Archive for April, 2007

Hot Fuzz: the critics only mention half the story

April 29, 2007

The half they mention is that it’s a buddy film, and a parody of action movies. I agree with the former and disagree with the latter, but the bigger issue is what the critics don’t mention.

In High Plains Drifter Clint Eastwood is a Savior who saves a town from themselves, from becoming a modern day Gomorrah. By violently instituting morality while steeped in mystic authority, he serves as a Old Testament God figure and an eliminator of democracy and rationality. He is the kind of image fascists have of themselves.

In Dogville the Old West mythological setting is replaced by a more modern one, and the movie’s critical look at decadent humanity is filled with pathos and angst. Instead of a God figure, Dogville uses a blind angel protagonist to express a despair not present in it’s predecessor.

Hot Fuzz is the latest in this spiritual trilogy, updating the narrative to account for developments in modern culture and eliminating any degree of mysticism. It uses comedy to achieve something neither of the other two films could: hope.

The filmmakers understand what the critics do not (or are not willing to admit): there are several references to Clint Eastwood’s early roles and High Plains Drifter late in the film.

Hot Fuzz is too sloppy to compare well to High Plains Drifter, but it’s a better movie than Dogville.

Scott Ritter on Iran and related issues

April 26, 2007

Excellent analysis of America’s war in Vietnam

April 24, 2007

And on US health care:

Torture: Reality no longer matters

April 24, 2007

I’ll breakdown the condition of torture…

Once torture becomes appreciated by the victim, once he becomes aware that it cannot be avoided, the first thing eliminated is truth. This is the natural result of all relationships of power, *any* type of oppression. More extreme types like torture result in more clear and absolute elimination of truth as a concern. This is utterly universal and is a very easy way to see the degree of oppression in any culture (the less truth, the more oppression).

A torture victim quickly becomes an expert in one thing: discovering and then exploiting the needs of the torturer. In short, telling him what he wants to hear. The most common error is to believe the truth is what the torturer wants to hear. Torture is about expressing a power differential, about raising fear in the potential tortured (those not currently being tortured but in or possibly in the target group), and misguidedly about controlling the tortured. We’ve all seen countless examples of American media propaganda where the tortured finally “has his will broken” and reveals the truth.

The reason we can be truthful is that truth has great social value. As we live in a society we support we enjoy sharing truth as a means of strengthening that society. Torture radically reconceives society such that truth becomes far too valuable to share, and fashions the torturer/tortured relationship in such a negative way as to make it further impossible to engage.

Torture can actually work, but current ignorance prevents it’s function.

The problem with the current use of torture from the torturer’s standpoint is that there is no incentive for the tortured to speak the truth. If he speaks the truth he loses all value in all ways. If it’s verified that he’s spoken important truth he will only be furthered tortured, as torture is much more efficient with him than it is with most people. Betraying his people means he has no remaining society.

Probably the biggest problem with current torture is that it’s very easy for the tortured to simply lose access to truth itself. Truth is actually a fairly difficult mental project… we only think it’s easy because we train ourselves to produce it and aren’t (usually) under mental duress. Under torture the tortured trains himself to *not* produce it and is under mental duress, making that training all the easier. Truth is NOT the natural condition for the brain… torture prevents refined conditions like truth-production from proceeding. What torture always does is to make a human excellent at deceit… it’s the most cynical of all possible actions. Being tortured is great training for being a politician.

Torture that works operates much more subtlely. Torture that works does NOT put the victim on the defensive… it makes him think he is in control. Think of a Bond film where the woman seduces Bond for information. That doesn’t work because Bond is a monster, but the concept is decent. The irony of Bond films is that Bond is an effective torturer, while the parodies of torture such as the evil villains with their goofy machines are ineffectual… it says a lot about Western culture that Bond is portrayed as the hero. Bond films are one of many that have *no* heroes. Rarely do any of the characters have any nobility at all.

Humans hate it when they are betrayed by friends or family. Why?… because they are *vulnerable* to friends and family. Only after a torturer establishes trust and compassion with the victim can effective torture proceed. This is turn leads to the obvious psychology of an effective torturer (a combination of con man, insane zealot, and sadomasochist). It seems likely that dysfunctional families and strained friendships derive from imperial culture for those kinds of reasons.

Modern conceptions of torture don’t work because the tortured knows who the torturer is. He understands the situation. Unfortunately though for the torturers, it doesn’t usually work to confuse him because he loses his grasp on truth along with his grasp of the situation. It’s the very TENOUSNESS of truth that makes us free from constant oppression. The next time you hear someone say “the truth shall set you free” you may want to provide him with this followup: you’re right, but it’s only our ability to lose truth that keeps us that way.

Western society is far less ignorant of all of this than I prefer. It’s becoming more effective at indoctrination, propaganda, deceit, and mental and psychological control all the time. Humans understand the threat of global warming and nuclear war… those are truths convenient to the Western mind. That Western society is oppressive within the fabric of their very personalities, outlooks, and actions is far less convenient and therefore far less understood.

All of these are races against destruction: the will to torture is just one more. If we lose any one of them there may be no 22nd century to enjoy.

The Pinky Show on Neocolonialism and Nuclear Weapons

April 24, 2007

Incredible Aesthetic

April 23, 2007

Naomi Klein on motivations for perpetual global chaos and more

April 20, 2007

George Lakoff on moral politics and childrearing

April 20, 2007

Reforming Education

April 18, 2007

The educational system in America (and probably to an extent in many other countries as well) has one major problem: it’s not primarily about education.

Here’s the process: a student sits in a seat in front of a teacher. The teacher describes the assignment. The primary responsibility of the student is to *follow the assignment*.

Here’s an analogy: let’s say you tell someone to go to a store and buy a gallon of milk. Your range of grades, from A to F, may be determined by several factors: the time it takes him to do this, the price he paid for the milk, the resources he used on the way, or others.

The entire range of grades is framed by a very narrow procedure: the necessity of getting the milk. Let’s say that instead of getting the milk the student decides that helping a cat out of a tree is more important. He may even give the milk to the cat instead of returning it. What grade does he get?

From experience I’ll tell you: usually either a C or a D. Not following instructions is considered the biggest problem by those who call themselves educators. It would be an F if not for the benefits of helping cats and giving them milk. Educators aren’t heartless.

Take a look at the comparison between two students: one who blindly follows instructions and one who thinks for himself: since the first student doesn’t need to put any energy into thinking he can maximize his efficiency in obtaining the milk, thus maximizing his grade. EVEN IF the other student carries out his assignment he does so while considering the world and it’s many possibilities, thus lowering his efficiency with respect to a pre-determined goal. Furthermore, the first student gets to put that assignment behind him and move on to maximizing his efficiency with respect to the next assignment. The latter student gets to explain to the teacher why he’s being a “troublemaker”. Teachers hate troublemakers far more than they hate stupidity or ignorance. You see, stupidity and ignorance can be *fixed*. Troublemakers don’t want to be fixed… they want to fix education. You might say “wait a second, only Authoritarian institutions want to fix and prevent being fixed”. Yep, you might be onto something there.

By making grades largely about obedience, we find the primary purpose and result of the educational system: obedience training. Students are not being educated (except within a narrow range), they are being taught to obey authority.

Successful students wear blinders they don’t even realize exist… education goes on long enough that most of these people are unable to take off those blinders for the rest of their lives, making them tools of the state or any other institution of power. Many of these people are even happy… blindness can certainly lead to that. What you don’t see you don’t need to think about and deal with.

The more aware among the blind can be exploited even more easily: while the blind are ignorant of the worldview and motivations of the “troublemakers” the half-blind who understand they are slaves to the power system turn their hatred upon the troublemakers who remind them of their own awareness. The troublemakers, since they are available for attack, become blamed for the consciousness of the weak half-blinds. In turn this only fuels the self-hatred of the half-blinds since they recognize that the only true enemy for them is the power system itself which they deem themselves too weak to face.

I give a sad smile when I see idealistic troublemakers who think all it takes is opening people’s eyes and everything will be great. That’s merely the *beginning* of a very long, difficult, and exciting road. Only after the war that results from those who hate their own consciousness and those they blame for it will possible greatness ensue.

The blinds get small pleasure from “success” where they define success as frantically following orders and define pleasure by a master’s pat on the head. The “troublemakers” get pleasure from the fight itself, the continual struggle for their own creative existence. They see every pat on the head for its condescension.

A start to reforming education is fairly simple: every troublemaker has to justify what he’s doing, every obeyer has to justify what he’s doing, and every teacher has to justify what he’s doing. For example, when an obeyer hands in an assignment, he has to include *why* he followed the assignment and didn’t act as a troublemaker. Likewise when a troublemaker hands in an assignment he has to include *why* he didn’t follow the assignment and act as an obeyer. Likewise, when a teacher assigns something he has to include WHY he is assigning it. Any of these things can be challenged and debated by any party involved.

In terms of grades I’m not sure. Chomsky seems to think they should be abolished. I’m not convinced of that. However, any grade for any assignment should include the quality of his argument for why he followed or did not follow the assignment.

You might think it’s a lot to ask a 1st grader to make such arguments, but you think that partly because Authoritarian systems have taught 1st graders not to make such arguments. Of course a child’s natural development will be taken into consideration with respect to what he is capable of doing. From personal experience I can say in 4th grade I was ready to make such arguments, and would have in a culture more conducive to it.

Everyone cheer as America takes down the Fascists!

April 13, 2007

In early 1997 I became increasingly concerned with rising Authoritarianism in the United States, In early 1998 I turned part of my identity into that of a fascist leader with respect to participation in a couple of web-browser intenet games and their messageboards. This continued until June 2001, at which time I had seen enough.

What I discovered was deeply frightening, more so because of events that followed. All it takes are certain conditions which are difficult but far from impossible to obtain to turn people into sheep (or zombie followers).

The catastrophic ignorance displayed by the American people concerning the Authoritarianism of Congress and especially the White House (ignorance that resulted in the continuation of the Neocons versus them being in jail, for example) could have been prevented by a simple understanding of Authoritarian psychology.

America is playing a very dangerous game. By allowing the Authoritarians to continue they hope to fuel fear which will result in societal transformation, but do they have the right to bet America on that craps table?

Why not support tradition, support truth and justice by putting the Neocon liars and manipulators in jail?

Even if America achieves societal transformation, doing so on such a monstrous bed only encourages the same process next time.

When did we stop believing in truth and start using deception as the impetus for creation?

How truly sad America is sometimes. They are like Rocky Balboa, who needs to be beaten up to near death before transforming.

How truly sad, and how tragic. I’m not sure what’s worse… America being wrong and being killed (turned into a Fascist state) or America being right and societally transforming (perhaps into some form of democratic socialism) by means of a near-death experience.

Sometimes people talk about American perversity. They have no idea just how perverse America really is. Rocky, after all, has many sequels.

There are far too few of us who think that Rocky is a horrible movie for America to play out and far too many who sickly cheer on the spectacle.

Go Go America! Take down the Fascists! Yay!!

Every pitcher should be a reliever

April 10, 2007

This argument focuses on the National League for reasons I’ll state, but it applies to a weaker extent to the American League as well.

Right now the starting pitcher throws on average six innings a game. The most common reason for him to be pulled prior to that is poor performance, the second most common reason is high pitch count (often related to poor performance). He throws as much as he healthily and effectively can unless the game runs into a special situation (like the conditions for a closer), and then he might be pulled even while being continually effective.

Because a starting pitcher throws so many pitches in a game, he needs several days of rest before he can be healthy and effective in his next start. Four days of rest is normal, three occurs in special situations or where his pitch count was exceptionally low in his previous start.

The normal rest period creates the necessity for a rotation of five starting pitchers during the regular season, moving to four or sometimes three during the playoffs (enabled by more off days). A typical team has five starting pitchers and seven relief pitchers, usually one of whom can occasionally start (such as for doubleheaders or injuries) as needed.

This system has certain strengths and certain weaknesses. One strength is that the starting pitchers pitch many more innings a year (around three times as many) as the relievers, thus allowing better pitchers to be starters and having more effect on the team’s success. Another strength is that the statistical convention of giving a pitcher a Win for completing the fifth inning with his team in the lead if that team holds the lead and wins the game favors being the pitcher during that pivotal fifth inning.

One weakness is that hitters improve over the course of the game against the same pitcher. Another weakness is that if your starting pitchers are good most of the seven relievers on your staff get to spend a lot of time staring at daisies in the bullpen instead of pitching. Furthermore, since it’s not known beforehand whether the starter is going to pitch three innings or eight innings you need the many relievers to cover the three inning possibility (as well as others).

Despite starting pitchers being the cream of the crop of pitchers (only comparable to closers in quality), they have a worse earned run average than do relievers. Partly this is due to the way ERA is calculated which favors pitchers coming in during an inning instead of beginning one, partly it’s due to starting pitchers having to face the dreaded first inning when the best possible lineup is selected to produce effective offense, partly it’s due to relievers sometimes getting to face favorable hitters (such as the righty/righty or lefty/lefty matchups), but the factor of not having to face a hitter multiple times is also key.

For the National League, do this instead of the present system: never let your pitcher bat, unless the game is so out of hand it won’t matter. Pinch hit in the 1st inning if you have to. Also: never let a pitcher face more than nine hitters, unless he is exceptional (I mean having an exceptional day, not just being a great pitcher). The common result of this policy means you’ll have five pitchers a game, each pitching no more than two innings. You’ll have the pleasure of watching your hitting stats approach the level of the American League with it’s designated hitter.

Because of the consistency, your pitchers will be throwing a fairly predictable number of pitches and their arm health can be easily maintained… also since they’ll only need a day of rest between stints (not even that as long as they pitch only two consecutive days) they will nearly always be available if needed (such as in a very close game where you need your ace to throw an inning).

While your best pitchers will still throw more innings, you won’t see the 3:1 ratio anymore. It will be more like 1.5:1 or at most 2:1. Pitchers with higher endurance, more quality, and who recover faster will get more innings. The downside of this is offset by these factors:

Since five pitchers (or more) are used each game, a manager can be very selective in determining who pitches. Instead of a manager not being able to use four pitchers at all during a game (due to them resting and waiting for their next start) all of his pitchers can pitch in the game if needed. This allows for more situational creativity: in a blow out game you can put in your worst pitchers and in a close game you can use your best pitchers instead of having them resting and waiting to start in what might be a blow out.

Because of the special nature of the first inning, it will still be beneficial to start the game with one of your best pitchers, and the closer role stays similar to how it is at the moment.

Because you’re using three or so more pinch hitters in a game than you were under the traditional system, your bench is depleted, making extra inning games more difficult (in the sense that eventually your pitchers would have to bat in extra innings). The upside is that your bench players get constant at-bats, engaging them and keeping them focused and practiced.

This system is weaker for the American League since you don’t have the pitcher batting anyway, but otherwise everything applies.

Upon a team implementing this system there will be some effects:

Pitchers who were previously starters will complain about the lack of innings (assuming they aren’t able to throw a couple innings more than every other day which I assume they can’t). They will also complain about the lack of wins, assuming the win rules remain the same.

Because you’ve closed the gap of value between starting pitchers and relievers, it will no longer be possible to pay a pitcher a very high salary, allowing more of those funds to be diverted into hitters.

In order to match the number of innings thrown by a starter in the current system, a pitcher in this system would have to throw two innings two out of every three games.

I consider this system to be clearly superior to the current one in the National League, and debatable for the American League. The biggest issue for implemention is the media storm following such a “corruption of tradition” as the papers would likely write.

This system is designed for the regular season. Because of the days off involved with the playoffs which means less pitchers are necessary, it may be better to use the traditional system there. Certainly in the American League at least.

The New Paradigm: New Conservative/Progressive

April 10, 2007

The old paradigm was Liberal/Conservative. It was about moderation and compromise. The current White House changed a lot of things, one was to completely destroy that paradigm and raise the prominence of three different factions: the Neoconservatives, the New Conservatives, and the Progressives.

The unifying element in these groups is that none of them fit within the Liberal/Conservative framework. the Neoconservatives are demented far-left radicals who seek to bring about socialism by means of creating far-right fear-generators like extreme Corporate Militarism and Authoritarianism (with Fascism), the New Conservatives are moderates who honor traditional America and have found new value in that honoring (where before they took it for granted), and Progressives are seeking new solutions for building a new America.

Recognizing the instability and power vacuum that is now America, each of these groups is making their stand. The Neocons are well-known and don’t need to be mentioned. The New Conservatives form much of the American population and have champions in such public figures as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Unlike the New Conservatives (who would like nothing more than a return to the Liberal/Conservative paradigm), Progressives see solutions in new projects, new conceptions and ideas for America. Progressives are more critical of liberals and conservatives and are more excited than the New Conservatives about this new system.

In this new America consensus can be easily reached: New Conservatives and Progressives are not codified, not hardened into their way, not extreme, perhaps most importantly are united against the Neoconservatives, and are happy with each other… there is tremendous support between the two groups, far more than there ever was between liberals and conservatives. Whether this will last after the expected overthrow of the Neocons in 2009 is debatable.

Permanent Protest – a solution for dissident America

April 9, 2007

Political protests in the United States are pathetic. Many of the ones in Washington D.C. for example occur on the weekends when Congress isn’t even in session. Mainstream media gives them barely any coverage. They are decent as educational tools, although better outside of already politicized Washington for that. While they often claim to demand things, they have no power in and of themselves to create change.

They are most beneficial to the people participating in them, who can meet like-minded people, form social bonds and contacts, and raise enthusiasm.

The biggest problem with them is that they are controlled, primarily by time. Yet the issue being protested continues on months and often years or even decades after the protest ends.

Here’s a different conception and manner of protesting:

Establish a long-term protest: protest is not an event, it’s a process. Set up *shifts* for permanent protest of an issue. Protest is not a spectacle, it’s a form of work. Go door-to-door handing out fliers, call congressmen.

Instead of a “Million Man March”, for example, have 10,000 men constantly marching.

Until the issue is resolved, the protest should not end.

Louis Farrakhan: The Destruction of Tolerance

April 6, 2007

The United States is, among other things, an experiment in tolerance: the greatest ever enacted in history.

This might be part of the problem.

One of the audience (white talking to black) said something like “We’ve done everything we can to make you feel good!”

What does it mean to “tolerate”? That’s not a positive concept. It doesn’t mean “jump for joy in the presence of”. It doesn’t mean “delight”. It doesn’t even mean “make happy”.

“Tolerate”. It means “allow for”. “Endure”. “Not be antagonistic to”.

Is this the American IDEAL of whites for blacks: to tolerate? Is this the notion they aspire to but don’t even often succeed at?

Tolerance is the middle ground between friendlyness and unfriendlyness. If this is the *best* white America can do then the problem becomes very clear. The ideal for white-white relationships is joy. The ideal for white-black relationships is tolerance?

If seperation exists in the mind it will exist in society. If you bar any race of people from having the same emotional impact on you as other races do seperation will exist in society.

Americans are going to have to learn what it MEANS to be integrationist if they are actually going to be integrationist.

“But, but… we’ve done everything we could to make them feel good!”

What have you done TO YOURSELF to improve their lives, you blithering idiot?

Why not make the United States the greatest experiment in JOY ever enacted, instead?

The Liberal Myth of Fascism

April 6, 2007

Fascism the reality can be created by means of Fascism the myth. That’s the ONLY way it can be created in today’s society, hence a heeded warning against the myth will prevent the reality.

The mythology goes like this: people are susceptible to propaganda, hence all you have to do to create a fascist society is successful propaganda with a few other elements.

There’s just one flaw with that argument: people are not susceptible to propaganda, or at least not just *any* propaganda.

I’ll begin by defining propaganda: Propaganda is intentionally false information designed to create a reality favorable to the goals of the propagandists.

Just as with any other form of deception however, propaganda is an art that can be applied poorly or well. Good propaganda successfully feeds upon the fears, ignorance, conceits, prejudices, and hatreds of the target.

By “successfully feeds” I mean for example that a coward who hates black people will become a bully who hates black people after a successful propaganda campaign targetting him with respect to creating repression of blacks.

Successful propaganda is therefore ALWAYS highly instructive: it’s the only way to reveal truth in a society of self-deception. That’s the real danger of self-deception: that it necessarily leads to propaganda as a means not of deception, but of truth. But propaganda by it’s nature only generates *negative* truths (which are the only ones people want to conceal) which means that any society of self-deception quickly becomes a negative society.

The solution is to lack self-deception by recognizing negative aspects of the self as well as the traditionally recognized positive ones.

If you believe that the society is self-deceptive you support the use of successful propaganda as a means of bringing hidden truths to light.

Who believes America is self-deceptive?

I was watching a liberal talk about the “Death Tax”. He inferred that by changing the name from “Estate Tax” to “Death Tax” the president was successful in getting it’s repeal. I almost fell out of my chair.

What does it say about the state of Liberal America that they think all it takes is a clever name change to fool congressmen, the general public, or anyone else?

Do they actually believe that people say “Duhh… I hate anything called the Death Tax. Of course! Repeal it!”

Congress is not being *fooled* by the Executive. Congress is COMPLICIT.

There is no longer a functional “checks and balances” system because there is no longer true opposition in Washington. There is no longer an overriding sense of moderation… Washington has become unhinged with visions of one-way action, visions loudly consented to by the Right and quietly consented to by the Left.

It’s not about propaganda at all. Faux propaganda just gives the Liberals an EXCUSE for their passive behavior.

“I was fooled by the President’s tricky words! Damn that name-change to Death Tax!”

Gotta love humans.

Rule of the Dumb: Sex in the Middle, Violence at the End

April 5, 2007

One problem with watching a lot of movies is that the formulas become harder to ignore.

A key formula followed again and again in mainstream movies is to have sex in the middle of a film, and violence at the end. Violence of course is also found at other times, but in a movie that contains violence the end almost always features it. Sex is sometimes featured early in a film, but very rarely if ever at the end.

I could try to analyze this approach, but I’d like to keep my dinner in my stomach.

How Hitler is Destroying America

April 4, 2007

Perhaps the Neoconservative technique of generating social change through reaction against a created monstrosity had it’s roots in Hitler’s Germany (and the Cold War).

Hitler was not realistic. Nor, however, was he insane. Hitler was a pure idealist. He established his ideal world in his mind and did everything in his ability to render that ideal a reality.

Or so the story goes. That’s what you’re taught in school, anyway.

I’ll begin by offering support for the notion of Hitler as straightforward:

An agenda of White Supremacy resonated throughout the white world in the 1930s, as did Fascism. It was reasonable to think that enough of the power centers of the world might follow along to allow military and civil success for Nazism. The normal procedure of gathering allies PRIOR to military aggression probably was not followed due to the idea that such a radical plan would be met with anger or disdain: the plan then was to “shock and awe” the world to the power of the Nazi military and then through a measure of fear to get governments to join.

That Hitler was following this outline is not a terrible theory by any means. If it didn’t have one glaring flaw I’d have no problem whatsoever with it.

It wasn’t likely to work. While Fascism was big in the 1920s and 1930s, especially in Imperalist cultures like those in Western Europe and the United States, it still was too new, too weak, and too small to expect success in such an endeavor. The rational approach would have been to slowly strengthen Fascism within the world and then undertake military expansion when the situation was *confident*. Also bear in mind that Nazi Fascism was a specific brand of Fascism, and Hitler wasn’t open to other brands.

There are reasons, in turn, why a rational approach could not be undertaken. Hitler had his domestic situation to consider: how tenuous would his hold on his country be if his policy was patient world-building instead of repression and military expansionism? Rightly or wrongly, he considered only himself capable of leading Nazism and thus a loss of power for him meant a loss of possibility for his vision.

But that in turn leads to questions: why, if it was such a grand vision, was only Hitler capable of producing it? Why couldn’t he simply convince others of his cause and thus create a perpetuating culture with perpetuating leaders for Nazi fascism?

What turned the world against Hitler was not Nazism, but military expansion. If he had just taken over a couple countries, stopped, and instituted a 10-year program of ethnic cleansing and Nazi philosophy, he would have both gained experience in Nazi civil control, gained human and industrial resources to increase military potential, and if successful at that would have perhaps turned world opinion (among the white elites anyway) in his favor.

The end result of premature aggression was that Nazism was proceeded with in an environment where it was not likely to succeed. This raises a lot of questions about the *real* motivations, rather than the ostensible ones we hear about.

Here’s something that will always be true: a powerful enemy, once defeated, is demonized. Anything considered the OPPOSITE to such a demonized enemy is lionized. Therefore, I ask you, what is the best manner of controlling what is lionized in society?

It’s the obvious: present a powerful enemy with an identity that you want to demonize, destroy the enemy, and watch the people themselves even without propaganda celebrate and lionize themselves as “opposites”.

What did Hitler ACTUALLY create in the world? Notice that after Hitler America turned intensely anti-homogenous. Twenty years after Hitler the first major improvement for minorities since the Civil War occurred. Affirmative Action, the most radical pro-minority movement in America’s history, followed soon after. America turned intensely democratic in attitude, following the defeat of Hitler almost immediately with high tensions toward the repressive powerful regime of the Soviet Union.

The effect on Europe was much the same.

Americans, in all walks of life, all classes, all races, were HAPPY with the changes Hitler wrought. They were so happy in fact that they, again in all walks of life, all classes, all races, hopped on board with the Anti-Communist movement which when defeated was supposed to produce the same thing. MORE democratic excitement, more capitalist fervor, more opposite happiness.

It was *this* approach, this attitude, this methodology, that unified the American people… but take close note of what this requires.

It requires a powerful “opposite” enemy. Hitler, check. Soviets, check. But what does this mean for individualism?

You are no longer self-sufficient as a person or as a nation if you need someone else to fulfill yourself.

America had become co-dependent.

Isn’t democracy so exciting, so liberating, so wonderful, that there is no need to reinforce it through destroying powerful opposites?

But furthermore, isn’t that sort of thing an *artificial* support system? If there does come a day when capitalism, or even democracy, cannot stand in America *without* the lionization effect, then shouldn’t we happily wave it goodbye?

Nothing should last forever.

Did we defeat Hitler, or did Hitler corrupt us?

Let’s put the final nail in Hitler’s coffin by destroying the lionization need in America, thus saving America.


April 3, 2007

I said 3 or 4 years ago that America was laying the groundwork for Fascism, which could be finalized in 30 years.

I misunderstood the complicity and corruption of Congress at the time, however, thinking the Executive branch would have to strongarm all efforts, therefore I arrived at an erroneous projection.

Barring an improvement to Congress, meaning the worst case scenario, Fascism could hit our shores upon the next major terrorist attack (which could happen at any time) and even without such an attack within 10 years.

Since this won’t be met with approval by the American people, there is a serious potential of the next major terrorist attack resulting in civil war in America.

“The world changed after 9/11”.

No, YOU changed the world after 9/11. Gratz. Well done. Bravo.

“I voted for George Bush because we need to stop these terrorists!”

LOL. America: the land where everyone is a comedian, whether they know it or not.

Burying JFK

April 3, 2007

This is an email to a friend:

Conspiracy theories have long puzzled me. I couldn’t understand why they attract so much attention. Its the *institutions*, the power structures themselves, which allow for horrible atrocities. Power never needs conspiracy, for the same reason that a rich man doesn’t need a revolution. Power loves stability. Private institutions don’t use conspiracies… they use “business practice” to mandate evil.

What makes conspiracy theories unique is that there is never enough evidence. Its a perpetual mystery. Gather facts and you find you need more facts. Formulate a theory and alternative theories will be just as plausible.

The theorizing can go on forever. Eternal unsolvability.

There’s a reason one of the most popular conspiracy theories centers around John F. Kennedy’s death, and it’s one of the dark secrets in America, one Americans have never proven willing to admit to themselves (yet).

John F. Kennedy was the liberal hero. A pathetic thing happened when he died: hope was said to die with him.

Thus, he is not allowed to die. It’s sentimentality. A kind of corrupt, horrible, perpetuating mass.

The Neocons are more useful than they’re given credit for. There is now a serious Progressive movement in America, a movement that *began* with Neocon ridiculousness and will end with the building of a new America.

Progressives honor true Liberalism and despise how many people who call themselves Liberal have treated it.

Progressives will bury JFK.

Hope does not exist inside a man, Ed. It exists inside every one of us that fights to make our land a better place.

Modern News

April 1, 2007

Best examples of various perspectives:

Mainstream Left:

Mainstream Center:

Dissident Left: