Archive for the ‘Morality’ Category

The white middle-class intelligentsia “discovers” imperialism

August 24, 2008

This is a reply to Paul Street on Dissident Voice.

“Our current corporate-totalitarian political order doesn’t “work” for any but the Few. It is a grave threat to human survival and peace, justice, and democracy at home and abroad.”

That’s false. Poor Americans are far richer than the world’s poor, a testament to the results of successful imperialism and the corporate-totalitarian political order. The Mob Underlings reap the benefits of Mob successes, however disproportionately in relation to the Mob Boss.

Whether it’s a “grave threat to human survival” is dependent upon the degree of success of the American-led multinational-corporate empire in perpetuating worldwide slavery. If it’s successful the world will become enslaved rather than killed – if things get out of control a worldwide or small-scale holocaust may occur.

As for “peace, justice, and democracy” – there have never been any of those things in the United States. The state was founded on a war to secure power for the domestic elite, it proceeded by capitalist logic, including the internal colonization of the genocided native population, perpetual war against both them and the imported Africans, repression of women, perpetual exploitation of non-Americans, and theft and exploitation of the domestic poor by the rich. “Peace”, “justice”, and “democracy” are words in a dictionary, as well as words that sometimes are reflected in other places or in small-scale incidents.

By “grave threat” you can only mean that it threatens a demographic previously unthreatened – privileged (middle-class) whites. When the Neocons and their neoliberal doctrine came to power middle class whites panicked – they were no longer safe and would have to join (in a far muted form of exploitation) the ranks of so many other victims of the American state. It’s only been with the rise of neoliberalism that the white bourgeois intelligentsia has “discovered the horrors of imperialism” – where were these horrors during the supposed “Golden Age of American Democracy” – the Bretton-Woods post-WWII period?

An alien, observing this, cannot be blamed for having little sympathy for the suddenly fearful bourgeois whites, who write treatises on the horrors of neoliberalism.

“Peace, justice, and democracy”? Those concepts cannot have true meaning until such time as the “good” people of the world operate by something other than selfishness, greed, and fear.

The mantra of the modern Western left is “neoliberalism is going too far” – summed up in Naomi Klein’s ideology. This left, which complains so much about the “narrow political spectrum in America” might want to explore the narrow ideological spectrum they themselves exist in.

The Imperial Left exists within an imperial society. For all their knowledge of imperialism, they don’t know themselves.

Nir Rosen on Iraq

April 3, 2008

Part 1

Part 2

Slouching Toward Bethlehem

March 12, 2008


Alcoholism and Racism – a study in contrasts

March 9, 2008

America is a racist society and likes itself as such. By contrasting racism with alcoholism (which America does not like) it becomes easy to see this.

For alcoholism the elite (those with positive access to state-supported power) set up Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and facilities, where alcoholics go and receive support and treatment. The idea here is to combat and perhaps eventually to eliminate alcoholism.

In contrast, when anyone stands up and announces he is a racist (see examples such as Michael Richards, Don Imus, Mel Gibson) he is vilified, given attention, and shunned. This is virtually the opposite treatment shown to alcoholics.

According to the American elite, the crime that Richards, Imus, and Gibson committed is not racism, because if that was their crime they would be encouraged to go to Racists Anonymous meetings for support. Their crime is a *display* of racism. That is to say, their crime is to show the world the racist that they are.

If we shunned alcoholics, what they would do is to be alcoholics in private and try to hide their alcoholism in public. Since we shun racists, this is exactly the way they usually behave, and when they don’t they are publically abused.

Except to the industry that produces alcohol and minor related industries, alcoholism is harmful. An alcoholic has reduced, sometimes severely reduced, productivity. He becomes more dangerous. Alcoholism has a negative impact on the economy and therefore the elite does not like alcoholism, despite it’s weakening of the individual.

Racism, however, is a completely different story. While racism hurts the economy as a whole greatly, it helps the economy with respect to the elite, as any slaveowner in the old south could tell you. Racism allows the elite to divide and conquer the working class, as they play one side against another and keep them from unifying to increase their wealth.

The elite don’t have anything in particular that they like about racism, so if some other methodology to divide and conquer or otherwise control the working class arose, in theory racism could be done away with.

But for now, the elite will not show compassion for racists, they will not establish Racists Anonymous meetings, and they will not treat racism as they do alcoholism. Because that could actually end racism, and they can’t have that.

There is no democracy – dissent is used to bend rulers into shape

December 12, 2007

Rulers will do exactly as they want unless they are forced to do otherwise by some outside force. The most convenient outside force is the American people, which is why they are the primary targets of elite propaganda. Dissent is not a matter of “expressing disapproval” – the rulers don’t care if the people disapprove. Dissent is successful if it either forces changes to the rulers, leads to new rulers more amenable to public will, or increases the number of dissenters (and thus increases the ability to force changes in rulership).

Every demonstration or direct action should be evaluated by the dissenters in terms of what it accomplished in light of the three positive outcomes of dissent.

In a hierarchical political system, the only outcome that’s in any way democratic is when the leaders are put in chains and only allowed to do what the people want done. Right now our “leaders” are roaming free and the results are inevitable.

On Trent Lott’s Senate resignation

December 1, 2007


The Meaning of Life

November 30, 2007

I hope you like this poem
I hope you learn a lot
I hope you become a better person
But even if you do
Keep your wallet in your pocket

I don’t want your money
I don’t want your respect
I don’t want your gratitude
I don’t want your fancy words
I don’t want you

All I want is dignity
All I want is to do what I want
All I want is to avoid starvation
To share love, to maybe have a family
To live well, and to live free

Stop honoring garbage times
Stop honoring garbage men
Your choice is not Lennon or Limbaugh
Stop imagining all the people
Start living your own life

The Hip-hop Mainstream

November 14, 2007

“50 cent” has hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth
His “pain”, his “pathos”, you’re drained
J-Lo has a hip name and no game
The thugs shake hands in the boardroom

Kids killed on the street to make the cleverer-than-thous richer
Women raped in the back seat to let the wordsmiths escape the hood
the gold, the glitz, the bling, you’re blitzed
Bill Gates just rolled all over you

Everyone tells me that’s ok
White, black, good, bad, “that’s ok”
There’s nothing that can be done
So let’s all hop along to the hip mainstream

A big improvement over the "march and chant" method of dissidence

November 13, 2007



Game critique and statistics from the killing in PC games of 2004

November 3, 2007

“Did you make Haze because you were simply fed up with the stupidity of most video games? Or as you get older, you want video games to get older too?”

This is from an interview with the desiger of Haze, an upcoming FPS game from Free Radical.

Here’s what I don’t understand, maybe you can explain it to me:

We give kids all kinds of challenging books to read. Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Rings, The Iliad, yet when it comes to games its as if kids can’t be expected to do anything beyond pushing a button and watching an enemy’s head explode. It’s painful to hear shit like “games for older players” which invariably is contrasted against “mindless killing” games that apparently are for younger players. Since when did we turn kids into pathetic cretins? I must have missed the fucking memo.

Here’s a memo from me to game developers – stop with the sad excuses for your shitty game designs. “It’s for kids!” to explain why 80% of all commercial games feature player directed killing isn’t cutting it (or shooting it, or grenading it). Note that a randomly selected screenshot from the (“adult game”) Haze shows a giant gun being fired where just the flash from the gun takes up 4% of the screen. The gun takes up as much screen space as the forest behind it, perhaps implying that these two things are of equal value. They probably are, in the average mind of a game developer.

Game developers… God bless ’em. They should look in the mirror and realize that the only kids are them.

One more point – there’s a big move toward narrative in games, which is the industry’s way of trying to make games more “mature”. So it’s mindless and child-like to push a button and watch a head explode, but it’s mindful and adult-like to push a button, watch a head explode, and read a log entry that explains why the player is doing it. Well, one thing is true – I wouldn’t know much about homicidal feelings if game developers didn’t exist in the world. Now I’m wondering where my local gun shop is. Thank you game developers, for expanding the horizons of kids and adults the world over!

Game developers have this vast incredible medium on their hands, this amazing canvas, and all they can do is scribble. Then they scribble “with motivation” and call it adult-like.

Here are the 2004 statistics for killing in PC games, formulated in the same way by using the Game Rankings list of all 2004 PC Games with at least 20 reviews:

75 of 96 games (78%) feature player-directed killing, Of the 21 that do not, 12 are Adventure games, of which 6 are murder mysteries. 7 are Simulations, one is Sims 2, and one is a multi-genre car racing game. The games that feature killing are very similar in theme and tone to those in 2005 and 2006 – heavily military and sci-fi with FPS, RTS, and isometric perspectives in war-themed environments.

Animal Rights activist goes to prison

November 1, 2007

Part 1

Part 2

The myth of insanity

October 20, 2007

There is no such thing as insanity since there is no unitary “proper” function of the mind. The biggest cause of what people call insanity is ambition. For example, a person who does not speak yet physically can may simply be waiting for a world in which his words become worthwhile. By not speaking he is alerting others to this need – it’s his form of communication. Ambition often requires the sacrifice of many things, it is a peculiarly human form of cruelty. Insanity is a celebration of the dreamed world that the mind is unable to fully realize. Relatively successful applications of insanity are called “great art” but even this form of success is highly limited. Only the insane hold out the possibility of true success – every artist is a sell-out.

Society is a cage. Society is tyrannical. It requires that everything be in a particular place, set just so. Enforcing this are both judicial laws and social laws. Insanity is a method of freeing oneself. The other method is suicide.

Take a close look at people deemed “insane”. If you’re honest and can look past your discomfort what you’ll find is that these people have very strong wills. You’ll never know why this is the case if you believe in the myth of “mental disorder”.

Insane people are locked up not for their own good, but for the lesser humans to not have to be shamed by them. It’s the same reason blacks are locked up in America and third world people are oppressed and/or ignored – the rulers of the world only see what is formed in their image.

It’s not so much that insane people have “ordered” or “disordered” minds as that unlike the rulers they don’t have a calculated cynicism about the state of their mind. Since they don’t want to control people they have no need to form their mind into some predefined “order” that will lead them to “success” in society. Unlike the rest of us their minds are truly their own. For achieving that freedom they must be punished. “Mental institutions” are one tool of such punishment. Social banishment is the most common.

On some problems of prostitution

October 20, 2007

Liberal culture teaches us that nothing is wrong. Liberal culture is wrong. There are severe problems with prostitution.

#1: Pretending the prostitute is someone else. A prostitute is treated as an object not of sex as naive people believe, but of love. Since there’s no emotional investment in the prostitute the client is free to pretend this person to be someone else. Furthermore, this is never done only after receiving permission from the prostitute. It is incorrect to say the prostitute only knows this is happening when the client talks about it. The fantasy of ownership leads the client to emotional coldness. Ownership is never having to say you’re sorry. On a side note, people who want to own the world desire so so that they will no longer be expected to care about the world. Private reality removes the owned thing from public reality with public concern for it. Ownership creates a shadow world with all the expected results.

#2: During orgasm people release a chemical called oxytonin which facilitates emotional bonding with the sex partner. During normal sex in a committed relationship this is beneficial (assuming monogamy is beneficial). Prostitutes however see a need to repress their own orgasms with a client since it’s better emotionally for them to not bond (given how perilous it would be to form so many such bonds). They may not realize why they are repressing their orgasms and rationalize it in some other way, causing emotional distress. This is particularly cruel to male prostitutes since it is impossible for them to repress their orgasms.

Strengthening men

October 17, 2007

I heard a leftist say that it only makes sense for women to be feminists. Wow. God bless the left. With crap like this, why bother criticizing the right?

It makes more sense for men to be feminists than it does for women to be. The purpose of feminism is to strengthen women. Some women find it useful to be weak. I can understand that. But to a man, at least a heterosexual man, weakness is inimical to love. A man cannot love a weak woman. Feminism increases the amount of human love available to heterosexual men.

The argument for “men should not be feminists” rests on women as competitors to men. The idea is that men should not try to strengthen women since women can then apply power against men. According to this understanding men and women are in a struggle to oppress the other, and men should not relent just because they have the upper hand. That this argument is related to fascism (replace “women” with “Jews” or “blacks” or whoever else) does not stop many Americans (and others) from believing it .

One of the greatest condemnations of the male gender is that so few of them are feminists. Not being a feminist is to be an oppressor of women in every society that oppresses them.

Domestic abuse can only exist in an oppressive society. Domestic abuse can only occur when one spouse does not respect the other. This lack of respect is generated by a lack of perceived strength in the other. This lack of perceived strength is generated by successful oppression.

It’s the wrong solution to call on men to go through “anger management”. Oppressed women make me angry and I’m not even married to any of them. There’s only one thing men need to learn – that love serves power. If men truly want power they’ll come to understand that love is the best way to achieve power. When two people love each other there’s little they can’t achieve.

Men should become feminists for their own sake.

Severe problems in the Congo

October 9, 2007

Part 1

Part 2

The removal from memory

October 9, 2007

This is from Chris Hedges’s book “War is a Force that Gives us Meaning”

“The murder of more than one million Armenians in Turkey is often cited as the opening act for the genocidal campaigns that convulsed the twentieth century. Although the Allied powers condemned the Turks during World War I, there was no effort to hold them accountable for actions against the Armenians. The magnitude of the deaths and ultimate indifference may have led Hitler, on the eve of the invasion of Poland, to remind his followers, “Who still speaks of the extermination of the Armenians?”

The real Invisible Man

October 8, 2007

Not to take anything away from Ralph Ellison’s version, however there’s a big difference between black people, who are accepted by the mainstream as being “invisible”, and poor people, who are not accepted by the mainstream at all, and thus are truly invisible. Look at it this way: Ralph Ellison was not invisible when he said “black people are invisible”. Noone has ever heard “poor people are invisible” because they don’t accept the implications of the words. It’s kind of like when people eagerly tell me a secret. Fools – it’s not a secret if you tell someone, therefore it’s not a secret you’re telling me. Kind of like black people are “invisible” while poor people are invisible.

It’s curious that most people don’t know, much less care, that 20,000 people (worldwide) die every day from hunger-related issues, yet when 33 affluent college kids are killed in a day in Virginia everyone is so sad at this tragic event. Several years after the tragedy of 9/11 it’s still foremost in the minds of many Americans, yet every day seven times the number of people who died in that event die and even combined all of those deaths since 9/11 don’t make up even a fraction of the concern for the 9/11 victims. I’ll only briefly mention that dying of hunger is worse than dying in an immediate fiery blast, not that either is acceptable.

The truth is that American society is far more corrupt than anyone, even I, understand. It’s no wonder that so many terrible tragedies occur in the world when more care is given to 33 people than to 20,000, that more is given to 3,000 people than to 44 million.

One person says “How precious is an American life”. I say “How irrelevant you believe every other life to be”.

When the television talks about the “standard of living” it is being quite direct. That is to say, human value is measured by that human’s wealth. A human with $100,000 is worth 10 times a human with $10,000. His “standard”, you see, is 10 times higher.

Which do Americans care more about, the two thousand black Hurricane Katrina victims or the 15 million victims of hunger since Hurricane Katrina? And sure, Americans care more about 1 white person than about 2,000 black people, but let’s keep things in perspective. Blacks are not on the bottom of the social totem pole.

What does America talk more about, the problem of Racism or the vastly more devastating problem of Classism? The two problems are related, but they are not the same.

You’d think black people, of all people, would know this. And on some level they do – that’s why so many black people want to “make it”, whereby “make it” they mean become wealthy and stop being invisible. Yet they never call out against Classism, in fact they embrace it, they live it, it’s what every ambitious pimp and drug dealer and thug are about (it’s how America defines ambition), it’s why the evils of Classism go on. The greatest victims, that is to say the greatest proponents, of Classism are found in the ghettos (both white and black) as well as the corporate boardrooms.

Racism is not the primary issue for black people, or for any people. Destroy Classism, the real enemy, and Racism falls away with it.

Speak against Classism, and you’ll know what it is to be invisible. Just don’t expect to be able to write an award-winning book about it. Who can give an award to an invisible man for writing an invisible book? Only, perhaps, a fellow invisible man, who can give an invisible award. Then when you talk about invisible awards suddenly you become visible, insofar as you become enslaved in a “mental hospital”. Kind of like black people are invisible until they are imprisoned. Afterwards seeing them no longer matters, because the key to putting them in your line of vision is thrown away.

All it really takes to disprove the existence of God is to analyze humanity – obviously humanity is not created in the image of some noble creature.

American health care for torture victims

September 29, 2007

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Holy shit. He estimates 500,000 torture victims in the United States alone (30,000 in Minnesota).

Understanding Brian Koontz

September 14, 2007

That’s me – Brian Koontz.

Since, to me, everything is open to debate and destruction, if you read this and understand the words (not difficult if I do a good job) my identity itself becomes open to debate and destruction.

Some people point to the first application of the Atomic Bomb by the US government in Japan as a terrible horror. That’s a superficial argument. By creating something, it’s application becomes implied. Therefore what has to be examined and destroyed is the will that led to the creation of nuclear weaponry.

Some people point to the potential global warming catastrophe as a terrible horror. That’s a superficial argument. By creating something, it’s application becomes implied. Therefore what has to be examined and destroyed is the will that led to the generation of the potential global warming catastrophe.

Some people point to war as a terrible horror. The logic I used above follows likewise. It’s not the act of war that’s the problem, it’s the elements that necessarily lead to war that is the problem. It’s not the bully that’s the problem, it’s what creates the bully.

What I have done throughout my life is to pursue a radical proposal that seeks to change humanity by means of domination and subjugation. Domination is the means, human survival is the end. Here I will argue for the necessity thereof:

Reality produced nuclear weaponry (which can only result in either global domination or global destruction). Reality produced the upcoming global warming catastrophe. Reality produced war. That is to say, humanity eagerly, time and again, does things that will lead to its own annihilation if not stopped and reversed.

So then the question becomes, will humanity, “on it’s own”, stop and reverse these things? The problem is that there is no historical precedent for this, except in one area: war. For the entire history of recognized humanity (organized humanity at least) there has been war. In scope and damage and destruction, war has only gotten worse over time, as the 20th century demonstrated all too clearly. Will humanity treat nuclear annihilation and global warming like they do war: for reality to get worse and worse?

I want the world to follow an alternative approach to my own. I want to world to, within a context of freedom and liberty, succeed in destroying nuclear weaponry, to succeed in stopping and reversing global warming, to succeed in ending war. But I also want to implement my own approach, so that if freedom and liberty as a methodology fails humanity will not annihilate itself. Let’s call my approach Plan B.

This begs the question of why I don’t simply join the struggle within a context of freedom and liberty to change the world. And I have joined that. But I don’t believe it will succeed, so I need to also pursue a different methodology. I love freedom and liberty, but they have never proven they can succeed in this way and I believe in history, not false optimism.

I spent three years studying Domination (of the will). By “studying” it I mean I spent three years using and observing my use of domination. Domination works (not automatically, but given the correctly crafted context it works). Or I should say it “works”, since I nearly destroyed my own psyche in turning humans into sheep. But I could care less if I destroy myself as long as humanity is preserved.

This begs a lot of questions, questions that I’m still in the process of answering. Such as, is it worth preserving humanity if they are turned into sheep, with no will of their own? My answer is yes, again with an examination of history. Life can go on for a very long time. Species can exist for millions of years. Also, species change over time. If humans have to be turned into sheep in the short term to get past a species-ending crisis (multiple crises), that gives them plenty of time after the crisis is averted to revert to freedom and liberty. No aspect of humanity is permanent. If this is the stated plan, if this is followed self-consciously as it should be, then the conversion back to freedom and liberty after the crises are ended should be quick. “Quick” might take hundreds or even thousands of years, but that’s just a blip in a long life-cycle for many species.

For those of you without much imagination, I’ll state the basics of Plan B: human domination by a movement using domination to gain control of humans and then using those humans to end and reverse the crises that plague humanity. I’d rather not discuss techniques of domination here but if requested I can do so. The difference between domination and persuasion is that domination does not yield to the answer “no”.

So I recommend, I recommend, that we all work to make Plan A a success, and if this means exterminating the people who stand in the way of Plan A like the capitalists, then that’s just what that means. Exterminating a few people is a whole lot better than subjugating everyone. But we need to put Plan B in place so that if Plan A fails we have a backup.

It may seem strange for me to work on Plan A and Plan B at the same time, but don’t all tacticians do that? What does the tactician care if Plan A and Plan B are so different? They are just two ways of achieving the same thing.

It’s kind of funny: for working on Plan A I’m deemed a radical. For working on Plan B I’m deemed a monster. I’ve spent most of my life around people who hate both radicals and monsters. Ironically, it might be the very hatred of the people around me for Plan A that led me to pursue Plan B. If they’re going to hate me anyway, I might as well maximize my tactical results. As Dr. Frankenstein might conclude – if you’re going to pass a certain point, you might as well go all the way.

One of the major problems in the pursuit of Plan B has been the utter devastation of my social life. It’s difficult for someone who uses humanity as a means of experimenting with and encouraging domination to make and maintain friends. As far as I can tell, I’m the only one in the world pursuing “Plan B” (at least self-consciously) so I get a lot of hate-filled comments like “Fascist!” and “Authoritarian!”. The ironic thing is, it would be much easier on me if I was a fascist or authoritarian. At least those concepts people understand. Fascists and authoritarians always seek to subjugate humanity for some direct purpose. I seek to teach humanity how to become subjugated so that they can more easily embrace that mode if Plan B becomes necessary. Regardless of the intellectual arguments, unless people are emotionally prepared to be subjugated they won’t be, even if it means the annihilation of the species. Domination is a relationship between two people.

Another troubling question for me over time has been, “Does the pursuit of Plan B hinder the pursuit of Plan A?” In preparing humanity for subjugation have I made it more difficult for them to succeed in solving their problems in a context of freedom and liberty? I suspect the answer is yes. There’s no way around that.

In short, I pursue freedom, liberty, *and* subjugation. Because the continuation of the human species is more important than any of that.

The pursuit of Plan B will kill me. Either sooner or later. Humanity is a social animal, and noone in the world has given me any support or even any tolerance in my pursuit of Plan B. The only way to save me is for Plan A to be pursued so effectively that I no longer see value in pursuing Plan B. Noone in the world wants Plan A to succeed more than I do, if partially for selfish reasons.

I don’t think humanity itself can be charged with a murder. That’s too bad. If Plan A fails it will be people like me who will possibly save humanity.

Take care. For the first time in the history of humanity, actually take care.

An extract from a 1994 interview with Nick Cave

September 7, 2007

I’ve heard that you’re appalled by America.

“I’ve never really said that, but I do have certain problems with America. I have certain problems with the world really. I just think that America seems to be leading the world into a direction that frightens me really.”

I agree. I guess I really only look for little microcosms that I can appreciate.


This sums up the 1990s pretty well: looking for little microcosms of appreciation. Pathetic. This “search for microcosms” has led America into it’s present state. Congratulations, assholes.

George Jackson on black problems

September 7, 2007

This is from the book “Soledad Brother”, pages 248-9.

“The effect these moves from the right have had on us is a classic textbook exercise in fascist political economy. At the instant a black head rises out of our crisis existence, it’s lopped off and hung from the highest courthouse or newspaper firm,. our predetermined response is a schizophrenic indifference, withdrawal, and an appreciation of things that do not exist. “Oh happy days. Oh happy days. Oh happy days.” Self-hypnotically induced hallucinations.
The potential black leadership looks at the pitiable condition of the black herd: the corruption, the preoccupation with irrelevance, the apparent ineptitude concerning matters of survival. He knows that were he to give the average brother an M-16, this brother wouldn’t have anything but a club for a week. He weighs this thing that he sees in the herd against the possible risks he’ll be taking at the hands of the fascist monster and he naturally decides to go for himself, feeling that he can’t help us because we are beyond help, that he may as well get something out of existence. These are the “successful Negroes,” the opposite of the “failures.” You find them on the ball courts and fields, the stage, pretending and playing children’s games. And looking for all the world just as pitiable as the so-called failures.”

Capital Punishment – one example of how the left is pathetic

September 6, 2007

“Pathetic” is a kind word. “Insane” might be more accurate.

It’s also a testament to the utter ignorance of the entire American and global populace.

Last year 53 prisoners were executed in the United States, not counting U.S. citizens killed in various CIA black sites around the world. In comparison, 2.03 million U.S. citizens are currently incarcerated in the United States, again not including various secret or semi-secret government antics.

The left talks more about the death penalty than they do about the incarceration system. Probably along the lines of a 4:1 ratio based on the people I listen to. Logically speaking, they care about 4 times as much about 53 dead people as they do about 2.03 million people living in a state of torture.

The ratio breaks down to 38,302 currently incarcerated for every one killed per year. Furthermore, the number incarcerated is growing at an alarming rate. The number executed is not.

The left agrees with the right on a key concept: prisons are just. On this issue the left is causing more damage to the United States than the right, since the left is supposed to stand up for people.

America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, ahead of the “oppressive” state of Russia. The U.S. prison population was relatively stable for decades, until around 1975, at the beginning of the reign of Neoconservative and especially Neoliberal policies, when it grew and then exploded under Reagan and ever since. Americans didn’t change – the system changed to create more poverty, more despair, more crime. Note however that crime peaked in the early 1990s and has been falling ever since, yet the rate of incarceration continues to rise. It will continue to rise as long as America gets closer to fascism.

You have to enter a small subset of the ostensibly “humanist” left to find people who actually oppose the prison system in this country. These people are apparently “radicals” because they don’t think people should be locked up in a barren cell until their minds and psyches deteriorate, fed shitty food, have a rather lackluster (to put it mildly) social life, earn beratement and abuse from guards, have a monotonous experience from day to day… and that’s a good prison experience. The idea that this treatment “rehabilitates” prisoners is ridiculous, and is proven to fail from the rate in which people return to jail after being released.

For the left to fume at the 53 corpses and ignore the 2.03 million tortured is the same as them fuming at the 4,000 dead American soldiers in Iraq and ignoring the 5.5 million dead or displaced Iraqis resulting from the war. The left is far more braindead than the right. The right might be moral monsters and devoid of humanity, but at least they have brains. The lack of applied intelligence on the left renders them monstrous in their effect.

Imagine if Americans had the brains of the right and the morality of the left. Perhaps that should be the sequel to that John Lennon song.

Foreward to “Soledad Brother”

September 1, 2007

This is the foreword to “Soledad Brother” by George Jackson. The foreword is written by Jonathan Jackson, Jr.

“I was born eight and a half months after my father, Jonathan jackson, was shot down on August 7, 1970, at the Marin County Courthouse, when he tried to gain the release of the Soledad Brothers by taking hostages. Before and especially after that day, Uncle George kept in constant contact with my mother by writing from his cell in San Quentin. (The Department of Corrections wouldn’t put her on the visitors’ list.) During George’s numerous trial appearances for the Soledad Brothers case, Mom would lift me above the crowd so he could see me. Consistently, we would receive a letter a few days later. For a single mother with son, alone and in the middle of both controversy and not a little unwarranted trouble with the authorities, those messages of strength were no doubt instrumental in helping her carry on. No matter how oppressive his situation became, George always had time to lend his spirit to the people he cared for.
A year and two weeks after the revolutionary takeover in Marin, George was ruthlessly murdered by prison guards at San Quentin. Both he and my father left me a great deal: pride, history, an unmistakable name. My experience has been at once wonderful and incredibly difficult. My life is not consumed by the Jackson legacy, but my charge is an accepted and cherished piece of my existence. It is out of my responsibility to my legacy that I have come to write this Foreword to my uncle’s prison writings.
Today I read my inherited letters often – those written from George to my mother with a dull pencil on prison stationery. They are things of beauty, my most valuable possessions, passionate pieces of writing that have few rivals in the modern era. They will remain unpublished. However, the letters of Soledad Brother demonstrate the same insight and eloquence – the way George’s writings make his personal experience universal is the mainstay of his brilliance.
When this collection of letters was first released in 1969, it brought a young revolutionary to the forefront of a tempest, a tempest characterized by the black Power, free speech, and antiwar movements, accompanied by a dissatisfaction with the status quo throughout the United States. with unflinching directness, George Jackson conveyed an intelligent yet accessible message with his trademark style, rational rage. He illuminated previously hidden viewpoints and feelings that disenfranchised segments of the population were unable to articulate: the poor, the victimized, the imprisoned, the disillusioned. George spoke in a revolutionary voice that they had no idea existed. He was the prominent figure of true radical thought and practice during the period, and when he was assassinated, much of the movement died along with him. But George Jackson cannot and will not ever leave. His life and thoughts serve as the message – George himself is the revolution.
The reissue of Soledad Brother at this point in time is essential. It appears that the nineties are going to be a telling decade in U.S. history. The signposts of systemic breakdown are as glaringly obvious as they were in the sixties: unrest manifesting itself in inner-city turmoil, widespread rise of violence in the culture, and international oppression to legitimize a state in crisis. The fact that imprisonments in California have more than tripled over the last decade, supported by the public, is merely one sign of societal decomposition. That systemic change occurred during the sixties is a myth. The United states in the nineties faces strikingly analogous problems. George spoke to the issues of his day, but conditions now are so similar that this work could have been written last month. It is imperative that George be heard, whether by the angry but unchanneled young or by the cynical and worldly mature. The message must be carried farther than where he bravely left it in August of 1971.
Over the past twenty-five years, why has George Jackson not been an integral part of mainstream consciousness? He has been an still is underexposed, reduced to simplistic terms, and ultimately misunderstood. Racial and conspiracy theory aside, there are rational reasons for his exclusion. They stem not only from the hard-line revolutionary aspects of George’s philosophy, but more importantly from the nature of the political system that he existed in and under.
Howard Zinn has pointed out in A People’s History of the United States that “the history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated.” U.S. history is essentially that type of hidden history. Without denying important mitigating factors, the United States of today is strongly linked to the values and premises on which it was founded. That is, it is a settler colony founded primarily on two basic pillars, upheld by the Judeo-Christian tradition: genocide of indigenous peoples and slave labor in support of a capitalist infrastructure. Although the Bible repeatedly exalts mass slaughter and oppression, Judeo-Christian morality is publicly held to be inconsistent with them. This dissonance, evident within the nation’s structure from the beginning, informs the state’s first function: to oversimplify and minimize immoral events in order to legitimize history and the state’s very existence simultaneously.
Ironically, traditional Judeo-Christian morality is a perfect vehicle for genocide, slavery, and territorial expansion. As a logical progression from biblical example, expansion and imperialism culminated in the United States with the concept of Manifest Destiny, which held that it was the colonists’ inherent right to expand and conquer. Further it was a duty, the “white man’s burden,” to save the “natives,” to attempt to convert all heathens encountered. Protestant Calvinism provided a set of ethics that fit perfectly with the colonists’ conquests. Max Weber, in his definitive study on religion, The Sociology of Religion, wrote, “Calvinism held that the unsearchable God possessed good reasons for having distributed the gifts of fortune unevenly”; it “represented as God’s will [the Calvinists’] domination over the sinful world. Clearly this and other features of Protestantism, such as its rationalization of the existence of a lower class,* were not only the bases for the formation of the United States, but still prominently exists today. “One must go to the ethics of ascetic Protestantism,” Weber asserts, “to find any ethical sanction for economic rationalism and for the entrepreneur.” When a nation can’t admit to the process through which it builds hegemony, how can anything but delusion be a reality? “The monopoly of truth, including historical truth,” stated Daniel Singer in a lecture at Evergreen State College (Washington) in 1987, “is implied in the monopoly of power.”
Clearly, objective history is an impossibility. This understood, the significant problem lies in how the general population defines the term; history implies that truth is being told. It is an unfortunate fact that history is unfailingly written by the victors, which in the case of the United States are not only the original imperialists, but the majority of the “founding fathers,” dedicated to uniting and strengthening the existing mercantile class among disjointed colonies. there can be no doubt that from the creation of this young nation, history as a created and perceived entity moved further and further away from the objective ideal. Genocide, necessary for “the development of the modern capitalist economy,” according to Howard Zinn, was rationalized as a reaction to the fear of Indian savages. Slavery was similarly construed.
The personalization of history, the process by which we construct heroes and pariahs, is a consequence of its dialectical nature. Without fail, an odd paradox is created around someone who, by virture of his or her actions, becomes prominent enough to warrant the designation “historical figure.” There is a leap no the part of the general public, sparked by the media, to another mindset. Sensational deeds are glorified, horrible acts reviled. A few points are selected as defining characteristics.

* Called bootstrap ideology, this tenet holds that all the poor need to do is “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” to be materially successful. Accordingly, those who do not do so deserve to be in their sitaution and are considered unworthy.

The media, conforming to their restrictions of concision (which make accuracy nearly impossible to attain), reiterate these points over and over. Schools and textbooks not only teach these points but drill them into young minds. Howard Zinn comments that “this learned sense of moral proportion, coming from the apparent objectivity of the scholar, is accepted more easily than when it comes from politicians at press conferences. It is therefore more deadly.”
A few tidbits, factual or not, incomplete and selective, are used to describe the entirety of a person’s existence. They become part of mainstream consciousness. We therefore know that Lincoln freed the slaves, Malcolm X was a black extremist, and Hitler was solely responsible for World war II and the Holocaust. All half-truths go unexplained, all fallacies go unchallenged, as they appear to make perfect sense to the everyday, noncritically thinking America. The paradox has been created: the more famous a person becomes, the more misunderstood he or she is. This accepted occurrence is incredibly counterintuitive: the public should know more, not less, about a noteworthy individual and the sociopolitical dynamics surrounding him or her.
This historical mythicization is not, for the most part, a consciously created phenomenon. The media don’t go out of their way to mislead the public by constructing false heroes and emphasizing the mundane. Fewer “dimly lit conferences” take place than conspiracy theorists believe. It is the existing political system that is responsible for the information that reaches the general public. The state’s control of information created the system, and it continually re-creates it. Propagated by schooling and the media, information that reaches the public is subject to three chief mechanisms of state control: denial, self-censorship, and imprisonment.
Denial is the easiest control mechanism, and therefore the most common. If events do not follow the state’s agenda or its ecumenical ideology and might bring unrest, they are denied. Examples are plentiful: prewar state terrorism against the people of North and South Vietnam and later the bombing of Cambodia; government funding the military aid to the Nicaraguan Contras; and support of UNITA and South Africa in the virtual destruction of Angola, among many others.
Denial goes hand in hand with self-censorship. The media emphasize certain personal characteristics and events and de-emphasize others, in a pattern that supports U.S. hegemony. The information that reached the public after the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 is telling. It was not until much later, after the heat of controversy, that the average citizen had access to the scope of the devastation. The effectiveness of self-censorship in this case was maximized, as the full details of the Panama invasion were patchwork for years.
While we may assume that the media have an obligation to accurately convey such an event to the public, the media in fact perpetuate the government’s position by engaging in their own self-censorship. Noam Chomsky points out in Deterring Democracy, “With a fringe of exceptions – mostly well after the tasks had been accomplished – the media rallied around the flag with due piety and enthusiasm, funnelling the most absurd White House tales to the public while scrupulously refraining from asknig the obvious questions, or seeing the obvious facts.”
Denial and self-censorship create a comfort zone for the U.S. citizenry, generally uncritical and willing to accept digestible versions of historical personalities and world events. The reasoning behind denial and self-censorship: do not make the public uncomfortable, even if that means diluting, sensationalizing, or lying about the truth.
Ultimately, when denial and self-censorship may not be sufficient for control of information, the state resorts to imprisonment. All imprisonment is political and as such all imprisonments carry equal weight. Society does, however, distinguish two categories of imprisonment: one for breaking a law, the other for political reasons. A difference is clear: American Indian Movement leader Leonard Peltier, serving a federal sentence for his supposed role at Wounded Knee, is considered a different type of prisoner than an armed robber serving a five-to-seven-year sentence.
State policy reflects institutional needs. When the state as an institution cannot tolerate an outside threat, real or perceived, from an individual or group, the consequences at its command include isolation, persecution, and political imprisonment. All may occur in greater or lesser form, depending on the degree of threat.
Political incarceration removes threats to the political and economic hegemony of the United States. even though in 1959 George Jackson initially went to prison as an “everyday lawbreaker” with a one-year-to-life sentence, it was his political consciousness that kept him incarcerated for eleven years. In 1970 George wrote:

“International capitalism cannot be destroyed without the extremes of struggle. The entire colonial world is watching the blacks inside the U.S., wondering and waiting for us to come to our senses. Their problems and struggles with the Amerikan monster are much more difficult than they would be if we actively aided them. We are on the inside. We are the only ones (besides the very small whtie minority left) who can get at the monster’s heart without subjecting the world to nuclear fire. We have a momentous historical role to act out if we will. The whole world for all time in the future will love us and remember us as the righteous people who made it possible for the world to live on. If we fail through fear and lack of aggressive imagination, then the slaves of the future will curse us, as we sometimes curse those of yesterday. I don’t want to die and leave a few sad songs and a hump in the ground as my only monument. I want to leave a world that is liberated from trash, pollution, racism, nation-states, nation-state wars and armies, from pomp, bigotry, parochialism, a thousand different brands of untruth, and licentious usurious economics.”

Nothing is more dangerous to a system that depends on misinformation than a voice that obeys its own dictates and has the courage to speak out. George Jackson’s imprisonment and further isolation within the prison system were clearly a function of the state’s response to his outspoken opposition to the capitalist structure.
Political incarceration is a tangible form of state control. Unlike denial and self-censorship, imprisonment is publicly scrutinized. Yet public reaction to political incarceration has been minimal. The U.S. government claims it holds no political prisoners (denial), while any notice given to protests focused on political prisoners invariably takes the form of a human interest story (self-censorship).
The efficacy of political incarceration in the United States cannot be denied. Prison serves not only as a physical barrier, but a communication restraint. Prisoners are completely ostracized from society, with little or no chance to break through. Those few outside who might be sympathetic are always hesitant to communicate or protest past a certain point, fearing their own persecution or imprisonment. Also, deep down most people believe that all prisoners, regardless of their individual situations, really did do something “wrong.” Added to that prejudice, society lacks a distinction between a prisoner’s actions and his or her personal worth; a bad act equals a bad person. The bottom line is that the majority of people simply will not believe that the state openly or covertly oppresses without criminal cause. As Daniel Singer asked at the Evergreen conference in 1987, “Is it possible for a class which exterminates the native peoples of the Americas, replaces them by raping Africa for humans it then denigrates and dehumanizes as slaves, while cheapening and degrading its own working class – is it possible for such a class to create a democracy, equality and to advance the cause of human freedom? The implicit answer is, ‘No, of course not.'”

How does a person – inside or outside prison – confront the cultural mindsets, the layers of misinformation propagated by the capitalist system? Sooner or later, what can be called the “radical dilemma” surfaces for the few wanting to enter into a structural attack/analysis of the United States. Culturally, educationally, and politically, all of us are similarly limited by these layers of misinformation; we are all products of the system. None of us functions from a clean slate when considering or debating any issue, especially history as it pertains to the Untied States.
George Jackson struggled against the constraints of denial and self-censorship, to say nothing of his physical and communicative distance from society. Political prisoners are inherently vulnerable to an either/or situation: isolating silence or elimination. For George, his vociferous revolutionary attitude was either futile or self-exterminating. He was well aware of his situation. In Blood in My Eye, his political treatise, he wrote:

“I’m in a unique political position. I have a very nearly closed future, and since I have always been inclined to get disturbed over organized injustice or terrorist practice against the innocents – wherever – I can now say just about what I want (I’ve always done just about that), without fear of self-exposure. I can only be executed once.”

George was equally aware that revolutionary change happens only when an entier society is ready. No amount of action, preaching, or teaching will spark revolution if social conditions do not warrant it. My father’s case, unfortunately, is an appropriate indicator. He attempted a revolutionary act during a reactionary time; elimination was the only possible consequence.
The challenge for a radical in today’s world is to balance reformist tendencies (political liberalism) and revolutionary action/ideology (radicalism). While reformism entails a legitimation of the status quo as a search for changes within the system, radicalism posits a change of system. Because revolutionaries are particularly vulnerable, a certain degree of reformism is necessary to create space, space needed to begin the laborious task of making revolution.
George’s statement “Combat Liberalism” and the general reaction to it typify the gulf between the two philosophies. George was universally misunderstood by the left and the right alike. As is the case with most modern political prisoners, nearly all of his support came from reformists with liberal leanings. It seems that they acted in spite of, rather than because of, the core of his message.
The left’s attitude toward COINTELPRO is a useful illustration. COINTELPRO, the covert government program used to dismantle the Black Panther Party, and later the American Indian Movement, is typically cited by many leftists as a damning example of the government’s conspiratorial nature. Declassified documents and ex-agents’ testimonies have shown COINTELPRO to be one of the most unlawful, insidious cells of government in the nation’s history. COINTELPRO, however, was really a symptomatic, expendable entity; a small police force within a larger one (FBI), within a branch of government (executive), within the government itself (liberal democracy), within the economic system (capitalism). Reformists in radicals’ clothing unknowingly argued against symptoms, rather than the roots, of the entrenched system. Doing away with COINTELPRO or even the FBI would not alter the structure that produces the surveillance/elimination apparatus.
In George’s day, others who considered themselves left of center, or even revolutionary, concerned themselves with inner-city reform issues, mostly black ghettos. The problem of and debate about inner cities still exists. However, recognition of a problem and analysis of that problem are two very different challenges. The demand to better only predominantly black inner-city conditions is unrealistic at best. In the capitalist structure, there must be an upper, middle, and especially a lower class. Improving black neighborhoods is the equivalent of ghettoizing some other segment of the population – poor whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc. Nothing intrinsic to the system would change, only superficial alternations that would mollify the liberal public. As Chomsky asserts in Turning the Tide:

“Determined opposition to the latest lunacies and atrocities must continue, for the sake of the victims as well as our own ultimate survival. But it should be understood as a poor substitute for a challenge to the deeper causes, a challenge that we are, unfortunately, in no position to mount at the present though the groundwork can and must be laid.”

Failure to understand the radical, encompassing viewpoint in the sixties led to reformism. In effect, the majority of the left completely deserted any attempt at the radical balance required of the politically conscious, leaving only liberalism and its narrow vision to flourish.
Nobody comprehended the radical dilemma more fully than George Jackson. Indeed, he developed his philosophy not out of mere happenstance, but with a very conscious eye upon maintaining his revolutionary ideology. He writes in Blood in My Eye:

“Reformism is an old story in Amerika. There have been depressions and socio-economic political crises throughout the period that marked the formation of the present upper-class ruling circle, and their controlling elites. but the parties of the let were too committed to reformism to exploit their revolutionary potential.”

George’s involvement with the prison reform movement should therefore be seen as a matter of survival. Unlike the reformist left, prison oppression was directly affecting him. His balanced reform activities – improving prisoners’ rights while speaking out against prison as an entity – were required to make living conditions tolerable enough for him to continue on his revolutionary path. Simply, he did what he had to do to survive – created space while simultaneously pursuing his radical theory.
The reform George Jackson did accomplish was and still is incredible, transforming the prison environment from unlivable to livable hell, from encampments that he called reminiscent of Nazi Germany to at least a scaled-down version of the like. With his influence, these changes occurred not only in California, but throughout the nation. Only now is his influence beginning to slip, with reactionary politics bringing about torture and sensory deprivation facilities such as Pelican Bay State Prison in California, as well as the reintroduction for adoption of the one-to-life indeterminate sentence. This type of sentence is fertile ground for state oppression, as it is up to a parole board to decide if an inmate is ever to be let go. A prison can easily and effectively create sitautions that transform a one-to-life into a life sentence. (Tellingly, the indeterminate sentence is being promoted not by the right, but by a California senator formerly associated with mainstream liberal causes.)
Politically, George Jackson provided us all with a radical education, a viable alternative to viewing not only the United States but the world as a political entity. He gave the disenfranchised a lens through which they could clearly see their situation and become more conscious about it. He wrote in April 1970:

“It all falls into place. I see the whole thing much clearer now, how fascism has taken possession of this country, the interlocking dictatorship from county level on up to the Grand Dragon in Washington, D.C.”

Crucially, George’s treatment is a concrete, undeniable example of political oppression. Race is more times than not the easy answer to a problem. Among people of color in the United States, the quick fix, “blame it on whitey” mentality has become so prevalent that it shortcuts thinking. Conversely, stereotypes of minorities act as simple-minded tools of divisiveness and oppression. George addressed these issues in prison, setting a model for the outside as well: “I’m always telling the brothers some of those whties are willing to work with us against the pigs. All they got to do is stop talking honky. When the races start fighting, all you have is one maniac group against another.” On the surface, race has been and is still being put forth as an overriding issue that needs to be addressed as a prerequisite for social change. In fact, although it seems to loom as a large problem, race as an issue is again a symptom of capitalism. Of course, on a paltry level and among the relatively powerless, race does play a part in social structure (the racist cop, the bigoted landlord, etc.), pitting segments of the population against each other. But revolutionary change requires class analysis that drives appropriate actions and eliminates race as a mitigating factor. Knowing these socioeconomic dynamics, George Jackson was first and foremost a people’s revolutionary, and he acted as such at all times without compromise. His writings clearly reflect his belief in class-based revolutionary change.
Considering the many structural elements affecting him, it is easy to see why george and his message have been misinterpreted. The quick takes on him are abundant: it’s assumed that he was imprisoned and oppressed because he was black, because he had publicized ties with the Black panther Party and was a well-known organizer within the prison reform movement. Although George became a “prison celebrity,” a status that certainly didn’t help him in terms of acquittal and release, ignorance of the actual forces responsible for his prolonged imprisonment is inexcusable. The radical viewpoint is absolutely indispensable when regarding both George’s life circumstance and philosophy. His life serves not as a mere individual example of prison cruelty, but as a scalding indictment of the very nature of capitalism.

In these times, there are two very different ways to be born into privilege. first and most obvious in the system of capital is to be born into wealth. Second, and not precluding the first, is to have an intellectual, politically conscious base from which to grow as a person philosophically and spiritually. Radical figures in modern society – Lenin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, my father, Jonathan Jackson, and my uncle George Jackson – have the capability of providing this base through their examples and writings.
Those not born into privilege can achieve a politically conscious base in different ways. No veils separate the lower class from the realities of everyday life. They have been given the gift of disillusion. Bourgeois lifestyle, although perhaps sought after, is in most cases not attainable. Daily survival is the primary goal, as it was with George. Of course, when it finally becomes more attractive for one to fight, and perhaps die, than to live in a survival mode, revolution starts to become a possibility. not a riot, not a government takeover by one or another group, but a people’s revolution led by the politically conscious.
This consciousness doesn’t simply appear. Individuals must grow and work into it, but it’s an invaluable gift to have insight into and access to an alternative to the frustration, a goal on the horizon.
The nineties are an unconscious era. The unimportant is all-important, the essential neglected. What system than capitalism, what time period than now, is better suited to naturally create the scapegoat, the seldom-heard political prisoner, misunderstood in his cult-of-personality status, held back in a choke hold from society? It is not only our right, but our duty, to listen to and comprehend George Jackson’s message. To not do so is to turn our backs on noe of the brilliant minds of the twentieth century, an individual passionately involved with liberating not only himself, but all of us.

“Settle your quarrels, come together, understand the reality of our situation, understand that fascism is already here, that people are dying who could be saved, that generations more will die or live poor butchered half-lives if you fail to act. Do what must be done, discover your humanity and your love in revolution. Pass on the torch. Join us, give up your life for the people.” – George Jackson

Destroying the term “political activist”

August 31, 2007

Activist derives from “active”, which means engaged in activity, energetic, moving.

That’s a big problem: too many people think that the point is to be active and energetic.

Here’s another term: political agent. This term invokes the point of politics – to have political effect.

Lots of people in America, that is to say the political activists, believe in protest. They believe it matters.

And it does. Sometimes. Often in small ways, very inefficient ways given the large number of people engaged. Meanwhile, just a few members of the elite ruin entire countries in a month, a week, sometimes a day. The elite never need to “protest” anything. Why is it so easy for the elite to ruin the world and so hard for the rest of us to fix it? Why can the elite ruin the world without blinking while the rest of us have to hem and haw and wring our hands over some little crime we commit in stopping that ruination?

What we need is a machine. A machine of political agency, to grind the elite to dust.

You might say – hmm, that doesn’t sound very democratic. The political activists say that.

WAKE UP! We are not living in a democracy and never have. Good luck with your fucking protests and demonstrations, your poor uses of time. Good luck congratulating yourselves on some small gain, some minor concession made by the elite, which they’ll roll back as soon as you blink.

If the problem is the elite themselves, the solution is to eliminate the problem. There’s plenty of research done to “cure cancer”, but for the present doctors do the simple, effective thing: they remove the tumor.

The next time someone tells you he is a political activist, ask him why he’s not a political agent instead.

After a democracy is created, then we can all be mere political activists. For now neither we nor our children can afford such ignorance.

You know what being active and energetic is? – it’s calling being alive. You don’t get a fucking reward for being the same thing you’ve been since you were born. You’d better only treat accomplishment when you achieve actual accomplishment – that is to say making the world, or your country, or your community, a better place. Not for a day until an elite comes along and ruins it – permanently. And if that requires the permanent removal of a tumor, then share the ways of doctors.

Oh, one more thing: doctors also reexamine the patient later to make sure a tumor doesn’t reemerge. And if it does, they remove it again. And again, if necessary, and yet again. Tumors have no place in the human body.

Why are doctors so much more vigilant than American citizens? Why do doctors see themselves as agents of health, instead of being activists of health?

War Resisters of the American War in Iraq

August 26, 2007

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3