Running through some old posts today and I came across your reply from way back in February….better late than never my reply, I suppose.

Why Colombia? Well, for starters it has always been the taboo country according to my Political Science classes and their corresponding Professors. Of course the media also had its influence on my decision, as well. I was reluctant to believe that this L. American nation could be so dangerously hideous as portrayed everywhere. In short, I went there to confirm my suspicions that the real story behind Colombia wasn’t being shared, that it isn’t the demon nation portrayed by so many.

What I discovered, confirmed more like it, is that there are indeed many untruths circulating in the world. By taking the risk against all recommendations, I am now able to see Colombia in its true light for the country that it really is. The friendliest people that I’ve encountered in L. America have been in Colombia, and I’ve been to half the region’s different countries. Biologically it is quite impressive with beautiful natural landscapes up and down the Andean Cordillera. Generally speaking, I have never felt threatened aside from one experience which I could have avoided by using better judgement. The food, music, traditions, flavors and people make the country what it is. Yes, there is a stupid, ongoing conflict between the govt, guerrilla and Para groups, but those areas are easily avoided since they’re restricted to particular zones — some of which I’ve visited a time or two. After four years of exposure, I’m certain beyond any doubt that other forces are hard at work demonizing the image of Colombia.

I could go on, but for now I’ll just leave you with what I’ve written and see if you have any questions.

FYI, I had to abandon the daily article submissions and discussions at the end of February since focusing on all the horse shit in the world was beginning to drive me a bit whacky. I understand that the world is continuing to undergo an onslaught of problems, but consistently discussing and/or arguing about them was getting me nowhere…had to disconnect and realign my focus.

Best to you.

Nice post!

Memory is the reflected image of the real. The contents of memory have little to do with whether or not the subject is alive.

In terms of *resurrection* memory is key – for example we have the ability to resurrect cultures that we *remember* but not those we’ve forgotten. The desire to forget is the desire to lose the ability to resurrect – but even that does not mean the thing cannot be resurrected – simply that it will have to occur without us willing it.

We remember Zeus and Poseidon – yet they’ve been dead for millennia.

Nietzsche’s greatest period (in the United States) came with the Neoliberal/Neoconservative age (1973 to the near future)- an age filled with despair, asceticism and rejection of the universal. Modern Western culture breathes the *will to power* and is just as cynical as Nietzsche could have hoped for.

The utter bankruptcy of this age is substantially *caused* by Nietzsche – he’s the philosopher that offers a justification for people to stick their noses in the air and remove themselves from the world (just as he did), submerging themselves in television, or video games, or consumer goods.

He’s the philosopher who glorified the individual – so when a modern person creates himself (so he supposes) – builds himself out of brand-name clothing, out of attitudes, out of opinions, creates his “unique identity”, this is lauded by Nietzsche as his “removal from the herd”, his special self.

Nietzsche played a major role in the alienation and anti-socialization of the modern West. A role that caused and continues to cause vast unhappiness among the populace – a populace reduced to zombies, often in thrall to technology or (other) meaningless diversions.

For Nietzsche is die is for the West to live again.

Death begets forgetfulness, not remembrance. As the poet said, remembrance is a form of meeting.

Only the Democratic and Republican parties have the power to get someone elected (through financial and media control) and those parties are controlled by corporate interests – so if Chris or anyone else becomes president they will be a corporate stooge – just like Obama, Bush, Clinton, and all others going back decades. Being President of the United States is useless in instituting change in the world – for keeping the status quo and promoting elite interests though it’s a sexy high profile job.

America’s problems were Niles’s problems, and the 80s and 90s were some very messed up years for both. In more recent years America has improved, albeit slowly.

I’ve attempted to cure Americans (who don’t want to be cured) of various maladies over the years with nearly a 0% success rate. The biggest problem is the depth of humanity – people always have reasons for what they do, and they hold to those reasons. It’s a very difficult process to defeat those reasons inside a person and to transform them into something else.

People who DO want to be cured of their situation nearly always find a cure, usually quickly and regardless of whatever agency they look to for help. It’s shameful that those agencies then take so much credit for passing along the inevitable.

Any help that you provide someone who doesn’t want to be cured should be focused on moving them to desire a cure. This requires love, attention, and creativity.

As for Chris, I still plan on voting for him as president next election. I always liked that t-shirt.

Stop writing this drivel! You are a moron. Read Dewey’s “Democracy and Education” or Chomsky’s critique of the educational system in “Chomsky on Anarchism” to see just how stupid you really are.

Or don’t because you’re moron and I’m certain you won’t anyways. Who are John Dewey and Noam Chomsky to teach you anything.

In a hierarchical society all “leaders” are hierarchical in nature – that is to say authoritarian. It’s impossible for an elite to be a good leader since he’s “risen to the top” and is thus superior to the mere mortals below him (according to society). Alternatively, simply examine the behavior of the Western elite to the world at large (mass disease and starvation) and to “his own” people to see whether he is displaying “leadership” skills.

The educational system in the West is designed to indoctrinate students into the values of the Western elite. It serves no democratic function. There could certainly be some form of organized educational system in a democracy.

The reason richer people are more “politically active” than poorer people is not even a difference in indoctrinated “education” – it’s a difference in enfranchisement. Richer people have a political stake in the existing system – it matters to them whether Obama or McCain was elected president, for example. For poorer people there is no stake, thus no purpose for political activity (beyond true democratic organizations which don’t currently exist).

Poorer people frequently join unions when they are available, thus showing that they are politically active when there is something at stake in the political arena.

This is my last post to you in either of our lifetimes.

One thing we can do is kill the elite. I’ve recommended that anyone who wants to leave society for despair or some other reason should kill one or more members of the elite. This might inspire others and in any case would give the majority of the world’s population a good laugh and cheer.

Probably the best thing to do for people hoping to remain in society for a while is to organize politically. Form large democratic organizations, both locally and have these groups link into regional, national, and global networks.

It’s also useful to educate people, although much less useful than seemingly the entire Western left believes. I find it difficult to teach the populace much because they already understand most everything – I end up teaching “educated” people the most.

There’s a political split in the Western elite between the “realists” and the “Neoconservatives”. Bill Clinton/Barack Obama are realists and Ronald Reagan/George W. Bush are Neocons (controlled by them). This split translates to “soft empire” versus “hard empire” or “coercive diplomacy” versus “kill first and ask questions later”.

Chomsky’s primary role for the elite is to attack the Neocons, which he has done effectively throughout his life. Chomsky gained major exposure following the antics of the George W. Bush administration – this was no coincidence.

Philosophers are judged by their effects. The American people are well-trained servants of power – wasting their lives on endless distractions. The rest of the West is little better (and in the case of Japan arguably worse). Emerging empires in China, India, and South Korea show a proto-Western populace, falling into the same social models (bourgeois pursuits) as the West.

So we can throw out any theory which states that powerful philosophers exist who support anti-imperialism for the West. If they were powerful, the American people would not be wasting their lives – they would be fighting the elite.

“Foreign aid” is not about helping the 3rd world – it’s about gaining a social foothold in the 3rd world for purposes of economic domination. It’s public relations. The other side of “foreign aid” features weapons transfers – often to dictators to suppress the locals.

Back to Chomsky for a moment – America is a crumbling empire. The American elite need philosophers to ease the transition from empire to non-empire – so Chomsky is given some play while very few people know that Samuel Clemens was an anti-imperialist – few people know because at that time the American elite was 100% imperialist, although lacking the military power to be hyper-aggressive as occurred after World War II.

Dead men tell no tales. If some “great philosopher” came along dangerous to the elite he would simply be killed. Or imprisoned, as Gramsci was. If the populace itself is sufficiently enslaved there will be no great philosophers, since “greatness” is defined by usefulness to the elite, and the elite need no philosophy if the populace is already sufficiently enslaved and useful within their slavery.

Nietzsche was a hideous neurotic and ascetic. His career was built on communicating his panic, frustration, and desperation to his readers. These translated extremely well, leading to “existential despair” and variants dominating Western culture. This cultivated fatalism led the Western populace to turn inwards, turn psychological and ignore the political, and abandon the fate of the very world their own “leaders” were busy exploiting.

Take the Western populace for a moment. The “poor” people of the West are part of the global middle class. They are the bourgeoisie of the world – acting as the bourgeoisie does (uncaring, cruel, grasping, inconsiderate, without compassion) toward the vast majority of the world’s population (what they derisively call the “3rd world”).

Maintaining the global economic position is the PRIMARY purpose of both the Western elite and the Western populace. The Western populace doesn’t live lives of relative affluence because they “work hard”, but because they maintain a terroristic imperial state. They’ll do anything to perpetuate this. It’s called “the American way of life” or “the good life”.

It’s irrelevant how much evidence I provide you since you’re incapable of supporting an understanding – or as Jack Nicholson might say – “You can’t handle the truth”.

If I tell you to examine something you’ll put on your warped glasses and then look. So go ahead, put on those glasses, and look at the “activist dissidents” of the West – the people who go to protests, wave signs, chant, “standoff” against the police, and such. Supposedly they are the bulwark of democracy – the final voice whose presence tempers an otherwise totalitarian state.

In most cases these “protests” are completely passive – planned events with planned actions and a planned bus ride home. Planned obsolescence.

In other cases these “protests” are “active” – tear gas is shot around, some windows are broken – a few arrests are made – making for great drama for the many “brave citizens” who bring their camcorder to the event and put the video online.

Nothing happens. Laws aren’t changed. The protest doesn’t build to a larger reality. Corporations aren’t injured. It’s a game. It’s a stage-play which conceals that there’s nothing real going on.

The problem is that the dissidents themselves don’t want to challenge the Western power structures. But their consciences tell them to do something. So they do… something.

There’s nothing conspiratorial going on. It’s merely people acting in their own “self-interest” as they define it. Dissidents define their self-interest as “me easing my conscience” which “protests” do as long as they don’t encounter people telling them they are a sham. And since they have dismissive ways of handling those situations, they are good to go.

The Western left nearly entirely supports Western imperialism. Marx, for example (and communists in general) support imperialism – what they oppose is the fruits of imperialism going largely to the local elite. Hence “communism” (National Socialism) – which distributes imperial wealth “fairly” amidst the national population.

Examine the environmental destruction caused by the terrible conjunction of global capitalism and industrialization. Now examine Marx. Marx doesn’t want to end industrialization – he wants to distribute the “production” of industrialization “fairly” amidst the *national* population.

These people you suppose to “oppose” the West – take a closer look. Consider that Soviet Communism, the primary fruit of Marx, acts nearly exactly like Western capitalism. The difference is that in the West a few giant corporations make decisions in hierarchical form which controls the society. In Soviet Communism a single “giant corporation” (the state) makes decisions in hierarchical form which controls the society.

The people who actually oppose the West you’ve never heard of – BECAUSE they oppose the West. The people who actually oppose the West are marginalized. One needs to do research just to find out they existed.

Marx isn’t marginalized – he’s considered a great economist. Nietzsche obviously isn’t marginalized – he’s widely considered one of the greatest philosophers in human history.

Noone who opposes the West will ever be given any respect by the West. This is purely logical and completely true.

The primary purpose of Western social science is to dominate the world – to facilitate imperialism and control of the local population. So psychological techniques are used in CIA torture centers around the world. Other techniques have softer terroristic effects – such as for use by advertisers and marketers.

The primary psychic outcome of global capitalism is terror. On any level – the emotions of the diseased and starving – the endless needs and ambitions of the global bourgeoisie – the mechanical rote lives of those living on the edge of doom. Humanity under global capitalism copes, or attempts to cope, and buries their terror under distractions, or superiority, or hate, or “loves”, or addictions.

I teach people and learn from people. All that makes me is human.

Do you think the same way about behaviourism, cognitivism, social psychology, etc… these are all pretenses to keep people distracted from global capitalism. The fact that many of the people involved were communists or at the very least social-democrats doesn’t throw a big wrench into your theory?

I have a theory as well. Michael Jackson’s death was a pretense for Obama to start reforming health care. He died around that time, and he probably died from bad health. That’s it! Michael Jackson is the reason for health care reform.

Do you see how ridiculous this is? If you live in the US I assume it’s not too unlike Canada. Tell people you think Nietzsche is a social terrorist and see if they don’t ask “who the fuck is Nietzsche?” That’s the main reaction I have gotten from Nietzsche in social situations. If he is so powerful, powerful enough “to dominate the West into a state of terror by which the would be helpless to change the world,” presumably peopl would haveto read him or at the very least know who he is.

All the people I know who also know who Nietzsche is are very politically active. The people who have not heard of Nietzsche tend to also be those who play video games all day. This anecdotal evidence seems to suggest you’re completely wrong and in fact the opposite of your contention may actually be true.

So instead of the West treating it’s own imperialism (stopping it), it used Existentialism to profess itself helpless in the face of innumerable factors (death of God, rise of machines, tyranny of Christianity). Psychoanalysis is an endless game professing to treat neurotics of their existentialist despair.

The strategy is simple – we can’t do anything about Western imperialism because we are so traumatized about the world. We “seek help” by means of psychoanalysis, which likewise is a pretense. The real motivation of neurosis is to be helpless and thus maintain one’s “standard of living”.

Global warming is the latest Western trend herein. It’s social effect is to enable the pretense of deepening despair which forms the excuse to play video games, watch endless reality TV, and the like.

Existentialism is a tool of global capitalism.

Nietzsche is a social terrorist. He worked himself into a perpetual state of terror while professing to be a “great man” in order to dominate the West into a state of terror (existentialist despair) by which they would be helpless to change the world.

What are you talking about? You’re senseless.