Perhaps the least informed, or most misguided, people in the United States are those who consider the mainstream media and conventional press to be a reasonable sources of information. People, it can be assured, who invest their reliance in the word of both the press and the media are receiving no return on their investments, as the news is a ruse. No matter how true a topic that the news covers may be, the way it is delivered is with sensationalism, fictional hype and seeming urgency. Part of the reason behind employing these tactics is no doubt to lure viewers and boost ratings.
Yet there is also another reason, though it may be unintended in certain cases, that people are taken in and buy what the news is selling. At 1:00pm, a commercial will tell its viewers that an exotic pear could be disastrous to one’s health if eaten, but that danger is omitted until the airing of the evening news program. But why is this pressing news concealed from those watching, some of whom may have eaten this rotten pear?
The commercial boasts the notion that it already knows of danger this exotic fruit contains, but feels no need to make the danger publicly known right then. Albeit, the danger is filed under classified until the evening edition. When viewers tune in, the news is kept until the end of the program, 1) to keep people engaged so to up the ratings, and, 2) to make the audience fearful. But when the pear news is finally aired, those watching are informed that the pear has a dense pit, and that the people who may eat them should be careful when biting into one. The news, then, is merely diseased information — a rotten pear.
It appears strange to me that even when we don’t know a certain pain personally, we somehow think we know how best to heal it. But sympathy cannot deal a better hand than empathy, and as far as I am aware, no benefactor is ever hungry enough to eat from the receptacle of another.
I would like to convey to the reader that the point of this poem is not to mock T.S. Eliot’s J. Alfred Prufrock, but, rather, mimic its integrity. It is meant to serve as a parody to a parody — as to revisit that which plagues us seems to be the immutable motif concerning the nature of human habits throughout the ages. The modern degeneration of society, its vices and the corporatist government that feeds it with an adequate diet of its materialistic desires has made America a culture lacking any. Every social illness is spreading, whether it be violence, crime, indifference, poverty, war, misplaced power over asinine and glutinous greed and a near-total disconnect with the valuable virtues laden in the arts and scripts left to be rediscovered in every age of the humanities. This is a course through the fog — and a Virgilian guide is wading in the mist. Let the reader be content to know that this is an ode to Eliot, and that the core elements of our current “Lost Generation” rest in the following verses….
“Midway upon the journey of our life
I found myself within a forest dark,
For the straightforward pathway had been lost.”
Dante Alighieri, Inferno
Like noise before it reaches sound…Like vision before it is lighted.
I am hopelessly uneasy explaining what it is that I have invited.
Fragmented episodes play in my dreams — they are so wildly indecisive.
So let us go then, you and I — and vet filed termite pits.
OH, dearest of terms, please come forth in viscous wit.
Piece together my breath with the right words to recite it,
So that I may vamp this edition with no further defendants indicted…
So I can get to the point insofar as to smite it.
But the rendition of this edition is under the provision of your decisions…
And all the revisions are yours to destroy.
Come to, now…and say what it is that you desire.
Pay none to any of whom you feel you are wiser.
Fresh froth on the lips of the etherised miser.
Mock the parodies of tradition and lampoon those admired.
Yes, then, indeed.
On the morn…On the eve,
How late were his deeds?
His minimalist screeds?
Did his foggy panes well up with the jaundice disease?
Has the miser drifted out on a phosphorescent sea?
“5 o’clock, always…No alarm do I need.”
How long was he conscious before his unconscious could bleed?
He left the rich land of his birth, lest he succeed?
Just how much ether did this guy really breathe?
“Shall I say more, or shall I just read?
As no honest line am I prompted to knead.”
And so just who is it then– Yes, yes, indeed.
Mona Lisa hanging at a gallery show.
They think it’s a Michelangelo.
. . . . .
Nocturnal eyes rest their vision to stare,
Into the bowels of objective blackness.
They’re beaming with a famished raptor’s glare,
Perched like a verb preparing the stillness
To break away from the restrictive cares
That control the flare, the flow, the distance…
That to seek to acquire the divine
Right to speak and rant in Homeric chimes,
He’ll fly into his existence…
Wise correlation expounds the Fascist.
A bird that is free, or self-reliant?
Take flight, as you are made to defy it.
Hear the quiet…
No need for insistence.
No matter the pain, yours have bore witness…
Seen the values in crimes that protest this
Demand that our view stand to reject it…
Makes no sense to ban sounds that affect it.
So frostbitten is its
London’s the spouse…New England’s the mistress;
Dichotomized vows merge where the verse splits.
Dressed in tradition, disguising the truth;
Dig through volumes descriptive of much proof:
Conformity will maim resistance.
But, no matter, understood is all this;
Despite the demands, words find their banter.
Wine from a box, or from a decanter:
Intoxication; Blithe; Belligerence.
Truth, either way, discovers transcendence,
For wisdom nurtured to see and repair:
The visor to glare…Lighter of darkness.
Will prepares strength for the world you must fare,
As you are not alone in this business.
Amongst all of the many, are you there?
Not just yet, as it takes some persistence.
. . . . .
Rob the Keeper…Become the Ruler.
Do these types of criterion fit your format?
You hacked up his animals and gave them back in pieces,
But it seems others were convinced to be gentler than you.
Still many minds today know of neither his nor your dystopian wastelands.
And there was no time for him to see a difference…no time for his critique.
And there has been no time when the dictators let the miners wash their blackened feet.
And, therefore, he never saw that the isms repeat.
The social play the tune in a scratchy meter.
And the problem with this leitmotif:
The inflections are simply just too brief…
Subliminal fibs do not trumpet relief.
So alone the neo-prole must leaf
Through the Manifesto, as his paper cuts leak.
He looks up to see the landfill is an amass of grazing sheep;
They’re as wide awake as they are fast asleep…
Equal slaves gnawing on bitter wheat.
His thuggish rhymes had the tightest flow;
They call him Machiavelli though.
We must get over the past or we will do nothing new.
But the past is luminescent in traditional hues,
Of which many are blinding and need be excused.
The time is now ripe to pick a different muse.
But if no effort is made, it is beyond any use.
What exactly is the United States government? What are its functions? What are its convictions? What purpose in modern times is that of this empirical governing body? It seems rather usual to appoint validity to the idea that the average person running for any given office is almost completely stuffed with nonsense, as a job application requires that one’s best qualities are to be acknowledged, and that discrepancies that challenge this fronted image be omitted from the scrutiny of public perception. If one were to tell, for example, a perspective
employer that he or she has a penchant for slacking off and is inclined to frequent truancy, it would not be likely to help the applicant’s chances. So people running for various public and federal offices are more often to tell lies and disguise their fibs in euphemisms and dismissive spin. To wit: politicians are actors, and Washington D.C. is the mega gig. But as anyone involved in the making of films would explain: the show must be produced…financed, so the actors can play their casted roles, exposed as edited renditions of it and peddled as such by the media and revised in the ink stains of the press. The most important question, though, is who exactly are the producers of the show, and on what street do they reside?
The sole criterion, I’m inclined to surmise, for Freedom to truly exist, is the allowance to seek it. But this very criterion itself ironically demonstrates the automatic nature of humans to seek the guiding hand of an invisible minder. “Who’s in charge around here?” seems to always be the most frontal response to anything conceptually enormous — yet I am astonished at the notion that Freedom needs a catalyst — that the continuation of herded grazing is opted for even when the gates are left open. With this understanding, it can be rightfully assumed that the age of the common is (as I do speculate) leading a path to where the eventual retardation of functional Freedom is systematically an inevitable due.
What is success? And what is the barometer for measuring a case that has resulted in the fulfillment of it? Most people would conclude that the achievement of a goal — a worthy goal (a goal inclined to goodness) — is met in order to etch out the mark of success. But can it be said of success that the meeting of goals is not what determines success alone? To wit: is there not a societal standard that decides which goals are and are not in their achievement successful? Surely it cannot be that someone who aspires to mass murder and reaches that aspiration would be viewed in the eyes of society as anything other than decidedly unsuccessful. But individual success is not under the influence of altruistic convictions. That which is palpable to desire is what those who achieve desire determine to abide. The conceptual “good” vs. “evil” do not themselves compel one who is driven to succeed, because the successful do not value their desires based on another’s evaluation of them.
A drab and crushing aspect in life is that it is never not under some kind obligatory duress until it is too old to care about living. People don’t want to be controlled, but at the same time, they are at heart willing to let themselves depend on convenience in order to reduce excessive weight — lest they acquire more time to handle other pressing matters. Yet it is wise to question the motives lurking in those of whom are offering to lessen the heaviness of that which one is obligated to bear. With the depletion of self-reliance, also diminished is much of the average citizen’s control. For instance, coffee is enough to supply one with wakefulness and well-being without needing a line of cocaine to enhance the effect, as it would push one to gain a distorted focus. Moreover, coke is too powerful, and the attractiveness of its benevolent-seeming qualities makes it so that more of it is always wished for by the user. Caffeine, though addictive, is only mildly invasive in the ordinance of one’s manner, whereas coke is very often despotic to it. For many the drug (cocaine) — which at first seems gratifying to one’s serenity — becomes increasingly difficult to ditch, and dependence on it develops–paranoia in tow.
Of all the queries conditioned to be vexed over in this world, nothing should be more kowtow to importance than that of the thematic subject to be observed in the following: Freedom. What is Freedom? Is it a gift? A brand? A bargain? In many places around the world the answer to all of these questions is yes, but it is also usually something out of stock in most of the places it is sought for. The greater question, though, is whether or not the word Freedom should even exist, because it really shouldn’t in actuality, as the question begs that one ponder something that isn’t difficult to answer, and this is because Freedom is not synonymous with slavery. Rather, it is an instinct forging survival. Freedom will always vote in favor of itself — as it knows exactly what it wants. But 2 features of thought known as reason and conscience are constantly holding it up, filibustering its decisions and distorting an understanding of its incumbency — thus, its decisions are compromised and made based on what seems right or acceptable. Freedom is a concept that only reveals its protest in conscious states when it feels threatened. When one is in such a state, instinct beckons to thought and urges it to question whether or not what presents the threat seems fair to allow within one’s own realm of politics. Freedom is primordially aware in the depths of every nature, so why should there be any need to analyze Freedom to the extent that it requires a word to describe it? The reason that Freedom is a ponder of relevance is that everyone wants to be fluent in its vernacular, but simultaneously, they refrain from using the content its vocabulary’s diction is capable of speaking, not realizing that silence is censorship. The pressures of society and consequence are what calls on reason and conscience to weigh in on something, and they dictate a profound rule over one’s ability to cope within a system that is forced to recognize a Freedom coined by silent mint.
No single body or being should act as the sole harbinger of worldly destinations, as the notion of such entities is superficial to the nature of the Self. Human consciousness is a constituent element of the universal consciousness, and the pretentious pursuits of an indoctrinated will are obligated to, and will manifest in, the posture of obedience if it is rendered fearful. Fear, of course, is a reaction to confrontations between the Self and perilous conditions — but it is a distraction to one’s consciousness when this instinct is, with purpose, over-exploited. To wit: threats perceived are threats obeyed, and this due to the one’s internal fear of committing his or her consciousness to the nonsensical, unacceptable wonders of the Self, and in lieu of this becoming kowtow to the idea Orwell ominously observed, in that serfdom somehow shares the same nature as freedom.
But, it can be arguably maintained, there is a synergistic quality to their relationship. Chaos and Order, for example, were counterbalanced foes whose effects were ultimately beneficial to the Egyptian landscape, because the chaotic flooding of the Nile restored the order of potency to soils in which many crops took root, sustaining the lives the ancient Egyptian people for thousands of years. America’s fashion of materialistic freedom has flooded the landscape and spawned the rotten crop of serfdom — a negative counterbalance, because the soils were nourished with impure waters.
The idea of freedom is relative to the system that deems it to be free. And where there is mass consumption encouraged, serfdom is surely to exist — as to consume requires the means to do so, and the fulfillment of this requirement is to desire the promise of freedom. Yet, as per the precession of circumstances, the less jobs exist, the less people can afford to consume, and prices of commodities and services will rise due to a lack of profits (as only a lack of production will drive prices down) — and the promise, thus, will be broken. It is upon this realization that it becomes apparent that freedom is consumption.
All humanity, on some level, though it is very much a subconsciously recorded rendition, can distinguish the presence of pervasive harmony — a balanced motif of its transcendental purpose. But it is not heard correctly because of all the external exhibitions of riotous noise that distort it — and the Self, in effect, resorts to seeking the advice of the robotic wisdom of rationales programmed with the bland contentions of traditional identities.
A: WHAT ARE the FUNCTIONS of the MEDIA and PRESS?~
Q: Who owns the traditional mainstream media and press corps.?
A: Major US and multinational financial and corporate interests like Disney ABC, Viacom and News Corp.
Q: What are the benefits that corporations receive from obtaining proprietorship over these commercial conduits to mass information?
A: Serving as sentinel propagandists, the media and press promote the positions of the elite through manipulative programming aimed at controlling the perception of the greater population.
Q: When was the news industry overtaken by these elitist entities?
A: Though the press has played a major role in persuading, coercing and dividing public opinion since its inception, J.P. Morgan was the first to consciously consolidate the press into a trust under his control in 1917, by employing his own editors to work at all of the top news publications, with the intention of using their influential words as both weaponry and armour against unappreciated curiosities.
Q: Where does the media and press go in order to make their employers’ wishes heard?
A: The enormous voices of powerful lobbying squads purchase their clout in Washington D.C. Congressmen, senators and presidents all understand that campaigns go nowhere if potential candidates can neither secure financial backing nor get any exposure in the news, and politicians, like anyone else, want to keep their jobs for as long as possible.
Q: With the massive amount of alternative news sources on the Internet today, why do people continue to get their news form the archaic institutions of the traditional media and press?
A: Because people are programmed to believe in the illusion these outfits portray to be reality, by perpetually presenting people with that of a false version of it, lest the actual intentions of both the government and the corporations, who are both one in the same, are cleverly hidden. And, because major corporations own the media and press, their main role becomes to put a positive price on sweat-shop material, so that the people feel comfortable wearing their outfit’s logo in public.
The recipe for a revolution of any kind is nearly always requisite of the same essential ingredients: First, and for whatever the reasons, people subjected to long periods of oppression, and who have been negatively affected by the state of their environment, must become jaded to a certain extent. From out of this protracted era of rotten conditions will emerge the second ingredient — noise. But in the beginning the noise is scattered and void of any organized merits. People simply begin to let their hostile words and actions define their dissatisfaction, then intellectuals become enlightened by the contentions of esoteric philosophers and commence with offering up the next ingredient — oration … and phrased in such a manner as to facilitate a following based on those philosophies (i.e. Rousseau and the French Revolution and Marx and the Russian Revolution). The more people that are reached by the orators through their articulation of the noise, the more people start to question the current state of affairs. What will eventually arise out of these comprised factors is revolution, and by the time it does manifest people are generally waiting in light slumber for the moment, however loud or not, to sound its alarm. And once the people have been awoken by it, they will react in a manner that defies a respectful resolve, and the only content they are coherent to obtain is nothing less than the total obliteration of those they have designated to be their enemies.
Who are the wise? And to the wise should humanity relinquish its voice? If so, how does one determine who is or is not wise? Elected politicians, for the most part, cannot truly depict such a persona, being that most of them craft their public images to abide a societal status quo. They are commissioned to orchestrate democratically and compose the motif of genuine Americanism. At least the notes are arranged to sound this way. But any of whom pay heed to the flaws of the tune know that something is way off key — that the sheet music might as well be on fire. They know that the band is comprised of bad and mediocre players. It would certainly be of no positive use to employ the services of the musically disinclined in order to portray the esteem of a symphony. So why allow unwise politicians to make decisions that are requisite of wisdom? Despite the morality behind the intentions of Platonic assertions, it has shown historically to be a most perilous move to put one person or body in positions that carry the designation of possessing infinite wisdom — especially when the fanbase is tone-deaf.
Media and Journalism today caters to that of chicanery. The field, in its professional cases, has been trampled into a muddy lot. Necessary information is scrutinized, minimalized and omitted to fit the format by a staff of sentinel journalists whose primary incentives, in many cases, oblige themselves with the aspirations of wealth, standing and privilege, and who stain the pages with circuses of repetitive sensationalism.
Milton Friedman, in his Free to Choose series, used the analogy of a casino roulette game in order to cunningly demonstrate the fundamental differences between capitalism and communism. Due to the potent appeal I have found it to possess, I have taken up his model as a muse here — only in the hand of my own esteem, and with variations of which are requisite to distinguish the point that I am intending.
In the game of capitalism, the rules are simply designed and logical — like that of a poker game. To wit: the dealer (representative of the State) tosses out random hands to the players (citizens). Though all the players have different hands, they are each at least willing to do all that is possible to make their individual cards render a winning formula — even if it means that one must merely pretend to have something valuable in order to present the appearance of having some kind of leverage tucked away in the secrets of his or her deck. But the universal truth here is that every player is, through the Freedom to Choose their methods of play, given the same opportunity to turn what has been dealt to them into something, or not to. In some cases a player or two will make out well by investing in the proper gambles at the right times, while most others will accept the fact that more than less ventures fail will bare failed sums, and, so, they turn their sights to rest on the next to one emerge — on another chance.
At the communism table, the hands being dealt to its players (again, citizens) have no less potential than does capitalism in turning out poorly. However, unlike capitalism, communism does not allow for the potential of turning out well. As, make as one may a mighty hand to wield, the hand of the State (here shuffled by the dealer) is always crippled by a Stalinist grip when it is discovered that, in order to satisfy the requirement of equality, no winning hand is rewarding to the one whom accomplished it — because all cards and chips, after the winner is discerned, are to be returned to the dealer — and this includes the victor. Then new hands are dealt, and the players must all begin from the same place, because their chips were taken away and redistributed to them in rations nearly identical to those in the game prior — and all were given an equally divided number of chips to gamble with. This happens, of course, after the State swindles its end. But if none are permitted to avail, what is the point of the game? It would be impossible to achieve any social upward mobility, as the euphemism refers to it, in a society that must submit to collectivist policies such as these. There can be no winners in this game, thus, and though it can be said that there are no losers either, outright totalitarianism is its only intended design, and it is hard to visualize a more tragic loss than that of individuality.
3. Fascist Corporatism
Milton Friedman was active during an era where both the political and economic talk of the day did not banter much about fascism, so Free to Choose does not portray its likeness in his metaphor. Albeit, its conditions can here be assessed as well. Corporatism would render itself to be a failed version of the capitalism game, because it would mean that the dealer (State) has been corrupted by a high roller (e.g. a major multinational corporation) at the table. In exchange for large payoffs, the dealer conspires with the high roller to cheat the other players (citizens). In order to successfully rig the game in their favor, the fascists make it so that the other players of lesser wealth can win hands during common intervals, but they are lamer hands where no significant monies are likely to be bestowed upon of the triumphant in most cases. This provides the players with just enough hope to sufficiently consider that they can still possibly make out if they continue to play the game — despite the fact that the probability of further losses is firm in their continuing. This enables the dealer and high roller to control the entire game. Though it is a silent form of control, it is, too, like communism, a totalitarian system that becomes increasingly worse as time passes.
The only people who can keep a system in check are the people playing its game, as neither government nor corporations can be trusted to do that — people need to regulate the reining decorum of the table themselves. The establishment and its dealer are inclined to take the money of high-rolling financial interests, but it must tamper with the fairness of the market in order to receive the funds — completely deceiving people and preventing them from moving forward. It is said of casinos that the house always wins, and if the players fail to catch on, they end up destitute and at the mercy of those who own the house. Capitalism, thus, is the only system presented here that freely allows for the collectives of those playing it to control its functions if they choose to do so.
A common, yet all too true, analogy that is often made, is that the members of the US Congress — on both sides of the aisle — are akin to that of 2 mafia families and the division of powers within the organization to which all of whom belong. In fact, the US government, in order to secure its goals for obtaining power, uses tactics that differ little from the dictatorial characteristics involved in organized crime. Fear, intimidation and murder are all routes the government is willing to take if something has been by the party members — elected and not — collectively anointed as being bad for business. The scale of brutality and fear employed by these powers is not exactly prone to contain any promise in achieving a lively posterity, because the Congress has been taken over by wealthy criminal parasites who, like the mob, covet more of anything that determines them to be “exceptional.” Money purchases but a singular thing, which is of course power, and Lord Acton’s infamous conclusion is correct here — absolutely.
In ancient Greece, it was a stern practice to ostracize a person who had become, or was perceived to have become, too powerful in the democracy he served. Even Themistocles, the great war hero of Marathon and designer of the naval front that secured the 300’s endurance during Battle of Thermopylae, and who convinced the people of Athens to spend their silver riches on triremes due to his foreseeing a Persian invasion in an attempt to avenge the battle they had lost to them at Marathon, was ostracized for possessing the proper criteria to become too powerful in the eyes of the Athenian citizenry. What the Greeks understood was that in order for a democracy to function correctly — however much democracy foreshadows that an imminent tyrannical era is to unfold in the approaching chapters — the people said to be in command of it need always view and handle absolute corruption with revolutionary contempt.
The hardest values to live by are those that are engendered by principles that are not coined based on the valuations of personal views. The majority of society agrees upon certain conditions with which to live within. The truth is a perceived reality, lacquered in a coating and fitted into the workings (also perceived) of time and space. The nominal reality, however, is that most people have to maintain a fronted self to those also living under the guidelines of this generic perception. An accepted form of reality must be crafted in order to consistently convey to others an understanding of the moral codes patterned in the design of a “proper identity.” Coercive and manipulative economic and political tactics, like Internet spying, are crafted to enforce the people to engage in a blind participation of unquestioned common beliefs. Some of these people include those who are not tailored of the same fabric, and who determine the societal style to be insufficient and grotesquely unfashionable. Individuals must maintain both the character of the Self and of one who has been mended up in a disguise, allowing him or her to strut the walk ways in what are deemed acceptable appearances.
Freedom, it can be determined, the idea of it — and based on the merits of it being an idea — is a belief. It is not a given for the concept of freedom to be understood by any people who are not themselves palpably accustomed to knowing what it is not. Those who do understand it (insofar, at least) contain this understanding for reasons particular to themselves — that which appeals to their distaste as a result of individual circumstances. Thus, the individual hates what seems threatening to his or her personal freedom, which the threatened will ultimately defend if the imposing threat appears dangerous and immediate.
But not all have grown to truly understand what it is that has kept the United States free (or freer) till this point, and not all know that it is becoming dangerously less free. To most people in America freedom is taken to be something natural. People do not realize that without a potent mixture of imperialism, idealism and corporatism, there is no freedom — or what is perceived to be freedom. Whatever was intended by this country’s founders is no longer valuable to a people who have forgotten what their or the Constitution’s overall message is — and who outwardly regard history as being that of “useless information.”
It is fair, therefore, to say — as Friedrich Nietzsche said of God in the Parable of the Madman — that freedom is dead, and it remains dead because we do not believe in it. A belief requires thought and the discipline to exercise it — which most are not pragmatic enough to observe as being essential. People, en masse, do not recognize the historical reenactment we are ourselves conditioning presently — the “eternal recurrence” of the slaughtering of our convictions in order to beget the livelihood of despotic security.
Europe in the late 19th century, as Nietzsche proclaimed through the figure of the Madman, was on the verge of housing a chaotic age to fill the void of God — which proved to be true in the early 20th century. The reason for this was that people, on a large scale, had no understanding that their once devout piety and belief in God was actually the moral design of their own European culture — and that its undoing would be theirs as well. And for all of this, then, it can be said in summation: “‘How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe the blood off us?'” -Friedrich Nietzsche.
Is Atheism truly as controversial a position to uphold as it is publicly charged to be? Can it be properly founded to claim that agnosticism is not an open-minded point of view, but, conversely, an irrational one? Is Christianity’s persecution of many squads of sinners composed of anything evidently permissible that could prove their miraculous claims beyond a reasonable doubt? In an American court of law, would a prosecution comprised of Christians, having secured an indictment against Atheism, possess the ability to persuade a jury made up of agnostics of whom — with a perception that, pre-trial, suspects neither guilt in Atheism nor innocence Christianity — that the unbelief at the core of Atheism is unfounded and culpable for the high sin of slandering the pious glory of God’s name and will? If so, it means that a defense to what is being accused of the unbelieving needs, in order to refute the allegations against it, evidence lest it provide a case that stands in retort to them.
But this is only so if the Christians can actually prove their faith to begin with — as, the implication of showing validity having been vested, they must first prove to the agnostics that their beliefs conform with a reality that Atheism cannot — which is merely that people die, and that nothing else concerning death can be assumed without some empirical evidence that allows room for one to make a motion that suggests an afterlife to be anything more than an assumption.
It would not be difficult for a prosecution to obtain an indictment against Atheism, because in most scenarios the prosecution is more than likely to get what it is after — in spite of what evidence, even if purely circumstantial, it is able to produce (the grand jury is at the whim of the priest in His church, after all). But before the case can go to trial, many tasks, including gathering tangible evidence and manufacturing an unbiased jury, must be taken on prior to court proceedings. But what evidence other than the Bible it demands its witnesses swear on does Christianity have to suggest that it is not an unfounded belief itself?
Well, it is likely to result in a hung jury if none of the agnostics can come to feel as though either or any belief system is correct. Unless, that is, Atheism’s defense can provide a vivid and proper example for them that allows them to understand the lack of logic that they apply to their perceptions. For instance, if one the defense attorneys were to present an argument contending that although there is no overwhelming proof, necessarily, that life exists elsewhere in the universe, the very fact the life exists on Earth, a part of the universe, means a serious theory can be hypothesized concerning it. But the same cannot be said about the Christians and their offering a decent thesis that is implicit of enough facts that can oppose the hypothesis of Atheism. In order to prove the case of Christianity, one has but an old book to vouch for it.
But attempting to prove the stories in the Bible is no different than asking someone to prove that Gulliver’s Travels is based on factual events. It can not be proved, so the idea of trying to simply does not register any sense. If Christianity wants to successfully prosecute the defendant, it needs facts to do so — and, moreover, it would have to be able to do this before Atheism would have to prove that Christianity is not correct, and agnostics fail to logically use what they misunderstand to be open-mindedness.
A belief is merely that, and its value is relegated to those of whom believe it contains any. If the truth is too harsh an enemy, one must have faith in lies. The gimmick of faith draws many to purchase it in all its various manifestations, and provides security for those whose faith in both themselves and humanity is absent, so a God must serve as surrogate. It is safer, after all, to allow smaller divided denominations to define the total sum, and so factions and sects of pious people will invariably look to Master Incognito when there seems no other way to solve a problem.
Who killed Kennedy? Well, from Oswald to Cuba to the mob to the CIA, answers obviously vary…but since the assassination of 35th US President, now 41 years ago, recent Gallup Polls demonstrate that 61% of Americans polled possess an opinion that is doubtful of the official story cited in the Warren Report.
Whatever the truth is, what people want, more so than any other reason, is honesty — a clear answer. If certain elements of the government and its financial cronies are not behind the assassination of Kennedy, then why is it that stacks of redacted documents are all that are issued to independant investigators through the Freedom of Information Act? It appears a touch incriminating when the government refuses allow people to prove anything other than what the Warren Report endorses, providing only insulting sheets of blacked-out information to the people those of whom request them.
This makes people not trust the government — and it is perfectly sane to doubt every story it sells to the people. For similar reasons, chemtrails and the government’s consistent denial of their obvious existence, has more and more people wondering whether or not they are being lied to, and, more importantly, why they are being lied to.
Whether it be to reduce climate change, modify and control weather patterns, shroud people’s ability to see the impeding encroachment of an unknown planet or comet or to create radical famines by killing off plant life in order to de-populate the earth, the fact of the matter is that chemtrails, part of the geo-engineering being conducted by HAARP, are 100% real and are quilting the skies from Maryland to D.C., Florida to Illinois, Colorado to Oregon.
It is quite alarming that, for whatever the reason(s), this is being kept quiet from the public — not even though, but, rather, because, the supposed chemicals being used, such as barium (an extremely toxic metal), are probably causing the people in this country to become sick in various ways.
Perhaps the chronic cancer epidemic’s cause “lies” in these trails. Perhaps they can and have been used as a weapon in such places as Vietnam. There are records that date back as far as 1966 (http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/a-recomended-national-program-in-weather-modification-icas-report-10a/) that condone the manipulation of the weather, which is less than 3 years after Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Would he have allowed geo-engineering? Maybe certain people were not willing to find out.
Without there being a general understanding amongst people and the cultures they live in, they are inclined to perish in the grip of their vices. Randolph Sebastian knows this, and feels he has found a way to fix the problems of humanity — by murdering it.
What if the world changed over night and everything there is to know and understand about the world changed because of an economic crash? Well, for different people the circumstances have different effects, and how people deal with them depends greatly on the circumstances themselves. This story tells of one event and its effect on the lives of people representing 3 separate classes.
It comes as little surprise that the meager 36.9 percent of people who actually did vote on November 4th, 2014 voted in a republican Congress. Although it was predictably foreseen, it remains puzzling that the American people, many of whom are merely a debt away from the dole, would run into the un-welcoming arms of the republicans, who make a lack of empathy a visible party line philosophy.
It should be clear by now, presumably, just how the game is played in politics. For example, it should be obvious that, through the bidding chimes of lobbyists, Congress has been bought out by financial interests whose primary concerns are not that of voters. It is simply strategic on the part of Congress, as its members are well aware how to keep things in Washington from evening out: convincing people that the only way to escape the rancid, underhanded tactics of the democrats is to vote in lunatic republicans.
Have so many previous Obama supporters already forgotten about the ludicrous disaster that was the Bush administration? Amnesia seems to be a horrible affliction of the ubiquitous American psyche, and the lackig realization that voting lacks results in this country worsens this affliction, because an ill system needs to purge its toxins, not replace them with an equally poisonous venom. A systematic cleanse does not require violence, but it also is not requisite of compliance, but, rather, persistent resistance. It is counterproductive to progress to use voting as a way to correct a system that has become anything but democratic, making voting akin to that of paying homage to BS, and evidently a greater number of people are beginning to see this — as they did not vote.
The probability is that the overall number of eligible voters who failed to visit their polling places has more to do with a general lack of understanding or care among people for civic responsibility, which is unfortunate…then again, why should any of those people who are well informed about the world they’re living in, and who are empirically aware that “truth” is merely conceptual, thus an existential illusion, have faith in its existence? Participation in an obvious illusion displays that the societal maturity of this country is reminiscent of a teenager who still truly believes that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. When flipping the switch fails to provide lucidity, it is time to change the bulb.
Without there being a general understanding amongst people and the cultures they live in, they are inclined to perish in the grip of their vices. Randolph Sebastian knows this, and feels he has found a way to fix the problems of humanity — by murdering it.
Quantitative easing is to end in October, according to Fed Chair Janet Yellen. We are “at war” with ISIS, according to the Whitehouse, so to appease the republicans, who, as usual, want to spend absurd amounts of money on defense, which will allow for the democrats to come up with a new name for quantitative easing.
And all of this so they can continue to print worthless dollars to keep the economy from collapsing — at least, plausibly, for a couple of years, because the president wants to evade his complicity in the crash and would rather the next administration take the majority of the blame for it.
This is why there is no real difference between republicans and democrats, as both political bodies merely promote the idea of democracy in the disguise of standard ideals, to wit — pro-life vs. pro-choice, gun enthusiasm vs. gun control … etc. The upshot is that these people work together behind the media scenes, but while under the spotlight they put on a perpetual act that makes it seem as though they work against each other.
This democratic process, as explained, is a delusion the people want to think is still alive in America. The reality is that, as Major General Smedley Butler famously asserted: “War is a Racket,” and the dynamics between these 2 dominant political bodies are skilled at manufacturing them in order to serve the interests of both the arms and banking industries.
Yet the propaganda is not very opaque — it is an overt action, really, that the rhetoric being used to sell this war sounds tremendously similar to the “they have WMDs ” talk of ’03. And so more people, it is safe to assume, will be sacrificed for the sake of an imaginary conflict that only becomes real when they get there, completely unaware as to why and for the sake of whom they are fighting.
I have on occasion discussed the merit of what I call “reasonable speculation” so that I might divulge what is distinctive about it when compared with “pure speculation. ” I have also remarked that, though different, the the latter develops out of former version of speculation.
An instance in which I used 9/11 and the mysterious and questionable circumstances surrounding the official version of the events concerning it as way to illustrate why having reason to speculate is reasonable, is where I attempted to explore and explain, compare and contrast them.
I will not get into 9/11 here, but merely try to convey the idea that “pure speculation” has its place, and that sometimes a conspiracy theory is really just an insight into what actually occurred, and based on what is most likely to be the case.
Suppose, for example, that there is a house, and inside that house are 3 separate people — 1 mother and her 2 kids (a boy and a girl). The mother is in her bedroom when a sudden crash disrupts her attention. Something is not satisfactory about this particular noise, she wonders if her kids are hurt.
These notions wading in her thoughts cajole her to worry, and she runs out of the room. She then finds her children in the living room and asks them about the noise, of which each claims to know nothing. She is suspicious of this being so because she knows that she clearly heard the sound of shattering glass or something akin to it, and begins to look around the room, when she spies that a statue of Jesus Christ that has been in her family for generations is missing from the shelf she keeps it on.
She asks them where the statue is, as with the crash, they explain to her that they have no knowledge concerning the statue’s whereabouts. Now she has very good reason to suspect that ,1) they’re lying and, 2), due to the fact that the noise resembled breaking glass, that the statue is broken and the evidence hidden. Either the girl and boy are both responsible for the breaking of the statue and/or conspiring to cover the incident up, or that 1 of the 2 is culpable — but that both, due to their unusual states of character,have knowledge concerning the truth.
Would this hold up in a court of law? Well, reasonable doubt is taken seriously when deciding the guilt or innocence of a person in court of law, but “reasonable speculation” appears to be more visceral and common in most people. The fact the her kids were the only people other than herself in the house engenders the contention that they know what happened, and that they’re apprehensive about telling her the truth. Though she can’t prove, necessarily, what took place, the circumstantial evidence involved in the situation on its own is enough for her to declare their story to be bullshit.
It may not yet be fully understood just exactly what the meaning behind the current age is, but it is not a meager insight to conform to the notion that it is indeed a meaningful age. Not since the 1930s has the United States and the world seen such a cultural divide among the masses grow to the extent that it presently has, nor has the economy been so dysfunctional — so geographically massive. Everyday the lives of citizens, US citizens, are becoming increasingly damaged by stresses that have emerged from economic problems that were seemingly forbidden in America until recently — or since the ’30s.
Why this is comes down to the determinations of a great many people, leaving their observers to come under the impression that there is no one left to trust — merely biases to peddle to those seeking answers to the tense situation building among the varying classes and beliefs. A cultural war is developing, it appears, but just how drastically it will elevate is questionable.
The current age, so referred to here, has been assigned a position in history that is difficult to play, but, albeit, to announce an outcome to it before it has reached its conclusion is an act of fallacious commentary. The future has not yet been arrived at, and the present is, if the realities in it are to be understood, contingent upon an age with which to compare it to. The only phenomena, then, that can explain the present to the inhabitants living in the space of the present resides in times past.
The era of “past” that is sponsoring this attempt, the 1930’s, has already proclaimed its duty to the present here in former references, but just what is to be said about them? It is not as if this comparison between today’s recession and The Great Depression is anything new, but it is perhaps not always clear to a large share of the people actively forming the present political atmosphere that their knowledge is deficient in empirical understanding.
This observation having been rendered, what can be obtained by comparing the ’30 s and today? Well, the economic comparisons are obvious, and apart from great technological advances available in the current age there is most certainly not much difference in terms of there existing a swelling impoverishment among various classes of people. But where is it that this notion is most overt to the senses? Who is its most potent purveyor? The media and press — whether mainstream or new, of course, are those shills. But what of art? What of philosophy? The function of the humanities is, after all, crucial to any recorded age in history that wishes to keep its lights on, as it were.
George Orwell, whose artistic and polemical prose was to engage humanity very powerfully with Animal Farm and 1984, wrote, in 1940, a lengthy essay called “Inside the Whale.” The piece begins with a literary criticism of Henry Miller’s “Tropic of Cancer” in order to segue into a comparison between the political literature of the 1920s and 1930s, and how it was evident that the popular literature during the ’30s was inclined to make Marxist and leftist idealism a dogmatic fad, lest an author of the time matter. Miller Is ultimately a muse throughout, and for several reasons.
For example, Orwell held Miller to represent the common person’s passive attention to the political environment, and declared “Tropic of Cancer” to be the sine qua non for the apolitical outlook, in that Miller did not use his literary prowess to confront or challenge the politics of his time with his personal views — making him a political nihilist devoid of any sense of obligation or necessary participation.
The citizens of Italy during 1920s, for instance, did not vastly possess an obligation in understanding the issues taking place around them. Every system’s opposition is always made up of minority factions. Most of the population consisted of people too deeply involved in the perpetual intent to juke poverty to be resistant to any energetic, seemingly indomitable, zealot hell bent on obtaining power. The Italians were transformed culturally by the Fascist state of Mussolini (a man infused with fanatical passions, his influence over people was greatly due to a mass lack of knowledge concerning the polity of their nation.
The Biblical tale of Jonah and the Whale is also used by Orwell to suggest that people on the whole, once captive in any given environment, such as being forced to accept living inside a whale/fish from which no escape seemed possible, will eventually, on the whole, become obediently submissive to their fated situations.
In an article published by New Republic Magazine entitled “The Troubling Case of Chris Hedges” (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118114/chris-hedges-pulitzer-winner-lefty-hero-plagiarist), it is being alleged that popular author and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges of Truthdig.com has plagiarized material belonging to several different journalists and authors such as Canadian activist Naomi Klein and American novelist Ernest Hemingway.
The uncovering of the suspected plagiarized content was made by a fact-checker at Harper’s Magazine assigned to a manuscript by Hedges in which he encountered potentially plagiarized words in it after reading an article by Matt Katz of the Philadelphia Inquirer on poverty in Camden. Ultimately, Harper’s Magazine decided against publishing Hedges’s piece.
The discovery of this news leads me to confirm that I needn’t say very much in order to express my deep disappointment, but having said that, I can express more.
I am neither to the left nor the right, but it is unusual that I can stomach many of the liberal writers of today — most of them neo-liberal bloggers. But Chris Hedges is exception to this in the tradition that George Orwell is.
Liberal writers, I have noticed, are much of the time just Hunter S. Thompson wannabes, but the majority of them do not possess the talent that Thompson did, because they would refrain from trying to write like him if they had any, as talent is not inclined to feel satisfied in replicating preexisting achievements.
Most of the liberal and leftist writers of the age merely have agendas to promote, use hardly what is considered to be tactful polemics and often resort to a heavy usage of insults in order to advance their beliefs.
Many just post memes (something I am beginning to find insufferable), which demonstrates the agenda bias. “Fuck him and her and them and any republican or conservative belief or action” is usually the message their pieces convey.
But Hedges, like Thompson and Orwell were, is able to see the bigger picture, and all 3 writers have been just as critical about left-wing politics as they have right-wing — which is why I admire them.
But, and having myself been plagiarized, I find it dlifficult to respect Hedges any longer — if the charges are true, of course. The very notion that he is a plagiarist being true is itself very unfortunate, akin to the way Lance Armstrong fans felt, I imagine, and it is because he is prone to attack the right people: the corporate and Washington elite.
He takes them on, denounces their authority and displays a genuine disgust for these people. Being that he is a valuable intellectual and a crafty polemicist, he is effective in making serious points about the fascist activities on which the 2 elitist entities have jointly embarked. He has done much foreign correspondence, won many awards. He is respected, hence.
He is also not fooled by Obama, whereas many liberal writers are at present, although many of this kind oppose Hedges. But it is sufficient to determine that he draws readers from both sides, yet resonates most with Marxists and anarchists of varying extremes. Most importantly, and because of his achievements in journalism, he gives the oppressed masses a voice — because he is listened to.
Albeit, the accusations of Hedges being a plagiarist, if they are true — and I fear they may be, and this in spite of the fact that Christopher Ketcham — the author who wrote the long piece for the New Republic, a piece that both Salon and The American Prospect, and for reasons which are unclear, passed on — is married to another journalist, Petra Bartosiewicz, who was also apparently ripped off by Hedges.
But this doesn’t mean the charges are false, even if the corporate media is seeking to shut him up because he poses a valid threat to it. The proprietors of the media and press are plutocratic capitalists, after all, and will seize upon and exploit the plagiarism claim in order to make him do so — whether he is guilty or not.
The most significant and ironic point concerning this, though, is that if the assertions made against Hedges are indeed true, they have until this point been knowingly overlooked by his editors and publishers, which means he is getting away with something that other writers wouldn’t, just like a Wall Street CEO is never punished for committing the most terrible and unethical crimes. That is to say, he is an elitist in the world of journalism.
Has the United States become a system poised to forever bear the burdens of debt? It is surely accurate to assert that such a task is much too difficult to accomplish. So the answer to the question seated in the former is that the system will at some point weaken and might collapse.
The debt is so heavy at this point that it cannot possibly be upheld. This is because the “solution” to the to the problem is not worthy of the a moniker. The “solution” is to infect the infected by way of quantitative easing, which is nothing more than money created out of debt held in bonds that are purchased by the Fed at the cost of 85 billion dollars a month until January of 2014.
This money is equipped to travel way beyond any realistic boundaries, because ethical economic guidelines have long since been a levied tax the government is unwilling to pay. What the government essentially does in order to maintain the economic illusion is not very different than someone spending loaned money and not paying it back to the lender.
Instead, the government just gets another lender to finance its debt — but it does not pay back the debt with the funds it borrows. In reality it just allocates it to various facets of the system, where it is spent — making it necessary to borrow more money.
This is a trend of bad consequences, as it has been throughout recorded history. The French Revolutionaries would not have found themselves drinking the blood of Louis XVI in the streets of Paris had they not suffered a long era of famine, after all. The debasement of currency means the displacement of society.
This usually provokes public ado, and force is traditionally the measure used in place of persuasion when maintaining the conditions of a broken and hostile society. Its use is akin to that of bombing commodity lucrative countries that use a monetary policy the Fed is unable to gain control over. No matter what, power needs to dictate.
On the morning of February 2, 2006, I awoke to a frantic vision — in that it was blurry. Not blurry in the sense that I could rinse it away with water or clear it up with with a few days of drops and antibiotics — medicines a doctor would prescribe for eye ailments like conjunctivitis — but blurry like nothing that I, or anyone else, as I would find, could explain. It was a feeling too strange to welcome, and even the biggest junkie would find reason to condemn its qualities as being that of greatly unsatisfactory. Too strange, indeed — an anti-high — a demented malaise — a wrong turn into a dark forested labyrinth that led to deeper labyrinths…confusing labyrinths…deeper, harsher layers of hell — and I, the pilgrim, ventured down them. Yet as I made my descent, I encountered no doctor that was a fit bard to seek advice from.
Due to the excessive amount of oddness I was enraptured with, I, after a few hours, started to panic. My level of malignant fright was inconsolable at this point, insofar as it developed into what was to be my first (not last) panic attack, which consisted of my muscles stiffening, my heart racing and pounding and my wits shattering into fragmented snaps that revealed only broken glimpses of the world human beings are designed to witness. It was as though I alone, the somber pilgrim, was drilling down into these depths of esoteric sake — journeying all the way to the nexus of hell — as though straight through and to the heart of the Kantian prohibition. I was embedded in some nominal world, seeing the perceptual said realities in a way that was conceptually unrealistic.
At this, I was taken to the emergency room of a local hospital. Being in the hospital is, of course, not something I consider to be a good time, but I felt — amid my conscious fear — a bit better that I would soon see a doctor. “Surely the doctor has come across this situation in the past and will instruct me on what to do,” I suspected — yet my hopeful suspicions were disappointed. The doctor (a smug fucker) was no help at all and incorrectly recognized my symptoms to resemble that of a sinus infection. Right from the start I felt unsure about what this doctor had concluded, but I hoped he was right. After all, albeit doubted in my guts, I’d never had a sinus infection before then. But when I took the antibiotics that he’d prescribed to me, I descended quickly down into an even deeper level of this hell, where I felt worse than ever before. Due to the effects I experienced on the antibiotics, I began to realize that the doctor’s diagnosis was invalid. This is when I first understood that fears in my guts were true — that what I was experiencing was no sinus infection. The reality was that my psychiatric medications had turned on me.
I ended up on these psych-drugs when I was 17 years old, 6 years prior to my entering the lobby grounds of the hellish dark forest that I described above — as I had struggled with enormous bouts of ongoing depression and mood alterations during that period. But never once during all those years did doctors mention to me what may result down the line because of the meds they were prescribing to me. In fact, most of them told me what doctors are instructed by drug representatives to tell patients: that they were both safe and not at all addictive. These boasts, though, are wholly untrue. I do not say this to dissuade anyone from taking these drugs, as another’s choice is not mine to make, but to simply render a counter to the claim that psychiatric medications are devoid of addictive qualities. These drugs are very addictive: SSRIs, SNRIs, neuroleptic medications, Lithium, etc., though it is conceded to by pharmaceutical companies that benzodiazepines like Xanax are addictive, the case is not so with these other medications.
The fact that one experiences a physical withdrawal after discontinuing the drugs, though, provides in it enough evident factors to allow room to surmise that they are addictive. I myself, the pilgrim, ventured the down the more disturbing landscapes of this hell –a hell that seemed to get worse by the mile. The withdrawal carried within it such torment that no end to its pernicious histrionics seemed possible after a while — as withdrawal symptoms plagued me for literally over a year and a half. And throughout all that time I made various attempts to find aid, but it was buried in no layer of the soils I turned my hand to till. A neurologist; a cardiologist; shrinks; hospitals; medical physicians in private practice — all of whom I visited, all of whom were broke as far as answers go, and I was making out about as well as a panhandler working a homeless shelter.
After months and months of poring over literature concerning these medications and learning nearly everything about them, I decided that the only way to quell these withdrawals was to get back on meds — so it was that I bargained with Satin, getting back on meds as long as it was a regimen that I concocted. This was made to be so, and I, feeling better presently — being that my addiction to psych-meds has been reestablished — still continue on my pilgrimage — every once in a while waking up with brain zaps (one of the many withdrawal symptoms in which the electronic firings of neurotransmitters can be felt running throughout the head and body), and although they diminish quickly and are with me hardly, it is this periodic residual anguish, if nothing else, that reminds me that I remain in Purgatory.
It has now been 19 years since Kurt Cobain’s suicide in April, 1994, and I have recently, and coincidentally, finished reading former Seattle rag (the Rocket) journalist Charles R. Cross’s biography on Cobain. In Heavier Than Heaven (2001), the title of the book, Cross takes the reader closer to Kurt than anyone else has been able to. His approach is not neo-journalistic, yet his technique is none the less more journalistic than that of the typical biography. He weaves together a well put together, linear and matter-of-fact chronology. The story Cross tells is obviously an achievement of Orwellian infiltration into Kurt’s life, yet he does so in a non-participatory way, like Truman Capote. The narration is more George Orwell’s Wigan Pier (the first part) than Capote’s In Cold Blood, in the sense of reportage, but it is more Capote in terms of objective narration, voice, tone and perspective.
Cross provides an interesting insight into who Kurt Cobain was and what his overall state of being throughout the course of his entire life was; what his relationship with his wife Courtney Love was like — with his band mates, his friends, his family, his daughter; what the meanings behind a good deal of the messages crocheted into his song lyrics meant ; as well as unveiling untold catastrophes involving his addiction to heroin — the Something in the Way.
Nirvana was the leader of a revolution, and what can be obtained from it is an understanding of how revolutions eventually, once powerful and established, crumble if their head have nodding captains pertaining to the helm.
Kurt was forever changed by his parents “legendary divorce,” though he unfortunately was a junkie before he regained, rediscovered and expanded things like his family, his fame — his what were seemingly redemptive acquisitions that conditioned his mentality. But his addiction had already taken the role of care tender, so his medicine became an enemy to the particulars, like his love for his daughter Frances Bean, that would have meant — did mean — more to him than anything else — and it seems as though he felt that it was far too late for him to turn back — thus, he contained the notion that he could not provide the life for her he wanted to.
This understanding was just another sense of failure for Kurt, and his stillborn inner child forever made him incapable of accepting the terms of adulthood. He was, leading up to the time of his death, a morbidly obese man traveling at high altitudes in a hot air balloon with low fuel for keeping the flame lit. The anti-climatic irony vividly sensed in Heavier Than Heaven, is that Kurt got everything he wanted after he was no longer in any condition to appreciate what he wanted. Like the “heads” of the French Revolution, he was a victim of his own enlightenment.
It appears strange to me that even when we don’t know a certain pain personally, we somehow think we know how best to heal it. But sympathy cannot deal a better hand than empathy, and as far as I am aware, no benefactor is ever hungry enough to eat from the receptacle of another.