Peace Be With You

I take offense to CATHOLICS (OR ANY religious folk) who throw the word “peace” around as a salutation. Used at the end of their internet posts, their letters and their greeting cards, often in the most hypocritical way. Here’s my response to such a recent use by a upstanding Catholic on the yahoo group Theology and Religion (enjoy):

Peach eh? What is anyone here doing to change anything about the wars and killing that rages and has raged for thousands of years among men? Maybe the total lack of forefront inaction is the refult of having been responsible for the three crusades, which were directly the result of Papal orders?

How about the power of a Billion plus members in the Catholic Church? Where are they? Are they out there making a difference in the current war in Iraq? Anyone? Hello? And then what does the Catholic church and it's Billion members do to stop violence on a global scale? Telvision advertisments? Pro-active rallies? Constant Never ending efforts to halt violence? In fact, what does that figure head pope do about anything in regard to issues of vital importance to humanity except sit on a gazillion dollars in assets while wearing a head dress? Speaking of which I'm sure all those god-fearing Catholics who have more than enough wealth but who nevertless feel vindicated in horading it have this example of leadership to follow! What a fine example this Catholic church provides!

I see what we can do, we can pacify each other with the proverbial "peace" salutation. Peace to you also. It's vital to our souls to be polite because the hundreds of thousands of murdered children in the last three hundred years alone appreciate your ability to invocate peace in some salutation in a Yahoo group. The most insane part of the hypocrisy of the members of this group and the religious in general is that you cant see the utter godlessness in having the support of a billion people who stand by idly offering peace to one another while hundreds of thousands of people (women and children) are murdered in wars each year worldwide.

And how about those other religions and your nonsense about "understanding"...you must live in a shoe box. The insane belief that one religion is superior to another is ONE OF THE PRINCIPLE CAUSES of killing and death and always has been. I see you have quite a plan.

Okay, now stop that the Church AND IT'S BILLION MEMBERS are very active in organizing peaceful anti-war protests, in organizing boycotts against the murderous multi-national corporations that are literally and figuratively raping the environment and people all over the world, in directing Catholics to become peaceful conscientious objectors to violence and killing, in influencing politics and government, in getting the power of that billion people behind making significant changes on a global scale....hold on, sorry one of us has just woke up. No I'm sorry, what religion does so effectively is let murderers invoke god as a means toward their materialistic goals. We're constanlty doing "god's work" - really we are!

Wait there probably is some "resolution" calling for peace in some file in the Vatican so that all the godly Catholics in the world can feel morally relieved of all that guilt for watching television while the golbal murders continue. When a billion people who believe in "peace" can sit by idly and do nothing SIGNICANT to change the world (by the way 1 billion people is about 1/6 the total population and I have not even accounted for other Christian denominations which total more than 2 Billion people or 2/6 the world's population) and offer nothing more than some words (and not action) then I say you take your peace salutation and shove it. And while this is certainly not a peaceful gesture at least it's not hollow and meaningless: it's genuine...

"When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society," John Paul II said. "Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man."

This "decisive" voice that one Billion people fail to hear? I think John Paul was saying "peace", don't you? Thousands of years of colorful garments and polite peaceful salutations and no real results....God Bless You All and Peace Be With You.

Fear, False Hope, the Promise of Security, and the Total Control of America

“Now I want to speak to you of another kind of aggression, aggression without war, where the aggressor comes not as a conqueror but as a champion of peace, of freedom, offering progress and plenty and hope to the unfortunates of the earth” - Richard Nixon on Communism

We must devote special attention to the problems of those on the margins, those lacking adequate food or shelter, those addicted or mentally ill, those whose neighborhoods have been decimated by crime...It's not enough to give them justice. We must also give them hope” - George Bush on the American Poor

Eerily similar and yet totally contradictory these statements express some of the main tactics used by the America Aristocratic government to control the populous. When communist principles threatened the systems used by the wealthy and powerful they used fear to dispel the threat. And while fear (i.e. of communism or terrorism) is their first and most often used method, equally as useful is a much more subtle tactic of control - the installation of false hope.

“If that (criminal) boy...believes he is trapped and worthless and hopeless -- if he believes his life has no value, then other lives have no value to him -- and we are ALL diminished” - Geroge W. Bush

How does a lack of hope diminish us “ALL”? It really doesn’t - the lower classes are already diminished. The reference here is a call to the wealthy to offer the lower classes some “hope” as a means of control. The American Aristocrat and it’s government is bent on one thing - protection and extension of their wealth and power. They continually couch this desire in the precepts of doing good - for the poor, for others, and for the world. But at the heart of every methodology is a means toward helping themselves.

“When they have hope, they will produce, they will be good citizens” - Thailand's Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra July 2003

Essentially instilling hope can quell the resentment of being in an inferior position; or a position of subjugation; or a position of poverty; or a position of social or economic disadvantage; or political oppression. As a tool, it has been used time and time again by the wealthy elite in this world to quell dissent and for the purposes of protectionism against the potential wrath of the lower classes and poor bodies of people in this world. And while they indicate that their desire is to help the lower classes and the poor from their self-destruction, what they really fear is the situation where the lower classes and poor rise up to threaten their positions. These strategies of instilling hope are being used all over the world to keep down the masses - but they have been especially implemented in the United States. In fact, while the talk is always of progress, the actions of the Aristocratic American Government are consistently geared toward maintaining the status quo. What means is best method to establish a sense of hope in people? The first step is the installation of a belief that they are free.

“Advancing freedom and democracy is at the core of helping us win the war on terrorism, because when people have freedom, they have hope...” - George W. Bush

The basic strategy is at the core of the American Capitalist system and involves the use of a capitalist Trojan Horse of fake wealth and a mythical carrot and stick of freedom to anaesthetize the middle and lower classes. Capitalism in the form of advantageous wealth building for the elitist wealth power base and democracy in the form of the election of only wealthy members of society toward their own goals and ends are each devised and used as a means to instill false hope in to the American system of use, misuse and rape of the people. Do we really vote for people who “represent” us? No - we vote for alternating puppets of the American Aristocrat.

"[Crime is deterred]...when people have a stake in society and they have hope." - Arthur Donato, Jr., sociology professor at Villanova University

The middle class and upper middle class and even the wealthy are placated with a stake in society. The beauty of the American Aristocratic manipulation is that any stake will do. From simple hope in an ability to obtain some economic prominence, to actual wealth, to false wealth predicated on debt, the spectrum of classes is covered. On the very lower rung of social classes, where the lack of any advantages leaves citizens unable to make moral choices, the tools of control (prison) and elimination (the death penalty) are ultimately used. And as a tool the focus remains firmly on simple control or elimination without any regard to the soul of a man. Nor the fact that his particular situation was in part contributed to by the polices of the Aristocratic American who seek only to protect their positions. In order to steer people away from the actual consequences of the American system as implemented by this force, and to maintain the continual ruling of this country by a few wealthy and their power base, secondary tools are used. These include the Blame Game in which failures of the lower classes to over-come their predicaments is used blame the people themselves. This in effect distracts the lower classes from the true causes of their condition to some alleged “opportunity” they have to become somebody. The propaganda of the wealthy includes the use of labels such as “lazy”, “uneducated”, and “dysfunctional”. Of course what this blame fails to take in to account is ADVANTAGE. How much easier is it for a person who has some or many advantages to improve or maintain? And while there are exceptions, for the very depleted lower class these are often more the product of luck chance and circumstance than bona fide effort.

With the majority of Americans either content to live on a faux (debt filled) wealth system which only serves to the benefit of their masters, or with sufficient wealth, the powers that could incite change are adequately subdued. Clearly the lower classes, the poor, the uneducated, the people with the fewest connections, with the least reliability and with the least credibility do not pose a real political threat in relation to the American Aristocratic position. The middle class and upper middle class are content to empower the same people who will keep their existence safe. The fat cow sees no benefit to charging the farmer.

“Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are...priorities. And all of us are diminished when any are hopeless” - George W. Bush

Consequently, the only threat that the lower American classes could pose is physical. The physical threat of violence, the physical threat of theft. Nevertheless, providing basic subsistence to the lower classes is an essential part of controlling the populous. One of the most concealed tools of the wealthy (and especially those who label themselves liberals and democrats) which is used to lull the American lower classes in to complacency is the welfare system. The beauty of welfare is that while it gives the air of compassion and sharing, what it essentially does is disempower people in to a state of perpetual inaction. It is a further form of slavery in that it leads to a generational mind-set which permits the acceptable use of welfare as a means of subsistence at a level which is just sufficient enough to prevent the loss of “hope” that is required to contain the poorer populous in to inaction.

“The proletariat of the world has but one enemy, the capitalist class...We must refuse to put into the hands of this enemy an armed force even under the guise of a democratic army...” - Republican Party Platform of 1916

And now that they have the money and the power they also have the military and police. How long will it be before they turn them on us to take final control of the system? Final control of America? Who will remain wealthy and who will remain in power? And how will they do it?

Capitalism's ability to permit upward mobility acts in the same way that false hope does - it creates a stake. And just like the stake many have in false hope, the stake is illusionary. In the end, the only non-illusionary wealth is the power. In America seizing power has been a peaceful and unobtrusive process. Permitted by the consolidation of wealth which was then used to exclude the middle and lower classes from real and effective representation. As the laws which were once paramount to freedom become more limited to the current leaders, the only conclusion we can make is one in which the hyper-wealthy will ultimately maintain the wealth in another form. In other words, in a system where money has no real value, power and control will ultimately be the only non-illusionary wealth that there is.

So what? So what if we are in fact ruled by an elite group of billionaires who control the flow of money, the interest rates, the economy? A group who have consolidated tremendous wealth and access and control and political power? Who put their interest above and beyond the people of this land? “So what” you say? In 2007, one-out-of every 200 people Americans is a millionaire and it's expected that one-out-of-10 people will be millionaires within the next decade. Are all of these so called millionaires going for the ride? Are they going to share the power? Of course not. You millionaires need to pay attention at this point to truly understand the possibilities. And to help you see the possibilities I ask you some simple questions:

(1) If the dollar and the economy collapses what will your wealth really be worth?

(2) What will be valuable if the dollar and the economy collapses?

(3) Who keeps pumping fiat money in to the economy and accumulating debt in the name of our Nation and why?

(4) Where does you food come from? Do you have a farm?

(5) Could you farm and real estate be taken by your governemnt?

I’ll answer these for you: Force, control and power will be the only wealth. But even force without the "color of law" is devoid of authority so we give you the latest line up of written powers provided by your governemt:

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

# EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money powers prays upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln (1864)

The “so what” is more than just some moral precept of fairness; of what is right and wrong. Because while what is right and wrong is paramount to me and many Americans, what is more paramount is the survival of America as a nation in which we live as free people and not economic slaves. The American people are safe and shortsighted to the fact that their safety has now been placed in the hands of a wealthy Elite which meets openly to discuss the best possible means of enslaving the world. But go back to sleep America and until you have been enslaved, remember what pappa Bush says:

“To kids in our cities, don't give up hope. Say no to drugs; stay in school. And, yes, Keep hope alive" - George H. W. Bush

The American Aristocrats And Their Future Plans

“The brilliance of the American aristocracy is they’ve convinced the world they don’t exist... It’s safer that way. Unlike us [the old European aristocracy], they’re invisible targets...It’s very clever -- you teach them in America anyone can become rich, so that when they hate the rich, they hate themselves. It paralyzes them. All they can do is eat.” - Dirk Wittenborn, Fierce People

I’ve written prior blogs on the values of conservatives. But in retrospect it seems conservatives is too broad a category. So in order to exemplify where these amoral values arise from, I want you for a moment to put yourself in the position of a person with untold wealth. A person whose existence and whose family’s existence is among the most pampered and luxurious on the planet. Whose way of life is free of hassle and unrestricted. Whose subsistence is not predicated on daily work but rather is secured by untold wealth. If you are such a person, your primary values might encompass your desire to protect your position of wealth. If you are so inclined and also equally devoid of principles of self-sacrifice and morality, your means of maintenance and protection of your wealth is unrestricted. That is to say, you can kill thousands, even millions provided your wealth is sustained. You can enslave a populous as long as your position is unaffected. Would or could the American Aristocrat assassinate someone in their way? Would or could they rig an election? Would or could they commit horrendous crimes against humanity? And as I’ve noted previously, it goes without saying that people who hoard inexplicable levels of wealth are inherently immoral. Not to mention that history has shown us that the god of mammon has no bounds.

Clearly, the first step to the protection of your wealth is to obtain power. For it is in the maintenance of power that you can dictate the world around you toward the protection of your wealth. When we inquire as to why the wealthy are so enthraled with political life, why a billionaire would run for mayor, why the most affluent Americans seek the white house, why the wealthy contribute to political campaigns, we must look exclusively to the protection of wealth. For it is through political power that the wealthy American Aristocrats have command over a vast military force and access to the intelligence of the nation. It is through political power that these wealthy American Aristocrats can avoid, manipulate and create law toward the further protection of their wealth and positions of power. It is through political power that these wealthy American Aristocrats can manipulate the systems of agriculture, manufacturing and government toward the creation and sustenance of their wealth. But power is not only a means to an end but also a means in itself. For once you have adequately filled these positions of power (either individually or vis-a-vis a puppet presence) your secondary goal now becomes the maintenance of these positions of power. The maintenance of the presidential seat; the maintenance of judges in positions of power who can eliminate the checks and balances our forefathers desired; military commanders who will fall in line; the manipulation of congress toward your agenda. It seems to reason that the means available to maintain power for a moral-less human are limitless and would include murder, manipulation, black mail, and even genocide. To the use of people and their lives like pawns in a game of chess: used for a time to increase the wealth and power of the Kings and Queens and then sacrificed when their usefulness dissipates.

Therefore, in any accurate assessment of the actions of our American government (now and in a historical context since execution of JFK) we must look first and foremost to their exclusive underlying motivations - the protection of both their wealth and their positions of power. We must understand that any explanation they offer for some action or some behavior other than these is a product of pure fiction. Any alleged higher purpose, any alleged affiliation by way of statesmanship or allegiance to country, any concept of some threat which you must be protected against, any indication of the common good or the higher purpose of men, are fictional tools toward covering up their underlying goals. It may not have always been this way. But in the current leadership, it seems inalienable. In fact, any explanations other than those which can clearly be linked back to protectionism must also be reviewed in a secondary way - it’s intermediary purpose. What is the purpose of the statement or action toward the ultimate goal? Is the statement or action intended to create some response toward the ultimate goal? Is the statement or action made to create some mind set toward the ultimate goal? Is the statement made to cause some action or lack of action toward the ultimate goal? So while the ultimate identifier of the action or statement must be the simple revision of the real goals, when they are unclear the secondary intermediary purpose of these statements or actions must be ascertained in relation to those goals. They must be examined in the context of the ultimate purpose: the maintenance and health of the wealth and power of the American Aristocrat.

Sadly, these American Aristocrats are well versed in human behavior and are familiar with the human condition. They understand that allegiance to some pack is more powerful than the truth. And (aside from placation vis-a-vis subsistence) one of the greatest single tools of manipulation has been their call to some sense of community and allegiance to some group of people toward a common goal. The waving of the American flag, the constant reiteration of the ideal of freedom, the illusionary democratic elections of other wealthy American Aristocrats, the call to stand strong for your country - all fronts for their maintenance of wealth and power. And while the significance of this call is not lost in both the political and religious realm of control, the American Aristocrat also understands the equally effective tool of fear. The power of increasing the punishment for criminal behavior or civil disobedience; the fear of potential punishment for the threats made against the American Aristocratic government and it’s self-serving actions; the historical threat of some created outside force which we require protection from; continual laws created for purposes of narrower and narrower control via fear. Mixed in among their various methods of non-coercive-control is the fear of god. But when fear fails to quell the human desire to be free, and the break-down of some allegiance to a common cause becomes weakened, and when survival itself is in real and imminent danger, in times of such a crisis the only remaining tool left for the American Aristocratic government will be the establishment of forceful control and elimination of the populous. What could cause such a crisis? There are a number of likely candidates. We can begin with the laundry list of disputed potential often discredited and “wacky” causes: things like global warming, peak oil (energy shportages), the collapse of the dollar and the American economy, food shortages (especially in the wake of energy shortages), and population expansion (in light of diminishing resources). Any one of these items could potentially cause civil unrest and anarchy as food shortages and lack of subsistence become prominent in America. And if such a scenario were to occur, the first people the American public would seek relief from are the people who hold the means of subsistence. The people who have established the bunkers under ground; the people who control the enormous military machine they have built off the backs of the American people; the people who have access to what remains of the wealth of the county; the people who have the technology and the reserves to attempt to maintain their positions of power and wealth - or even their survival; the American Aristocrat and the American Aristocratic government. If any one of these “wacky” things were actually to occur we would need only ask the question: Does anyone honestly believe that the American Aristocrat would relinquish it’s wealth and power in the face of some national or global calamity? Or share the remaining wealth with the populous? Clearly the answer is no. Never-the-less is there some proof that the American Aristocratic government is currently actually concerned that some “wacky” thing like the dollar collapse could turn in to the destruction (or diminution) of their positions of wealth and power? Is it possible that the American Aristocrat is fearful of the potential backlash from an American middle class whose is accustomed to food and basic subsistence at levels which are beyond adequate? In order to answer these questions we need to first look at what potential plans the American Aristocrat could conjure up to combat such a scenario. Or perhaps what plan they could implement to extinguish a known future crisis. We have to hypothesize the possible ideas they pass around with their wealthy cohorts from around the world at the Bilderberger meetings. What pamphlets they pass out at Trilateral Commission meetings. What plans they discussed at Bohemian Grove. We must ask the question: If I had all the money and power what plans would I have in the event of a melt-down? What planning would I be acting upon in advance of a likely or anticipated crisis? Once we answer these questions we must look to the statements and actions of the American Aristocrat and it’s government and ascertain whether there are signs that these plans are in fact being implemented.

The simplest solution to maintaining their positions will be forceful control; both in the actual confinement of people and in the use of people for the maintenance of their positions. Forced labor and confinement (by use of the military and police forces) is the most basic and easiest implemented plan. This will essentially mark a shift in American history from non-coercive control to forceful control. But such a plan would seem to be unlikely on a national level. Look at the result of hurricane Katrina. The basic inability to control the area (or lack of an attempt to do so) indicates that total national control would be impossible. Even implementation of the American military would make such a scenario unlikely as sufficient resources to control a country the size of America are lacking. The plan would most likely involve a requested control (submission) with the presence of local police forces and national guard troops in conjunction with total actual military control of selected areas. And finally followed by abandonment and the elimination of a significant portion of the populous. Ultimately, submission being a pretext to abandonment under which much of the country will be left to die off as it annihilates itself under the pressure of decreasing and diminished resources, sickness and violence. Since this is the easiest plan to enact, we’ll start with an examination of this possibility. Essentially a three stage plan of (1) national control via submission and the use of local police forces and national guard forces followed by (or in conjunction with) (2) the total military control of selective areas of America and ultimately (3) abandonment and destruction of the exterior population at it’s own hands or possibly via biological warfare.

To begin we must understand the potential problems of control in times of significant crisis - even on a limited basis. You the wealthy American Aristocrat will undoubtedly be faced with a number of problems if such an event does occur. The first problem you will face in implementing control by submission is the American Constitution. That’s right, the document which professes to confer the right of American citizens in times of peace and in times of crisis NOT TO BE CONTROLLED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW and which permits FREE ASSEMBLY possess the most significant obstacle to your initial ability to establish a peaceful (yet) forceful control. Certainly, there will be rouge elements which will interfere with your plans. American citizens who might seek to organize themselves and obtain some semblance of power or a threat. The constitution has been a powerful document geared toward stopping you and it will require significant weakening in order for this forceful control to be effectuated. Local police and national guard troops must have an initial ability to forcibly control members or groups of people while the remaining population is thrust in to fear of a similar fate or lulled by a false sense of security. A means to prevent any organization or mobilization of people when resources might be initially available. When these areas of abandonment realize that they have in fact been abandoned, the must be in a state of non-recovery such that it will be too late for them to act. So you will initially require some semblance of order and in order to establish that initial order under martial law you the wealthy American Aristocrat will need to make sure that you have already abolished basic rights which could stand in your way. Perhaps the creation of laws which will permit the easy detention of American citizens who try to assemble peacefully? Perhaps the elimination of court access for violations of basic human rights?

The second impediment to submissive control is the United States congress. For while the congress is in fact a micro-representation of the American Aristocrat, there is a potential for a power struggle which must be eliminated. You the American Aristocrat can not risk the possibility of some moral dilemma arising from the ranks of congress. From some attempt by a few hundred men to re-insert principles of fairness and morality in to your plan to maintain your wealth and power. You can not risk congress inciting the American people to action by some dissident voice. Your ability to by-pass the congress will therefore be essential to ensure that the American sheep will not sense any dissent in the implementation of initial control. Your power can not be called in to question such that post-crisis initial plans are somehow thwarted. Another problem involves scale. Man’s basic survival instinct is tremendous. Picture if you will hoards (millions) of people unable to eat and you see tremendous potential for an attack on the remaining resources. You either have to eliminate this attack or (in some or multiple ways) diminish it’s potential. False hope in the initial stages will be necessary. “Help is on the way” will fill the airwaves as you hunker yourself down in to the bunkers. The quiet quenching of the American citizen’s will, while you wait for disease, the lack of food and supplies and medical attention to take effect and devastate a nation (and perhaps the world?).

Finally, you must prior to any crisis be able to work in clear and plain sight of the populous without giving them enough to go on. That is to say, you must prepare for their demise while maintaining an air of normalcy. You must at all times prevent panic which would thwart your preparation, or worse result in some power base which could potentially threaten you position before your plans were implemented. You must be able to change the laws and limit the rights of the American citizen so that your plan can have it’s desired effect. How do you prepare in advance for imminent civil unrest without arousing suspicions? How do you conduct national exercises aimed at quelling civil unrest without causing an uproar (and the civil unrest in advance)? How do you remove political rights of a people without a collective outrage. We can get detailed here but for now I’ll note that you start by controlling the media and ultimately the means of communication. By discrediting any allegation of anyone who could provoke some thought regarding your methods and plans. Labels like lunatic and traitor come to mind. You must certainly create some other reason for all of your preparatory action. Some lie which will be believable enough that those sleeping American citizens will remain asleep just long enough for you to take the necessary preparatory steps set your plan in motion. Perhaps the threat of some outside force? Perhaps an allegation that everything is being done FOR YOUR BENEFIT?

Now for the meat of this discussion. You already know the answers to the above questions. You already know that the cold war, communism, and now terrorism have been used to create and build military might. That some fake concept of a terrorist threat is now being used to limit your rights as an America citizen. If you don’t know do some independent research in to the following: Patriot Act of 2001 (extended in 2005); the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which allows for the suspension of habeas corpus and the practice of torture and rendition); the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (which facilitates the declaration of martial law and nullifies posse comitatus by allowing the President to station troops anywhere in the country and to commandeer the National Guard without the consent of local authorities); and, finally, the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, which in the event of a catastrophe would place all governmental authority in the hands of the President. You also already know that the government under the guise of terrorist acts has been practicing martial law. If you don’t know, do some independent research on these upcoming events: United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has announced plans for an anti-terrorism exercise called Vigilant Shield 08. The exercise which is slated to run from October 15th to October 20th is described as a way to prepare, prevent and respond to any number of national crises.

See also, from the Department of Homeland Security Web site:

(http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/training/gc_1179430526487.shtm): “October 15-24, 2007, the TOPOFF 4 Full-Scale Exercise (T4 FSE) will feature thousands of Federal, State, territorial, and local officials. These officials will engage in various activities as part of a robust, full-scale simulated response to a multi-faceted threat. The exercise will address policy and strategic issues that mobilize prevention and response systems, require participants to make difficult decisions, carry out essential functions, and challenge their ability to maintain a common operating picture during an incident of national significance” I’m wondering what these difficult decisions will be?

For centuries the American Aristocrat has used and manipulated capitalism toward creation of their wealth and power. Billions of dollars spent on defense in the name of some horrendous outside threat that never materializes. Communism, Vietnam, the cold war, and now the threat of terrorism. The creation of the department of defense, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, FEEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, all in the name of protecting you. But has this been or is this the real the goal of these agencies? Or was their creation a means for the American Aristocrat to ultimately create and then control a diverse body of intelligence and force to maintain their own power and wealth? Organizations truly aimed ultimately at the elimination of threats to their wealth and power. Or maybe to be used as future tools against the serfs of the land. The snake fed for 100 years so that it could eat it’s own tail. The dollar a hollow tool of the wealthy to enslave and then destroy the people. And now, in times of potential food shortages, energy shortages, rising temperatures, and population explosion, it seems the time may be ripe for the snake to feast.

It is not hard to retroactively find fault with a civilization who by it’s own selfish desire to build and maintain wealth sent an entire global population down the road to disaster. Whose systems of capitalism established the concentration of wealth in the few and an acceptable way of life for the many. Of an American Aristocratic government that sold it’s people down the river. That failed to develop alternative fuels but instead for profit sucked the blood out of every last drop of oil. That created worthless fiat money and unparallel debt. Perhaps in the heart and souls of some American Aristocrats there is some godly desire to establish some viable plan for the survival of mankind and for America. Alternatively, perhaps the plan is and has always been to use and suck the life out of the middle and lower classes, to brainwash the patriot in to silence, to create an impenetrable military force for personal use, all as a means to create and protect their wealth and power? In either event it seems certain that plans have been implemented to selectively protect the American Aristocrat’s survival. The question then becomes: what are we the American People going to do about it?

Relgion's Origins

Judaism was an offshoot of the Egyptian religious beliefs. Moses was an Egyptian and when the Israelites rejected his attempts to explain his beliefs they sent him off for 40 years. When he returned, he demised a way to introduce those beliefs - he created concepts that taught his traditions without the complexities. He introduced the concept of one god and law to a lawless people. And he used alleged miracles and fear as a means to invoke beliefs. At some point down the line, there was an exclusion from the Egyptian teachings by way of the Tribe of Levi - an attempt to dominate god with specific exclusionary laws. There was also a misue of the law by a re-codification with political goals that had nothing to do with the original concepts. For the people who still understood the origins of the Jewish faith they devised a way to open the "covenant" to all people. And reintroduce the Egyptian ideas in another form. So Christianity is really just an new reincarnation of Egyptian paganism. All of these noble attempts to create moral understanding has lead to so much conflict it's unimaginable. And certainly unimaginable to the people whose earliest attempts were simply to establish morality and things like sacrifice in to a lawless people. So the precepts of Judaism and Christianity (and Mohamed) are in line with noble attempts to encompass all of humanity in to the understanding that there is one source which can permit us to overcome our conditions here and now and live in an eternal fashion upon death. It is by misuse, misunderstanding, and human inclinations that religions results in an opposite polar focus.

DEFINING GOOD AND EVIL

Anything we consider "evil" is perfectly acceptable in nature if we subtract man from the equation. Therefore, anything evil is natural outside conscious understanding of consequence. An understanding of consequence creates moral choices. Since we can understand that certain actions have detrimental consequences to other third parties, we can classify "good" (having a positive effect on individuals) and "evil" (actions which would otherwise be natural in nature but which cause harm or detrimental consequences to some third partie or parties). All "evil" is therefore central to self-interested motivations. Consequently, the two principle factors of "evil" are (1) natural genetic programs which act toward self-interest and (2) which are harmful or detrimental to some third entity. These "evil" actions need not be conscious choices since they can stem either from rational thought or pure programming.

Simple self-interested actions which have no detrimental actual or potential consequence to some third party are not evil.

Levels of evil arise in both the amount of harm inflicted and the level of necessity or need on the part of the acting party. As an example, the small act of detonating a nuclear weapon creates tremendous harm. What can compound this act is the fact that the actor had no actual justifiable (rational) reason for making this choice. It is the difference between stealing one loaf of bread to survive and stealing 1000 loaves of bread without a need to do so. Hoarding wealth for the sake of excess or gluttony for the sake of satisfaction is therefore inherently evil.

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

I think genetics, physiology (and chemical dependency), environment, imprinting (both moral and immoral) and circumstance plays a significant role in whether we can or can not be moral or make a moral choices. As such they can be an "influence in" or a "cause toward" eliminating a moral choice. Consequently, immoral actions are not simply the product of “free will” or choice. Often the choice to be moral is eliminated - in isolated circumstances and in isolated behaviors and often entirely. Also circumstances can define whether actions are moral or immoral. Among those things which influence moral ability and behavior are: (1) Environment or circumstances: For example, hunger can influence the immoral act of stealing food. A naked woman can influence immoral sexual acts, etc. (2) Genetic predispositions: Take for example my docile dog - his genetics were specifically altered to make him docile. Just as many humans have genetic codes which influence our behavior. and (3) Engagement “influences” future behavior through imprinting: That is to say when you engage repeatedly in over-eating you program yourself to over-eat OR when you are compassionate you program yourself to seek future opportunities of compassion (it makes you feel good). Stated another way: 1 - Drive toward immoral behavior = Genetic Survival Programming 2- Genetic Programs influence choice. 3- Repeated operation of genetic programs can imprint behavior. 4 - Imprinted behavior either eliminates moral choice or immoral choice. The ability to be moral is in conflict with chemical dependancies, genetic influences and imprinting. There is a battle between your moral abilities and your genetic programming and biology. Not only can one side win out-right, but one side can win out in isolated situations. It's not an all or nothing. When we behave immorally, we can call all this an “unconscious choice”. But what it really is simply our “genetic survival programming” with imprinted modalities or chemical dependancies. Consequently, moral abilities include variances. To begin, not everyone’s “genetic programming” (and therefore predispositions to behave in one way or another) are the same. Some people have greater genetic tendencies toward immoral behavior. Secondly, this programming operates toward behavior in different environments differently. And clearly not everyone’s experiences are the same. Finally, our genetic programming is imprintable through use. Therefore through use certain programs become unconscious and result in this eliminated choice. Overcoming these “influences” toward moral behavior can be a tremendous accomplishment. Again it depends on the variables - it’s easy to stay off drugs when you have never been exposed to them nor became addicted, It’s easy to succeed morally in a friendly environment (well fed, etc.). It’s easy to over come your genetic programming if you’re my docile dog. However, You can not compare the moral accomplishments of humans as the variables vary tremendously. Not to mention intelligence and wisdom. All of this translates in to the very biblical concept of being unable to judge people - because your circumstances, your genetics, your prior experiences are not theirs and therefore truly unknown to you. I think a person of lesser virtue has no compassion for the person whose genetics and/or environment and/or dependency caused them to loose the battle and make immoral decisions. That certain someone who wishes to impose punishment and death as a means of exacting revenge and controlling the conditions of their material existence. Conversely, who are we assign heroism to moral choices? We are far from omniscient. No doubt there are heroic people who have overcome all sorts of circumstances and factual realities. Then there are plenty who just skate and look like heroes. It’s all in the variables. Making it impossible for us to judge another as either moral or immoral.

IMPRINTING AND THE ELIMINATION OF MORAL ABILITY

Scientifically speaking, there are chemical dependencies which results in physical dependancies which eliminate free will toward moral choices and actions. The physical dependancy (and physical need) is governing the choices. I would think that most people could at lease agree with this example. Then question then becomes is there some non-chemical dependency that may form which also eliminates moral choices? Some imprinting which is not chemically based? Let’s take some perverse behavior like that of serial killing to see is we can conclude that some imprinting is the source of these types of immoral behaviors.

Empirically, if we see that serial killers have participated in lesser sadistic activities as children, we can infer a number of things. First, their initial choices to do so were probably influenced by genetics (and not environmental influences) since these type of acts are not preeminently represented vis-a-vis social norms. As a general rule, they we’re (most likely) not learned behaviors. Second, we can also infer that progressively increasing the behavior first qualitatively and then quantitatively is the result of some need which requires more and more stimulation to create satisfaction. This is the brains ability to imprint behavior which has it’s foundation in adaptability and survival. If you hit the dog every time he walks past the sofa, after a while he can not walk past the sofa. At some point, the behavior is changed from abnormal to normal. For we humans, the choice to behave in a moral and not animal fashion is at that some point (and not at the wing removal stage for serial killers) eliminated. For example, this elimination is evidenced by the fact that sociopaths have no guilt and remorse for immoral behavior - an element of a properly functioning morality. My point is that imprinting occurs over time - during that time moral choice is available. However, strong genetic influences and engagement gradually take control and eventually eliminate choice. That is the choice between moral and animal acts. I think these choices are conscious needs. I think they are needs in either case - moral choices also reinforced through engagement.

When we speak of those initial choices which are not chemical dependencies but rather habitual imprinted behaviors, we must look at genetics in the context of survival. And human behavior in the context of the conflict between being moral and surviving. Genetics is not the sole factor in initial choices which lead to imprinting or chemical dependency but can play a role - as can environment and experience. Physiology, biology and genetics play a role in behavior. I have a very docile dog created through years of breeding. We humans are no different. Is then the inability to make moral choices due to these genetic factors therefore a “defect”? Well, considering that the opposite immoral behaviors were required to be dominant toward survival, I’d say that “defect” is the wrong term.

In conclusion, while immoral choices can be made through rational thought, the mind itself can eliminate decision making.

The Biology Of Immoral Behavior

I see a number of causes for human behavior - morality (or a sense of right and wrong), chemical dependence (or biological influences), and genetics (or specific programming associated with survival of the fittest). Each operating collectively toward a dominant influence in any given situation which would require some action - some behavior. They are often in conflict. “They know not what they do” is essentially the tale of those whose instincts and programing and/or chemical dependencies have eliminated moral choices. For example, sadistic tendencies simply being an extension of normal behavior in animals for which humans still require reenactment toward satisfaction of programs. The serial killer merely exhibiting normal behavior (a need to kill) which in the pre-conscious human was not in any way outrageous (as you rightfully believe it should be in the post-conscious human). Take a simple example - football (or the Romans feeding people to lions) - do you see the vicarious extension of being an animal in the love of these things?

There are many programs which relate to hoarding in a variety of animals - squirrels for example hoard nuts without any moral thought regarding the other starving squirrels in the forest. Gluttony, which is a sin in many religions, is something readily participated in by various animals - including humans. The idea being that hoarding wealth is an extension of ingrained programing and not (as you might suggest) some "personal whim". It is only by application of our morality that we can over come these basic desires and instincts.

Clearly there are examples of people who have chemical addictions who have eliminated their ability to choose an alternative behavior. That's one notion I have. I also believe that repeated behaviors grounded in pure programs reinforce themselves and become habitual. The reason for this (I can speculate) is either biological or some pattern in the neurons which is imprinted. I am basing these ideas on empirical evidence. For example, many studies conducted on serial killers indicate that they start this imprinting by killing insects, smaller animals, etc. as children. This seems to suggest a correlation between the behavior and the continued actions as such. I also believe that this imprinting is progressive - meaning that the more you engage in it the greater it becomes. See for example sexual addictions. Finally, I also believe that environment can facilitate this imprinting. Exposure to behavior facilitating a small need which when acted upon can create inescapable patterns Therefore many people are in fact making what we might label immoral choices without any real choice at all.

QUESTIONING THE LEADER OF OUR PACK

I think the basic design of our evolution toward survival made it necessary for packs to form. We do cooperate within packs for win-win results. But given the dynamics of the earth (scare resources etc.) it seems global cooperation would be unlikely. What’s more likely is the system of national packs we have now - all cooperating toward collective goals and (generally) uncooperative or violent with one another. Of course, even these packs are further broken down in to smaller sub-packs (i.e. republican’s and democrats, Catholics and Jews, races, etc.) toward sub-goals. And there are competing interests between the main packs and the sub-packs. Nevertheless, at any given moment the behavior of the alpha of any pack is toward the accumulation of territory, wealth and power for his pack - both in relation to the packs members and to the other competing packs. Other variables are often at play, including competing interests toward the alpha’s individual accumulation of these things. Most decisions of any leader are made in terms of survival without any consideration for morality. It’s a startling catch 22 because the reality of the situation sometimes dictates that immoral behavior is in fact necessary toward survival. Justified war in the face of an attack comes to mind. The problem is that when our leaders act in these immoral ways, they reinforce their future ability to act immorally and (often) justify their behavior in false moral terms. Even though the reality of one or more situations may not dictate that further immoral behavior is actually necessary - and yet it becomes the norm. The change to a conscious human creates an ability now avoid the programs of our evolution and behave toward total cooperation as humans (no pack) through things like cooperation and self-sacrifice. To ignore our natural inclination to behave immorally toward survival. But as you can see by world events, this ability remains at war with the old instinctual programs of the past. Perhaps some global calamity is what is necessary to finally push us toward this reality? What happens when the pack leader suddenly forgets to share the kill with the other pack members? They (eventually) attack him. How many leaders were taken down by their own supporters for failing to share the wealth? What is at play when this occurs is an extreme version of this instinctual need to hoard and control both wealth and power. Every instinct we have can operate at extremes. At it’s worst it’s all encompassing and can lead to sociopathic and self-destructive behavior. As Buddhists would say what is required to overcome the dynamics of human programming is the cessation of desire. I think the right and left hemispheres of our brains are at odds with one another. I think that one side of the brain is strictly for survival at any cost - eat, steal, hoard, obtain power, fear, etc. I think the other side is what you would call the ability to be moral. I think that either side of this duality can be reinforced through use and that choice (or free will) is the initial inciting reaction or key ingredient which decides which side of your brain is going to operate now - once this decision is made or made repeatedly the ability to have an alternative choice is progressively eliminated.. Habits form easy. And de-programming strong reinforcement is often impossible. Behavior, therefore, is a product of environment, choice, use, habit (reinforced programs) and genetics. The brain is obviously a malleable organ and was intended to be as such. Pleasure, like pain, causes the release of chemicals in the brain based upon sensory input. As far as programs go - reinforcement creates a greater chemical need and a need for an increased sensory input to achieve the same (desirable) results - which is why (for example) people may engage in cumulatively more risky behaviors. On the other side of the coin are depressants (like alcohol) which negate sensory inputs. The more they are negated the more sensitive you become to the effects of not negating them. Notwithstanding these things, an initial choice needs to be made to engage in any activity which could create a spiral effect in either case. In today’s world when someone makes a decision to act as leader of our pack, we must question their motivations. Is the situation one where immoral behavior can be tolerated toward survival? Or is it just an extension of the pack leaders personal weaknesses?

Is Religion A Failure?

I wanted to find out what Christians are being taught as a result of being involved in their pack, So I went to Yahoo Answers and posed some simple questions.

Question one:

Can someone tell me what steps to take to accept Jesus as my savior?

Some sample answers to this question:

Baptism, Communion, Confession, Confirmation. This is what my religious family members do.

It is so easy Simply confess to being a sinner and that you need a savior. Then ask Jesus to come into your heart and save you . You will truly be a changed person.

Pray and meditate. Go to church for worship and get involved with study group, part of the Christian is community based.

Go to traditionalist catholic church and talk to a priest. He will tell you what to do.Don"t put it off, do it right now!

Knowing and accepting that Jesus died on the cross for us and accepting him as your personal savior and knowing that we are sinners. Then you are supposed to be Baptised.

First you have to take in accurate knowledge of him and his father by reading the Bible.

Call on Him to forgive you of your sins and confess that you are a sinner.

If you sincerely mean it simply pray: Lord, I know I am a sinner. I know you died on the cross for my sins. I ask you to please forgive me of all my sins. Come into my heart. I want you to be my Lord and Savior. Amen

The Church in your area, where you can join a Bible study, or the TV shows if you are unable to get out, the 700 Club is the best one that I know of. God bless you.

First I would suggest finding a church that you enjoy going to. There are all different kinds, please don’t let someone lead you astray and tell you all churches are the same.

You must admit you believe in Him, and He did all the works He is accredited with, believe He healed the sick, raised the dead, made the blind to see, cured the leper and that he was born of woman, the Son of God, spread the gospel, was crucified, died, and arose on the third day so we could be forgiven of our sins.

Sometimes it's tough to pray, but really all you have to do is say what you're thinking, either out loud, or in your head. You don't have to use this exact prayer, but this is what I said:
"God, I'm sick of being dirty. I'm sick of being a sinner. I need You to forgive me, and make me Yours. I want to be Yours, and be purified by You. Please forgive me. Amen."

The best one to tell you is the Bible: Romans 10:8 "...the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

I must accept His crucifixion as payment for my sins, personally. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13)

It is important to find a bible teaching church and become part of the body of Christ to help you grow in your walk with the Lord. Read the Bible daily.

Not one Christian said anything about being a good person, or doing good deeds, or engaging in self-sacrifice, caring about people - NOTHING! So I thought maybe I asked the wrong question. So I tried this one:

FOR CHRISTIANS - What do we need to do to be saved?

Some sample answers (MY COMMENTS ARE ADDED):

If you want to be saved, then honestly, believe that the Lord sent his Son, Jesus Christ to pay for our sins through his death. Accept this wonderful gift. (can I get a his and her matching box set for this gift?)

To believe in God, to believe, that Jesus died for your sins, to seek forgiveness, to repent and to sin no more, to follow the commandments and to be baptized (if I don't believe than I’m screwed!?)

Oh hon. You are searching for answers and can't find any? Surely someone has pointed you to the bible. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved". (one of my favorites - confess with my mouth!!!)

So you will be saved, if you honestly say, "Jesus is Lord," and if you believe with all your heart that God raised him from death. (Just believe! Hallelujah!)

I am a Christian. I have been saved for ten years...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. If you have ears to hear,, this is your answer. Shalom! (just believe baby - ya gotta believe)

So you go to God as you are and all you have to do is believe and you can be saved! You will want to change your sinful lifestyle to please God hope that help (all you have to do is believe - simple!)

Here is your answer: NOW, say this prayer....' Dear Jesus, Please come into my life. I believe that you died on the cross for my sins and rose to life on the 3rd day. Please come into my heart. make it pure. Wash me with your blood. And please forgive all my sins. Amen." (say this prayer! is that all I have to do!!!)

Talk to Him just like you would if He were setting right there you don't have to do this aloud talk to Him from your heart tell Him you are sorry for all the bad things you have ever done and that you believe Him and need Him to come into your heart ("You have no idea how very sorry I am")

Only those whom God calls, who have come to know their position and sin problem and know their need for a savior, can truly confess Jesus as Lord. (has he called me? I have to check my messages)

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. (I got to believe "on" Jesus?)

I believe in that the Bible is the Inspired, Infallible, Inerrant Word of God. I don't listen to men, they are fallible, I listen to what the Bible says. (didn’t men write the Bible?)

Many of these people have been in churches for YEARS - 10, 20, 30 -- not even one percent of those who responded said anything about being good, treating people with respect, doing good deeds, emulating Jesus, being charitable – NOTHING! Instead they use the brainwashed term "sin" constantly, talk about believing “in him”, “on him”, “going to church”, and the like. Apparently Christians think the primary goal is a belief and a belonging. Is this what Jesus taught us? Is there then a tremendous failure of organized religion to instill that morality is more important than being part of some group? That helping people should not be subservient to kneeling and eating a wafer? I had to press on with on last question. It can’t be that Christians aren’t focused on being good people - could it? So here it is:

What does it mean to be a good Christian?

Give up all your possessions .

Don't question anything your preacher/pastor/priest tell you.

Put Jesus and others ahead of yourself knowing it pleases God (and is what he did) and that he will bless it.

Concern yourself not over behaviors of the flesh. Instead concern yourself over salvation and growing in the spirit of God

First of all we are converted and we set an example and we follow the ten commands.

Wow. What’s going on here? Thousands of years of tutelage and studying of the Bible and countless churches and sects of Christianity and few if any Christians say anything about being a “good person” or “being moral”? It can’t be! What about other religions? Let’s press on with this next question:

Jewish people! What does it mean to be a good JEW?

A few samples of some answers:

A good "jew" follows talmud, torah, sabbath, makes pilgramage to wailing wall, understand faith and purpose of the LORD. and focus attention to create peace and harmony through out the world.

Read the mythology follow the observations, gentiles suck

Talk to a Rabbi. I can almost guarantee that it means different things to different Jews, though. To me it means following the laws of Judaism to the best of your individual ability.

Ok - so there you have it. Is religion a total failure with regard to instilling a focus on people which is central to being moral, good and of a high character? You be the judge...

TERRORISM THROUGH THE AGES

There’s a rather smug email being passed around - a multiple choice questionnaire in which numerous terrorist acts are the question and the answer is always something like: “Muslim Extremists under the Age of 30”. This mock quiz is intended to show just how animalistic Muslim “extremists” are and as some form of justification for going to war. Mostly what it stands for is a dehumanization of Muslims. A way of saying that they are morally reprehensible such that killing them is to be justified. This got me thinking about the magnitude of what they have perpetrated upon America and if there was some comparable actions that the United States has (historically) taken which could show that the Muslim behavior is rather normal. A simple Google search later and I has numerous instances of American atrocities which oddly enough seem to dwarf whatever the Muslim Terrorists have perpetrated upon the United States. To be brief I will set forth a brief consolidated list of these acts (which go back 200 years) as follows:

The CIA trained and managed Iran's dreaded SAVAK secret police which tortured and murdered countless people.

In 1953 the CIA initiated “Operation Phoenix”, a program of torture and murder of civilians in Vietnam.

In 1958 the CIA hired Saddam Hussein to assassinate the President of Iraq - Abdel Karim Qassim. Resulting in countless deaths and atrocities.

In the spring of 1864 the USA launched a campaign of violence against the Cheyenne Indians and their allies, killing "any and all Indians" and razing their villages AFTER THEY HAD SURRENDERED!

The USA dropped two atom bombs on Japan killing over 200,000 civilians.

In 1953 the CIA organized a coup which overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims.

In December 1989 the USA wiped out a large tenement barrio in Panama City leaving 15,000 people homeless, (officially) 523 plus dead and 3,324-something wounded.

A Pentagon agency document describes 320 alleged incidents of atrocities against Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians (not including the 1968 My Lai massacre) and who committed them. 320!

The USA dropped more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II such that a quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

In 1964 the CIA backed a military coup in Brazil to overthrow the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart causing the junta that replaces it (over the next two decades) to become one of the most bloodthirsty in history, creating Latin America's first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder?

In 1981 the CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua?

On March 16, 1968, the USA assaulted the Vietnamese village of My Lai and the surrounding area murdering 400 to 500 Vietnamese civilians?

So while the Muslim Terrorists killed American citizens on September 11th, do we really have a right to be outraged? Do we have a right to object to their animal behavior when we’re on the same page? I guess what I mostly object to is American Hypocrisy - that is to point fingers at the rest of the evil-doers and forget were from the same fabric. To say that we are morally superior when we are in fact morally similar.

Some would attempt to justify American Terrorism with some contextual history. To place these atrocities in to some historical context is absurd. The correct context is “we are human” - any other context (historical, factual) would simply be an attempt to justify the abhorrent actions of our country and thereby exasperate the actions which are perpetrated against us - there is no historical context which is required to recognize that atrocities have been committed.

These types of atrocities have been happening over the course of human history, am we’re not the first pack to mask our actions in the shadows of morality. The Nazis, The Crusades, the Medieval or Episcopal Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Portuguese Inquisition and the Roman Inquisition come to mind. Immoral acts presented as moral for the sake (I suggest) of suppressing individual morality such that immoral behavior could continue.

I would say that human tendencies prevent even the smartest among us from recognizing that the perpetration of “acts of terror” toward control and dominance are the norm - even for we Americas. And I further think that we and every pack, group, or country has a self-inflated idea of our own worth and morality. This is systemically human-natural - as we humans are programmed to defend our packs in all instances. That would make recognition of our packs inherent negative similarities to our enemies almost impossible (if not impossible). As such, the atrocities I list are an example of the fallacy in being out-raged at “terrorism” toward we Americans. Our “historical terrorism” dwarfs anything that has been perpetrated upon us. And, the animal acts of attaining dominant are rather human and historical indeed.

A Lack of Duality In The Mind of A Psychopath

Without much of an introcution to this topic, I will note that I think that psychopaths are essentially amoral. Or put another way, they are simply animals acting solely on their programming without any influence from that part of us that is moral. Why this occurs I am not entirely sure - I would suggest that things like environment, genetics, experience, etc. play a role. Analogous to this behavior is the addicted drug user who behaves in an amoral fashion to obtain his high - stealing from even his mother for drugs. These are similar in that psychopaths are required to act selfishly for similar biological needs. Their focus is simply on their programming and not their moral side.

Keep in mind that conscious thought and the ability to acknowledge that one’s behavior is immoral are two different things. The drug addict is conscious of his actions when he robs his mother to feed his habit but his behavior is not subject to his ability to be moral. The distinction is between consciousness and conscience. Psychopaths tend to be driven to a greater extent by instinctive behavior than are the rest of us. They are focused solely on their otherwise innate genetic programs which drive their behavior - the behaviors which the rest of us are able to attach a corresponding out-rage or guilt to: they have somehow eliminated their morality from their being (and their behaviors). In a person with an ability to make moral distinctions there is a constant balancing of instincts (wants and desires) and conscience (not to be confused with our consciousness). I think it’s a conflict and a duality with either side taking control of any given situation and any given behavior. There are some whose morality trumps their instincts constantly and some whose instinct are dominant. Guilt often playing a role in how we behave. Some waiver back and forth between animal and moral behavior with no clear direction. With psychopathic behavior the moral side is not functioning as an influence - permitting the psychopath to act simply as an animal - with no guilt or remorse.

Some might argue that it’s the instincts of the psychopath that are different. That they lack the “programming” for things like empathy and compassion. I don’t think so because it seems to me that animals don’t have a moral code. They act according to their programming and things like self-sacrifice and sharing are not their common attributes - I'm not sure morality exists at all out side we humans. I think there is some part of our being that drives our behavior to be moral and I don’t think it’s programming (instincts, etc.). And if you have read my blog I believe it’s the same thing that many people have labeled “god” or “Allah” or “spirit” or “soul” or a host of other similar names. That is not to say that I believe our morality is some form of a floating white god with white hair and a robe. Just that the distinction between good and evil is often made in this very simplistic thoughtless way.

To summarize, I think we do have conscious thought, and a conscience. Do we have a choice between acting like an animal and behaving morally? I would say not in all instances. Choice is (for me) not a good description of what may be at play. Does the drug addict have a choice in stealing to satisfy his biological need to get high? Does the starving man have a choice in not stealing the food? Does the psychopath have a choice in not treating people like objects? We could debate that point but I think that at some point the choice to be moral is lost to dominating programs and instinctual behaviors (“forgive them, father for they know not what they do”). I also believe that both moral growth and animal behavior can be reinforced in an individual. That is to say biological reinforcement can lead to habitual behavior. Similarly, moral behavior can lead to even more moral behavior. When we say people can grow in moral character we mean they can become more moral. When we say people can become and act like animals what we really mean is that their behavior is central to their programming.

I am not convinced of arguments which profess that morality is a form of reasoned behavior or is itself hard-wired or instinctive. It seems clear that even if morality developed from the evolution of a higher level of intelligence (which I believe it did), this would not necessarily negate the possibility that such a development is not now contrary to the very things which permitted that evolution - to our instinctual behaviors and programming.

Michael Medved and the Philosophy of Conservative Elimination

I am going to briefly revisit my theory regarding conservative values. I am incited to do so by today’s Michael Medved radio show and his comments on homelessness. On the show today Mr. Medved noted that homeless people drive down the property values of otherwise hard-working individuals. He also noted that homeless people should either be imprisoned (eliminated) or put in to shelters (controlled). He took issue with a caller who indicated that he fed the homeless on a weekly basis. Even though the homeless this caller was feeding were children and Vietnam veterans.

Mr. Medved’s position clearly reinforces my belief that the typical conservative point of view is both hypocritical and immoral. As I noted in a previous blog entry, conservatives values are squarely on animal modalities. Primarily those of protection (of wealth), elimination of threats (to their positions and possessions through any and all means) and to a lesser degree control (control of their problems). The focus of their energies is protecting their positions, their assets and their wealth. They have no humanity and they typically place very low value on the souls of human beings.

If I am not mistaken although Mr. Medved professes to be Jewish. And like most hypocrites he behaves contrary to his religion and his god. Mr. Medved sees no value in feeding the homeless because such an action does not “eliminate” the problem. Eliminating Mr. Medved’s problem (i.e. protection of his property value) is more important that some moral idea like compassion - despite the fact that the value placed upon such an intangible is to be sought:

[If] you offer your compassion to the hungry and satisfy the famished creature, then shall your light shine in darkness. [Isaiah 58:10) .

Assuming that the homeless person was not Jewish, Mr. Medved may be have been able to avoid the teachings of his own religion:

“The highest level of all is the one who supports the hand of a Jew who is falling and gives to him (1) a gift or (2) a loan or (3) creates a partnership with him or (4) creates (invents) work for him in order to strengthen his hand, before he becomes dependent on asking [for assistance]. Concerning this, it says, ‘And you shall strengthen him as a stranger and as a resident-settler that he should live among you’ (Leviticus 25:35) that is, support him before he falls and becomes needy.” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 10:7)

However, Mr. Medved made no distinction between a Jewish and Non-Jewish homeless person. He simply wants them either eliminated or controlled in a such a way that his material position is protected.

As I noted previously, conservatives not only seek to eliminate their problems without giving any consideration to human souls, they often create the problems through their failure to share their wealth, or by denying people the means to solve the problem on their own accord. Without complicating this blog with a long social dialogue, I’ll just briefly mention what I believe are the root causes of homelessness. These would include primarily a lack of affordable rental housing, an increase in poverty, a decline in social programs (including public assistance) and mental illness. And note that a moral person has values placed on things like compassion, love, sharing, caring, self-sacrifice, creating joy and happiness. And that animals focus on what is relevant in the material world - including position, property, and wealth (especially accumulation). In light of these differing values, I wonder which side Mr. Medved falls on? I also wonder if (through some calamity in his life or even some global calamity) Mr. Medved would like to be treated as he would treat the homeless? If a meteor struck the earth tomorrow and Mr. Medved was left without a cave to live in and no means of creating any wealth for himself and his family (food, etc.) would he like a nice jail cell somewhere? I wonder if Mr. Medved was not wealthy and established in a post apocalyptic world if he would frown upon a hand-out of food from a kind and compassionate human? While some would like to hope that Mr. Medved is (in fact) placed in that position some day, I hope instead that he becomes more human; that he considers the plight of less fortunate people, that he becomes more compassionate; and that he grows spiritually and not materialistically. Good Luck Mr. Medved!