16 May 2015

Winning a Nuclear War?

Bo Filter

Don’t expect the concept of extinction or omnicide to roll off the lips of nuclear warriors. Their brains focus on the win-ability of nuclear war to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Let’s take a minute to examine the myopic mindset of nuclear strategists and what we should be doing about it.
The story of nuclear weapons begins with the dropping of an atomic bomb named Little Boy on the city of Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945. Since then, many authors have written and exposed this event as being more about starting a new war with our ally Russia than about ending WWII, more about continuing war so that the vast fortunes made by the US arms industry from WWII could continue indefinitely into the future.
Ever since Little Boy, the US has threatened Russia with nuclear bombs, and even had Russia ringed with nuclear weapons by 1951. [Caldicott, 69] Today the US is parading its nuclear arsenal in Ukraine along the Russian border in an unimaginable display of blatant aggression. Note that Russia is not posturing the same way by having Russian troops lined along the border of Canada or Mexico. The US claim that Russian aggression forces them to Russia’s doorstep with nuclear weapons is patently false. The Russian army remains in Russia, while the US military and its many mercenary armies are not only in Ukraine but run rampant across the planet.
Continuous aggressive nuclear posturing by the US over the years was memorialized in a military strategy called Escalation Dominance, wherein, rungs on a ladder of aggression escalate violence incrementally up the ladder until full domination is achieved. The principle of this stratagem was Dean Acheson, who laid out this plan in a now declassified top secret National Security Council Memorandum: NSCM-68, which was then received by President Harry S. Truman on April 14, 1950. It originated in the bowels of a secret meeting between the State Department and the Council on Foreign Relations in 1939 explicitly detailing the role of a US empire as a replacement for the British Empire. [Kaku, 63]
The Council was set up in 1921 as a bridgehead to bring America’s emerging power under the umbrella of the British throne. This had already been partially accomplished by modeling the Ivy League colleges after Cambridge. Imperial-minded professors were given free range to preach the gospel of privilege for an elite few. As Britain fell from the top position of colonial power, the aristocracy, although now in the back seat, remained in the lead limousine of a new arising phenomenon called globalization—turning the world into a singular vast colony for elite domination.
The Council produces an influential magazine called Foreign Affairs. Council director Isaiah Bowen wrote in 1942 that the US must secure areas “strategically necessary for world control.” Foreign Affairs editor Edwin Gay wrote, “When I think of the British Empire as our inheritance, I think simply of the natural right of succession.” America was on track to take over the world, country after country, in domino fashion. British imperialism reaching around the globe using American muscle would be distasteful to the American people, who thought they had escaped British influence through their revolution, so the creeping dominoes of world control had to be blamed on some other tarageted enemy, still ally at the time, Russia.
Professors Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod summarized the new state of affairs:
The advent of atomic warfare gave a new twist to the plans to assume the mantle of the British Empire: just as the British used the battleship as an ultimate weapon of intervention, the US would use the atomic bomb. According to the Council’s study groups, naval superiority, which protected and expanded British investments around the world, would be replaced by atomic superiority. Gunboat Diplomacy would be replaced by Atomic Diplomacy. Pax Britannia would give way to Pax Americana. [Kaku, 64]
A US new world order was rising out of the crumbling British, French, and German colonial empires. Financial barons from Wall Street were eager to be the architects of this new world order. About 100 senior bankers and lawyers jelled into what was called the “old boys’ network or “national security establishment.” [Kaku, 39] Like aristocracies of old, their enemy was any populist sharing of power. The people of America were to be left out, while the US Constitution was to be ignored or used only in limited cases to shore up the old boys grip on power.
The aristocracies of old Europe were now to be demoted to puppet dictators. For example, exiled White Russians and members of the Tsarist aristocracy who fled Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution would be allowed to set up a puppet government for Wall Street. Russia had to be dismembered to expose its vast resources to the new world order, the new internationalists.
Back home, Constitutionally-minded Republicans and Democrats were not keen on American expansionism, as imperialism emanating from any country is anathema to a global plurality of democracies. Non-interventionist Congressmen wanted the US to remain isolated, sovereign, and independent, leaving other countries to fend for themselves, choosing their own respective sovereign destinies in the spirit of freedom. This friction came to a head when a fistfight broke out in a Senate chamber between internationalist Dean Acheson and his arch-enemy, Senator Ken Wherry from Nebraska.
Acheson was an impeccable member of the Eastern Establishment, growing up as a member of the upper class. His father became an Anglican minister then bishop of Connecticut after serving as a British Army Officer. His family was steeped in the traditions and mores of British colonialism. His mother grew up in a wealthy banking family with business interests in England and Canada. As part of the old-boy network, he attended colleges like Groton and Yale, “where it was considered the birthright and perhaps even the duty of his social class to intervene in the affairs of other nations.” [Kaku, 67]
Acheson saw most Americans as his social inferior, including the low-class haberdasher from Missouri, President Truman. Acheson hated the right-wing Republican isolationists who opposed the interventionist policies of the Council. In his typical condescending manner, he called the isolationists “sub-humans” and “apes,” [Kaku, 69] unenlightened by his own troglodytic tendencies of greed and selfish acquisitiveness through ruthless means.
Like Acheson, the Dulles brothers, John Foster and Allen, were sons of a well-to-do clergyman. As boys, they tagged along with their grandfather to conferences around the world that introduced them to international power politics. They, too, attended exclusive schools like Princeton, which were modeled after aristocrat-controlled Cambridge University in England. John Foster traveled extensively during WWII, making intimate friends with members of the British Colonial Office.
Lord Cranbourne argued that Britain could no longer run its Empire alone, and that US elites should join and help lead a new bigger British world empire. America supposedly had escaped the grip of the British Empire, only to have the likes of John Foster Dulles aspire to yoke Americans right back into the ranks of British servitude. No wonder there was a fistfight in the Senate chamber.
The Dulles brothers father, Allen Macy Dulles, reared his boys to embrace missionary Christianity. The world was to be led by a new imperial ministry and their weapon of choice for global domination was nuclear Escalation Dominance. Students at Groton even coined a name for it, muscular Christianity. The age-old “divine right of kings” seems to have changed only in faces and names. The new theological kings declare “onward Christian soldiers” with nuclear weapons at their side and an image of Armageddon as doable. President Reagan puzzled over the possibility of Armageddon, uncertain whether or not God was commanding him to destroy earth or to leave it in the hands of God.
Psychopathology in Aristocracy
Aristocrats commonly suffer from profound delusional thinking and Severe Narcissistic Personality. They live a seeming fairytale life style, floating above the normal mundane chores of life, like having to cook or clean, never having to wash dishes, clothes or toilets. Being raised like veal, as in a confined ideological world, lends itself to psychological anemia and disconnected thinking from reality, thus, setting the stage for delusional thinking. The unusual degree of pampering in their upbringing includes coaching them to believe that their station in life is above the masses, even elevated in some theocratic families to the status of demigod, born of and “chosen” by God to lead lower classes. By self-pronouncing, without question, that their power is derived by God, they need not defer to the people themselves. The masses are, in effect, irrelevant and completely disposable. History is rife with examples of the aristocracy amusing themselves with killing lower people, like in the Roman coliseums. Disconnection from reality causes some elites to become perplexed by the distaste of the masses being subjected to the cruelties of servitude.
In the nuclear age, profound consequences follow from a toxic brew of distorted, disconnected, and arrogant thinking. From secret minutes of the National Security Council, Allen Dulles repeatedly bewailed the ignorance of the American people, “who draw an ‘artificial’ distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and cannot realize that atomic bombs should be treated like bullets.”[Kaku, 314]. By losing touch with the fire power difference of bullet that kills one person versus an atomic bomb, like Little Boy, that fell on Hiroshima and indiscriminately killed 100,000 plus civilians reveals a callous disrespect for life almost too incomprehensible to imagine.
In addition, the lust for power adds an aggravating element of addiction to the toxic mix of disassociation, as exemplified by Dulles. Pursuit of power can become so engrossing and self-absorbing as to preclude the outside world, disconnecting critical brain functions from life and consequences of intended actions, not unlike a drug addict, totally obsessed with a perceived need to rob and kill to acquire money for the next fix. Keep in mind too, that not all members of the very rich become psychopaths.
John Kenneth Galbraith grew up among the elite but didn’t lose his sanity. He often lamented, however, the fact of being hopelessly outnumbered by the others in the Council “who felt it was natural, proper, and even Christian to apply force against other nations.” [Kaku, 161] Having self-declared demigod status, “Thou shalt not kill” was meant only for the lower-class masses. Being the indispensible exception, as part of the white mans’ burden, the son’s of theologians all too often become entrenched in the perceived higher missionary work of eradicating the world of nonbelievers.
Military Psychopathology
Adding another dimension to the toxic stew is the love of war, love of mass murder, which is so prevalent in military circles. John Hersey’s book: The War Lovers tells the story of how the fascination with annihilation drives men to obsess over death, like a moth flirting forward to test a candle’s flame.
Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark warned:
“The pitiful mentality and ethic that can tirelessly banter, threaten, and toy with omnicide cannot be permitted to wield such power… The obvious joy that men like Teller, Kaysen, LeMay, Rostow, Kissinger, Haig, Brzezinski, Allen, and Reagan reflect in wielding such power provides a clear warning of our peril.” [Kaku, viii]
We certainly can add the names of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Netanyahu, and a slew of neoconservatives. While working in a Top Secret war room, I personally witnessed officers planning wars of untold destruction. If necrophilia exudes a tone, then the prevailing mood in that war room was necrophilia. The clear warning is that we have allowed civilization to drift into the hands of necrophiliacs.
General Patton said that war is the “cataclysmic ecstasy of violence.” Nazi torturers described an almost orgasmic fascination with killing—almost a feeling of omnipotence. One psychopath described to Dr. Helen Caldicott how, as a boy, he experienced feelings of ecstasy by piercing the belly of a frog with a stick and watching it squirm and burn to death as he roasted it over a fire. [Caldicott, 296-297]
These individuals are disconnected from humanity and reality, lost in pleasure seeking and intoxication with power, the power to destroy. The ultimate climax would be to destroy all life, creating a planetary-wide necropolis, as exemplified by the sinking of the gods into the sea, as the final climax in Wagner’s opera, Twilight of the Gods, which fascinated and held captive the mind of Adolf Hitler.
The general public finds it difficult to relate to this whole discussion of torture, narcissistic demigods, and necrophiliacs because the masses do not suffer the drama of these disturbed personalities. It takes one to know one, or you have to study psychopathology. Psychopaths flock together in the high echelons of power, out of view of the general populace. Therefore, the general public, out of ignorance, fails to conceive of remedies that could address such a strange disconnection from reality.
Keep in mind that psychopathology in war is not exclusive to other countries. As part of NATO, Canada plays a junior role in US gang murders around the planet. Nuclear threats to Russia and Iran are ongoing. This puts the Prime Minister’s office right in the thick of things, even escalating tensions in neighboring countries. Stephen Harper now claims that his administration can escape unharmed from bombing Syria and Libya, because (a) the US has world courts in a head lock, unable to prosecute him for war crimes, and (b) that victim countries cannot fight back because they lack the missiles required to shoot down Canadian fighter-bombers flying at high altitudes.
Of course, bombing little weak countries evokes mass casualties, mass murder. So Harper is claiming, in effect, that he can get away with a bloodbath scot-free. Does this evoke from you an image of a national hero personally bearing arms in a fight to stop a foreign invading army of Canada, or does it solicit more of an image of an emasculated leader who hides his cowardice behind the apron of a western gang murder force called NATO? Since none of the civilians he will have killed will never have had the right to be tried for any crime, should he not personally go there to accuse, convict, condemn, then slay all these people with his own two hands in a spectacular showing of imperial just cause? You be the judge.
NATO consistently makes a patently false claim that bombing countries is done in order to free them. These countries are left in ruble. Churches, schools, hospitals, drinking water and food supplies are all destroyed in what NATO calls their responsibility to protect, the pretext they use to self-invite their bombing campaigns.
The real reason is stated behind closed doors, far away from the evening television news. The real goal is to further imperialism, to clear the land of all obstacles so that western corporations can access and take all the resources for free. Dead people don’t complain or resist the taking of their lands. Psychopaths drive these wars of conquest.
These bombings constitute wars of aggression, what the UN now defines as the most egregious human behavior ever imagined. Yet, this is the current state of world affairs. For the record, US war-planners created and exploded the first atomic weapons over Japan in 1945. Their descendants have gone on to use tactical nuclear weapons in eight countries. No other country has used atomic or nuclear weapons on another country. [See list at end]
The use of nuclear weapons has become so routine, that killing and poisoning the landscape of other countries has become part of an American nuclear culture. Imbued into the political landscape, nuclear weapons are never discussed in Congress, in Parliament, or the nightly news as weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, they are now claimed to be conventional weapons, you know, like rocks and spears. War-planners claim they are defensive weapons. Logically, this means that any number of them could be exploded over North-American soil to stop an incoming invasion. Can you imagine nuclear bombs going off all over the country in the name of protecting the land? I can’t. It’s just another example of disconnected, ignorant, and arrogant thinking.
Final Analysis: Sanity as a Path to Recovery
The most fundamental war facing humanity is the conflict between psychopathology and sanity. If we intend to survive, we need to begin a new mode of thinking. If we don’t we will continue to drift toward unparalleled catastrophe as Einstein warned us. We need to start educating ourselves about the causes and cures of wars. This new endeavor could be called warology. To some degree, each of you needs to become a warologist.
You need to understand that the role of Escalation Dominance in nuclear power politics, as carefully researched and explained by professors Kaku and Axlerod, is a move towards a state of total global domination and servitude. Seeking absolute power over other human beings is seeking the power of gods, the ultimate folly of an egocentric narcissistic personality, a self-anointed demigod that finds little room for other people on this earth except in the service of the narcissist’s pleasures.
Nuclear-war planners live in a world of make-believe, where they disconnect themselves from reality. They have to pretend that a god gives them the right to make and use hideous weapons of mass destruction. They have to pretend that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima did not produce mass destruction and ought not be of any more concern than a bullet. They have to pretend that evaporating people is part of a new normal. They have to pretend that shooting off nuclear weapons all over the world would be a permissible defensive posture. They have to pretend that by disallowing any media discussion of the use of nuclear weapons renders such weapons automatically safe for use. They have to pretend that nuclear weapons are not offensive weapons, which involves war crimes of the highest dimension.
The public is not trained to directly change the egomaniac delusions of the demigods, but it must not fall prey to collusion by accepting another set of delusional beliefs:
— that we are completely innocent and therefore free of all responsibility;
— that we are helpless;
— that our voices won’t count even if we do express ourselves;
— that public opinion is 100% ignored by the politicians;
— that any effort we put forward must show immediate results and rewards;
— that we can control nuclear war once it breaks out;
— that since an all-out nuclear war has not yet happened, it never will, so we can relax and ignore the problem.
You would likely scrub this last belief if you informed yourself of the many near misses we’ve had. For instance, in a single 18 month period, failsafe mechanisms malfunctioned 151 times, and there were 32 broken arrow accidents between 1950-1980 alone. [Caldicott, p.17, 44]
Sanity must come to power. To be sane, we have to live in the real world, not fantasyland. Pretending that nuclear weapons are legitimate, legal, defensive weapons is insane. War-planners are insane, but what about the rest of us? Are we absolutely innocent? We must own our part.
We allow nuclear posturing to go on as if nothing has changed with the splitting of the atom. We look the other way. We, too, pretend that nuclear weapons are legal by virtue of our silence.
A thick blanket of nothingness hangs over the land: no media debate, too little rational-fear, too little rational-anger, considering the massive number of deaths thus far. If our collective-psyche is too numb to register fear, anger, and remedial action, then we need to question our own sanity. Is censoring a public debate in the media sufficient to make us numb and unwittingly insane? Well, we better start talking about it.
Sanity requires rational thought, rational discussion, and remedial action. Any one of the following: making, storing, transporting, using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons is an international war crime, yet collectively, we have not created the proper courts to enforce war crime statutes.
Independent war crimes tribunals already have been conducted, showing the world how proper legal proceedings are done, like the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal and the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes Against Yugoslavia. We, the people of the world, need to get behind the findings of these tribunals and push. This will take precious time that we can hardly spare. Meanwhile, the people of the world have a right to vote on the question of extinction, exactly where an all-out nuclear war is leading.
What to do right now
Would it not be logical for everyone in the world who has a computer to contact the White House with a clear message that nuclear war is not an option? Please don’t pretend that stopping nuclear war is the job of someone else, someone out there in fairyland.
We should not need to be told that having and raising children with a long bloodline loses all of its meaning and value when extinction arrives. Surely, a fight for the survival of posterity is something worth waging. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: “No nation or individual, can be permitted to possess the power to destroy the world.”
The good news is that public opinion does have a dramatic effect on governments. Professors Kaku and Axlerod give ample examples of where, when, and how public opinion pulled nuclear policy makers back from triggering nuclear war.
Contact the White House. Keep contacting the President from time to time. Don’t expect a response, but they do count votes, pro and con, to every subject people raise and praise or complain about.
If you need to be energized, borrow a little psychological power from the movie, Network. You first have to get mad as hell. Get off your chairs, but I don’t want you to go to the window and shout out, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more.”
Instead, I want you to go to your computers and type “The White House” into your web search window. When you get on site, click on “Contact US.” Find the blue box that says, “Submit comments online.” Click on it. Fill out the required information. In the comment window, I want you to type just three words, “No Nuclear War.” That’s it. Hit the send button.
If you then spread this message through social media, millions of people could flood the White House with a message too large in number for the President to ignore. This gives the President ammunition to show to the Pentagon warriors who are itching to conduct nuclear war. Be proud of yourselves. Tell your children and friends that you are at work on the right side of history.

Suicide, A Worldwide Epidemic

Graham Peebles

A friend recently asked to meet for coffee. ‘I’ve had some more bad news,’ his text said. A ‘fifty something’ year old friend had taken his own life the day before. Jack had hanged himself from a tree in a public park on the outskirts of London; it was his fourth attempt. He had four children. This was the second, middle-aged, male friend to have committed suicide within six months.
Their stories are far from unique. Suicide occurs everywhere in the world to people of all age groups, from 15 to 70 years. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that almost one million people commit suicide every year, with 20 times that number attempting it, and the numbers are rising. Methods vary from country to country: in the USA, where firearms litter the streets, 60% of people shoot themselves; in India and other Asian countries, as well as South Africa, taking poison, particularly drinking pesticides, is the most popular choice. In Hong Kong, China and urban Taiwan, WHO records that a new method, “charcoal-burning suicide” has been recorded. Drowning, jumping from a height, slashing wrists and hanging (the most popular form in Britain, the Balkans and Eastern European countries) are some of the other ways desperate human beings decide to end their lives.
Stigma and Under-reporting of Suicides
According to WHO, 1.5% of worldwide deaths were caused by suicide in 2012, making it the third highest cause of death in the World, and this is just those deaths which have been confirmed as suicide. WHO admits that the availability and quality of data is poor, with only 60 Member States providing statistics “that can be used directly to estimate suicide rates.” Many suicides, they say, “are hidden among other causes of death, such as single car, single driver road traffic accidents, un-witnessed drowning’s and other undetermined deaths.” These are just some of the many factors that make accurately assessing the numbers who take their own lives problematic. In countries where social attitudes, or religious dogma, shroud suicide in a stigma of guilt (Sub-Saharan Africa, where suicide is rarely if ever discussed or admitted, for instance), suicide may be hidden and go un-reported; so too in countries where suicide is still regarded as a criminal act: Hungary for example, where attempted suicide carries a prison sentence of five years, or Japan where it is illegal to commit suicide. North Korea, where relatives of a person committing suicide are penalised; Ireland, where self-harm is not generally regarded as a form of attempted suicide; Singapore, where suicide remains illegal and attempted suicide can result in imprisonment; or Russia, where the rate of teenage suicides is three times the world average and where those attempting suicide can be committed to a psychiatric hospital. All of which are pretty strong reasons for hiding suicide attempts and concealing suicide as the cause of death, as well as deterring people from discussing suicidal thoughts.
Whatever the precise number of total deaths by suicide – and all the indications are that it is a good deal higher than WHO says – what is clear is that suicide is a major social issue. The figures of both attempted suicides and committed suicides are increasing; it needs to be openly discussed, the causes understood and more support provided. In the last 45 years, WHO state that suicide rates have increased by 60%, and unless something marvellous happens that drastically changes the environment in which we are living, they predict that by 2020 the rate of death will have doubled – from one suicide every 40 seconds, to someone, somewhere in the world taking his/her life every 20 seconds!
Rates of suicide and gender ratios vary from country to country and region to region, but overwhelmingly men are more at risk than women. WHO found that 75% of global suicides occurred in low- and middle-income countries, with 30% of all suicides occurring in China and India where suicide was only de-criminalised in 2014. Eastern European countries, such as Lithuania and the Russian Federation, recorded the highest numbers of suicides, the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Central and South America (Peru, Mexico, Brazil and Colombia) the lowest. And although suicide rates worldwide have traditionally been highest amongst elderly men, young people – that’s 15-29 – year olds, are now the group at the greatest risk in a third of all countries. Suicide, WHO states, is the “leading cause of death in this age group after transport and other accidents and assault for males,” with very little gender difference – “9.5% in males and 8.2% in females.”
Throughout western societies around three times the number of men die by suicide than women, and over 50s are particularly vulnerable. In Britain men account for 80% of all suicide cases (with an average of 13 men a day killing themselves), 40-44 year olds are particularly at risk here. In “low- and middle-income countries”, WHO records, “the male-to-female ratio is much lower [than more developed countries] at 1.5 men to each woman.” Surprisingly, in the USA, where four times the number of men die from suicide than women, according to The Centre of Disease Control and Prevention, women are more likely to attempt it. The statistical gender gap in western societies may in small part be caused, The Samaritans think, by the different suicide methods used by men and women. Leading to the fact that in some cases “the intent cannot be determined (or assumed) as easily [with women] as in methods more common to males.” This may result, they say, “in more under-reporting of suicidal deaths in females.“
The Causes of Suicide
The specific reasons why people commit suicide are many and varied; ‘mental health issues’ is the umbrella term often cited as the cause. According to researchers at Glasgow University 90% of suicide cases suffer from some form of mental illness. It is an ambiguous phrase though, that explains little, and comforts the bereaved less. It would seem obvious that if someone kills themselves, they are not feeling mentally or emotionally ‘intact’, or ‘good’. ‘I struggled for so long’, ‘I couldn’t cope anymore’, ‘life seemed meaningless’, ‘I felt tremendous anxiety’, and so on, are phrases common to many of us, including those people contemplating, attempting or committing suicide. Perhaps understandably depression is usually mentioned as a cause, but this of course does not mean everyone suffering from depression is at risk of suicide!
The WHO makes clear that whilst suicide rates vary enormously from country to country, differences, “influenced by the cultural, social, religious and economic environments in which people live and sometimes want to stop living..…the pressures of life, that cause extreme emotional distress” and sometimes lead to suicide, “are similar everywhere.”
It is these ‘pressures of life’, that need to be properly understood, what they are, where they come from, the impact they have, and how we can change the structure of society to free humanity from them. Why do we have such damaging ‘pressures of life’? We should not be living in a world that produces such detrimental forces. Something in our world society is terribly wrong when a million or so people kill themselves every year, and where suicide is the second highest cause of death amongst under 20 year olds.
I am not a psychologist, but commonsense would suggest that the ‘sense of self’ must be at the heart of the issue, the volatile central cause. If that ‘sense of self’ is positive, if one feels connected to ‘life’, has structure, purpose and self-belief, feels liked, loved even, then suicide would seem unlikely. If, however, the image of self is negative, of a ‘failure’, unable to ‘fit in’, feeling lost, lacking direction and experiencing social and emotional withdrawal, a fragile sense of self and increasing vulnerability are, it would seem, likely.
Then there are the practical problems we all face of earning a living and paying the rent/mortgage; the more subtle issues – pressures of ‘succeeding’ – economically, socially, in a career, and in ‘love’. The inability – real or perceived – to meet these ‘pressures of life’ creating worry and anxiety – perhaps leading to alcohol or substance abuse – which strengthens social isolation, reinforces the image of failure, weakening self-belief/confidence and strengthening self-loathing. And all this in a world where weakness, particularly in men, is frowned upon; where sensitivity, uncertainty and fragility are to be overcome – ‘toughen up’ is the message, spoken directly or indirectly.
We have little understanding of who and what we are, so we create images, cling to ideological constructs that move us further and further away from our true nature. The ideal image of what it means to be a human being, particularly a man, has become increasingly narrow. Men, especially under 40 year olds, must be decisive, strong and ambitious. Any flowery beliefs – philosophical or religious for example – should be eradicated, or at least hidden, certainly not mentioned in public. Any admission of self-doubt and signs of vulnerability should be completely avoided, and a macho, no-nonsense approach to life adopted and expressed.
Broadly speaking this has become the stereotype of what it is to be a man in the 21st century, and conformity to the pattern is insisted on – via education, peer pressure and the corporate media. Women, particularly young women are expected to meet a similarly, if slightly less constricting, formulated ideal. Both are extremely restrictive, unhealthy images that fit into a worldwide system of societal uniformity, built by, and in the interests of, multinationals (who own everything), facilitated by corporate governments (who lack principles), which is sucking the richness, and diversity out of life. Everyone is expected to want the same things, to wear the same clothes, believe the same propaganda, aspire to the same ideals and behave the same. Every country, city, town and village is seen as a marketplace, every person a consumer to be exploited fully, sucked dry and discarded.
Competition and conformity have infiltrated every area of worldwide society, from education to health care. Everything and everyone is seen as a commodity, to be bought at the lowest price and sold at the highest, financial profit is the overwhelming motive that drives and distorts action. Materialistic values promoting individual success, greed and selfishness saturate the world; ‘values’ that divide and separate humanity, leading to social tension, conflict and illness. Ideals, which are not values in any real sense of the word, which have both fashioned the divisive political-economic landscape in which we live (which has failed the masses and poisoned the planet), and been strengthened by it. Together with the economic system of market fundamentalism which so ardently promotes them, these ‘values’ form, I believe, the basic ingredients in the interwoven set of social factors that cause a great deal of the ‘mental health issues’, which lead those most vulnerable members of our society to commit suicide. Men, women and children who simply cannot cope with the ‘pressures of life’ anymore, who feel the collective and individual pain of life acutely, are disposed towards introspection and find the world too noisy, its values too crude, its demands of ‘strength’ not weakness, ‘success’ not failure, ‘confidence’ not doubt, impossible to meet. And why should they have to meet them, why do these ‘pressures of life’ exist at all?
It is time to build an altogether different, healthier model, a new way of living in which true perennial values of goodness, shape the systems that govern the societies in which we live, and not the corrosive, ideologically reductive corporate weapons of ubiquitous living which are sucking the beauty, diversity and joy out of life. Values of compassion, selflessness, cooperation, tolerance and understanding; we need, as Arundhati Roy puts it, “to redefine the meaning of modernity, to redefine the meaning of happiness,” for we have exchanged happiness for pleasure, replaced love with desire, unity with division, cooperation with competition, and have created a divided society, where conflict rages, internationally, regionally, communally and individually.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Toilet Paper

David Macaray

A couple of years ago, China surpassed the U.S. as the world’s leading producer of paper. Even though paper is generally thought to have been invented in China, the country’s meteoric ascent in the forest products industry has been nothing short of astonishing. China now produces in less than a month what Wisconsin (the leading U.S. state in paper manufacturing) produces in a year.
I once worked in a Fortune 500 paper mill that made toilet paper. Actually, we didn’t call it toilet paper. We referred to it as “bath tissue.” Also, we didn’t use words like feces or excrement or stool. Don’t ask me why, but the term the corporation used for poo was “insult.”
Our mill produced tons of toilet paper per day. Every day, three shifts, around the clock, 360 days a year. The only “down days” were: Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Labor Day, Day after Labor Day and Fourth of July. Surprisingly, civilians seemed quite curious about the operation. Here are the answers to the five most common questions.
When was toilet paper invented?
While there is no hard evidence to support it, toilet paper is thought to have been invented in 14th century China, exclusively for the use of the royal family. Prior to the introduction of toilet paper, people got the job done by using water, fabric, animal hides, grass, leaves, tree bark, polished stones, etc. Toilet paper was first produced in the U.S. in 1857.
How is it made?
It’s made like any other base tissue sheet. It begins as a slurry—a mix of water and pulp (the preferred furnish is eucalyptus, due to its long fibers and high oil content)—that is metered onto a wire, then a felt, then onto a dryer, then scraped off and wound into “hardrolls.” These are trucked to machines that rewind them into “softrolls,” which eventually get rewound into “logs,” which are sent through a log-saw where they are cut into bathroom-size rolls.
What do consumers most desire in toilet paper?
Based on customer surveys, softness, strength, absorbency and scent (in descending order) are the four most desired qualities. Some rolls get embossed, others get printing applied to them, and others get dyed various shades of pastel. Despite the choices, white still remains the most popular color.
What are the most common complaints by consumers?
Other than not being soft or strong enough, the two biggest complaints are ply separation (where a double-ply roll comes apart, leading to mismatched sheets) and bad perforations (where the sheets don’t release as intended). If you grab a sheet and it tears instead of releases (leaving an attached fragment) it means the crew had failed to detect a bad perf blade.
What can a consumer tell about softness by squeezing the package?
Absolutely nothing. Those ubiquitous TV commercials that insist you can “feel the softness” through the polyethylene wrapper are a total, shrieking lie. The only thing you can determine by squeezing a roll is how tightly wound it is. And a roll’s “spool coefficient” is a whole other issue.
Moreover, if a roll wrapped in polyethylene feels “soft,” it means it is loosely wound, basically full of air. And not only do mushy rolls have nothing to do with softness, the surface of the most “squeezable” roll on the market could be as harsh as sandpaper.
Indeed, at my company, mushy, loosely wound rolls were classified as “defective.” They never made to the retailer. Instead, they were broken down and recycled, sent back to the repulper. So much for false advertising.

Friendships That Destroy

Charles R. Larson

Perhaps you are already familiar with Per Petterson’s earlier novels, including his international best seller Out Stealing Horses (2003) that won the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award and has been translated into fifty languages. Petterson, who was born in Oslo, has been widely praised for his dazzling use of language: clean, often brief sentences with minimal punctuation. There’s a sharpness and clarity in every sentence that flows through in Don Bartlett’s rich translation of Petterson’s latest novel, I Refuse. As I was reading it, I though of Hemingway’s briskness, though comparisons have been made to Raymond Carver and others. In short, Petterson’s style is unforgettable, especially his use of understatement.
Plot is not what this novel is about, though there is a story with a beginning and a resolution. Rather, it’s character and perhaps even collective character, because the main characters share a resolve about life—not to become encumbered, tied down to relationships (including family) and place. Several of them say, “I refuse” in the course of their conversations with others—meaning, I refuse to stay the course with the lot I have. They’re going to move on, even if that includes death. The easiest one of these remarks to understand appears late in the story, when one of the two main characters (close to sixty) spontaneously picks up a waitress at a restaurant, takes her to his apartment, where she spends the night.
His way of asking if she is married results in this conversation:
“You must have a ring. Why don’t you wear it.”
“I do have a ring. I don’t wear it because I don’t want to wear it.”
“But doesn’t he want you to wear it.”
“Yes, of course, he does. I insist that you wear it, he says. But I refuse to. That’s what I do. I refuse. And now I don’t want to go on any more.irefuse Not for one hour more.”
Note that the woman’s husband has no name, but he is italicized the first time he is mentioned. And she’s very emphatic. She won’t continue wearing the ring, not for another hour.
There are other life-changing decisions that characters make throughout the novel that are similarly decisive. The two main characters are Jim and Tommy who grow up together as best friends. Jim has a mother but no father. Tommy has a father but no mother. We learn that Tommy’s mother walked out on her family (her husband, Tommy, and Tommy’s three siblings) because her husband was such a son-of-a-bitch. She knew that it was better to sacrifice her four children than stay another day with such a bastard. In the absence of his wife, the husband soon begins beating his children. Some years later, after Tommy has been sadistically beaten by his father, the boy fights back, an incident that so surprises his father that he, too, walks out on the family. Neither parent speaks the “I refuse” mantra, but the decisions are the same—time to change their lives.
Both Tommy and Jim have also made similar decisions in their adult lives, walking out on marriages as well as each other. In the key scene inI Refuse, when the two are about sixteen years old, in 1970, they talk about their friendship while they are skating at night in the midst of  winter. They’ve been friends as far back as they can remember and assume they will be close friends for the rest of their lives. It’s a rather mystical moment on the ice, and barely have they vowed that their friendship will last forever than a few minutes later something happens so quickly that the entire future of that friendship is up in the air. It’s a brilliant scene on Petterson’s part as he probes the issues of unpredictability and flux. Pessimistically, he seems to be saying that we have no control at all over our lives. Given that knowledge, people have to think about themselves first. Pessimistic, as I said.
At least half of the novel takes place many years later, in 2006, where the novel also begins with a chance re-encounter between Jim and Tommy, who haven’t seen each another in years. So much for friendship. I won’t dwell on what has happened to them, though it’s important to note that the expectations we observe for their futures in 1970 are reversed a second time in 2006. And, yes, Petterson also draws back into the story the twists and turns of the other characters, especially Tommy’s three younger siblings and his parents.
I Refuse is a disturbing exploration of human interaction and—more frequently—its lack thereof. If you say “I refuse” enough times, you are likely to remain uninvolved, alone by yourself.
Per Petterson: I Refuse
Trans. By Don Bartlett
Graywolf Press, 282 pp., $25.00

King of the Blues

Lee Ballinger

Three of the countless things I will remember about B.B. King….
His 1964 album, Live at the Regal. Recorded in Chicago before an audience who, like him, had left Mississippi to seek a better life but certainly not forgotten their roots. One of the best live albums ever.
Seeing B.B. and Bobby Bland perform at a Bay Area ballroom that, of course, had no seats. The entire front half of the venue was taken up by older blacks who had brought their own chairs to sit on. Booker T and the MGs were the opening act.
In the last year of his life, B.B. King became the honorary head of an effort to build a national monument in the Mississippi Delta to honor those who picked cotton and made the world rich. King, who was born in a cabin on a cotton plantation outside Berclair, Mississippi in 1925, replaced the late Maya Angelou as the Honorary Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Cotton Pickers of America and the Sharecroppers Interpretive Center. The plan is for a twenty-five foot high monument to be erected on twenty acres of cotton land along Highway 61 in the Mississippi Delta.

Idylls of Illusion

DAVID YEARSLEY

Jeb Bush’s current difficulties with the legacy of his big brother’s wars makes me think back to the beginning of the post-9/11 era and one of the more bizarre vignettes taken from the scrapbooks of my musical travels.
In 2002 I was invited to play an organ concert in the ultra-quaint New England village of Walpole, New Hampshire as part of the celebrations surrounding its 250th anniversary. Originally founded as a fort town in 1736, it was named in 1752 in honor of the late Robert Walpole, powerful prime minister to George I and George II.
Walpole is the place where Ken Burns lives, and as one might expect of the town chosen by America’s most prolific self-image maker, it appears to be postcard perfect, heaps of New York City money having removed itself permanently, or in some cases just for the weekend, to this upscale version of the colonial idyll in the Connecticut River Valley. Whether by legal code or long-standing convention, all the clapboard houses are painted white, the barns red. The latter no longer house hay and heifers, but have been converted to quarters for his and hers and kids’ SUVs.
The vintage dwellings set back from immaculate lawns and the luxury automobiles posing on raked gravel drives shone in the verdant New England summer when I arrived. Driving in to town was like driving into a holographic New York Times Magazine real estate advertisement.
My concert was scheduled for the Saturday morning at eleven o’clock in the Unitarian Church on the main street facing the village green. The church had been founded in the 1760s, but ditched the trinity in the nineteenth century for the more user-friendly theology of Unitarianism. White on the outside and white on the inside, the beautifully proportioned and immaculately maintained structure had a choir loft with a lovely nineteenth-century organ in it.
I had chosen a program of organ music from the first half of the eighteenth century, the era of Robert Walpole’s political dominance. Along with works by the favorite of the Hanoverian kings, the German ex-patriot George Frideric Handel, were offerings by his compatriot and exact contemporary, Johann Sebastian Bach. Though the English organs of Handel’s day were without pedals (a curious fact that you can learn more about in my award-winning Bach’s Feet) I’d filled my program with lots of footwork, including that demanded by the Bach’s Toccata, Adagio and Fugue, a piece famous and feared for its long and arduous pedal solo.
Arriving for my practice time on Friday evening I mounted the choir loft and sat down at the organ to discover that the bench was not only very low but also bolted to the floorboards. There was no way to move it in or out, or, more importantly, to make it higher by putting blocks under the thing.
In my many organ tours of Europe and North America, I’d never encountered this procrustean approach to the diverse physical features of organists. The fixed setting chosen in Walpole seemed to be geared for a little old lady organist of yore, that is, one no more than then five-feet tall and very short in the shin. The visiting Walpole sestercentennial organist stood at 6’4”.
In the first moments of panic, I thought about jettisoning all the acrobatic pedal bits and going for a more historically accurate rendering of English music from the time of Walpole’s life and the subsequent founding of his namesake town.
But in the end I plucked up my Puritan courage, and played the concert with each buttock perched tensely on top of its own stack of inclusive-language hymnals. That I didn’t topple from the bench at any point during the program was, I felt, reason to declare victory.
While I had been battling these unlikely Unitarian ergonomics another conflict had been raging outside the church: a reenactment of the Battle of Walpole. According to the 250th celebrations organizing committee this had been a small but crucial engagement of the French and Indian Wars. The smell of gun powder hung in the air outside the church and a few final musket reports could be heard in the distance.
I made my way across the village green to the upscale brew pub since I was in need of a bit bracing after my harrowing hour battling Bach and Handel on an undersized bench about half the height of the bar stool. I ordered a pint of the local artisanal ale and an organic, pasture-raised burger.
The television above the bar was set to CNN and showed footage of airstrikes in Afghanistan. A few minutes later two rugged guys wearing tricorne hats, jerkins, breeches, and buckle shoes, and carrying muskets came into the pub.
They propped their firearms against the nearest wall and took a seat next to me at the bar. The pair’s attention was immediately drawn to the television. “We’re kicking the shit out of the Taliban!” exclaimed the one American freedom fighter to the other.
Looking at the screen and then at the two men, it occurred to me that in the America of 2002 there was no verifiable way for anyone to separate reality from illusion.
Now in 2015 and after all these years of continuous war, Jeb somersaults and serpentines about his hypothetical support of his brother’s invasion of Iraq. It is clear that political campaigns, like American foreign policy, have detached themselves from reality to become mere reenactments. These satirical entertainments are populated by the players from ever-popular family troupes, the Bushes, Clintons, and, now, the Pauls—with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in the role of Osama bin Laden. If Jeb keeps flubbing his lines and ends up not getting the chance to reenact the White House years of his older relations, then maybe he can brush up on the diction and deportment of Robert Walpole.

15 May 2015

Mexican Government Scholarships for African/International Students 2016

Brief description: Mexican Government Scholarship Program for Foreign Students to study for Bachelors, Masters, PhD degrees etc
Eligible Field of Study: Scholarships are provided to study any one of the courses available at participating Mexican institutions except Business administration, Plastic surgery, accounting, marketing, dentistry and advertising.
About Scholarship
For decades, the Mexican cultural diplomacy has worked in different successful programs, such as the human capital training through scholarships for academic degrees awarding and research work performing in different areas of knowledge.
The Directorate-General for Educational and Cultural Cooperation, through the Academic Exchange Department, designs and manages the Ministry of Foreign Affairs´ Scholarship Program for Foreigners. The scholarships of the Mexican Government present two programs: the scholarship for academic studies and the scholarship for special programs.
The scholarships for academic studies are offered to take complete programs for Specialization, Master´s or PhD Degrees, and Postgraduate Researches. Likewise, the offer includes academic mobility for Bachelor´s and Postgraduate Degree. On the other hand, the scholarships for special programs are offered to take short-term fellowships addressed to Visiting Professors, Researchers in Mexico´s issues, Media Contributors, Art Production Fellowships, etc.
Scholarship Offered Since: Not specified
Scholarship Type: Scholarships for complete programs for Specialization, Bachelor’s, Master’s or PhD Degrees, and Postgraduate Researches including short-term fellowships
Selection Criteria and Eligibility
The scholarships will be awarded on academic excellence.
  • The scholarships for academic studies are offered to take complete programs for Specialization, Master’s or PhD Degrees, and Postgraduate Researches. Likewise, the offer includes academic mobility for Bachelor’s and Postgraduate Degree. On the other hand, the scholarships for special programs are offered Preferred to take short-term fellowships addressed to Visiting Professors, Researchers in Mexico’s issues, Media Contributors, Art Production Fellowships, etc.
  • Candidates cannot be living in Mexico at the time of application.
  • Except in special cases, scholarships cannot begin in November or December.
  • Requests for information and all scholarship applications must be submitted to the Mexican embassy or concurrent embassy of the applicant’s country or to the designated Mexican institution. Only applications that fulfill all of the requirements will be considered.
  • All documents and forms must be in Spanish or submitted with translations into Spanish.
  • Candidates will be informed of the results by the corresponding Mexican embassy or designated Mexican institution.
  • The scholarships are not transferable and cannot be deferred to future years.
Number of Scholarships: Several
Value of Scholarship: -Enrollment fees  and tuition
-Health Insurance
-Transportation from Mexico city to the Host Institution
-Monthly Stipend

Duration of Scholarship: Undergraduate and graduate academic mobility programs- one academic term (quarter, trimester or semester)
-Graduate research and postdoctoral fellowships-12 months (1 month minimum)
-Specialization-1 year
-Master’s degree- 2 Years
-Doctorate- 3 years
-Medical specialties and subspecialties- 3 Years
Eligible Countries
Africa: Algeria ,Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nambia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Saharawi, Arab Rep., Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe
North America: United States, Canada and Canada / Province of Quebec
Latin America: Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela)
Caribbean: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Puerto Rico (Commonwealth), Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago
Europe: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine)
Asia: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Kingdom of China, People’s Rep., India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Democratic Rep., Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Islamic Rep. of Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Kingdom of Timor – Leste, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Socialist Rep. of
Pacific: Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Independent State, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu
Middle East: Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian National Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, and
Non-self Governing Territories: American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands and United States Virgin Islands
To be taken at (country): Mexico
Application Deadline: Applications for the scholarship will be accepted from April 15 to August 31, 2015
Offered annually? Yes
How to Apply
Visit scholarship webpage for details on how to apply and materials
Sponsors: Mexican Government
Important Notes:
Candidates will be informed of the results by the corresponding Mexican embassy or designated Mexican institution.

Jane M Klausman Women in Business Scholarships for international students 2015/2016

Brief description: The Jane M. Klausman Women in Business Scholarship is offered annually by the Zonta International Club for women in different parts of the world
Eligible Field of Study: Buisness related courses
About Scholarship
Established in 1998 from a generous bequest by Jane M. Klausman, a member of the Zonta Club of Syracuse, New York USA, and the 1990-1995 Zonta International Parliamentarian, the Jane M. Klausman Women in Business Scholarship is awarded annually to women pursuing undergraduate or master’s degrees in business management. The program operates at the Zonta club, district/region and international levels. Zonta clubs provide awards for club recipients.
Scholarship Offered Since: 1998
Scholarship Type: Scholarships for women in business
Selection Criteria and Eligibility
Women pursuing a business or business-related degree who demonstrate outstanding potential in the field are eligible.  Online students are also eligible.  Members and employees of Zonta International or the Zonta International Foundation are NOT eligible to apply for the Scholarships.
Number of Scholarships: Several
Value of Scholarship: Zonta International awards scholarships of US$1,000 each at the district/region level and twelve international scholarships in the amount of US$7,000 each.
The Jane M. Klausman Women in Business Scholarships are awarded annually and may be used for tuition, books or living expenses at any university, college or institution offering accredited business courses and degrees.
Duration of Scholarship: Onetime financial aid
Eligible Countries: Any country where Zonta international club has presence
Eligible African Countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote D’Ivoire, Ghana, Mongolia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo
To be taken at (country): Any country
Application Deadline
Applications must be completed and presented to Zonta clubs according to the club’s assigned deadline. A club recipient is selected, and the application is presented to the governor/regional representative by 1 July 2015. The district/region recipient is selected, and the application is presented to Zonta International Headquarters by 1 September 2015. International recipients will be contacted by their Zonta club leader by mid October 2015.
Offered annually? Yes
How to Apply
The Jane M. Klausman Women in Business Scholarship program operates at the club, district/region and international levels of Zonta International. To apply, please contact the Zonta club nearest you.  Applicants must be nominated by a local Zonta club. Applications selected by Zonta clubs are sent to their respective Zonta Governors/Region South America Representative. A district/region evaluating committee selects one applicant per district/region to submit to Zonta International Headquarters.  The Zonta International Jane M. Klausman Women in Business Scholarship Committee selects twelve international recipients from the district/region applicants.  Applications for the 2015 Jane M. Klausman Women in Business Scholarships is available from 2015 January.
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details
Sponsors: Jane M. Klausman Women in Business Scholarships are made possible through investment income generated by the Klausman bequest, and by generous contributions from Zontians, Zonta clubs and friends of Zonta.

2016 Norway Quota Scholarship Scheme for 800 Bachelors, Masters and PhD Students from Developing Countries

Brief description: The Norwegian Government offer scholarship funds for the Quota Scholarship scheme for Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD Students from Developing Countries at universities and university colleges in Norway 2015/2016
Accepted Subject Areas: Students usually apply for degree programmes that serve as a continuation of their studies in their home country or for courses which can be a joint part of a degree programme in their home country (joint degree or sandwich programmes). Most of the programmes offered are at Master’s or PhD level, but the Quota Scheme also offers certain Bachelor’s study programmes.
About Scholarship
The main objective of the Quota Scheme is to contribute to capacity building through education that will benefit the home country of the students when they return. The Scheme is also intended to strengthen relations between Norway and the selected countries and thus contribute to internationalization at Norwegian institutions of higher education. Most universities and university colleges in Norway participate in the Quota scheme. The institutions involved are allocated a certain number of students under the programme each year. Most of the programmes offered are at Master’s or PhD level, but the Quota Scheme also offers certain Bachelor’s study programmesQuota Scholarship Scheme
Scholarship Offered Since: Not Specified
Selection Criteria
All candidates should typically have the following basic qualifications:
  • Secondary school certificates
  • Minimum two years of higher education from their home country
  • Some exceptions apply for certain professional educational courses at Bachelor’s level.
Eligibility
  • If you wish to participate in the Norwegian Government Quota Scholarship Scheme, you must apply directly from your home country.
  • You must have stayed at least one year in your home country directly prior to the planned course of study at the Norwegian university /University College.
  • To be eligible to apply for the Quota Scheme, you must be able to find your home country on the list below.
Number of Scholarships
The Quota Scheme currently provides funding for a total of 1,100 students, 800 of them from developing countries in the South and 300 from countries in the Western Balkans, Eastern Europe and in Central Asia.
Value of Scholarship
Each student receives the same amount of money as a Norwegian student would do in an equivalent educational programme. 40 per cent of the amount is given as a grant and 60 per cent as a loan. However, the loan portion may be waived when the student returns to his/her home country after completing the course of study. Students who stay in Norway after finishing their studies or take up residence in another country than their home country must repay the loan.

Travelling expenses for entry into Norway may be reimbursed (fixed price).
Duration of Scholarships: Normally, the financial support given will not exceed a time span of four years for one definite study plan or a combination of two programmes.
Eligible Developing Countries
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Djibouti, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Marshall islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique,  Myanmar (Burma), Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, North Korea, Pakistan, Palestinian territories, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville), Rwanda, São Tomé & Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tchad, Thailand, The Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire), Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Yemen
Countries in the Western Balkans, Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
To be taken at (country): Norwegian Universities in Norway.
Application Deadline: varies depending on course and institution. But typically 1 December (each year)
Offered annually? Yes
How to Apply: The institutions of higher education that are part of the Quota Scheme handle all applications from prospective students.Information about the application procedure for the Quota Scheme should be available at the participating universities’ and university colleges’ websites. Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details
Sponsors: The Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund is responsible for managing the financial support provided the Norwegian Government.
Important Notes:
Most universities and university colleges in Norway participate in the Quota scheme. The institutions involved are allocated a certain number of students under the programme each year. The scheme normally includes courses at Master’s and Ph.D. level in addition to certain professional/Bachelor’s degrees. Most of the Norwegian institutions offer courses and educational programmes in English.
The deadline for applications for the Quota scheme is usually 1 December every year. Some courses and educational programmes may have different deadlines.