine’s March 2001 issue. Whenever the election period draws near, SOME enterprising journalists shamelessly sidle up to politicians, offering to be their spin doctors – shattering the myth of the media’s objectivity. Schools were been made to indirectly propagate the message that because of the colonizer’s presence the Philippines became civilized – via history books that carry a “sanitized” version of its history. Franklin D. Roosevelt needed to preserve his “honest and fair leader” image while manipulating the media. For that purpose, he used his secretary, Louis Howe – especially against the scathing tirades of radio broadcaster, Father Charles Coughlin.

• The Myth of Individualism or Personal Choice

Free speech is an illusion, but the myth asserts it does – claiming as proof the many media companies and the laws permitting open expression. In reality, not everyone gets to be heard. The media themselves determine what news and views get reported. They can argue that not everything is news-worthy, hence their right to be selective. The problem is the subjective criteria used to pick out material fit for reportage Things get sinister when some “higher power” themselves dictate the media what news they should release and how to present them. Justified news blackouts are the positive side to that, yet then, subjectivity dictates it. Even if they pick out an “unworthy” item, they would alter it according to the public’s “perceived” taste. They do so claiming it’s for clarity or saving print space, but it really alters an honest perspective at the source’s expense – an instance of denying free speech. New Age teacher Jagad Guru (Chris Butler) complained of an incident regarding a New Zealand reporter. He was insulted by the reporter’s act of altering his statements on a topic regarding spirituality. The reporter says his bosses believed that his topic was “boring”, justifying the alterations. Nevertheless, everyone’s views in a genuinely democratic nation have to be openly expressed without prejudice.

• The Myth of the Absence of Social Conflict

 According to Schiller, since the myths of Individualism and Neutrality exist, this myth existed as a result. Case in point is the aforementioned news blackout. The premise here is that since there are documented cases of media companies receiving directives not to cover a specific event (like the operations against Muslim insurgents); could a pre-planned blackout be possible? If that’s the case, then anyone who asks if so-and-so happened, he can be told it didn’t exist – because it isn’t in the news. Again, because of Schiller’s other myths, it could be true.

• The Myth of Media Pluralism

This last myth is the convergence of the consequences of the first four in action: quantity isn’t an assurance of finding genuine objectivity in journalism. The illusion of choices – the many periodicals and TV channels that proliferate – gives the impression that the public is guaranteed of it. If one broadsheet or TV channel is too biased, maybe the others aren’t. The problem lies with the sources themselves – they have the power to edit, alter or totally censor any detail of an event or issue. Though reporters present the news of the day from different angles, they’re really just saying the same thing – they’re forced to make do with what’s available.

     Those five myths were meant to exploit society’s tendency to seek the ideal in all things. The average citizen rarely makes an effort to be skeptical – either owing to ignorance or to habit. It’s that fact that they are perfect fodder for the status quo’s manipulative agenda. The ignorant and common folk, to be blunt, are easier to push around. There have been variations of each myth in practice but the essential principles remain. 

Book Review – Confessions of an Economic Hit man by John Perkins

The book's cover (left), The author (right)

A certain privilege speech by Miriam Defensor-Santiago created quite a stir some years back. I forgot which national broadsheet covered it (Philippine Star or Philippine Daily Inquirer?) but one detail stood out: in her speech, she lashed out at an American firm known only by the initials, “EAGLE”. She claims the firm has been undermining the Philippine’s economic policies for many years now. Hadn’t she uncovered them, they would’ve continued to do so indefinitely. I found her claims back then absolutely absurd – the Americans have long since then left us, how could they still have a grip on our nation? Other news items talking about her mental state further eroded the credibility of her claims. I was about to dismiss her as totally nuts until John Perkins released his book.

The Western powers have taken neo-imperialism onto a whole new level in his eye-opening expose. His introductory life story aside, he draws in the reader to the origin of the EHM profession (EHM – shorthand for “economic hit man”) starting with the CIA-engineered overthrow of Iranian nationalist leader Mohammad Mossadeq. In realizing the dangers of any US agency meddling in world affairs, the US government turned to the multinational corporations to do their dirty work. He also reveals the tight grip such companies have on the White House. That control has lead Perkins to coin a new word to describe them: corporatocracy. In today’s America, the multinational companies have become the de-facto ruling force. They dictate US policies to guarantee more profits for them. One of the nefarious tactics they employ is the use of US foreign aid peddled by EHM to shackle targeted Third World countries. Burdened by the huge debt incurred, these countries are reduced to a state of serfdom – making them pliant servants to US dictates (the Philippines among them). Perkins also narrates the factual instances that the corporatocracy has ruined economies of developing nations using that tactic, citing his experiences in Indonesia and Panama.  The clincher of his memoir lies in the shocking revelation behind the reason for the Second Gulf War: Saddam threatened the corporatocracy to invoke the “euro option” – to trade Iraqi oil for euros. Doing so would compel a coalition of international creditors to call in US debt in euros as well. Invading Iraq not only would allow the US corporatocracy to control Mid-east oil but also prevent that precedent.

A few, but significantly stinging, critiques were made by a writer about the book. Notable are those claims of attempts by Perkins to disassociate himself from EHM affairs – in spite of stating his involvements a matter-of-factly. We can understand his allusions of guilt from voluntarily involving himself in these (which may explain his attempts), but many expected this to be a memoir – a form of release from his past. Many expected him to unburden himself from it, by putting his guilt into words so as to stare at it straight up. From that (many claim), his book suffers greatly. They believe it’s unthinkable for him to claim it’s a “confession” when he simultaneously avoids admitting them. It is inevitable then for doubts on it to ensue. With Perkins being formerly involved with the CIA, readers can’t help to think: when you’re with dubious company, wouldn’t their reputation rub on you? (You are who your friends are.) What if this work is an indirect CIA propaganda then - a red herring to mislead many from the real culprit? Thus, for that matter, is it so naïve to believe that the US government had something to do with using multinational corporations as their front liners?  For some, they immediately assume it is a textbook prose made in the CIA mind-managing tradition. Yet oddly, majority of his prose echoed old truths – truths written by Felix Greene, the anti-Vietnam war writer. He cited the abuses of the United Fruit Company in Guatemala, with US backing. Furthermore, his diatribes against US foreign aid are instructive – in that, it informs how it used to impose Yankee policies upon targeted Third World nations. Conventional thinking defines imperialism as any action by a powerful state upon a weaker state – be it through colonization or direct subversive diplomacy (i.e. US-sponsored foreign aid). But such interactions between nations are merely a macrocosm of small-scale social relationships. If we want something from someone, there are “a thousand ways to skin a cat”; so the saying goes. One doesn’t need to go to the target directly to get it, wouldn’t it? Sounds theoretical or far-fetched, but for a nation long been hated and branded as a swindler of nations, wouldn’t it be logical for the US to use a cat’s paw? Besides, isn’t the world aware that big-time contributors to US presidential campaigns are the multinational corporations themselves? It’s impossible there’s no tit for tat in such transactions… I often draw the Mossadeq affair as solid truth. I firmly believe it was the genesis of the EHM and neo-imperialism for the motives of the event aptly describes the US national psychology: she can deny the accusations of imperialism heaped upon her by the world, but she still subconsciously compelled to do so – in a covert manner nowadays, if I may add. Hence, readers from Third World nations would then have this constantly nagging thought: must they then sympathize with a nation merely following its instinct for survival? Or must we hate it as expected – and staunchly believe that is what the book’s purpose for? As we must hate one’s misdeeds and not the person, the same is true with an imperialist power. WE MUST HATE ITS MISDEEDS AND GUARD AGAINST IT – BUT NEVER POUR BLIND RAGE ALL OVER HER. Perkins may retain some CIA loyalties in his soul, but at least he spoke the truth though hesitant he may be. In the fighting arts, when two contenders brawl, one fighter has to spot what is called a “telegraphed move”. He then acts to anticipate it, parry and counterattack. Lucky for us, Perkins has offended Third World nations a godsend with that “telegraphed move”. His book may be deemed a half-truth but that is enough to rouse us.

Maybe Miriam wasn’t so crazy after all. We recommend you visit amazon.com for the book...