Friday, June 30, 2006

Mother Nature vs. Unregulated Capitalism Part I

GLOBAL WARMING and ECOLOGICAL DESTRUCTION

Left Wing: Very real problem; is changing and is going to drastically change Earth's climate as we now know it.
Right Wing: Scare tactic by liberals.

This might be kind of a long post. I still can't finish it because I'm bogged down by everything else in life. Dave Matthews Band Concert this weekend in Alpine Valley baby! This is only part of my post that I've been working on forever now. I'll finish it when I get back, because it's not even close to being completed.

It's not just global warming, but water pollution, forest destruction and the annihalation of endangered species that bothers me. Every sane scientist in the world will tell you that the destruction of the ecology of our planet is very real. It isn't some natural variation in climate change. The planet is warming up faster than it ever has, and it's our fault. The destruction of forests and other environments that we depend on for our very existence is happening every second of every day all over the world, and it's our fault. Never before in the history of Earth has one species had the capacity to have such an enormous and direct influence on the environmental system of the entire planet. With great power comes great responsibility.

Life began on Earth because of carbon dioxide. Now through the same man-made emmissions, were speeding up the process by which Earth will become uninhabitable for most species of animals who now call it home and were doing this by pumping too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse gas', which in short contributes to the rate at which our atmosphere absorbs solar radiation. The more CO2, the more solar radiation is absorbed, the warmer the planet becomes.

If you look at our two terrestrial neighbors, Venus and Mars, you begin to understand the impact that the gas has on planet temperatures. Venus has several times as much carbon dioxide in it's atmosphere, and it's extremely hot. Mars has very little, and is extremely cold. Both are uninhabitable. Our planet is the goldilocks of the solar system; not too hot, not too cold. This is in large part because of our distance from the sun, but the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has a huge impact.

The Earth is a living system, just like your body. It's extremely complex. The planet has it's own natural way of "staying healthy" just like the immune system in your body. Like your body, the earth isn't in perfect equilibrium, and sometimes like you, the earth can catch a cold now and then. Instead of white blood cells, Earth has trees, plants and algae that take CO2 in the atmosphere and convert it into breathable oxygen. Unfortunately our forests are being cut down everyday at extremely alarming rates. We are destroying our planet's ability to rejuvenate itself and pumping dangerous toxins into the atmosphere, delivering a one-two punch. We should be the protectors of our environment intstead of it's destroyers. After all, we wouldn't be here without it.

Not just CO2, but Methane, increases in solar activity and earth's positional orbit in relation to the sun can all have an effect on global warming. See: Study: Increase in Solar Radiation

Not only are we potentially endangering the livelihood of our future generations, but today we're putting enormous efforts and resources into perpetuating our state of complete and total denial. The Bush Administration is the leading force in this war on information. You would think that when you're the leader of the free world, you would be concerned about the future of the planet. You would hire scientists, or at least people who knew what they were talking about to lead agencies in charge of scientific research. You can't expect that kind of logic to apply to a person who thinks "it would be a lot easier if I were a dictator"....

Bush hired Phil Cooney to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Who is Phil Cooney? He's a lawyer, and was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before coming to the White House. If that doesn't make you want to kick and scream, I'm not sure you should be allowed to have children. But thats not even the best part. Mr. Cooney is the official White House "editor" of reports done by NASA climate scientists. All of NASA's climate reports are sent to the White House for verification.

Here is the entry for Phil Cooney on Wikipedia (I love Wikipedia if you haven't noticed):

Phil A. Cooney was chief of staff for White House Council on Environmental Quality for the George W. Bush administration, an institution that shapes much of America's environmental policy. In a position that may be viewed as requiring scientific training, Cooney is a lawyer and holds a bachelors degree in economics. Prior to joining the Bush administration, Cooney was a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute. In early 2005, Cooney came under fire for radically changing a number of 2002 and 2003 official reports on climate change, mostly to increase a sense of uncertainty around the scientific data on climate change. As a New York Times article reports: In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings." In June, 2005, Cooney resigned his position in the Bush Administration and was hired by ExxonMobil [1].

NASA recently came out with a report that found that the alarmingly fast warming and melting of the arctic is due in large part to summer smog pollution, and not just CO2 emissions. Here's the story: NASA: Summer Smog Impacts Arctic Melting

San Francisco Chronicle: Tim Barnett of the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The debate is over, at least for rational people. And for those who insist that the uncertainties remain too great, their argument is no longer tenable. We've nailed it." SFGate

I'll finish my post with an excerpt from The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson, the author of two Pulitzer Prize-winning books, recipient of many of the world's leading prizes in science and conservation, Research Professor at Pelligrino University and Honorary Curator in Entomolgy of the Museum of Comparitive Zoology at Harvard University:

Environmentalism is still widely viewed, especially in the United States, as a special-interest lobby. Its proponents, in this blinkered view, flutter their hands over pollution and threatened species, exaggerate their case, and press for industrial restraint and the protection of wild places, even at the cost of economic development and jobs. Environmentalism is something more central and vastly more important. Its essence has been defined by science in the following way. Earth, unlike the other solar planets is not in physical equilibrium. It depends on its living shell to create the special conditions on which life is sustainable. The soil, water, and atmoshere of its surface have evolved over hundreds of millions of years to their present condition by activity of the biosphere, a stupendously complex layer of living creatures whose activities are locked together in precise but tenuous global cycles of energy and transformed organic matter. The biosphere creates our special world anew every day, every minute, and holds it in a unique, shimmering physical disequilibrium. On that disequilibrium the human species is in total thrall. When we alter the biosphere in any direction, we move the environment away from the delicate dance of biology. When we destroy ecosystems and extinguish species, we degrade the greatest heritage this planet has to offer and thereby threaten our own existence.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Important: DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU THINK

Every once in a while I run across a short phrase that holds a novel full of wisdom in just a couple of words. I saw this one on a bumpersticker a couple of days ago.

Just wanted to make it clear that I DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING. I won't ever pretend to (I'll try), and if I do, please call me out on it. With that said, I do not believe everything that I think because I know that I am not all-knowing, and my young mind can't hold too much information at one time anyways.

When I say I'm a liberal, I really mean that the way that I'm thinking right now is closer to the way your "stereotypical" bleeding heart liberal would think, more than anything else.

I'm working on a global warming post still. I thought I had it done like 4 months ago, but there's too much information to fit into one post. I really am trying hard to look at both sides, but the more I look, the more I become convinced that there is a concensus on hard facts and data in the scientific community that it's real. Sorry everybody, but it looks like this next post is going to have to be biased towards the truth once again. It's hard to be fair and balanced when the other side is totally and completely wrong. Now I guess I know what those egg-heads over at faux news feel like.... either I'm right, or I'm totally full of sh*t and there's a huge conspiracy to make me believe in something that's not real. Either one could be true.

Monday, June 26, 2006

6/26 Rant

Sorry to all you 5 or 6 people that actually frequent my blog. I've been at my cabin and I've just been all around lazy lately. I thought I'd post some pics from my cabin:

















Apparently these were the only two that I actually saved on my phone. I must have been too [distracted] ;) the rest of the time to remember to hit the SAVE button, but I really like these two. I could look at that sunset for the rest of my life...

Anyways, moving on to pointless politics.

Today, after the whole controversy about the New York Times once again publicly disclosing the terrorist surveillance policies of the Bush Admin, I decided to go over to the conservative blog captainsquartersblog.com to see what the right wingers over there were saying about it.

Recap: the New York Times today put out an article that described the Bush policy of tracking "terrorist" financial records and transactions. I didn't read the story because I don't subscribe to the paper, but apparently Congress was briefed about the program and there are 'auditors' that oversee it to check for any abuses.

I posted a comment on the page, expecting some angry feedback. What actually happened was that I was lambasted all day long for being an idiot, a kool-aid drinker, a conspiracy theorist, an extremist and a paranoid absolutist. Wow... tough crowd. All I really said was that I thought it wasn't right for one department to have limitless power in terms of gathering, tracking and handling any kind of personal information. And then some stuff about Ann Coulter being nuts. Pretty reasonable stuff I thought. They all thought I was retarded, but like me, they have the right to their own opinion.

Global Warming: I'm passionate about this topic because it means so much (if true) to our very existence, and the existence of our planet's current ecology. I've checked out both sides of the argument, which both have compelling arguments to make. But with a little more research into the claims of people who say global warming is a crock, it's easy to see that these people are desperately grasping for any kind of fact that can back up their argument. They use 'facts' that should more appropriately be called weasels, because they only tell you part of the truth.

There isn't one credible scientist (not on Exxon Mobiles payroll) out there that will dispute the fact that global warming is real and that it is caused by human activities.

Now the Supreme Court is going to hear a case brought up by many eastern states who are claiming that the government should have been regulating carbon emissions for a long time now to combat warming.

Three main conservative claims on global warming:
1. The Earth currently does seem to be in a warming period, though how warm and for how long no one knows. In particular, no one knows whether this is unusual or merely something that happens periodically for natural reasons.

No one knows huh? How about 11 international science acadamies which recently joined together to declare that, "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities … . This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate."
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

How about the Weather Channel which has recently come out boldly claiming that human-caused global warming is real?

2. The ice in greenland is actually getting thicker in the middle.

Absolutely right. Perfect weasel. The ice over Greenland seems to have gotten thicker by half a meter in the last 10 years. But wait neo-cons!... there's one more thing you should know. The same scientist who produced this study actually concluded that this was evidence of global warming. It's very simple to understand if you ever studied weather in junior high. When the air and sea become warmer, water evaporates much more easily. When water evaporates, it condences into clouds... clouds rain or snow on the mainland. The warmer it is, the more water evaporates, the more snow on the mainland of Greenland. Simple, simple, simple.

3. The Earth has only warmed by one degree in 100 years!

This is an over-generalization. The average temp all across the globe has increased by one degree, which may not seem like much, but can have a huge impact on the environment as many prominent scientists have told us. The temps at the poles have actually increased by an average of 12 degrees fahrenheit. This is where the impact from global warming seems to be centered. Recent scientific studies have shown that due to melting ice caps, Polar Bears are drowning. They're now resorting to cannibalism to survive because they can't reach their prey anymore.

Gotta go... summer is a hectic time. I'll have a big huge post tommorow on global warming that no one will read. It just makes me feel better to get it all out.


One of the world's most respected climatologists, NASA's James Hansen, even used a dice metaphor to make it clear.
If you paint one side of the die red, you'll roll red about one in six times. Paint four red, and you'll roll red on average four in six times.
Manmade greenhouse gas emissions, Hansen explained, were loading the dice so that we'd have such extreme weather far more frequently. And, exactly as predicted, we and the world have — well above what the frequency of any natural weather cycles can explain.

Monday, June 12, 2006

GODLESS: The Church of Liberalism



Ann Coulter: Smart and Insane, or Just Plain Evil?




Actual quote from her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism: (talking about 9/11 widows)

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

Media Hero Keith Olbermann:

To recap Coulter's argument: The wives of those who died in the worst attack in this nation's history enjoyed their husband's deaths and profited off them, they have politicized 9/11, their positions as widows immunize them from any criticism or debate over their opinions. All of this stated by a commentator much of whose income in the last four and a half years has derived from *her* speeches and writings about the deaths of those same men on 9/11. All this stated by a commentator who has staunchly, repeatedly, and enthusiastically defended an administration that began to politicize 9/11 within a month of the nightmare and has never paused for a moment since. All of this stated by a commentator who has called those who have criticized her and her party "un-American" and now, "godless." All of this stated by a commentator who is bitching that these 9/11 widows can't be criticized while she is writing a book and going on TV and venomously criticizing them.

Watch Olbermann’s great commentary on coulter’s quote on MSNBC’S Countdown @
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8626



Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?




I found this on huffingpost. I thought it was funny because I have a pretty sick sense of humor. But it does in a way resemble some viewpoints that people have on the very far right side of the political scale. This guys actually a liberal, and it’s just satire. It seemed like something Stephen Colbert would say… that’s probably why I like it.

Children with Terminal Cancer Using Their Disease to Get Sympathy: A Satire by Ann Coulter (by steve young)

Another Crown Forum Sellout

Chapter 12 - Like We're Supposed To Care?

I have never seen children enjoying their incurable diseases so much.It seems to be all the rage for witches of want with a so-called "terrible illness" to try and turn their maladies into some sort of whining, cause-celeb begathon for medicines and research to cure their condition or relieve their pain.

Okay, you have an irreversible disease. So did Al Capone. It doesn't make you some martyr.
First of all, we call these conditions terminal for a reason and spending time and good money on a cure for something terminal seems [to] be a rather wasteful use of good research that might be better used for curing something curable.

Prior to getting leukemia or malignant tumors -- or whatever it is they say they have -- these children didn't seem to have a single problem with disease, much less expecting the rest of America to take time away from creating a strong economic base for healthy kids to take advantage of. An economy that these taking-up-needed-space-in-hospices cry-babies could also have access to if they wouldn't be so selfish and lived healthfully.

Now, it seems that the world is supposed to drop everything because these weakened weebles weren't careful enough to properly count the number of red or white blood cells that could cohabit peacefully without killing each other off.
Why must we be forced to wear some synthetic, sterilized mask every time one of these kids cry
"Mommy." I'm not their mommy and I don't care to be. If the families of these money-sucking bedridden cretins choose to parent them, don't ask me to support them. I don't ask them to buy my satin-black Chanel. You want someone to come to your child's bed, ask Bill Clinton for a donation. I'm sure Monica Lewinsky's mom and dad would have.

If I ever choose to have someone else's child I'd first make damn sure that it would be a healthy child, something the so-called grieving parents of these children might have thought of before jumping into bed with some syphilitic, affliction-carrier.

If you can't raise a sick child without outside help, don't have one. And if you choose to have one, don't expect society to be shedding a tear or a dollar, for that matter, to help you with the problem. It's forced victimhood and welfare tears for the cripples, retards and hopelessly contaminated that the liberal elite continues to perpetuate so that the sick will keep from being well. At least a welfare queen uses her money for some nice wheels which while driving her to some free cheese wagon, drives the economy, and tell me General Motors and Detroit wouldn't be happy with that.

Parents of the perpetually sick just throw good money after bad. If the child is going to die, dragging it out isn't going to make her or him any more alive.

People will defend the screams of agony from these health-wannabes with a liberal doctrine of infallibility, saying that we can't question their neediness because they're sick or are going to suffer some horrible death. Their shelf-life is dwindling. Don't be surprised to see whatever is left of this sicklings soon stripping off their feeding tubes and bandages on the pages of Playboy.

A disease is medical condition. It deserves a medical professional's response. But these kids and parents cut commercials against second hand smoke or air pollution. It's bad enough that we have to hear Al Gore doing an Ed Begley in the Ciniplex and blather on about his sister's death. Do we also have to see sick children on the screen while I'm trying to eat?

What these kids and their parents are doing is ruining everything America stands for. You wonder why they aren't rolling their hospital beds up to Canada to wait in line with the rest of the draft-dodgers.

It makes me want to throw up even more than I want to already.

[If only John Murtha were] a terminally-ill child, then maybe we could get on with winning this war.

Chapter 13: Being A Good Christian.

Ann's Events Coming Up: I will be pimped on Sean Hannity this week and coddled by Bill Maher when he returns.

Remember to watch.

(something coulter would say? Haha maybe…)

Ann thinks she is moral, righteous and a very very good Christian. So lets see how good of a Christian she really is…

'Godless' author Coulter unknown at church she claims to attend


God is NOT the monopoly of conservatism or any other –ism… ann coulter is delusional in thinking that liberals are all godless. That's completely insane. The only reason a sane person would say something like that is if they were paid to do it... otherwise you're just plain mental.

Sure most atheists (maybe 5 percent of the whole population) are left of center, but that’s mainly because they’re usually rational thinkers, whether they’re right or wrong about whether there is a god or not. But all it takes is some overly publicized crazy woman like Ann Coulter, completely over-generalizing every single situation and pointing a finger towards some scapegoat (like “godless liberals”) to create a public perception, mainly on the right, that ALL liberals are godless and lack morality.











A CONVERSATION:

Conservative: If you can't afford your kids, you never should've had 'em!

Liberal: Well, you see, I COULD afford them at the time. But now, it's 10 years later, and my company has moved to Mexico. Most of the town is laid off and looking for work.

Conservative: So? MOVE!

Liberal: No one is buying houses here anymore, and I can't afford to pay rent somewhere else on top of my mortgage.

Conservative: So get a JOB you lazy f***!

Liberal: Well, I'm looking, and I do have my part-time greeter job at WalMart, but somehow it just isn't enough. I don't know what to do, and the stress is taking a toll on my health.

Conservative: F***ing whiner. Always looking for a handout.

Liberal: Thanks for listening

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Midwest Values Pac


I just went to a great show at the State Theater in Minneapolis. I've been to something like 15 different concerts in the last two years and none of them have inspired me more than the show tonight. It was put on by Al Franken's Midwest Values Pac organization which was set up last year to help benefit progressive candidates in the midwest. I know Al from his books and his radio show on Air America (too young to remember SNL, except for the look-in-the-mirror "I love myself" bit that Al is so famous for). He reunited with his old comedy partner Tom Davis tonight and I couldn't stop crying I was laughing so hard. My favorite guitar player, Leo Kottke played the twelve string guitar. This was the first time I've seen him live, and I couldn't lift my jaw up off the floor when he was done. Absolutely amazing.

I know most of us are sick and tired of politicians in general today, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican or something entirely different. Al Franken is a man who speaks straight from his heart. There's no bullshit when it comes to this guy. I mean, he is really truly genuine. He is so passionate about what he believes in and he makes me feel so proud to be a Liberal in Minnesota. If you can, please donate any money you have laying around to Midwest Values Pac. Go to www.midwestvaluespac.org for more information.



(al on the uso tour in iraq)

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Dear Mr. President; In With God's Word, Out With the Constitution

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly rejects it... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

A Concerned American
(read on Mama Miller's Morning Show on Air America Radio Monday, 6/5/06)
www.stephaniemiller.com

Sunday, June 04, 2006

1984: George Orwell: The Eternal Struggle of Class In Society



George Orwell was a genius. Throughout his career as a novelist and journalist, he focused on combating the ideologies of totalitarianism, including fascism, imperialism, and authoritarian forms of communism. His most famous works, 1984 and Animal Farm are writings in direct opposition to these systems of thought. He argues in many of his writings that, no matter who takes power and no matter what the powerful value politically and cuturally, the same historical pattern of society will emerge due to the need for wealth and power. Equality is impossible under the oppresive hand of Big Government.

1984 is a book that details what the possible future of mankind may look like if society ever collectively adheres to one of these systems of belief. The only way that this would be possible is if the lower classes were somehow made to be ignorant of reality and their position in the world. The book describes a world that cherishes endless war, the use of fear as a tool of control, and the endless pursuit of the destruction of independent thought, knowledge and wisdom.

Nineteen Eighty-Four has given the English language the phrase 'Big Brother', or 'Big Brother is watching you'. This is used to refer to any oppressive regime, but particularly in the context of invasion of privacy.--Wikipedia

Orwell firmly believed that Democratic Socialism was the only way for society to come close to breaking down the walls that keep the lower classes low, the higher classes high, and the middle classes middle.

I copied this from the book (almost) word for word so try and read it. I wouldn't have gone through all that work if it wasn't a really interesting read. I had to skip some parts that were directly related to the storyline, but the text is very informative. Fancy language, but very eye-opening if you get through it.

The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

Chapter 1: Ignorance Is Strength

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude toward one another, have varied from age to age; but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after the enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to to be more than intermittently concious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.

Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins all over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there had been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

(With the rise of historical knowledge in the 20th century, more and more scholars became aware of this cyclical process and pattern throughout history. Ideas that focused on this pattern as being an unalterable law of human life became popular among the higher classes. Now that the cyclical movement of history was intelligible, it was seen as alterable.)

The familiar pendulum swing was to happen once more and then stop. As usual, the High were to be turned out by the Middle, who would then become the High; but this time, by concious strategy, the High would be able to maintain their position permanently.

The new doctrines arose partly because of the accumulation of historical knowledge, and the growth of the historical sense, which had hardly existed before the nineteenth century. The underlying cause for altering the pattern of history was that, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, human equality had been technically possible. It was still true that men were not equal in their native talents and that functions had to be specialized in ways that favored some individuals against others; but there was no longer any real need for class distinctions or for large differences in wealth. In earlier ages, class distinctions had been not only inevitable but desirable. Inequality was the price of civilization. With the development of machine production, however the case was altered. Even if it was still necessary for human beings to do different kinds of work, it was no longer necessary for them to live at different social or economic levels. Therefore, from the point of view of the new groups who were on the point of seizing power, human equality was no longer an ideal to be striven after, but a danger to be averted.

In more primitive ages, when a just and peaceful society was in fact not possible, it had been fairly easy to believe in it. The idea of an earthly paradise in which men should live together in a state of brotherhood, without laws and without brute labor, had haunted the human imagination for thousands of years. And this vision had had a certain hold even on the groups who actually profited by each historic change. The heirs of the French, the English, and American revolutions had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and had allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable.

Every new political theory, by what ever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years -- imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages and the deportation of whole populations -- not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.


---The rest of the chapter goes on to explain that in order to maintain the eternal structure of society, the ruling class would have to establish a way of controlling the thought of the lower classes. Language was changed to abolish words that encourage revolution and independent thought. Systematic surveillance of every member of society was needed to ensure that no one diverted from blind faith in their authority figures. In this way, the ruling class would govern for thousands of years, and any attempt to change the natural structure of human society would be crushed before any idea of revolution was even communicated between citizens.

In order to keep the population obedient... perpetual, never-ending wars are seen as necessary to keep the masses in line. Nationalism has historically been extremely prevalent among populations of people who's nation is at war. Patriotism is a by-product of the fear of the enemy that the nation is at war with. Of course, none of this is possible unless liberalism and independent thinking are stomped out of society (something that the bush administration has tried, and failed to do so far).

Modern Day
Fear: Terrorism; Bush's alarming policies point towards a shadowy enemy that lurks in more than 60 countries, including the US. His administration has a policy of using maximum force against any individuals or nations he designates as our enemies, without color of international law, due process, or democratic debate.
Control: Surviellance/NSA wiretapping and ignoring checks and balances, i.e. court orders and warrants.
Maintaining Structure of Social Classes: Reversing the progressive tax and movement towards perpetual wealth among the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans.
Endless War: Forcing democracy on the Middle-East.

Taken from http://www.rense.com/general15/happy.htm:

WAR IS PEACE. A reckless war that will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety. Meanwhile, we've been instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life. As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we are to "live our lives and hug our children."

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. "Freedom itself is under attack," Bush [says], and he's right. Americans are [losing] many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy of paranoid legislation. The government proposes to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial. It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, the Pentagon has advised. Meanwhile, the sorry history of American imperialism -- collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments with corrupt dictatorships -- is strictly off-limits to mainstream media. Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11.


Stand up against any regime that would discourage knowledge, encourage censorship, propogate fear and cater only to the needs of the richest and most powerful. The United States is on that road. Let's stop it before it gets out of control and the government starts telling us that the year is actually and eternally 1984.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever" -George Orwell, 1984















http://www.hermes-press.com/wmd_gate.htm