Faith, Force and Freedom

Looking back over 2012, it's been one of my leaner blogging years. Not because nothing was happening worth mentioning - quite the contrary - but because I saw little point in addressing people who just didn't care to listen.

When ideology or prejudice trump reality in the minds of men, discussing reality with them becomes an exercise in pointless frustration. Thinking stops, and everything becomes a conditioned response. The campaign for Emperor demonstrated this on a daily basis. So did the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook elementary. Before the victims were even buried, the usual suspects began with the usual arguments: ban guns, register the mentally ill, whatever. Control, control, control, it's always about control.

Part of that is the corruption of reasoning I did write about. Another part of it is solipsism. In America especially, countless people live their lives entirely obsessed with themselves, to the point where other people simply aren't real to them. They are like NPCs in a video game. And since one doesn't empathize with NPCs, having zero empathy for other people has become the norm. When these NPCs are seen as obstacles to one's happiness - the paramount purpose of life robbed of all other meaning - the next step is actively hating those other people, and finding ways of hurting them. The pathology has a scale, of course: from forum trolling, via committing suicide by jumping in front of a train at rush hour, to picking up a rifle and shooting up a mall, school or movie theater.

That is not to say that video games are to blame. Quite the opposite. Games offer an escape from a reality that has long since become virtual. Remember the Bushians' disdain for the "reality-based community"? The notion that they were creating reality by the sheer force of their willpower, while the pesky realists were merely observing and analyzing it? Well, they aren't the only ones to believe it, just arrogant enough to admit it openly.

Modern omnipotent government has made treating people as things into an art form. Look at the militarized police, or the callous disregard for the lives of people in invaded - oops, liberated - countries. Look at the drones and their pilots. Being a sociopath is almost a recommendation for the job.

If we're looking at a "culture of" anything to blame for the rotten mess we're living in, it's got to be this culture of narcissism, as Brendan O'Neill describes it. Guns? Serbia has the second-highest concentration of guns per capita, after the U.S., but there are no rampage murders there. The Orthodox Church, which is most definitely not concerned with an individual's feelings, might have something to do with it as well.

Of course, the Serbs have gone to the other extreme, refusing to use their weapons even for legitimate self-defense. 

Yet I've been unable to put into words the conclusion that simply leaps out from all this, for several days now. Until I saw this article. So I'll borrow Daniel Greenfield's turn of phrase, and say that what both the Serbs and the Americans need to learn is that "when you give up faith to force, then you also abandon any further reason to resist that force. Without faith, it is easier to let force win."

Be Very Afraid...

A lot is being said and written today about the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. Professional panic-mongers and witch-hunters are once again screaming about "right-wing extremists" and warning that OKC could happen again. Yet the impression I get is that this noise has less (if anything) to do with the 168 dead and 600 injured in Oklahoma City 15 years ago, and more with the efforts of the government to deflect criticism by painting those who disagree with it as lunatics and potential terrorists.

Anthony Gregory of LRC puts it into perspective:

Seventeen years ago in 1993, the federal government did in fact murder dozens of Americans who were no threat to anyone. The same government has in fact violated the rights of American citizens, rounded people into concentration camps, silenced and infiltrated politically peaceful groups, conspired against the people in numerous ways, drugged, poisoned and withheld medicine from Americans without their knowing, lied repeatedly about war and serious law enforcement matters, jailed people without due process, imposed martial law on segments of the domestic population, seized guns from law-abiding gunowners, broken down American doors and held scared children at gunpoint, planned the creation of extralegal judicial institutions to process American citizens, targeted political enemies with the IRS and other police agencies, forced Americans to labor and even kill and die under threat of imprisonment, overseen the largest prison system in the world, shoveled trillions of borrowed dollars to corrupt financial institutions and killed millions of civilians abroad – all in the lifetime of many who are still alive. The U.S. police state has in fact been growing since 9/11 and even before – and Obama has done nothing to stem its growth. On the contrary, he has continued the mix of economic fascism, imperialism, surveillance and lawless detention policy that characterized the Bush years.

Indeed, the most dangerous rightwing extremist in my lifetime was George W. Bush. Obama is following in his footsteps. That so many Americans are more frightened of rightwingers out of power than in power – more bothered by conservatives who hate Washington than those who control or want to control it – and more offended by anti-government rhetoric than the Democratic president continuing the policies they claimed to hate under Republican rule – shows how little they have learned from Waco and all that has happened since.

Read the rest of the essay at LewRockwell.com.

Spiking the Water

The British, having already embraced a total surveillance state, are now favorably looking at Japanese research about spiking the water:

Very low levels of lithium in drinking water may help prevent suicide in the general population, according to a new study. The study has prompted calls for further research into the possibility of adding lithium to drinking supplies – like water fluoridation to improve dental health.

Researchers at Oita University in Japan measured natural lithium levels in tap water in 18 communities in the surrounding region of southern Japan. Writing in the British Journal of Psychiatry, the researchers said: "Our study suggests that very low levels of lithium in drinking water can lower the risk of suicide. Very low levels may possess an anti-suicidal effect."

(hat tip: David Kramer at the LRC blog)

The first thought that crossed my mind was of life imitating art. A key plot point of the 2005 SF flick "Serenity" was the horrific chemical experiment on a colony planet: in order to calm down the population, the government used "G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate" (a.k.a. "Pax") in the air supply. It worked all too well: 99% of the people just sat down and died. The rest turned into homicidal maniacs.

Then there's the plot of the 2007 Will Smith vehicle "I Am Legend," in which a viral vaccine against cancer causes 90% of humanity to die and the rest to become hyper-aggressive vampiric cannibals.

If art is any indicator, these social- and bio-engineering experiments not only fail, but have horrific blowback. But when has that stopped a government determined to "make people better", as one character aboard "Serenity" put it?

Next time you reach for that glass of water, ask yourself what's in it.

Already Too Late?

Continuing the chronicle of warnings and predictions pointing out the untenable situation of the Empire, here's what Chalmers Johnson, author of "Blowback", "Sorrows of Empire" and "Nemesis, told a reporter of the San Diego Union-Tribune today:

"If we cannot cut back our long-standing, ever increasing military spending in a major way, then the bankruptcy of the United States is inevitable. As the current Wall Street meltdown has demonstrated, that is no longer an abstract possibility but a growing likelihood. We do not have much time left.”

The Johnsons, it's fair to note, are unencumbered by children or stocks, two common articles of faith in the country's prosperity. Johnson's UC pension is secure. He can afford to cast a cold eye on the future.

“It's possible that it's over – and there's nothing to be done,” he told me with a ghost of a smile.

It's anything but "fair" to note that Johnson lives on a "secure" pension (how much will it be worth if and when the US dollar follows its Zimbabwean cousin?), or that he and his wife are not "encumbered" by children. Matter of fact, belief that children are a burden probably has a lot to do with the overall decline of the Western civilization - but that's another topic for another time.

None of this should detract from the very real possibility that the Empire has already driven off the cliff, and that the "stimulus" and the Great Socialist Agenda amount to pushing on the accelerator pedal while in free fall.

Wishful thinking or fact? We'll find out soon enough.

Proof in the Pudding

Three weeks back, I wrote about the predictions made by Russian academic Igor Panarin, one of which was that the U.S. is heading for a breakup.

Two days ago, there was a piece on LRC by Will Grigg (of Pro Libertate), concerning the comments made by AG Eric Holder about racial politics in America. Grigg points out the agenda behind the race politics:

It would obviously be to the advantage of our rulers for Americans to think of ourselves as members of ethic collectives that they define for their purposes. The most obvious of those purposes would be simply to keep us divided and inconsolably hostile toward each other. This process, as Holder probably understands, begins with supplying a racial subtext for discussion of practically every public issue of consequence. As the economic decline accelerates, the temptation to racialize our grievances will become more seductive to an ever-greater number of people.

Unscrupulous, power-hungry governments exploiting identity politics to grab power in the aftermath of an economic implosion - now that sounds eerily familiar. That's Yugoslavia all over again.

Continues Grigg:

The unalloyed truth is that our rulers intend to make helots out of all of us, irrespective of race, creed, or color, and to that end they are eager to exploit the potential for conflict created by those divisions.

Perhaps the best we can hope for would be that the Regime will press too hard, too soon, causing the "union" to disintegrate with relatively little violence. Since there is, quite literally, not enough wealth in the entire world to service the Regime's financial obligations, the bleak reality is that the entity calling itself the United States of America simply cannot survive in its current form.

Isn't that precisely what Panarin said? Sounding very much like me from three weeks ago, Grigg concludes:

If the Obamunists employ the same heavy-handedness in race agitation that they've displayed in wealth redistribution, the crack-up may come much sooner – and be much uglier – than any of us expect.

Now, I've seen Panarin's gloomy predictions dismissed as envious ravings of an America-hater. Such people will no doubt dismiss Grigg - who passionately fights for key American ideals such as liberty - as a "kook," the same way they mocked Ron Paul for caring about the Constitution (After all, it's "just a goddamned piece of paper," right?).

Think about it for a second: defending liberty and upholding the country's founding document is considered weird and objectionable, while belief in a secular Messiah and the omnipotent government is mainstream. That convinces me, more than ever, that Panarin and Grigg may be right, and their detractors are mistaken.

Whose Order?

Commenting on a recent incident in Serbia, where several hooligans attacked a young lady at volleyball practice and broke her arms (!), a Serbian blogger called "Jane" doesn't buy the establishment explanation. It isn't the "traumas of the 1990s", she avers, but:

Could the problem be the current zeitgeist, recently adopted by just about everyone? The ethics promoted by the state and society today go something like this: Power is its own right. The only right is the right of the strong. The strong are always right - if they demand something, give it to them. Do not fight those stronger than you, no matter the cause or circumstance. Yesterday doesn't matter, tomorrow is far away, the only thing that matters is now. You want something, take it. Take it today.

How can we expect the youth of today to obey any sort of moral code, when the state itself rejects it altogether? Why should anyone want to submit to humiliation in a country that keeps being humiliated? Why not play by the state's rules? There are two players in that game: the strong, thuggish one that can take anything he wants with impunity; and the weak, pathetic, incompetent victim who accepts the beatings, approves of them, and continues to crave the companionship of the strong, no matter how hard the beatings get.

I could not agree more. When people see the state act this way, when they see the individuals who act this way become rich and powerful (even to the point of calling themselves "elite"), it is but a matter of time when the bulk of the people will start acting and thinking the same way. At some point, belief in the "law of the jungle" becomes necessary for survival. Because human nature demands some kind of order, some kind of rules, no matter how irrational.

Among other things, the demise of Yugoslavia was made possible by the collapse of the values that country was built on. Once upon a time, Tito was everything. But by the time Yugoslavia began to crumble, he'd been dead for a decade, and the promised Marxist utopia had failed to arrive. What came were the bills for debts previously incurred, higher by the day. Then came the demagogues, and with them a "new order" favoring those that did the taking and the killing.

The violence "Jane" was talking about isn't limited to Serbia. Croatian crime pages are filled with similar stories: beatings, murders, ambushes, suicides. Bosnia is no different, either. There once used to be a sort of honor among thieves (not much of one, for they were, after all, thieves), now even that is gone. Violence has become random, unthinking, animalistic. There is no order anymore. There are no rules. And the leading exponents of such behavior are the very people whose job description requires them to uphold the rules and protect order. Instead, they merrily destroy both - in order to eventually save the people from themselves, I guess, by establishing a new set of rules, a new order, better suited to their ends.

Or have they done so already?

Flags and Advertising

Balkans politicians talk a lot about "branding" their pocket-countries. Maybe they should take a look at what that would look like, using the example of flag design.

Hilarious. Or is it?

(hat tip: Vox Day)

"It has no drive..."

One of Arthur C. Clarke's "laws of prediction" is that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

For some reason, it's the opening scenes of Clarke and Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey that first come to mind reading this account of stumped TSA agents hassling a traveler because they could not grasp the existence of a MacBook Air:

"There's no drive," one says. "And no ports on the back. It has a couple of lines where the drive should be," she continues.

A younger agent, joins the crew. I must now be occupying ten, perhaps twenty, percent of the security force. At this checkpoint anyway. There are three score more at the other five checkpoints. The new arrival looks at the printouts from x-ray, looks at my laptop sitting small and alone. He tells the others that it is a real laptop, not a "device". That it has a solid-state drive instead of a hard disc. They don't know what he means. He tries again, "Instead of a spinning disc, it keeps everything in flash memory." Still no good. "Like the memory card in a digital camera." He points to the x-ray, "Here. That's what it uses instead of a hard drive."

The senior agent hasn't been trained for technological change. New products on the market? They haven't been TSA approved. Probably shouldn't be permitted. He requires me to open the "device" and run a program. I do, and despite his inclination, the lead agent decides to release me and my troublesome laptop. My flight is long gone now, so I head for the service center to get rebooked.

Here's the tragic part. The author of this post has surrendered so much of his humanity, having to deal with TSA (and hotels and other trappings of frequent travel) so often, that he titled his post "Steve Jobs made me miss my flight."

How is the appalling behavior of TSA goons (or do I repeat myself) Steve Jobs' fault? Did Apple force this traveler to purchase their product? Is it somehow their responsibility to educate government troglodytes that computers don't need a hard drive any more? Or could it be, just possibly, that the real problem here are the TSA agents who enjoy near-absolute power over the helpless travelers? Just a thought, there.

(hat tip to Manuel Lora at the LRC Blog)

Why Governments Torture

Charles Featherstone is fast becoming one of my favorite LRC writers. Here's an excerpt from his piece on government and torture, published today:

"[Governments] don't torture because of need. Governments torture to humiliate and destroy. They torture to strip a person of his humanity, to make him or her face unrestrained state power alone, unaided and helpless. States torture and kill because they can, because even if the state isn't really God, it can play God by taking life when it pleases and how it chooses. Because it is a way to annihilate a human being, slowly, one atom at a time."

This is why...

Since the news, rumors and images started coming in from the lost city of New Orleans, I've seen many interesting opinions about the man-made disaster that followed the natural one. I have yet to see a better take than this piece by Butler Shaffer, on LewRockwell.com today:

"Once again, the Events in New Orleans have brought into focus the long-standing question that we have heretofore preferred not to face: is society to be organized by and for the benefit of individuals or of institutions? Does life belong to the living, or to the organizational machinery that the living so unwisely created? We are confronted – as was Dr. Frankenstein – by a monster of our own creation, which must control and dominate us if it is to survive. We continue to feed this destructive creature, not simply with our material wealth, but with our very souls and the lives of our children. [...]

In the outpouring of individual compassion and cooperation following the disaster in New Orleans, the state discovered a threat to its existence. Political systems thrive only through division and conflict; by getting people to organize themselves into mutually-exclusive groups which then fight with one another. This is why “war is the health of the state.” But if people can discover a sense of love and mutuality amongst them, how is the state to maintain the sense of continuing conflict upon which it depends?

This is why the state must prevent the private shipment of truckload after truckload of private aid to victims; this is why flood victims – including those who want nothing more than to remain in their homes – must be turned into a criminal class, against whom state functionaries will “lock and load” their weapons and “shoot and kill... if necessary.” The state is fighting for its life, and must exaggerate its inhumane, life-destroying capacities in order to terrify the rest of us into structured obedience.

Forcibly tossing people out of their homes, seizing their weapons and depriving them of their property is obviously not about "helping" them - it's about helping the state. It's not about compassion, but control. This is the true face of government - not just this government, here and now, but government in general! - and it sure is ugly.

Imaginary Outlets

It isn't often that I can laugh uproariously upon reading what is supposed to be a serious quote from the legacy media. Usually, their stuff is so out of touch with reality, it's painful, frustrating, or both.

In today's New York Times there is an article (warning: they may require you to register) on the runaway success of "World of Warcraft." It's a massive multi-player online game that appeals to both player-vs-player and role-player crowds, and has over 4 million subscribers worldwide - a phenomenon in the industry that used to be proud of half a million. Anyway, the Gray Lady quotes a skeptic thusly:

"I don't think there are four million people in the world who really want to play online games every month," said Michael Pachter, a research analyst for Wedbush Morgan, a securities firm. "World of Warcraft is such an exception. I frankly think it's the buzz factor, and eventually it will come back to the mean, maybe a million subscribers."

"It may continue to grow in China," Mr. Pachter added, "but not in Europe or the U.S. We don't need the imaginary outlet to feel a sense of accomplishment here. It just doesn't work in the U.S. It just doesn't make any sense." (emphasis added)

No need for imaginary outlets? Why, then, are millions of Americans investing money they don't have into plywood palaces at obscenely inflated prices, courtesy of Boss Greenspan's cheap credit and fiat currency? Why are thousands of bureaucrats intent on reshaping the world against the wishes of its "reality-based" community? The world would be a better place if they all paid $15 a month to stay at home and play "American Empire" or "The Sims." Or "World of Warcraft," come to think of it; having to earn money the hard way - fighting monsters and crafting products people can use - might teach people a thing or two they appear to have forgotten.