The pacifist strategy of Jesus - 2 : An example
The following is intended as an example of the type of free speech recommended by Jesus as a tool to be employed in the destruction of systems of brainwashing propaganda.
The war between terroristsNow when people are being robbed of their sandwich money, things being what they are, they might become 'terrorists'. This will then require the spending of more money so as to purchase more of those hoes so as to do more of that weeding, since you see a terrorist is obviously a sinner and thus it is required that sinners be weeded out by Caesar. This requires ever increasing expenditures on the purchase of new hoes. Since it is unlikely that there will ever come a time when people are not being robbed of their sandwich money, or at least not until there is no more of that 'competitive capitalism', and the system of dominant patriarchy comes to an end, this means that the war on terrorism is an endless war, unlike other wars which might have a beginning and a definite end.
Now I know something about 'terrorists' because, you see, I was a teenaged terrorist. I can vividly remember becoming more and more angry when I was about 13 or 14, as I explored various options for changing and thus saving the world, and each time I explored one of those options I found that someone had already been there before I got there, and that it was pretty obvious that they had locked the door and thrown away the key.
Well, being the type of serious kid that I was at the time, I was unwilling to take 'No' for an answer, and as I recall each time I found one of those locked doors with no key, I would become enraged, and the next thing you know I was once again plotting my future career as an international terrorist.
You might wonder what would motivate a kid to decide to become a terrorist when he grows up, instead of say, a fire fighter or an architect. Well its like this. A terrorists is a weak person confronting the most monstrous system of militarism the planet has ever seen, and a terrorist is also someone who isn't going to take no for an answer. Therefore a terrorist must not be weak but rather a terrorist must become like Popeye the sailor, and eat spinach and become very strong and mighty so as to become a worthy opponent of that monstrous military machine.
This is what would happen when I was 13 or 14 as I would consider my career as a terrorist. I would eat spinach and my muscles would pop and I would be ready to lay a really good beating on that bully named Bluto. In my fantasy I would give my patriarchal orders to that domineering system, and I would warn them that I was running out of patience. Then, when that system refused to become terrorized and give in to my demands, kaboom. Then they would get their next message warning them that I was running out of patience. You see, I was Popeye the terrorist man, and I had just eaten spinach.
I was remembering all this when I heard that latest message from Osama back in December. Osama told the American people that he was running out of patience with the American military machine being in Iraq. Watch out, said Osama, or Kaboom. You see, like me, Osama is Popeye. He is eating spinach right now, and then he is going to beat up Bluto. I understand the mind of a 'terrorist' because as I said I was a teenaged terrorist.
Now the problem with being a terrorist is that the strategy does not work. You see when it comes down to it, someone like George Bush can knock down a hell of lot more buildings than Osama. Osama knocks down a couple of buildings, George Bush responds by converting America into a police state, and also proceeds to devastate entire cities, such as Fallujah. This tat for tit will continue, and in the end George will win, because he has a far greater selection of weapons of mass destruction than is available to Popeye, for you see there is not enough spinach in the world available to any international terrorist to make them a match for Bluto when it comes to that tit for tat terrorism.
It is for this reason that I propose that the 'war against terrorism' be renamed to the 'war between terrorists', for both George Bush and Osama are terrorists, and as George continues to try to steal Iraq's sandwich money, you can expect more destruction of buildings and more acts of plain and simple terrorism to be used against Iraq by George, since it is impossible to get slaves to cooperate with patriarchal domination or to get them to simply hand over their sandwich money so that it can be banked by an alpha male patriarch, without crucifying Iraq in the process. This is the way these things have always worked, and given how much of that lovely religion America still has, it is no surprise to see that country sinning in this way, since it is the function of that doctrine of sin to make it possible for people to become dull witted enough to vote for a terrorist and thus go on sinning, adding sin onto sin onto sin.
Fair TradeIf there is one thing I have learned in my life, it is that wherever you find a taboo in a society, you will find the truth, but only if you directly confront the taboo, which is taboo, because it is after all a taboo, but it is taboo for a reason, and that reason is that the taboo exists to protect a falsehood, and you cannot expose a falsehood without revealing the truth.
So for example, you cannot criticize capitalism in America, because that is taboo, which is why America has these outbursts of McCarthyism in its various forms. This is why most Americans have been trained to loathe that most despicable of creatures, 'the radical', a very bad person, and therefore to be 'a radical' in America is taboo. This is also why America has a huge media monopoly instead of a free press, since in a monopoly situation it is possible to make sure that no one ever hears the point of view of a real leftist, since to be a leftist in America is taboo. This is why the cops show up at anti-capitalist demonstrations and hit people with clubs or fire those cork bullets, and arrest leftists, while the media does its level best to portray those leftists as akin to a terrorists of some sort, the archetypal 'dangerous radical'. 'Radicals' are very dangerous to capitalism, and capitalism has a very thin skin when it comes to criticism, and there is a reason for this, in that when a system is as rotten and indefensible as is the truth about capitalism, it logically follows that it must become a social taboo to criticize capitalism. Capitalism must not be put on the spot and thus forced to defend what it is indefensible, which would be impossible, thus explaining why we find that great social taboo, and really, it should therefore just be illegal not to be a capitalist, which would be a violation of free speech, but never mind. Sometimes necessity overrides idealism, and it turns out that a nation can have such a thing as a constitution, and yet violate that constitution, whenever it is required to do so to protect capitalism (which then explains the behavior of the Bush Administration, but more on that later).
Now not only capitalists and capitalist societies have taboos, for sometimes 'activists' have taboos as well, and given the general principle I have just outlined above, it would then logically follow that activists must be hiding something which is indefensible, the evidence for that being the taboo which can be discovered should you criticize the wrong thing and get roundly condemned by activists for having violated that taboo.
An example of one of these activist taboos would be how when you criticize the concept of 'Fair Trade', which sounds lovely, and therefore must be a good thing, you catch hell for having criticized that concept. It is taboo to criticize the lovely sounding concept of 'Fair Trade', and even without investigating the subject of 'Fair Trade', we can therefore determine, just based upon the existence of a taboo, that 'Fair Trade' is actually an indefensible ideology, and must therefore be worthless.
Even though it is possible right away to identify a worthless ideology just by the existence of a taboo, and we could stop right there and just toss that thing in the dumpster without asking any further questions, it would be better to get a scalpel and perform an autopsy, so that we can determine the cause of death, and write up an accurate post mortem report, just in case someone might otherwise assume that the victim wasn't really dead or was actually just the victim of some kind of foul play.
Now 'Fair Trade' cannot be debunked without debunking capitalism, since 'Fair Trade' is a capitalist ideology, the idea being that you can have capitalism, and it trades fairly, which would then be both an improvement and a corrective. Since there would appear to be nothing wrong with something as lovely sounding as 'Fair Trade', such an idea sounding so just and right and fair, it would be better to critique capitalism, since 'Fair Trade' is a capitalist ideology, and therefore if we determine whether or not capitalism is a valid ideology we can then by default determine the validity of the concept of 'Fair Trade', and we can also determine whether or not something like 'Fair Trade' represents the wave of the future for 'reformed capitalism' (assuming that such a thing was even possible).
We can start our autopsy by investigating whether or not capitalism can be 'reformed' and then ask ourselves whether or not 'Fair Trade' is the correct method for reforming capitalism, assuming that we conclude that capitalism can be reformed at all. Right away we can notice that there is a direct contradiction that exists between the concept of 'Fair Trade' and 'capitalism', in that 'Fair Trade' is a cooperative ideology while capitalism is a competitive ideology. Capitalism is the latest form of what I would call alpha male patriarchy, the planet having passed through various forms of patriarchal dominance by male patriarchs throughout history, from the slave driving elites of Imperial Rome, through to the serf driving land lords of feudalism, and then when technological change rendered serf driving obsolete, the alpha males switched from agricultural products to 'capital' and the new form of competitive male dominance was birthed - capitalism.
It is worth noting here that if 'capitalism' were to be 'reformed' so that it was no longer based upon a constant state of war fare between competing elite patriarchs, but rather became based upon 'cooperation', then capitalism would no longer be capitalism. Capitalism resembles a world wide gun fight at the OK Corral, where a cabal of elitists males battle each other for money, in a winner take all struggle for the pot of gold. Therefore if this element was reformed then capitalism would no longer be capitalism, which suggest that you cannot reform capitalism by introducing an alien notion such as 'Fair Trade'.
If you are 'cooperating' then you are not going for the pot of gold. If you have a pie and you agree that everyone will cooperate and share the pie fairly, you don't have a capitalist anymore, because under capitalism the whole idea is that you don't share, you do battle, and the goal of that game of planetary male monopoly is to 'win' by taking the biggest piece of pie you can get before the timer buzzes. If someone were talk that alpha male out that pie fighting game, and that patriarch was to become 'Fair' instead, thus allowing fair dividing of the pie, then we would have no capitalist, for such a concept would become obsolete, since we are now running the economy based upon sharing rather than the gun fighting concept which is used to justify capitalism. For a truly reformed capitalist is no capitalism at all, and when capitalism has been really reformed it ceases to exist and is instead replaced. There is no such thing as 'reformed capitalism', this concept being a form of populist demagoguery intended to lead people off into some ditch somewhere, where they can waste their time on some useless project pretending to be 'reforming capitalism', all this endless demagoguery serving the purpose of keeping them preoccupied with projects so that they will not really reform capitalism, which would be fatal to that patriarchal system.
'Unfair Trade' is one of the consequential results of the gun slinging and endless warfare of capitalism, in that capitalism requires the eternal growth of profits and since this concept is ridiculous, we find that capitalism is atrocious rather than being nice, and therefore engaging in 'Unfair Trade' instead. Because capitalism is a 'free market' (but only free for the capitalist) and also competitive, and because there is an irrational driving force at the heart of the capitalist ideology ('eternal growth') markets become crowded, and as nickels are squeezed in the endless drive for greater 'productivity' after a time a capitalist boom cycle subsides and the only solution to the inherent contradictions that have built up over time, is for capitalism to go completely bankrupted and burn to the ground. This then resolves the dilemma of the overly mature capitalist economy, and the resulting wave of losses and bankruptcies clears out space for new growth and the beginnings of new boom cycle (just as a burned down forest makes room for fresh new growth). It is for this reason that throughout history the capitalist economy has crashed and regrown continually, the bust of 1929 only being the last in a long sequence of such events. Even though capitalist 'economics' has an irrational infinity symbol included in its mathematical model, nevertheless capitalism can continue on theoretically indefinitely by booming and then busting and the booming and then crashing again, over and over and over again, ad infinitum, or until the resources of the planet have been completely consumed at which time one would hope that inter stellar space flight has been invented so allowing further eternal growth (it is after all a big universe, which means that capitalists can continue to grow more profits for billions of years provided that NASA invents the means to do so).
As capitalism reaches this overly mature stage, and profits become more and more scarce, and growth threatens to grind to a halt, leading to contraction, deflation, and a crash, as capitalism nears the point of burning down again, the drive for profits reaches the level of a crazed mania. It is for this reason that capitalist politicians also become crazed maniacs and are found participated in acts of terrorism against Guatemalans as one example. It is at this point that capitalism will be driven to 'unfair trade', which will then provide some required breathing room for that unprofitable system by generating profits from such things as cheap commodities looted from so called 'third world' countries. The effects of this endless looting by a continually crazed capitalist economy can be seen in the dire poverty of all the 'third world' countries, which is not some weird historical accident, or an unexplainable tragedy of some sort, but the product of centuries of capitalism and its drive towards imperialist colonialism and the cost cutting and profit increasing cheap commodities that can only be acquired through the short cut method of pillage and looting (usually referred to by the more 'respectable' sounding term 'privatization', a rationalization by which the third world commodities have become the 'private property' of some capitalist, which means that when that capitalist loots the country and continually hauls away all its riches, this is not looting but rather the much more respectable sounding disposal of private assets) .
This agenda of 'privatization' will then be peddled as a 'development strategy' by such capitalistic organs as the IMF or the World Bank, and even many NGOs will be found peddling the idea that 'investment' by some capitalist combined with 'Fair Trade' is the path to prosperity for the 'underdeveloped world' (another colloquialism of capitalism this time employed when referring to the previously plundered and sacked nation, which having been 'invested in' and then 'privatized' by some capitalist centuries ago, with that same plundering and sacking now being peddled over again this time as 'investment' and a so called 'development strategy', as though somehow an ideology like capitalism, which has already had centuries of opportunities to 'develop' the third world, and just left the place ruined and sacked, still deserved just one more chance to use that same discreditable ideology one more time, the theory one must suppose being that its worth one more try).
That such a strategy is idiotic or delusional, or both, becomes pretty clear when you consider that if some 'developing country' gives all their money to a capitalist they are going to wind up flat broke and won't have any money to develop their country. This can be seen quite clearly when we consider the case of Iraq, where the oil industry was nationalized, and the many billions generated went partly into cronyism and graft, and partly into developing Iraq, with the end result that Iraq built such modern infrastructure as telecommunications, sewage systems, water systems, an electrical grid, and the list goes on, something Iraq could only do if had the billions from its oil money to spend on such projects, and Iraq could have done even a more stunning job of rapid development if it was not for that cronyism and graft (it was therefore a mixed economy, part capitalism and partriarchy with only a small degree of socialism, but even a little bit of socialism goes a long, long way, as that example demonstrates).
This explains why Iraq was given the full Nicaragua treatment, and its infrastructure was illegally bombed and destroyed, an International War Crime, thus destroying that evidence which otherwise would continue to exist on the planet and become a case study in the utter bankruptcy of the neo-liberal globalization 'privatization' agenda, since you see what the third world needs is not 'Fair Trade' and 'their share of investment' as some NGOs keep insisting, but rather what the 'third world' needs is socialism, and no more capitalist patriarchy. This is exactly the point being made by the Bolivians who are refusing to allow their last remaining resources to be 'invested in' by some capitalist, because they are sick and tired of living in some looted sacked poverty afflicted imperialist colony of some capitalist state.
Consideration of how this process works reveals why it would be the case that 'Fair Trade' and capitalism can never coexist, and the drive to unfair trade is deeply rooted in the capitalist system, as can be seen by the slums and the global poverty and human misery that has been the obvious product of centuries of booming and busting capitalistic competitive so called 'free markets' (such markets only being free for that capitalist, and no one else, as anyone can find out when they get bossed around at work by a capitalist, or find that they are unable to opt out of that system, or as you can see when you consider the 'third world' which is also never free to escape poverty, since only capitalists are free to play that gun slinging competitive monopoly game with the planet, which means that no else is free under that competitively driven misnamed 'free market' system).
There is one last criticism to be made of that bogus 'Fair Trade' agenda of supposedly 'reformed capitalism' and it is that maybe people should finish what they started. Finish one project, thus showing how its done, and then, and only then, start working on the next project to 'reform' that capitalism.
Now we know that capitalism is like a junky, and you cannot pull a capitalist system off of drugs once it first gets hooked, which explains why capitalist countries like America so ruthlessly attack the Nicaraguas of the world, because each lost profit brings that capitalism one step closer to the cliff and that always looming great big crash.
We also know that some charming and well meaning sorts have been trying their little hearts out for years to get that capitalist system to stop smoking crack cocaine. Here I am referring to that third world debt problem. Every month, and every year, year after year the third world continues to make those interest payments on those third world debts, since apparently the victim of some mugging now owes the mugger a lot of money, and the mugger has agreed to take small payments each month on into infinity. I say on into infinity, since those 'third world' countries have already paid the full amount of their debts in interest payments alone, but rules are rules, and so you can see how they must pay those loans over and over and over again forever, thus giving capitalism that regular fix of crack to which capitalism has become addicted.
Someone might say, 'it is their own fault', as though somehow third world countries made their own policies. Now since when did colonies make their own policies. It is in the nature of imperialist colonialism that the decisions are made in places like London and Washington, and much like workers under capitalism, third world countries just take orders from imperialist countries. As students of history know, if they do not take orders, they got bombed like Grenada, terrorized like Nicaragua, or invaded like Iraq, or their governments are overthrown by the CIA and so on. One way of the other colonial governments take orders from imperial powers, and given that choice, usually they just take orders and do what they are told, skipping that additional step of being bombed or overthrown and replaced.
Take the 'third world debt' as one example of such obedience. Back in the 1970s, the post war capitalist boom cycle was winding down, and capitalism was heading in the direction of one of its usual burn down cycles. The desperate search for more profits by lowering costs would lead quickly to such concepts as 'free trade' and "NAFTA' and the WTO 'market opening' agreements and so on, as capitalism began looking for real cheap labor in real cheap countries, while using 'free trade' to make sure that they could continue to sell their now more profitable products back home, where they of course had to lay off the more expensive workers.
In the search for more profits those 'third world' countries were 'encouraged' by the instruments of capitalism such as the IMF and the World Bank, to take out 'development loans' so as to increase their production of basic commodities. They were not allowed to invest in industry, since all imperialists wanted was not more competition, but more and cheaper commodities. So in obedience those third world governments took out those now famous loans, increased their production of commodities like they were told, which then drove down the price of those commodities, which then meant that third world countries could not pay their loans, but instead have been caught in the trap of just paying their interest payments, forever and ever amen, paying those loans off over and over, while capitalism finds more profits in those cheap commodities which was the whole idea, and as a bonus, also gets to clean out the finances of those third world countries now that they are stuck paying forever on those loans, with such services as hospitals and schools and food programs being slashed and gutted, because they do have to be responsible in those countries and make their loan payments, even when the interest payments gobble up a third of even a half of their budgets.
Now having described the third world debt problem and briefly sketched the whole thing out, this makes one wonder why some naive souls ever believed that they could get capitalism to stop smoking that highly addictive crack cocaine. Try as they might they cannot get capitalism to kick the habit, though they have tried for many years. Last year all they got was one of those typical vain promises from that capitalist system that capitalism would cut back on a few bowls of that crack in the year 2010, and then as such things always go, when 2010 rolls around, capitalism will roll the time back to 2020. Been there done that. The future promise from capitalism was to 'halve child poverty by 2000', which was the new date for that project after the last date slipped by, and now there is another new date off in the future for the same project, which I don't recall, and don't care to recall, because, you see, I understand that crack addict and I understand the ideology and the driving forces of that dope smoking gun slinger, and so I really do not need the reassurance of any more of those endless fake promises from that capitalist system that, yes, this time for sure it will destabilize and burn right to the ground by giving up on doing drugs and smoking that crack.>BR>
So to get to the final point here, given that capitalism can not even give up smoking crack, who in their right mind is going to jump onto the 'Fair Trade' bandwagon, in the hopes of getting capitalism to give up that even more highly addictive high grade smack that capitalism has been shooting up its veins for so many centuries, it is doubtful that capitalism even has a vein to find when it comes time for another injection of that high grade third world smack. Now if someone could finish what they started and get that capitalism to give up crack, thus showing that this junky can go through the shakes and watch those giant spiders climbing the walls, and eventually come out of it clean, with one less addiction, then, and only then, would I be willing to believe that maybe that junky might next work on kicking the smack habit, with the even worse convulsions and monstrous pink elephants and melting walls and all the rest which I am sure will accompany the detox of such a notorious smack addict..
So then, might I suggest that we finish what we started. One project at a time. For the present it would seem that capitalism is not exactly in the mood to hear about giving up drugs, as you can see when you consider how American capitalism is rolling up its sleeves and preparing to inject itself with some really potent and very high grade black smack from Iraq.
The War on TerrorWe know that one of the consequences of drug usage is that drugs can have what are known as 'side effects.' One example of this sort of thing is the 'side effect' of global poverty and the third world and all those slums that keep filling with more and more people as capitalism keeps upping the dose of that highly addictive smack, as part of that crazed cycle to get the same rush as was once possible with a smaller dose, but which is now no longer possible due to that problem of developing immunity.
Yes as the third world undergoes further 'privatization' under the agenda of 'neo-liberal globalization' and as there follows that required 'painful restructuring' to 'increase productivity' those slums continue to grow, as the sacked join the plundered pushed off their land in those burgeoning slums, while the ignorant or the willfully deceived continue to blame the poor for breeding like flies, at the same time as their governments and the religious right do everything possible to cut funds for birth control and promote that idiotic ideology of 'abstinent chastity' instead, since apparently you can never be to brutishly cruel and so dogmatically stupid that you cannot make things even more brutishly cruel than they already are, going from cruel to outright senseless brutality and full scale wickedness. Whether or not brutish religion is one of the required side effects of capitalist drug use is a good question, and one would think that at least this must be one drug that capitalism could quit using, but then that would destroy the right wing voter base back home, and so we see that capitalism has developed an addiction to the drug of religion as well.
Yes, third world poverty is caused by centuries of imperialist capitalist colonialism, just like that notorious third world debt is caused by capitalism and its dope addictions, and its never ending need for a bigger high and ever greater hits if it is to generate those required profits and not burn to the ground. Since the planet is only so big, and there is only so much dope to be found, sooner or later capitalism won't be able to find a new creative way to get a hit, and then it will be off to the padded cell to bounce off the walls for a spell. Once that junky goes through detox you can be sure that after hitting the streets it won't be long before that dope addict will be looking for a dealer and the whole process will start over again and follow its inevitable course one more time. After all capitalism has been around for centuries, and so has colonialism, and the third world hasn't gotten any development in all that time, and so one must suppose that junky will just not be able to completely kick the habit, no matter how many times there is another one of those visits to the detox center to bounce off those padded walls for ten or twenty years.
Now it is characteristic of the capitalist system to never tell the truth about anything, but to go for the combo of brainwashing and McCarthyism every time, since it is unlikely that there would be much of a political base of support for capitalism if people actually got deprogrammed by a leftist and for the first time in their life actually understood what capitalism really is, how it really works, and thus understand the real reason for the wrecked, destroyed nature of the world we live in today.
It is because capitalism is thin skinned and cannot tell the horrible truth about itself, that we have 'the War on Terror.' You see every time capitalism goes out to plunder and sack some new found colony it is required that an excuse be cooked up. At one time it was required that we send troops to civilize the natives, who were cannibals, in obedience to the command of Jesus to take the gospel to every nation. This would require the building of navies and given the dangers of dealing with such wild cannibals, would also require the dispatching of troops, along with crates of Bibles, those wonderful civilizing documents. Well once religion lost its popularity, it became required that capitalism bring democracy to the world. After overthrowing a few democracies, notably in Nicaragua and Grenada, and in refusing to allow a democracy in such places as Vietnam, that bit about bringing democracy is wearing a little thin, and although it is still possible to tell that tale to a few people, capitalist imperialism needs some different ideology to try, and it turns out that a variation on that 'cannibal' theme is the choice of the moment. You can substitute 'terrorist' for 'cannibal' and you get the same ideology, thus providing capitalism with that cover story which imperialism has always seemed to require, since it is not in the nature of capitalism to tell the truth, but rather to brainwash and bullshit instead, while using McCarthyism to make sure no one finds out.
One would think that by now people should know enough not to listen to any government propaganda, and when the media system just repeats government propaganda, that should also be taken as an indication not that this singular agenda proves that this agenda must be the truth, because its all you ever hear, but rather that people shouldn't listen to the media system either. Which leaves people in the bad spot of trying to figure out what is going on. One strategy you could try is to explore the option of 'free speech' by means of which you can listen to as many people as possible and then make up your mind. Of course you would also want to listen to a leftist from time to time, in particular since you are not allowed to listen to a leftist, and are not supposed to listen to a leftist, which is taboo, and really should be made illegal once again one must suppose, which then a thinking person would recognize would mean that you should probably listen to a leftist before you listen to anyone else, making that the default option, just because your not supposed to listen to 'radicals', which means that there must be a good reason that you should listen to them.
] With that in mind, then, let me, a leftist and a 'radical', explain to the interested reader all about what is really going on in the world. We will not even dignify that drivel about 'a war on terrorism' coming from a body as untrustworthy as a government, and will consider it the same as that old cannibal propaganda, and just the cover story for what is really going on in the world.
Now the first thing that is going on the world is that capitalism is once again turning towards the same aggressive imperialist colonialism so characteristic of capitalism throughout its history, as capitalism adds one more country onto the list of third world wrecks, which is the inevitable end of the process of imperialist colonialism, as you can tell by looking at the planet after centuries of capitalism have had their way with the world, and which is certainly where Iraq is heading if instead of being allowed to get back their socialist principles and keep their money and thus get back on track for development, Iraq gets the oil sucked right out of their country, and winds up added onto the list of the 'under developed nations.' This happens all the time, as you can tell by looking at the wrecked state of the planet, and it is all part of that capitalistic crash cycle, and the crazed attempts of some wild west cowboy junkies to find some profits to put off doomsday and that trip to the rubber room for just a little while longer.
There is a second thing that is going on which is related to the collapse of the old Soviet Imperialist Empire, in that when the Soviet Empire collapsed, it dropped some of the richest marbles in the world, and since that time no major imperialist power has managed to grab onto those rich dropped marbles, which then means that those marbles are still in play. In the south of the Soviet Empire are a handful of countries with the richest deposits of untapped petroleum on the face of the planet, and currently they are not being completely dominated and exploited by any major imperialist power, and so you can see how the imperialist carve up of the global pie has now become unstable, and will remain unstable until some really powerful and aggressive clique of capitalists establishes domination over the region. One must keep in mind that capitalism is like the gun fight at the OK Corral, and so it is not surprising that when the imperialist order becomes unstable, there can be found gun fire ringing out as those rival gangs of mobsters begin fighting it out to see who is going to dominate the card sharking and boot leg business in the East End.
This then explains the war in Yugoslavia, which is to the west of that rich oil region, and also explains why the NATO forces took sides with the Muslims against the Serbians in that war, since it is Muslims who are sitting on those rolling dropped marbles. This also explains the war in Afghanistan. For you see Washington wanted to build a pipe line going south through Afghanistan which also borders this rich oil region to the south, but the Taliban wanted to much money in the form of kickbacks, and even though George Bush laid down the law to the Taliban when they came to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, to negotiate about that pipe line, telling them they had their choice between a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs, the Taliban still wanted to damn much kickback money, and so the decision was made to take them down. By June of 2001 all the plans were made for the invasion of Afghanistan in October of 2001, and it was just a fortunate coincidence that the Wall Street towers were knocked down a month before that. The ships were already sailing over there and every military process was ready to go during the summer, since it takes months and months to plan and execute military operations, so using that pretext of 'terrorism' just made it that much easier to invade Afghanistan, even though the hijackers were said to be Saudi Arabians.
The pipeline deal was then nailed down, and American troops remain in Afghanistan indefinitely to provide security guard services for that pipe line. As for Afghanistan it is now divided up into pieces, with each piece ruled over by war lords who have now used the opportunity opened up by getting rid of the Taliban to make Afghanistan into one of the world's leading exporters of heroin, which is now bringing in billions of dollars per year. The Bush administration is not interested in fighting the war on drugs (code name for fighting leftists in South America) in Afghanistan, since the war on drugs is not really about drugs, but just the propaganda name for the war on leftists in South America. With those war lords making billions from heroin they aren't asking for kickbacks from that pipe line, and they won't be threatening to blow up that pipe line, unless Bush fights the war on drugs, in which case they would, which explains why he never will. Bush will also not try to bring democracy to Afghanistan for the same reason, since those war lords like things the way they are, and so Bush will play the game of real politic by just bringing democracy to the city of Kabul, the only place that alleged government actually rules, the rest of the country being carved up by dope peddling war lords, who like it that way, and won't bother Washington's pipe line, just so long as they are left alone each to rule his own piece of turf while raking in billions from heroin sales.
As for those countries in the south of Russia, with all that loose oil which has not yet been fully dominated by an imperialist power yet, well Bush used the pretext of the 'war on terrorism' to drop a few tens of thousands of symbolic troops onto airports in those countries, which is just the same as if a dog went over and lifted its hind leg and then pissed on those countries to mark out its territory. So far, that pissing on those territories is about as far as American domination over those rich loose marbles has gotten, what with America being so busy at the moment dominating Iraq, and threatening to dominate Iran, which is also to the south of those old Soviet oil countries, and thus should be dominated at the same time as those countries are being dominated by Washington, thus making a complete set, this time using the pretext of nuclear weapons and the loving urge to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iran, who we love just that much, but who will not be loved enough not to be cleaned out and then join Iraq on the ruined third world stack, as history shows so clearly happens every single time a country gets plundered and sacked, or, if you prefer, 'privatized' after some capitalist 'invests' in that country, which would then, it just logically follows, make those resources the private property of some capitalist, thus explaining why all the money winds up in the Chase Manhattan or Switzerland.
As for those southern Russian countries that don't have any more imperialist power dominating them and thus are up for grabs these days, they are ruled over by weird tyrants who terrorize the population with rogue cops and torturers, and who also put up pictures and statues of the glorious leader every where, as is the custom in such weird dictatorships. George Bush is not including those tyrannies in his war for democracy, nor is he interested in bringing down the level of terrorism practiced by the government in those countries, since those countries are in revolt, thus explaining the need for the police state methods, and the last thing George Bush needs is to have to find some American troops to send into that place, and so therefore he has out sourced the violent crushing of the rebellion to those weird dictators, since America has its hands full already crushing the rebellion in Iraq and doesn't need to add on any more rebelling countries right now.
The GestapoNow who can talk truthfully about 'the war against terror' without talking about the Gestapo, especially these days now that the cops in America are spying on everyone all the time.
A lot of people might think that the Gestapo were some weird Nazis who got dressed up as cops. This is not what happened. Rather, you see, the Gestapo were formed by Goring from the normal police force of Germany, and thus the Gestapo had the same people in the organization as was found before in the police force, the only difference being that now it was Gestapo.
This all happened during Germany's 'war on terror'. You see, what happened is that communist terrorists struck in Germany and burned down the Reichstag. Immediately, Germany brought in the Patriot Act (both Hitler's law and America's law contain the same provisions). Hitler declared the War on Terrorism, and Goring kicked into action and took over the top job of the police.
It is in the nature of police forces to be right wing organizations, even in normal times. The reason for this is that police believe in the same doctrine of 'sin' that the religious right believes in, believing, as cops do, that the cause of crime is the inherent evil of humanity, as cops can see everyday as they confront the wreckage of the capitalist system. Like all people cops need an ideology to explain what they are seeing everyday, and the doctrine of sin is how they are trained to see it, for police are the enforcers of capitalism, as you can tell when once every week or two somewhere around the world the news comes in that armed cops once again fired live ammunition into crowds of demonstrators, and as you can see in the history of America where cops were given the jobs of firing into large groups of demonstrating strikers, knowing as the cops did, that within their ranks there were no doubt lots of those sinful radicals who were taboo and thus had to be gunned down from time to time, which also explains why cops continue to fire into groups of sinners once every week or two somewhere on the planet on a regular ongoing basis.
Now no one is 'born in sin', despite what cops say about someone being 'just a born criminal' and thus a sinner. Rather babies are born cuddly and gurgling, and then something happens to that soft gurgling baby between birth and the time they get arrested by some cop. Given that they grew up in a ruthless dog eat dog environment, where the top dogs, the capitalists, are always fighting out some ruthless gun fight at the OK Corral and calling that an 'economy', and given the way that capitalist gun people down in their own way, just ruthlessly cutting down tens of thousands here and there, whenever they want more profits, while the congressman cuts welfare and food stamps, and the preacher talks about the sinfulness of sloth and the redemptive value of hard work and personal responsibly, well given how brutalized people brutalize others, you would think that a cop might connect the dots and realize that 'sin' isn't the problem, but rather it is obvious that somehow between the time a soft baby is born and the time the cops made an arrest the ruthlessness of capitalism did its dirty deed and convinced one more person that the way to deal with life is to invade a house the same way capitalists invade Iraq, or that it is okay to gun someone down in the crossfire, because it is just collateral damage, and since it is okay for the most powerful role models on earth to act this way, and everyone lets them do it, that must mean that it is okay, because it is a jungle out there.
Cops believe in that right wing doctrine of sin, which then causes them to attack victims while diverting them from questioning the system (which is the purpose of that doctrine, for when you believe that sin is 'original', like churches do, then you focus on genitals, and ignore everything else, which is convenient for the system, which is why we have religion, and is also why cops are trained in the doctrine of sin, since they are the enforcers of that system, and therefore their anger must be redirected if they are to be effective at their jobs).
Since cops are right wing by the nature of their ideology, you can see that when Goring took over the cops after the war on terror started in Germany, it wasn't required that he fire all the German cops and replace them with crazed Nazis. Rather what happened is that the cops up to that time had been limited by the constitution to fighting crime with that one hand tied behind their back, but given the circumstances, that sort of coddling of society could no longer be tolerated. So Goring proceeded to untie that one hand, so that the cops would then be free to use one hand to load ammunition while the other hand was free to fire. Goring also gave the German cops the 'tools they needed to fight the terrorists.' This included such tools introduced by the Bush administration as the right to arrest people and just make them disappear, with no warrant, and no right to a lawyer, which was alright because it was part of Germany's war against terror. They were given the right to bug anyone anytime, once again without the inconvenience of needing a warrant, requiring from that time on only the authority of a Fuhrer order from Hitler, who had to be made into Supreme Emperor as part of his new job fighting terrorists in Germany. They were also given the right to torture suspects and set up concentration camps, which we can also see has happened under Bush.
It was justified that it was required that hands of the cops be 'untied' and that they be given the 'tools that they needed to fight terrorists' because it was for the safety of the German people, to keep them safe from terror. The irony here is that while a terrorist strike is kind of like winning the lottery or getting hit by lightening, a police state terrorizes everyone, spreading fear and dread everywhere, atomizing people who become afraid to talk to each other for fear that they might be informed on to the Gestapo, and in the end those people who untie the hands of the cops to save themselves from terror wind up living under that horrific reign of terror known as the police state, which is a hell of a lot worse than terrorism, which is the irony of that ridiculous situation.
The Monopolized Capitalist Media SystemNow what fascist state would be complete without adding on to it both the Gestapo and a monolithic media system which is devoted to serving the Fuhrer and brainwashing the public. I can see that in the midst of this, the latest George Bush bugging scandal, the media system is back to its old tricks and doing its usual fine job of smoothing things over for the Fuhrer. Truly it can be said that George Bush has the largest press office in the world, given how all those media outlets, having been bought up and monopolized by those capitalists, no longer have even so much as a trace of freedom of the press, being forced, as they are, to spew out only those sorts of things some thin skinned McCarthy like that capitalist is willing to tolerate, which isn't much, and for obvious reasons, too.
According to the latest white wash job by the media over 56 percent of Americans approve of George Bush using Fuhrer powers to spy on Osama bin Laden, thus keeping them safe from terrorists, and avoiding that frightening inconvenience of needing a warrant every time, which would be asking their cops to spy on people with that dangerous one hand tied behind their back, which in these times is no good, since it is obvious to 56 percent of the population that the cops really need the tools to fight the terrorists if they are to have any hope of getting the job done.
Now I would like to propose another poll question. What percent of the public would agree to having George Bush spying on his political enemies, such as, oh, for example, some organization with a name such as The Catholic Peace Workers. For you see, George has deluged the FBI with so many bugs, that the cops are actually complaining that they are swamped with bugs, and can't deal with that many bugs, because it is to many bugs, and believe me, Osama might be busy, but he's not that busy..
I await the response of that capitalist media system, because I am really interested to find out what those poll results will reveal when people find out that George Bush is spying on free speakers and dissenters and political dissidents in America and on any group that is against the Iraq war and on and on the list goes. Maybe 6 percent of Americans would agree to having the Catholic Peace Workers bugged instead of the 56 percent who agree with bugging Osama, although the religious right has about 25 percent of the vote in some areas, so I would suppose that in those areas support for the Fuhrer would probably bottom out at about 15 percent, for as we saw in that Terri Schiavo fiasco, even the religious right splits on the issue of tyrannical government, this being a by product of how scared they are by that Beast of Revelations, thus causing them not to like tyranny even if it is in Washington instead of the European Union.
The Cum Stained Dress (or What a Difference a Few Years Makes) Most people know that the big impeachment scandal about the cum stained dress a few years back was just part of some plot by the right wing hawks to get Clinton, who, being afraid of catching hell from his wife, lied about that cum stained dress, and thus deserved to be impeached as you recall because of his unacceptable lying, which we were told qualified as a high crime or at the very least as a misdemeanor. Either way, he deserved to be impeached.The Ten Commandments According to some rumor I heard going around, one of the big issues in the last election campaign was supposed to have been moral values. I am going to assume that this rumor must have been just one more example of one those urban legends that somehow gets started and then spreads around until such a time that people actually begin to believe the story to be true. This must be correct, because as you can tell by examining the content of that urban legend, the moral values agenda was said to be based upon God's Word in the Bible, in particular involving some big controversy about carving out the Ten Commandments on some slab of rock which would then be placed in front of such places as court houses and various government buildings, since according to the myth, somehow doing something like that would really help the country find its lost morals.
What most people probably don't know is why it was that the right wing hawks were so damned determined to impeach Clinton, and get him to hell out of there. The answer can be found over in the south of the Soviet Union, where, during Clinton's term, there were these really rich dropped marbles, which had been dropped, and thus were now open for play, and yet that Clinton wasn't going to dive right in there and play the great imperialist game. Now if you watch Bush playing the great imperialist game in Iraq you can understand that it must be true that Clinton was a lot less reckless than Bush, and knowing better, decided against going for it in that game for those loose marbles. Clinton was under intense pressure from the extreme right and from those capitalists, as you can tell by how he agreed to bomb Yugoslavia to the west and go along with that friends with the Muslims plot by targeting the Serbs and as you can also see by how he fired a cruise missile a week into Iraq, which still wasn't enough for the right wing hawks. Those hawks were growing increasingly crazed and desperate because of those dropped marbles and their fears that perhaps China, or Europe, or maybe even the Russians might scoop those marbles before America even had a chance to lift its leg and piss on those oil and gas deposits to stake a claim to those dropped territories.
Well as we know the capitalists were also against Clinton because the media system trumpeted impeachment, which means that the boss told them to do that, and the boss is that capitalist. Similarly we know that the capitalist told that media system not to push for impeachment of Bush, and to smooth over that bugging thing by failing to mention those Catholic Peace Workers and just talk about Osama and poll about Osama all the time instead.
We can make a list here to see how powerful capitalists really are in America, through the process of comparison. On the one side we have dropped marbles that were not picked up, and a cum stained dressed and a really pissed off wife, which was impeachable, thus causing a big soap opera to be orchestrated so the media system could film that soap opera. On the other hand we have people being made to disappear without a warrant or even a lawyer, the emergence of concentration camps, torture, a criminal war which breaks all the International War Crimes laws, and which was launched on the basis of deliberate lies, not to mention the endless constant lying about everything and anything that is part of that imperialist propaganda mix, and onto the list you can add wide spread bugging, and in this case there is no soap opera, which makes a person wonder who pulls the strings in America, and just who it is who decides when there will be a soap opera and when there will not be a soap opera, and the answer is that it is that capitalist who decides everything that goes on in Washington. This also explains why the Democrats have proven to be completely useless, for that capitalist told them 'No', and No means No.
Now it is obvious that this ridiculous story must have been an urban legend because simple common sense dictates that no one could ever learn morals from a book as confused and even as morally depraved as the Bible, and so therefore it just logically follows that this story is a myth. I mean, come on people, let's ger real, for if such a thing was true it would mean that politics and elections have sunk down into some stinking quagmire of religious demagoguery and that religion itself had degenerated into the foulest puddle of hypocrisy. Such extreme conditions never exist in the real world, and since such hyperbole could never be true, therefore this story must be an urban legend describing a fantastical place sunk into moral corruption so completely rotten as to strain the credulity of even the most credulous.
However, just as a mental exercise, let us pretend for a moment that such a fantastically corrupt political system actually did exist, and that there really was such a rotten religion in that obviously screwed up country that something like that carved slab could be elevated to the status of a legitimate political issue in some election campaign. Any reasonable person would just have to stop and think for a moment about the blundering stupidity of the spin doctors who blundered into that fiasco, and normally one would expect spin doctors to be shrewd enough to avoid stepping on a pile of turds. Well, for heavens sake, there would have to be no functioning media system in the entire nation for a spin doctor to step on a turd and not get caught red handed. And how likely is that scenario, especially when you consider that one of the highest and most precious of the virtues possessed by that society was freedom of the press, along with free speech, which is the terror of all spin doctors, and would certainly keep them well clear of a turd pile, and leave them to do their spin doctoring on safer territory.
Oh, let's get real people. The Ten Commandments and the Bible, a 'moral' issue. Well such a thing is unbelievable, especially in modern times. It is hard for me to imagine that any civilization could possibly be so degenerate as to make a moral issue out of such transparent hypocrisy. I mean stealthy hypocrisy I can believe, but glaring blind hypocrisy is a bit much for me to accept, especially in politics what with the media and the press corps ready to pounce should some politician throw caution to the wind and step right into a pile of turds while the cameras are rolling.
The fact that people are gullible enough to confuse urban legends with the truth distresses me. Sometimes it is the case that you can find common ground even with one of your sworn enemies, and so in this case I find myself in agreement with the religious right, in that we both believe that one of the problems with people today is that they just don't read the Bible anymore. This certainly must be true, as you can tell by the amount of moral depravity they are willing to tolerate, for to actually believe such an urban legend as factual is a clear indication of tolerance for moral depravity and such depravity can only be fixed by reading the Bible. As well, I also agree with the religious right on the matter of 'harmonizing the Bible'. According to this strategy, you never take one single Bible verse in isolation, but rather you find more Bible verses and then you harmonize them all into one single doctrine. Where I differ with the religious right on this issue, is that the religious right only believes in 'harmonizing the Bible' when they find some Bible verse they don't like, which then requires them to bury that disagreeable verse under a big pile of Bible verses of which they do approve, while I believe that it is always a better practice to harmonize the Bible all the time, even if that means you have to balance off a Bible verse you prefer with a bunch of contradictory crap that you just hate.
Let us take just one obvious example of this process of Bible harmonization to illustrate the difference between the approach of the religious right and my approach. Consider the Ten Commandments. Because the religious right likes the Ten Commandments, they would propose to carve those commandments onto a slab of granite, as a symbolic representation of the inviolable unchanging permanence of the God's moral system. However because I don't harmonize just when I feel the need to harmonize, but rather I harmonize all the time, I would propose to create a much bigger slab of granite, so as to make room for the Ten Commandments, and also all the other Bible verses that would be required in order to 'harmonize' them together with those commandments, in the hopes that by doing so I could help people to get a much broader picture of the true moral system of the Bible. This would be a fine example of how you can just never read enough or carve enough verses from that firm moral guide, the Bible, and since more Bible must be better than a little Bible, why stop at just those Ten Commandments?
As an example, consider one of the few commandments that the religious right really does like, the commandment 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'. I say that this is one of the few that they do like, as you can tell, for they don't care much for that one which dictates that 'Thou shalt not kill', as you can tell by how firmly they support the American military in Iraq. Which is our first indication that the Ten Commandments are not really commandments at all, but could better be described as the Ten Suggestions or maybe The Ten Proposals, but certainly not as examples of timeless and inviolable moral principles, which would then make them 'commandments'.
Just as the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill', is not a commandment at all, and can therefore be disregarded, it turns out that 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' is not a commandment either, and therefore we can begin to see a pattern emerging here. For example, it turns out that according to the moral compass given to us by the Bible, you can go well beyond simple adultery, and do the Night Stalker thing, and its okay, since it is endorsed by the Bible. For those of you who might not be familiar with the story, the Night Stalker was an American serial killing sociopath, who entered homes in the dead of night, shot dead every member of the family, except for the woman he wanted to screw, whom he then raped and killed later. According to the Bible, after slaughtering all the grown men, you can then proceed to 'kill every woman and kill every little boy, but keep the virgins for yourselves...divide them up evenly.' You can notice here that Moses did have a sense of fair play, which is one thing you can say in favor of the man, for while being the Night Stalker is not morally prohibited in that wonderful divine law from heaven, being greedy and selfish is unacceptable, which means that the Bible is not totally morally corrupt but rather just mostly corrupt with a touch of moral decency still remaining. For this reason we must not roundly condemn the Bible, but rather we must temper our condemnation of that book with an acknowledgment that there are some morals in the book, for if we were to indulge ourselves in hyperbole that would be unfair in this particular example.
Now if we were to practice that Bible harmonization at this point in an attempt to make a consistent policy out of different selected Bible verses, I suppose the conclusion that one could draw is that thou shalt not be the Night Stalker, unless you are not married, in which case its okay, the idea here being that if you were married then being the Night Stalker would be adultery, and thus immoral according to the standards laid out for us by that most favorite of the Ten Commandments. Now as for harmonizing that Night Stalker thing with the commandment, 'Thou Shall Not Kill', that proves to be more of a challenge, but then given the huge pile of killing verses found in the Bible, we can assume that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is a least favorite commandment for a reason, and thus we could just ignore it which is the sensible approach adopted by the religious right. However, just to make the attempt to harmonize those two Bible verses, I suppose one could say that Thou Shalt Not Kill, unless you are horny, and unmarried, thus staying clear of that adultery commandment, and that if you are going to kill you should always kill everyone, or you would be guilty of breaking that law about killing everyone and probably wind up catching supreme hell for your act of disobedience.
In Deuteronomy we are told that 'When you see a beautiful woman, and find her desirable, then you may take her...if she ceases to please you then send her away.' Now here you can see that according to the Bible it is alright to pick up a hot chick, screw her, and then dump her when another hot chick comes along, or even if she just becomes a bore. I will assume that the correct harmonization here is that you can screw around, and its alright according to the Bible, and so therefore perhaps the law 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' should be replaced by the law 'Everything goes, because boys will be boys.' . To clarify the matter and finish harmonizing the Bible, a footnote should be attached reminding the reader that these relaxed sex laws of the Bible are for boys only, and that if a woman sees a sexy guy and goes for it, she will either be stoned to death or burned at the stake, there being two versions of that law for women, which then leads me to further harmonization, since there is a choice here, and I will suggest that she burned at the stake while at the same time people throw stones at her, thus getting both those optional forms of punishment covered and completely fulfilling God's Word in the Bible (which should be the highest ideal of any true Bible believing moralist).
As anyone who has ever read the Bible would know, all the great Bible heroes slept with women who were not their wives. Having a mistress was alright, since, as God understands, boys will be boys. Since men were bound to have mistresses even if someone tried putting out some law to stop them, the Bible adopts the sensible policy of requiring a man to support that mistress, clothing her, housing her, and taking financial responsibility for any children she might have in the course of that hot affair. Therefore, we can assume that the harmonized and amended version of the law which should therefore be the version carved into that Ten Commandments slab should read, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless you can afford it.' So you can see, that God does allow adultery, but it will cost you.
According to the Bible you can also sleep with slave girls, and since no one ever married slave girls, but rather just kept them as slaves, one would assume that this would count as 'sex outside of marriage', and thus be a crime. However this does not turn out to be the case, for as the Bible plainly spells out, 'When a man has sex with a female slave, he is not to be punished, for she is his slave.' Therefore the properly harmonized and amended version of that commandment should read, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery, but you can have sex with slave girls, and that doesn't count as adultery even if you are married, so its alright.' The Bible also states that 'when a man beats a slave to death he is not to be punished for the slave is his property.' Therefore, a further amendment to the Ten Commandments slab should read, 'Thou shalt not kill, except for killing slaves, in which case disregard this commandment.'
Well a person could on and on about it all, but really, is that necessary. I think you can see my point already. Now I ask you all, really now, could such a stupid country exist in the real world where a supposed election campaign issue revolved around the supposedly burning issue of whether or not to carve those Ten Commandments onto some slab of granite. As I have pointed out here, it would have to be an extra large slab of granite so that it include all the possible variations of each one of those laws. As for why it would be the case that God would be found nullifying and constantly correcting those laws I would guess that since those laws were actually not a divine revelation but just a repeat of such commonly existing laws of the time as the Laws of Hammurabi, God must have thought that since they weren't the law of God one could have a free hand in introducing amendments and it wouldn't be like you were screwing around with an infallible divine law, which by definition should be timeless and inviolable and thus not subject to revision, thus being as good for Americans today as it ever was thousands of years ago.
The argument made by the religious right wing authoritarian is that the Ten Commandments are permanent and thus a timeless moral guide, this being the answer you will get if you point out that Bible laws describe the culture of an obscure tribe of ancient goat herders and then follow this by reminding the religious right that this is now the twenty first century. However you quickly find out that such laws are not inviolable if you should point out that the religious authoritarian supports the war in Iraq, thus proving that these laws are in fact conditional and subject to revision, in which case you will then get the answer 'Yes, but...' What comes after the word 'but' is not important, and just depends on whatever the religious right cooks up on the spot to fill in that blank behind the word 'but'. What is important here is that it is pretty obvious that the use of the word 'but' contradicts the previous position which insists that the Ten Commandments are timeless and unchangeable. If you then suggest that sometimes the law on adultery has such strings attached, and try to introduce a 'yes, but...' yourself, you will then suddenly find the religious authoritarian to be rigid and unyielding in the demand for absolutes in morality, with no 'buts' allowed, making it perfectly clear that 'morality' only applies to such relatively harmless things as the allegedly 'illegal orgasm' while all wars, even the criminal wars, are exempt from moral dogmatism, this being the one time when a religious dogmatic shows some flexibility, being willing to tolerate that word 'but'.
For this reason I thought I would introduce the ultimate revision of that law about not killing, since it is obvious that it requires a revision, and should not be carved in stone in its present form. Even the religious right has to agree with me on this one point, since they are the ones who constantly use the word 'but' when it comes to that law, thus showing how its not immortal, but actually needs some changing. Therefore, the corrected version of that one law, which would probably satisfy any reservations the right wing authoritarian might have as to the actual validity of that law as written would be, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill, unless ordered to do so by the proper authorities.'
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article