Topics

Dear Sirs,

Upon learning of the untimely and tragic demise of our Glorious Revolution, I was stricken with such unimaginable remorse and grief that for a moment all hope was lost for me. I stopped eating for a week because when I could muster the sanity to fill my belly, I could not keep anything down. I spent three days lying naked and assprone on the floor of my bathroom, wailing and sobbing and cleaning the grout with my wife's toothbrush. I was inconsolable. The Revolution had meant everything to me, and when I heard that it was over, I was unable to think or breathe or do any of the other things that normally would distinguish me from a corpse. My life was filled, suddenly, with a deluge of contradicting emotions and unstoppable bouts of compulsive masturbation to try to hide the pain of losing what had become, I realized too late, my most trusted and reliable friend -- the Discordian Society.

I remember the old days, when the Revolution was bright and new. The world was dull and grey; devoid of imagination; full of schmucks and lackeys standing in line to be slapped upside the head by the uncaring, two-faced system they had accidentally built to protect themselves from anything they might want to become. Oh, but we had light and color! We had something different and off-beat, something that stood in such striking contrast to the dim world of the Greys that it nearly fractured our own ideas about the nature of reality itself.

But the Machine adapted, and we failed to match its adaptation. We tried, and we got damn close, but every time we added a new color to our palette, They added fifteen different shades and hues to theirs. We alerted the People that they had no real choices in life, and the Machine answered with Customized MySpace Profiles. We screamed about the lack of value in modern living, and in return we got Buy-One-Get-One-Free. Our every turn has been blocked, every exit barred, every exodus from the world of the Greys sidetracked into an amusement park.

As a movement, we are now little more than a squirming mess of whiners, vaguely uncomfortable but not really driven to change. I count myself among these. For all my trying to change the world (or at least my segment of it), I have remained at all times attached to the convenience of living in it. I have sold my soul like everyone else. I am, like the rest of the hairless apes on this rock, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud, because I subscribe to the benefits of our defective civilization and pretend they are not inherently and inextricably linked to every last one of its faults.

So my grief at the end of this ride is not that we have lost our Cause, but that we have succeeded in changing the world after all. It is only that it seems when we set out to make this world a more colorful place we forgot that, to produce all that color, someone would have to dump a whole lot of toxic sludge and make a lot of cheap shit out plastic. In the course of turning our civilization into a tolerant and open-minded Utopia, we disregarded the byproducts of limited freedom of thought and speech. And now, in the cabals of Discordia and the dens where the Subgenii laze, the pronunciation of judgment against the world outside has turned awkward because we must now tear down what we demanded They build.

The Revolution is over.

Long live the Revolution.

it sounds kinda like a cross between James Brown and a train wreck.

http://www.disc0rd.com/audio/download/69/06%20Key6.mp3

REPORTED FROM MY DISTRICT:

Currently, there have been zero reported incidents of "Swine Flu" in this area, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't still be scared out of your mind. It's coming, and if you're a person of average, below normal, or above normal weight, living between the Equator and the Arctic Circle, of European, Asian, African, or Native American descent, you are most likely going to die. LOOT NOW, while you still have the strength to watch a new TV!

So the Taliban are advancing on Islamabad. Cool, potential failed states with nukes are my favorite after-breakfast snack. Luckily, the US and the EU and their retarded half-sibling the UN are all about "Respecting International Borders" (but only when there's a good reason for violating them, apparently) and so there's this big question about whether we should get involved or not.

So my first question is, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAINS? Why is this even a point of debate? Taliban + nukes = Europe held hostage. Even if there are plans in place to prevent the nukes from falling into Taliban control, the best that can come of them somehow overthrowing the Pakistani government is 25 years of bloodshed and failed statehood, followed by probably 50 years of Shariah Law.

My second question is, in a larger sense, when do we finally decide to gang up on these backward Shariah Law-imposing theocracies throughout the Middle East and tell them, "We're terribly sorry, but you are not allowed to do this on our planet. Fuck off." And then blow them up with large bombs until they can crawl out of the 10th Century?

I'm all in favor of the kind of world the "First-World Nations" seem to think we live in, unfortunately, that world is not the real world. And I understand we keep doing everything we can to avoid WW3, but every time we only go halfway in fighting it off, we just allow for it WW3 to become twice as bad as it should have to be.

Ideas?

So there's this guy named Jack who lives on my street, a few houses down from me. His yard is immaculate, his house is repainted at least once every five years (always stark white with dull blue trim), and there's an enormous yellow truck in his driveway that sits about four feet off the ground on monster-truck tires, each roughly comprising the mass of two average African elephants. There is a wooden fence about seven feet tall and about ten or so feet wide filling the gap between the side of his house and the edge of his lot. On this fence is a sign, white with red and blue lettering, which reads "OBAMA" across the top, and running down from each letter are the words, "One Big Ass Mistake America," with a little American flag clumsily painted on at the bottom.

Jack doesn't trust the Government. He believes that the Government has become more than it was supposed to be, expanded beyond its rightful boundaries, and is, like a greasy salesman, obsessed with creating problems just so it can solve them -- and in the process, getting in the way of too many things Jack would like to do. Jack is convinced that any day now, some Democrat is going to order the Army to invade his house and take his children or something, so Jack stocks up on guns and ammo, complains about restrictions on his ability to stock up on other more dangerous things, and blames every problem he can think of on his political enemies, the "Liberals."

I think Jack is an asshole. I wonder when people like him are going to wake up and get with the times. I mean, the guy is a cultural Neanderthal. Eventually, guys like him are going to die out and leave civilization to the civilized. I think people like Jack are the problem. The Government is full of them, and who knows when they're going to make their move.

I don't trust the Government. I think the Government has become more than it was supposed to be, expanded beyond its rightful boundaries, and is, like a greasy salesman, obsessed with creating problems just so it can solve them -- and in the process, getting in the way of too many things I'd like to do. One of these days, some right-winger is going to get too much power and start enforcing his worldview on us with guns. I'm pretty sure that most of the problems we have in this country nowadays can be directly attributed to the failed policies of Conservatives.

I just wish there were more people nearby who could relate to that.

It is clear now the degree to which American society has come undone under the watchful eye of increasingly aloof and distant Federal Government administrations. We, as a single people, now face a singular threat to our livelihood and our standard of living in the form of an economic downturn the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression. We do not even now know the depths to which this current recession will go, and it seems that most of our economy is now functioning only out of some tragic combination of shock and denial, like a mortally wounded animal still frantically running in circles after an injury that has left it without any hope of survival.

So how do we, as Americans, respond to this threat? Do we respond, as in generations past, with a unified voice and a coordinated strategy? Of course not. Responding that way is out of vogue, and anyway none of us really has a good grasp of what this "Economic Crisis" is really about, what really caused it, or how bad it might get. All we know is that it is a Bad Thing, and that Somebody Is To Blame. And that is really the limit of how well the vast majority of Americans understand what is happening, regardless of our political affiliations or social persuasions.

We were, however, caught by this severe drawdown in American economic prestige in the middle of a particularly heated Presidential campaign, so in its infancy this crisis was framed in starkly partisan terms. It became a stage on which intellectually vacant and morally bankrupt political leaders and pundits from all points on the political spectrum stood to act out their imaginary parts as historic heroes. As the effects of this recession have spread across the country (and the world), these partisan terms have become more entrenched in most Americans' minds.

So, ultimately, the American People -- long admired worldwide by our ability to rise up and meet dangerous threats head-on and defeat our enemies both physical and philosophical against intimidating odds -- have chosen -- boldly, as is our custom -- to respond to this latest attack on our sovereignty by wildly accusing, ignoring, and defaming not the perpetrators or the benefactors of this crisis, but each other. The "Liberals" believe it is the "Conservatives'" fault, and the "Conservatives" believe it is the "Liberals'" fault. Never mind that while we waste our time pointing fingers, calling names, and insulting ideas, our economy slides further and further into the murky waters of what promises to be a permanent recession.

We have been, truly and deeply, divided. All that is left for us now is the conquering. And make no mistake, there are plenty of conquerors waiting for the right moment to strike. When we have exhausted, insulted, accused, and isolated ourselves so much by our pedantic bickering that we are unable to trust our fellow citizens even enough to fight alongside them to preserve what little liberty we collectively care about, the endgame will become alarmingly clear. And it will be too late.

But the recession has not yet canceled FOX News or MSNBC, and all the pundits are still able to fire their poisonous barbs at light-speed across a continent full of people who would rather play the blame game than come up with solutions, and who are all too willing to trade comprehension for complaining and sacrifice action for a bet on the right to say "I told you so."

Somewhere, as the bodies of million patriots and founders flop about and spin in their graves, a slight earthquake mildly disturbs a tea party in the executive boardroom of AIG.

People in America who are old enough will tell you that they remember exactly where they were and what they were doing the moment they learned that JFK had been assassinated. The same is true of the time they heard about the attacks on 9/11. These events were powerful disasters in many ways that affected millions of people on a deeply personal level, but a similar reaction occurs in just about anyone who experiences any sufficiently powerful event.

It isn't just that they encode specific memories about what they are doing, but that these moments become important reference points in their minds. Beyond that, when something like that happens, people immediately evaluate what they are doing. Some events will force people out of themselves and to take a starkly objective view of what is happening. When, for example, a person is notified of the death or impending death of someone close to him, everything else spontaneously melts away and becomes extremely unimportant. It no longer matters that he/she is at work, or shopping, or whatever else. It becomes clear to them what exactly they are doing, and they see themselves dawdling with nonsense and bullshit when there is something much more important to be done.

So, I'm just wondering if there is any way to trigger this response without resorting to horrific acts of violence or other destructive mayhem.

Smaller File

Higher Quality Graphics


Direct your complaints to whoever is going to produce issue #3 





edit: fixed links

In my recent Critique of Discordia, I ran into a lot of "I don't want to proselytize any Religion" and "What's in it for Discordianism?" complaints. These are valid concerns, and ones that I agree with, I might add. They do however betray an apparent inability on my part to clearly establish what the hell I am talking about. So, let me offer a clarification of some issues that were left unanswered in the last discussion.

First of all, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "DISCORDIANISM." I can say this with a straight face because I am, in fact, a Discordian. I do not believe there is any useful set of guiding principles, mythos, or imagery that could ever be compiled into anything even remotely resembling a Religion whose purpose is to "teach" people anything. You cannot teach anyone anything worthwhile by acquainting them with a static mythology and expecting them to "get it." They won't.

I am a Discordian, and I do not believe in "Discordianism." I believe, rather, in DISCORDIA, which is not a religion, or a "path," or a "journey," or any such bollocks. Instead, Discordia is a phenomenon. It is a peculiar situation that arises every time a bunch of disjointed, disconnected, Discordians cooperate against large odds to accomplish something.

So I am not looking to enlarge, enhance, or enrich "Discordianism" with new members. My aim is not to establish "us" as some kind of recognizable -- let alone respectable -- religious or philosophical sect. I like my Discord as it is: impossible to replicate anywhere. If it ceased to be that, it would cease to be useful to me.

So when I say I want to see DISCORDIA make an impact, here is what I'm talking about: I'm talking about a widespread knowledge that SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. Because look -- something IS happening: BILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights; liberty is being devoured by fear; cultures are drowning in oceans of bullshit; responsibility is being erased. Can we change any of that? No. But we can sure as hell make more people AWARE of it.

As for "Discordianism," as far as the Masses are concerned, that should be no more than a sticker on our product. Their shoes were made in China, and their mindfuck was made in "Discordianism." Let them know that the Legion of Dynamic Discord exists: but don't bother trying to tell them what it is, they'll just misunderstand anyway.

Ultimately, "Activitism" is not a requirement for all Discordians -- and it should be OFF LIMITS to anybody who wants to sell "Discordianism." But it is a sacred sacrament to those of us who count ourselves as Discordians who want to see DISCORDIA grow. Not as a movement, not as a philosophy, and sure as hell not as a religion -- but as a mysterious phenomenon that forces people to ask questions.

Please, Discordia, help me FIGHT THE "MAN," where "MAN" is my asshole neighbors. I propose we get as many people as possible to snail-mail the following letter to my neighbors in an attempt to get them to quit being trash.



If enough people sign up I'll release the actual letter in PDF format along with the address to which you should mail the letter.

It strikes me that with the wealth of skill and talent at our disposal, we should be making a much, much bigger splash than we are. This community is unique in that almost each of us is good at something and capable of learning how to be good at other things. We are creative, we have quite impressive rhetorical and media skills, and I don't think I'm really exaggerating when I say that if an advertising company had a pool as technically and creatively competent as this, it would have a marked advantage in the industry of making people believe stupid things.

So what is holding us back? We have the talent, the skills, and the ideas to make waves, but I don't think we are living up to our potential. So, in this post, I'll set out my sincere and constructive criticisms of the Discordian Society in general, and the PDCOM community in particular.


1. Lack of Identity

For all the energy we spend trying to make sure we're not getting stuck in dogmatism or typecasting the Discordian movement, it's ironic just how predictable and dogmatic we've become. Instead of saying FNORD or spouting 23 every ten seconds, we're laughing at FNORDs and 23s every ten seconds.

Discordia doesn't need a definition, but it needs a culture. As varied as Discordians are in our personal lives, we need cultural landmarks we can relate to and point to in order to communicate Discordian ideas that have no easy analogies in normal communication.

We shouldn't overhaul everything to be a carbon copy of the PD, but we need to recognize the cultural significance of those aspects of Discordia, and be able use them constructively without belittling each other.

Internally, we need to be able to communicate with a standard vocabulary and be able to recognize -- and accept -- one another quickly and efficiently.


2. Lack of Vision

We've got distaste for the Status Quo down to a science around here, and most of us aren't lacking in a general nonspecific desire to change things whether on a large scale or just locally. Many of us have taken to the streets in furtherance of various GASMs, so I don't think we lack motivation, dedication, or determination.

But we are, generally speaking, easily jaded and thoroughly cynical. We tend to think larger goals are either unacheivable or pointless. Either the task is too hard or it's too inconsequential; it's either impossible to change the world or such change is meaningless because it is corruptible.

This is complete horse shit, even if it is true. Of course any change we can make is corruptible. That's why we're HERE, because an idea that started out promising and new has become an entrenched, corrupted, stale, sour, and rotten System. That's why ten or ten thousand years from now, someone will be around to get rid of OUR stupid ideas.

The Discordian Community itself has become corrupt. Maybe it hasn't been mass-marketed or pre-packaged yet, but we have been sold out for some time on the idea that the ultimate goal of a philosophical revolution should be a static Utopia where everything is perfect.

History is not driven by periods of calm stability, but by tumultuous sequences of upheaval and cultural wreckage. It is only after the established order is demolished that a better order can be established.

Discordians, I fear, are sometimes worried about what would happen if we DID ultimately bring down the entire System. We are concerned about what we would do after that. But it isn't our job to put the pieces back together, it's our job to tear them apart.

Discordia isn't about being there, it's about GETTING there. That's the function of the Discordian Society.

So I think the first issue we need to address is, what exactly do we think we're trying to do? And the answer to that is, we're not bringing about the New Order, we're just getting rid of the OLD one.


3. Lack of Perspective

Today's world is far from the 1960's when Discordia was really born. Now, while people might read a flyer or a pamphlet, they won't spend much time reflecting on it. People don't spend much time reflecting on anything, and that's a problem for the bulk of Discordian materials.

These days everything is about image and convenience. People are hyper-stimulated and hyper-informed on everything, which means a simple analysis or question about reality or a person's assumptions will fade quickly into background noise.

And it would seem that there are entire denominations of Discordia devoted to complaining about that. But that's the way it is, and as with other social norms, it isn't in our best interest to wish it wasn't true. We need to engage our creativity and adapt. Discordia is, philosophically, still light-years ahead of the curve. But in practice, we are far too slow at changing with the times.

I think we also need a slight shift in our ideas about what constitutes a successful conspiracy. In the world of up-to-the-minute Media coverage of everything from war to fake penis enlargement, a fast headline will always outweigh a slow expose' in terms of perceived importance.

Discordia doesn't need to be a vast, well-planned, or very cohesive network in order to LOOK like that's what it is. We aren't really in the business of conspiracy anyway (we can leave that to the douchebags in the AISB). All we should be interested in is getting other people looking for the conspiracy that we aren't.

My suggestion here is to focus not on building a conspiracy that should exist, but on putting out CLUES to a conspiracy that doesn't exist at all. It would be infinitely easier to hoax a conspiracy than it would be to build one. And since it isn't really our job to manage expectations or guide people to the "truth," I say we just invent a bunch of apparently correlated evidence that is actually linked by nothing at all. If nothing else, it could provide endless lulz as we turn the Pinks into the conspiracy theorists and teach them about the Law of Fives the hard way.


I think that's about all I had at the moment in the way of criticism. I'm trying to offer some actual suggestions as well as bitching, though, so if you think I missed something please point it out.

So I decided to make just normal spaghetti. No spinach, no chicken, just water and noodles and store-bought sauce.

But then, I found RED FOOD COLORING. And you can't just let an opportunity like that go to waste, so...


I made pink spaghetti.

Here it is in a bowl:


It kept playing tricks on my eyes, like those pictures of people where an extra set of eyes has been shopped onto their faces. But I managed to eat mine.

It wasn't a problem for the baby, though:

It is often said that laughter is the best medicine. Indeed, during times of epic fail such as the one we are currently about to embark on, scarcely anything besides The Giggles provides a reason to keep breathing. As empires collapse, liberties vanish, and cruel new realities arise, the ensuing chaos can reach levels of absurdity and discomfort that are hard for even the most experienced and lulz-hardened soul to weather.

These periods of civil uncertainty or unrest, when the cycle of human events rolls through the darker and more unsightly neighborhoods of history, are by necessity the most fertile breeding ground for Discordianism. Obviously, it is easier for more people to be disgruntled and disgusted by the Way Things Are, when things are actually bad. But more than that, a descent into collective madness is like a gigantic pot of soup, in that it boils cabbages.

In both good times and bad times, Discordians are irreverent, subversive, and unsettled. But aside from a few exceptional cases, it is really only during the bad times that these traits find themselves in agreement. A society experiencing a widespread period of mourning is one which is looking wildly for distraction and consolation: it is only the introspective, depressed and dimly-lit society which can be illuminated.

If people are laughing anyway, telling them a joke will not make much of an impression. If people are crying, it will break the monotony of gloom and distress.

Discordianism, of course, is more than a well-timed joke. Sometimes it is a badly-timed joke, and sometimes it isn't funny at all. It is many things; it is almost impossible to define, in fact, but I would say that the idea of Discordianism is first a rejection of the status quo, but more directly, it is a concerted, conscious, and successful effort to remain disconnected from the status quo.

The initial disconnection from the status quo is far more achievable when it takes the form of giving people something to look forward to, rather than giving them reason to doubt some already satisfying bliss.

Question Everything. When you are down, question the part of your brain that insists that things cannot get better. That is the duty of a fully functioning Discordian Society operating in a society full of people deranged by worry and stressed to their limits by attempting to meet impossible standards that make no sense in the first place.

It was never the intention of Discordianism to make no sense, but rather to show how the Status Quo is crazy; how it is the daily grind that makes no sense; and how much easier it is to do that when the insanity of the Status Quo is tangibly resulting in the misery of billions.

Taken from a discussion I had with some guy on his blog, concerning the town I grew up in.

I grew up in Bagdad, and graduated from High School there. And I don't think Randy should be so quick to give up his initial impressions of the place. It is full of tame, manageable people, who are singleminded and not very open to dissent or debate about much of anything.

The only people in Bagdad who display individuality are usually people who have nothing to gain from being "normal" -- teenagers who plan to leave as soon as they're legally allowed to and educators who use Bagdad to get a couple years experience and then move to a respectable district.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that the people of Bagdad don't like people rocking the boat. Less than a month before High School graduation, my friends and I were actually arrested on some trumped-up charges and almost imprisoned, until the Judge in the case realized what was going on and expunged our records and reprimanded the deputies involved. It was clearly a "you're not welcome and you'd better get out of town as soon as you can" message, and that's what we did.

Today, when most people I know look back on their High School careers as among the happiest times in their lives, I look back and almost ten years later I'm still glad I never fit in there.

I have to add that I wasn't an above-average troublemaker, in fact I have never been (including the incident I described above) actually charged with any crime other than traffic violations. I was never one to engage in reckless or dangerous activity, or to deface or otherwise vandalize anyone's property, which is more than I can say about many of the people regarded as inseparable from that society.

The thing about us that people in Bagdad hated wasn't that we were disruptive or violent or that we caused damage, because none of that was true. Bagdad, like any homogenized right-wing enclave, simply has a deep-seated distrust of anyone who reminds them that the world is full of people who don't fit the small-town stereotype.

We were targeted not because we were a threat but because we reminded people that the world is moving quickly away from these people's comfort zone; that societies change; and that there's a reason why Norman Rockwell wasn't a photographer.

I would stop short of calling the place a 21st Century version of slavery, because most of the people who live there do so because they choose to, because that's what they want in life. And that's fine.

But it is unfortunate that the town has so little consideration for people who live there because they must, provides so little opportunity for those who might choose to do something else in life, and breeds an extreme Us-vs-Them culture where the Outsider can never be accepted except as a novelty.

Bagdad is in many ways the quintessential American Small Town, and its exports include more than copper -- it is also a rich source of cynicism, cronyism, short-sighted jingoist nationalism, and institutional ignorance.

Ingredients:
1 chicken breast, frozen.
1 handful of spaghetti
1 jar of alfredo pasta sauce
some nearly-expired spinach leaves
some frozen vegetables

First, try to defrost the chicken using your microwave's "Defrost" setting. When that fails, get pissed off and set it to nuke for 2 minutes on 100% power.

Meanwhile, distract yourself with guessing how much spaghetti you need. Do not use a spaghetti serving measurer thing, which would be cheating. Start spaghetti cooking in cold water.

Notice that the chicken has become half-cooked in the microwave, and remove it. Start frying it in a pan for no apparent reason. Some people recommend you chop up the chicken pieces before you start frying it. Those people are wrong. Find something to season it with, it doesn't matter what. I used steak seasoning. Be sure to apply the seasoning after the chicken is at least halfway done, otherwise the flavor might stay in the chicken.

Dump spinach leaves into the pot along with the cooking spaghetti. Take care to use just enough spinach to add color, but not flavor. Add some kind of oil (preferably edible) to pasta water, liberally.

When the spaghetti is done, strain it and put it in some kind of container. Dump the entire jar of alfredo sauce in and mix it up. Allow it to cool while the chicken gets done, which would already be done except you put the heat on too low.

When the chicken is done, toss it into the mix. Taste. Decide it needs something else. Check the cupboards and find nothing. Find frozen vegetables in the freezer. Nuke the holy Jesus out of them for like 10 minutes, then throw them in there too.

Serve.

we know for a fact that the most powerful people on earth rarely waste their time with morality. power and wealth is too important to be stymied by moral guidelines. people who roll with the Rothschilds are hardly going to worry about the dirty business of keeping and growing their influence. these people control entire nations, entire economies. if you think mob bosses are playing for keeps, then you might be surprised to know that there are people who see mob bosses as kids playing in a sandbox they created as an afterthought. these people will fucking anybody.

so my question is, if so much is at stake, and there are people holding the reins to all this who are less concerned about fairness than most people are concerned about what's really in a Twinkie, then is it even possible for any movement to exist that could unseat these people? more specifically, is it possible that any public leader or politician could seriously hope to pose a threat to these elites?

take barack obama for example. this is a man who promises change, and it looks like he's on track to win this year's presidential election. but if the change he insists he will bring is real, it must amount to more of the same. because, if it didn't, someone very powerful would have him killed. either that, or obama is in on it. same with mccain. maybe not ron paul, but that guy's a nutcase.

ITT, post three or four fundamental revisions of federal policy you would like to see happen.

for example:

- for washington to recognize the importance of the international community
- open and transparent elections certified by the UN
- absolute limits on presidential authority

Recent polls show that Americans, in general, believe Barack Obama and the Democrats are more able and more likely to bring about change in Washington. Whether or not either side of our monolithic two-party system can ever really represent fundamental change, Democrats would certainly at least break with the questionable philosophy of the current generation of Republicans, in terms of repressive social policy domestically and belligerent foreign policy abroad; and they have outlined a clearly different approach to our failing economy from the Republican Party.

The past eight years, having been dominated by the laughable goals and scary tactics of the Neoconservatives, have arguably been among the most regressive years in American history. We have accelerated the growth of the chasm between rich and poor by bleeding the Middle Class dry. We have seen our government turn its back on millions of Americans displaced by natural disasters. We have embroiled ourselves in two ongoing hot wars and declared an apparently endless cold one, and have in the process appropriated resources -- vital for maintaining our own country -- for burning down and rebuilding others. Our economic situation grows more dire every week -- more Americans find themselves jobless and homeless while everyone in Washington with the power to amend it fills their time making flowery remarks about the "robustness" of the American Working Class, which is merely an excuse to go on doing nothing (and implicitly laying the blame for a potentially catastrophic economic collapse at the feet of those most injured by it).

But more sobering than all that is the way the power-drunk administration of President Bush has been running like crazy as fast and as far away as it possibly can from the Constitutional guidelines of our government. It pays no attention to Constitutional checks on its power. George W Bush and his cronies decry almost daily so-called "Activist Judges" for legislating from the bench, while Bush himself legislates almost more than Congress from behind his desk every single day with absurd "signing statements," choosing which laws his officers will or will not enforce; and creating new laws out of thin air with no legislative process by way of his Executive Orders. Furthermore, he asserts the phantom right of "Executive Privilege" to avoid scrutiny and transparency by agencies and officials charged with overseeing the behavior of his appointees and executive departments. The Bush Administration is now about as qualified to go galavanting around the world in the name of spreading Freedom and Democracy as Genghis Kahn would be qualified to enforce the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo Bay.

Anyone who doubts that President Bush has changed America for the worse is deluded, plain and simple. This President has made life harder for most of us through his neglect of domestic needs, his strategic incompetence, and his ideological zealotry. His legacy is one of disregard for civil liberties, disdain for civil rights, and outright aggression against harmless foreign states; ultimately, Bush represents not only the failed philosophies of Neoconservatism but the dangerous philosophies of an overgrown and inefficient government that seems to think it is above the very laws that allow its existence.

After surviving these past eight years, the American people now face the question of who should lead us next. This, as well as any moment in the history of our republic, is a defining moment. It is not enough this time to settle for a popularity contest or a battle of wits. If we Americans cannot now muster the presence of mind to evaluate our options with clear minds, then we will effectively seal the fate of the experiment in self-government begun by our forefathers. We cannot afford to treat this election like just another election. The risk of allowing the erosion of the People's sovereignty is too great to allow the abuses of the past eight years to continue.

This year we must address questions not only of specific domestic and foreign policies, but of who exactly it is that we want to be as a nation. Do we want to be a two-faced country of hypocrites who cite due process and civil liberties when we want to pick a fight with Russia or China, only to toss those requirements out the window when it suits our needs? Or do we want to say what we mean, mean what we say, and adhere to our beliefs even when it means inconvenience? If we truly believe that all men are created equal, and that all men have inalienable rights, then we must force ourselves to observe and to protect the dignity of all men, including those who would do us harm. We cannot be both a shining light of enlightened civilization and a reckless behemoth bent on the annihilation of our enemies at all costs.

This year, America must choose. And we are so close to losing sight of what it really should mean to be Americans, that I am convinced that if we choose the wrong path in this election, we may never have a chance to assert our sovereignty as a self-governing, self-respecting people again.

you know those fucking annoying celebrity rags in the checkout lane, whose sole purpose is to keep people infatuated with the pantheon of modern-day gods and goddesses? i think i have a solution. design these, print them, and stick them in front of the magazines :P

Becoming a parent is weird. They say it "changes a person forever," but "they" say a lot of things, most of it bullshit. And I thought the adage about parenthood was bullshit for a while too but now I'm pretty sure they got something right. Being a parent really didn't change who I am, but it has changed just about everything else about me.

It used to be that I didn't give two shits about politics, but as this board is well aware that's all behind me now. I'm still not into the politics of proving how right you are regardless of how wrong you are (I leave that to politicians). But I am for some reason interested in the politics of compromise and making social progress. It's a cliche but I honestly hope that my children get to live in a world that is better than the one I live in.

Also, I think the necessity of understanding what my children want or need at any moment has encouraged my ability to understand people around me. Somehow, the frustration of wanting something and being unable to do it or have it because some little 18" tall fucker is demanding something of his own has made me pretty adept at getting to the root of what people are really looking for and why. That everyone sees things differently is something I've known for a long time but having kids has taught me that I only had an intellectual awareness of that fact, not a real understanding.

But the biggest thing parenthood has changed for me is the way I think about death. Before kids, death wasn't on my short list of things to accomplish, but I my aversion to it was just your average self-interested obsession with staying alive for nonspecific reasons. That hasn't really left of course but now I really hate the idea of dying. Not because I am more afraid of it, but because I feel like I have a responsibility to my children to protect them and teach them, and besides my wife there's not a single person on this planet I've met, who I would really be comfortable leaving my children with permanently. They're all crazy.

Eventually though (if things go according to plan), the children will grow up and they won't need my protection or my guidance anymore. I wonder now if, when that time arrives, I will lose my aversion to death completely. I guess not, since I know plenty of old people with children who don't want to die. But I have to wonder what will come after children that can mean as much as they do, and not feel like an empty excuse to keep polluting the planet with my exhaust.

After a long discussion with a coworker, I'm wondering about the "Big Picture" of globalization and what some people refer to as the Clash of Civilizations between the "liberal" culture of the West, particularly Western Europe, and the growing and increasingly restive Islamic community, both inside and outside of Europe. There is a growing consensus among so-called Conservatives (read: Neoconservatives) that these two societies are fundamentally incompatible -- that Western ideals are so absolutely foreign to Islamic societies that there is a question as to whether or not these two civilizations can peacefully co-exist.

To be sure, many Western ideals are alien to Islamic culture. Self-government, individual sovereignty, gender equality, sexual and religious freedom, freedom of speech, human dignity, and civil liberties are at the very root of what defines many Western societies. In the USA, and probably other places, these ideals are so ingrained that people tend to assume they are universally heralded priorities for any modern human society to exist at all. The concept of a society that doesn't recognize these important rights and privileges is so alien to many Westerners that we will naturally assume any such society to be historically backward. Likewise, these things are so intolerable for traditional Islamic cultures that many Muslims bear a deep mistrust and even outright aggression toward the West -- even when they live here.

Still, the pace of globalization is picking up speed. People all over the world are transcending traditional geographic barriers now like never before. In many places, particularly Europe, there is simply no escaping the fact that there are other cultures in the world, and that sometimes these cultures are simply incompatible with yours.

Now, take a moment to assimilate the implications here. It sounds extreme to say that Western Culture is flat-out incompatible with Middle-Eastern culture. It sounds terrible, even racist. But think about what is going on, and what the arguments are. If you say "Islamic Culture," you sound like an extremist. But how compatible, for example, is the US Constitution with Sharia Law? And it is that Sharia Law that defines millions of the people in question. It is not an incompatibility because they are inherently inferior or because they are different, but because they subscribe to a mass ideology which is itself constructed of assumptions and beliefs which directly counter the assumptions and beliefs that comprise the overall ideology of Western civilization.

Some sources claim that by 2050, France will be a predominantly Muslim country, and other EU nations are on the same track. And there is, as I understand it, already a history of struggle between Muslim immigrants and their adoptive countries that seems to foreshadow a situation that when that political tipping point is reached in France, France will not only be a Muslim nation but a fairly traditional Muslim country, possibly complete with Sharia Law. I know that's a "worst-case scenario," but the possibility exists -- and even calling it a worst-case is to my mind an implicit acknowledgment that France and other nations need to do something to stop it from happening.

My own conjecture on the topic tells me that this line of thinking, that the West and its ideologies face a cultural impasse with the Middle East and its ideologies, should bring to our attention a few prospects.

First, the prospect of Total Cultural War. As unappetizing as this is, it's fair at this point to say that a cultural impasse, if it really exists, could lead to such a war. As high as our opinions of ourselves may be, there is a very real possibility that the rosy future painted by well-meaning Science Fiction is simply untenable and unrealistic. Human history has shown more times than anyone can count that when two peoples who cannot stand one another are forced to share resources or space, there is a war. And if it comes to that with the current situation, it will be a very big war.

We are not talking about an aggressive military power with specific military aims. We are not even talking about a conscious movement of people with intentional collective goals. We are talking about a cultural border that is growing and becoming more complex -- but hardly ever blurring -- at an exponential rate. If you accept that Western society is inherently and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic society, and you add to that the fact that because of natural resources and technology and international politics these people are destined to be face-to-face with each other on a regular basis, then you could come to the conclusion that something here is not going to end well.

This brings us to the next prospect we should consider -- the complete erasure of the Enlightenment. In the West, societies are defined and governed (by varying degrees) by the rule of law and liberal democracy. These are ideas for which many thousands of Westerners have fought and died for -- even if that is an overused cliche', it is still in many respects true.

The political ramifications of the Enlightenment are felt throughout the West. But the great strides we have taken to open our societies to self-government, to welcoming immigrants, a decent respect for other people on their own merits regardless of whether or not they agree with us on everything; these are at the heart of who and what the West believes itself to be. But these are also the very things that have opened the West to the prospect of being consumed by an incompatible culture.

If we believe in these ideals, then we must fight to protect them. We must fight for the individual dignity and rights of every single person. We must fight to preserve our open societies and mutual respect, to prolong the rule of law, and to maintain oversight of our governments by the People. But when presented with a cultural "enemy" (note - I only use that term to define the situation, not to define Muslims in general) that can and will use the prized open self-government systems of the West to undermine the West as a whole, how does the West fight back?

How can the West stop its own political infrastructure from allowing what it was designed in the first place to allow? How can we fight to protect our values and our way of life, without declaring them superior to something in order to exclude what some call a poisonous influence? How can we keep from devouring and discarding the rights of all people in pursuit of an enemy that uses those rights against the society that enforces them?

Finally, the prospect of Westernizing the Islamic World. This is, I think, the one glimmer of hope in this whole situation. And it is here where I can actually see the value in (some of the) policies and actions taken by the Bush White House. If we live in a world where a clash of civilizations threatens the very definition of the West, and we want to maintain that definition at all, then there is only one choice: Westernizing the Islamic world.

To do that, you have to keep the political game in stalemate while cultural forces work to undermine and transform a culture of deep repression into one that is at the very least respectful of different points of view. The line parroted by many "Liberals" is that "American Values aren't for everyone." That is true, but neither are Islamic values. And while Islamic nations are not officially pursuing a policy of exporting and enforcing those values around the world, their influence is spreading on auto-pilot. And this influence threatens the stability of the West.

The civilized response to every confrontation is diplomacy and compromise. Between two nations, this can happen at a governmental and political level. But between two cultures, governments are essentially powerless. The diplomacy and compromise here must take place on a purely cultural level.

I strongly disagree with the military actions taken by the President, but I can see the value in what he says the West is facing, even if he chooses to use drastically oversimplified terms and bad analogies, and follow through on what he says with badly-planned operations that result in the loss of life on a nearly astronomical scale. The mistake of the Bush White House, in my opinion, has not been its overall view of global events but a lack of depth in its understanding of those events and the conditions that motivate those events that has lead to terrible foreign and military policy.

I identify myself most often as a "liberal," one who sees and appreciates the value of Enlightenment ideals taken to logical and reasonable conclusions. But I am also convinced that the West faces a serious test of its ability to stand by those ideals in the coming decades.

My ideals are noble.

My beliefs are true.

I cannot, must not, compromise. That would be turning my back on my ideals.

The system is fixed, rigged, corrupt.

POLITICIANS are all swine. They cannot have my vote. I will not support them.

Instead, I will support myself. And ignore the politicians.

I will squeal like a pig, but I won't support this broken system.

I will consistently vote my conscience, if I bother to show up at the polls at all.

Compromising on a candidate who will compromise with the enemy is compromising my beliefs.

When the enemy wins the election, I will ignore it.

And next week, I'll ignore the tap in my phone line. And the white van parked outside my apartment, and the satellite dish aimed at my living room.

And I'll write DOWN WITH D.C. on the wall of my cell at the camp.

That'll show 'em.

[A PROCLAMATION]

A PROCLAMATION

In order to rid these United States of the stench of political haywireness, the Government of the Sane People of America, not to be confused with the wretched filth that is the Federal Government, hereby issues the following Proclamation:

I. All persons officially associated with the Libertarian, Green, Nazi (and other National Socialist), Democratic, Communist, and Republican Parties are hereby banished from the shores of the United States, and shall immediately cease their bickering back and forth in order to clear the airways for sane citizens to have a decent think about things that actually matter, without the useless and distracting prattle of partisan politicking getting between us and a better Tomorrow.

II. Any election to public office of any person who is seeking license, currently licensed, or has ever been licensed in the practice of Law or the administration of Justice, shall be summarily dismissed; and the Disney character most similarly named to said elected person shall be appointed in his or her stead. It is more fitting that this nation be ruled by cartoons than by the jackasses the Dimwit Masses insist on imposing upon themselves.

III. No local, State, or Federal officer, employed by any department of any agency, shall be permitted to arm themselves for any purpose with any weapon more dangerous than a rubber chicken.

IV. The Police shall henceforth drive golf carts and wear Bermuda shorts. It is ridiculous that a civilized People should have to police themselves, therefore it stands to reason that the Police ought to look ridiculous.

V. The following beers are hereby completely prohibited, and anyone who complains shall be imprisoned for the crime of desiring an unclean thing: Budweiser; Coors; Pabst Blue Ribbon; Cobra; Sam Adams.

VI. The nutjobbery of religion shall cease immediately. The next sly, greedy, awkwardly chubby salesman who comes sliding into our living rooms through our televisions, and tries to pawn his insecurities off on us in order to grease his wallet and belay his own fear of insignificance, will be fed to wild pigs.

ENGAGE!

Normally when I see a tag stuck on a profile that says something like "If you hate the United States, vote Democrat," I ignore it. But I can't ignore it when it's on YOUR page, dood.

Not to get too preachy or anything (although that's what you're doing), but I really feel like I need to insert my 2 cents here.

WTF? Democrats hate America? What the fuck kind of Rush Limbaugh divisive hate mongering garbage is that? I really think you know better than to spew that kind of crap..

Last time I checked, this country had government OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the people. That means the PEOPLE get to decide what America stands for and the policies America will enact. It isn't up to pundits who think they know better than anyone else, it's up to Americans. And that means if Americans decide to vote Democrat, then voting Democrat IS American, by definition.

Saying things like "If you hate America, vote Democrat" shows complete disrespect and disregard for the founding ideals of this country. People have the right to choose. People have the right to believe what they want and vote for whomever they please. It isn't up to you or anyone else to tell me that I'm basically a fucking TRAITOR for exercising my RIGHT to self-government and a voice in this political process.

Nevermind that the Republicans have been overseeing 8 years of economic and military decline of the United States, or endorsing the widening gap between rich and poor, or putting their pathetic seal of approval on turning sick children out of hospitals. Nevermind that every foreign policy adventure undertaken by our illustrious President has ended in stalemate at best, or that the US continues to accumulate enemies in every corner of the globe. Nevermind that it is the Republicans who practice the politics of division and belittlement in order to maintain single party power in this country, so they can enact law after law raping the People of our Constitutional and inalienable Rights in the name of "security."

And thank fucking God that Bush wasn't in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Kennedy had just ignored Kruschev because "You can't negotiate with madmen," there'd be nothing crawling around America right now but three-headed radioactive iguanas.

The most dangerous threat to Democracy is not some fucker with a bomb strapped to his gut. It's the idea that Free People betray themselves by BEING FUCKING FREE and choosing their own leaders based on their own opinions and beliefs rather than some fear mongering horse shit dropping out of the mouth of some self-important prick on the radio.

I hope you can understand that people can have differences of opinion about American politics and foreign policy, and still both care deeply about their country. Personal attacks like the one stuck on your profile page have no place at all in civilized political discourse.

Just saying.

trying to get this project off the ground (again)

We enjoyed the flowery speech of your "Declaration of Independence." It made us feel good about ourselves. We thought, 'Hey! Now THAT's what we're talking about!' We like being recognized as inherently valuable and important, and being judged less by our failures than by our potential. You held those truths to be self-evident. We felt good about it, and it made us feel good about you.

And, like any adoring fans will do, we have been watching you. We watched and cheered as you gave that British tyrant a good ass-kicking. We saw you repel attack after attack. We began to feel inspired to believe that there might actually be something to your Noble Experiment - that maybe Humans really can rise above their imperfections if they work together.

We saw you fight and rid yourselves the albatross of slavery. That fight wasn't exactly a clean one, but we were willing to allow the ends to justify the means there. You lost a few points for form, especially considering that the rest of the civilized world had managed to end slavery without so much bloody bravado. But you do have a flair for the dramatic, America, and we appreciate that.

You tamed an entire continent with only the ingenuity of your engineers and inventors. And guns, and disease-ridden blankets. And we wondered if "created equal" had some ulterior definition in your particular brand of English. Still though, your unity-through-decimation strategy worked, and today nobody even thinks about it.

Years later, we were once again ecstatic, seeing the forces of Good sail across the Atlantic and free the forces of the Unlucky from the forces of Evil. Twice! Good show! We hardly even noticed as you locked up hundreds of thousands of your own People because they resembled the forces of Evil a little too closely. And that second go-round really ended with a bang, didn't it! Although, to be honest, we were a little uncomfortable with the decidedly uncomfortable afterglow. In fact, this is where things really began to go downhill, America.

See, we really love all the things you say about freedom and equality, and giving everyone a fair shot at success. We particularly enjoy the tales you spin about being the "Land of Opportunity," if only for the ironic humor we find so irresistible. But watching your progress from a band of idealistic rebels to a hot-blooded empire obsessed with your own supremacy has become, for us, less a matter of inspiration and has mutated into something more like the futile attempt to avert your gaze when you pass by a train wreck.

Secret police, America? Illegal surveillance? Illegal war? TORTURE? Look, we can stomach your garden-variety hypocrisy for quite some time. We can even turn the occasional blind eye to outright lies. But when we have to sit by and gaze in feigned admiration at you while you plant the American flag on every visible parcel of Moral High Ground, only to never be seen there again, it gets to be unbearable.

What happened to your spine, America? What happened to your ideals? We feel cheated for believing in the foundation of your republic, because if anyone knew how to make it work all the time, it should be you. But, judging by your own history, we really must conclude that due process, innocence until proven guilt, justice, and liberty for all only really work when everybody's having a good time.

When the going gets rough, America, you have no reservations about gagging Thomas Jefferson and ditching him in a gutter somewhere. It really makes us wonder what the use is in allowing people to govern themselves -- they obviously end up no better off than they would be under the thumb of a semi-benevolent dictator. America, where is your fortitude and your consistency? We know nobody can be perfect all the time, but must you speak openly about the abuses you inflict on your own philosophy, veiled thinly in pretty language, carved off of that pristine Declaration like a midnight snack for Jeffrey Dahmer?

When you get around to answering that question, we'll be listening. Until then, America, we'll just be over here. Where we still mean what we say, and where the cause of mankind's Liberty has been taken up by a far more worthy bunch: chimpanzees.

- Agricultural Revolution
- Industrial Revolution
- Information Revolution
(possibly others)

Poking around in the history of human society, albeit superficially, it appears that the advent of each new "phase" of technology brings widespread (not necessarily simultaneous) upheavals in the makeup of civilization. Few civilizations (if any) have survived such a revolution without a fundamental transformation in class structure and/or governmental character. Each phase has far-reaching event waves that are not immediately recognized as being directly related to the technological revolution, but in hindsight are viewed as practically unavoidable consequences of a basic shift toward new social and cultural priorities.

It appears that the Industrial Revolution caused the American Civil War, the dismemberment of the British Empire, and at least one World War. Changes in the balance of trade due to changes in which goods are in highest demand lead to national and international instability, and eventually to war. Changes in a nation's (or an empire's) mechanisms for producing and consuming these goods, which form the basis of the class structure, lead to the dissolution of old loyalties and alliances. This in turn can call into question a nation's reasons for remaining a unified society at all.

I believe that the global society is in the midst of an Information Revolution, which will prove to be at least as significant as the Industrial Revolution, and maybe even as historically important as the Agricultural Revolution. We already see the beginning of a realignment in social priorities in those nations most directly effected by the digital world. And, because of the groundwork laid by the Industrial Revolution and its technological children, the Information Revolution promises to take root far more quickly than any previous technological revolution -- it even comes at a time when the Industrial Revolution has yet to fully grasp the entire planet.

The implications of this are that some of the stress we see forming cracks in societies throughout the planet may not simply be a continuation of humanity's penchant for fucking itself. It may be that we are heading into another technological revolution, but this time with the foresight to realize what is happening being far more widespread than in previous such revolutions. And with the already accelerated pace of this one, it could be that we may see very fundamental changes taking place in governments and economies not only within our lifetimes but within the fairly immediate future. At this point I would not be totally surprised to see the complete collapse or overthrow of one or more major Western governments in the next thirty years.

The coming Weird Times may not be something TGRR just pulled out of his ass, after all.

At stake in this primary race is not just a nomination for President of the United States, or even a victory in November's general election. It should be obvious to any observer, inside or out, that the intense emotions being brought out here are no less than an historic and potentially deadly crisis of identity for the Democratic Party. The Clinton camp has done everything in its power to cast this as a fight between "working Americans" and "the latte-sipping crowd," but almost nothing could be farther from the truth. Class, income, and lifestyle has little to do with this struggle. And it has nothing to do with gender or race or any other perennially convenient cross-section of voters, either.

It is far simpler, far more dangerous, and for some reason far more unexpected than any of that. It is a struggle between those who control the party -- and their children. Baby Boomers versus Generation X. Of course, there is bleed-over in support from both directions, but by and large, we are seeing an attempted coup-de-tat in progress by members of a younger, more idealistic generation who are not ready to settle for the failures and compromises of the Hippie generation. Is this any surprise, after seeing the havoc wreaked by the Flower Children in 1968, when they were as insistent on their demands as Generation X is today?

The torch is being passed. And the Democratic Party has two options: either listen to the People, give them their Nominee and hand over the reigns of Democratic power to young people with fresh ideas and the energy to carry this party into this century... or die. And that is no exaggeration. If millions of people are told in August that their voices and their demands have no place in the "Grown-Up's" Democratic Party, they will revolt in a heartbeat, and the next generation of Democrats will turn away.

Some of them will join the Republicans. Some of them will join the already-too-large ranks of apathetic citizens. Some of them will dissipate into third parties. Only a few of them will remain loyal to the party that has shown contempt for the future -- certainly not enough to make the Democratic Party strong, or even viable, for another generation.

I am among these voters who demand a new and invigorated Democratic Party. I, like millions of others, am tired of watching as the Democratic Party makes big promises and fails to act on behalf of the People. I am sick of my vote being assumed, and of my demands being swept under the rug while my party plays "safe politics." And I will not be ignored, especially when for the first time even among Democratic voters, my voice is chanting with the majority, demanding a new direction in Washington.

If Barack Obama ends up with a majority in popular votes and delegates, only to have his nomination railroaded because party elites have decided they know what is best for me more than I do, I will vote for McCain in November. Not because I hate Hillary (because I don't), but because it is intolerable to toy with the will of the People. I do not care who is the "safer" candidate in November. I do not care who has contributed what to whom, or who owes political favors to whom. I do not care about anything this year except that for the first time in my lifetime my vote actually counts. As for Hillary, she needs to be aware that my generation is not full of idiots, and we do not lie down to her claims just because they come out of her mouth. And every time she accuses Barack Obama of "disenfranchising" voters in Florida and Michigan because their state party broke the rules, it only makes her attempts to disenfranchise a majority of all Democrats nationally by calling on their delegates to abandon their pledges look more and more disgusting.

And not only will I vote for McCain, I will vote Republican for every single position on my ballot, from United States Senator to Neighborhood Watch Chairman. I will do this knowing full well that if my votes turn out victorious it will spell discomfort and pain for millions of Americans for at least four years. But I truly believe that if the Democratic Party cannot live up to its name, it deserves not only to be defeated, but to be dissolved. Again, I would not do this to spite Hillary: if she ends up winning the popular vote, then she'll have mine. But if she, through slimy politicking, back-channels, and democracy-subverting tricks, steals this nomination -- not from Barack Obama, but from the People whose voices are so clearly demanding a departure from the politics of the Boomers -- my hand will be forced. I would rather put up with failed Republican policy for four more years than allow my party to devolve further into an aristocratic cesspool of insider power plays while assuming it has my support.

So, to the "superdelegates," I have only this to say: As you cast your vote or make known your allegience, know that while you can deny the People our voice in your process, we can deny the entire Democratic Party its voice in Washington. We are the People, and regardless of your political calculations, we can send the lot of you to the political sewers in a single night this November.

At the risk of sounding optimistic or even "hopeful" (god forbid!) about the state of human evolution in general, I am going to make a few points here that fly in the face of the dogmatic assertions by most Fringe groups that OH GOD WE'RE DOOMED. For the average Human animal, I share your contempt. Of the average clot of intellectually degenerate Human beasts, I share both your disgust and your fear. We are, after all, monkeys. And monkeys are good at beating each other with sticks and throwing feces. To be sure, we have over these past 10,000 years developed many amazing and impressive ways to engage in those prehistoric behaviors by more and more unrecognizable proxy.

In large part, our great cities and expansive nations have come to exist and to flourish more out of greed and ambition than of necessity. We engage in all the pettiness and worship the same fruitless distractions that have dominated the Human experience since that first hairless ape fell out of a tree and incorporated the resulting brain damage into his genetic code.

But for all of our faults and failures -- which no doubt far outnumber our positive achievements -- only those among us wholly given over to that rough animal instict, to the detriment of any higher cognitive function at all, can ignore that Humans have at times managed to improve upon the basic model of animal society. For most of us, these changes seem negligible. For some of us lucky enough to have lived both at the time of the horses and buggies and to have watched in amazement on electric machines as humans stepped foot on the Moon, the accomplishments of the Human race seem limitless. Our greatest generations are those who have witnessed the entire range of human possibility, and have decided that our existence in this world may be purely by chance, but that by virtue of being here we have the power to define our purpose and to transcend the parts of our nature that conflict with those ideals we have set up for ourselves.

The stupider cousins of chimps though we may be, we are nonetheless responsible for having made quite some progress in our time. Fractured by ideological and physical and spiritual differences, which some humans have taken great pains to overcome, a larger picture has taken shape of our species as an integrating, if not integrated, whole. We have made progress, and any denial of that fact is only a gross misjudgment at best, and an attempt to undermine and destroy everything we have achieved at worst.

Imperfection defines us as a race. Our shortcomings cannot help but discourage many,- but we should try to remember these shortcomings fall short not of any natural law but of lofty ideals we have invented ourselves. Throughout the ages, the thing that truly separates the Human race from the animal kingdom is not our culture or our language; it is not our bombs or our industry; it is that we have the innate ability and desire to envision a world that is better than the one in which we live. And not only that, but that we also have the ability to actually reach some of these supernatural goals.

In some parts of our history, as in some parts of the Globe, ignorance reigns like an immortal king with all the power of Heaven at his disposal. Death threatens millions and eventually claims every one, too often for no reason but avarice or ambition. Nevertheless the fight for illumination and civility exists, persists, and even prevails. The number of people acquainted with such abstract concepts as inalienable rights, due process, mutual respect, and freedom of expression grows, even as those most threatened by liberty and equality grow more desperate. In one fifth the span of recorded Human history, we have moved from being an oppressed people under the absolute rule of vindictive tyrants, to being an oppressed people under the absolute rule of our own tyranical whims.

On second thought, give up, Humanity. You deserve what you get.

again - you probably aren't the target audience, but this is all i can seem to write lately. fucking election years.

From the mouths of "conservative" radio pundits and talks show hosts, and increasingly from supporters of Hillary Clinton, there is a constant stream of dismissals of the movement championing Barack Obama for President as simply a "personality cult" that cannot see beyond the "empty rhetoric" of a smooth-talking politician. He lacks substance, they say, he offers nothing but flowery speeches and an uncommon command of rhetorical devices and suggestive political maneuvers. He is unqualified to actually carry out the job of President; he is too easily swayed by opinion polls; his supporters are not a campaign but a "movement."

These criticisms, while I certainly understand why they exist, belie the way Barack Obama's critics completely miss the point of Obama's candidacy, and worse, vastly underestimate his supporters. Barack Obama, of course, does have sound policy plans and has been more to-the-point and more specific on just about every issue he is faced with than any of his competitors, facts that the pundits ignore because they are inconvenient. But even that isn't what makes them so terribly wrong on this "personality cult" business.

Barack Obama speaks the language of a growing number of people who are tired of PowerPoint presentations and sick of hearing their elected officials pander to the lowest common denominator in theory while worshiping at the feet of the already-too-powerful in practice. Faced with a government bent on self-interest and deafeningly silent on the will of the People; opposed in many regards by the very people they have elected to represent their best interests; jobless and homeless because corrupt corporations are "good for the economy;" dying of curable ailments because no politician is willing to risk donations in order to reform our health care sistem; millions of Americans already know what is wrong with the system: it doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for a long time.

To these problems, what can be submitted as a solution but Change? When people everywhere are desperate — not for more partisan bickering and deadlock, but for progress — what can they be offered but Hope? Must every conversation on public policy and the state of our Union devolve into point-by-point soundbites to be bickered about endlessly? Must the American people forever be insulted with the language of simple minds while those who do all the talking do nothing else?

Barack Obama does a lot of talking, that's true. He does a lot of talking to people instead of at them or about them. He talks a lot about problems nobody wants to admit they have, but who can't afford to ignore them anymore. He is making a lot of promises to a lot of people. He is putting himself forward as the answer to America's problems. But then, all the candidates are doing that.

But as one of Obama's supporters, I must say that I take offense to the suggestion that I have been enchanted somehow by his speeches, which, to be honest, are good but not the most moving speeches I've ever heard. Even as a person who defends Barack Obama to my friends and to people I've never met against the ridiculous accusations he has faced, I can honestly say that I don't feel like owe the man any particular allegiance or loyalty except as a person who shares my views about America and the world, and the one person who is most likely to be put into a position where those views can find a voice in actual policy.

I am an Obama supporter, but more than that, I am part of a groundswell of dissent from the common wisdom that the answer to a Republican is a Democrat. I cannot speak for everyone who supports Barack Obama, but I can say that most of the ones I have met who do express a similar opinion.

We are not fighting for Barack Obama the man as much as we are fighting for the People who have found him standing for them. We are not loyal to Barack Obama, we are giving him the benefit of the doubt that he can deliver on the promises he has made — not because he sold us on those promises but because those promises are the expression of our demands. Our support is based not on his charisma, but on his standing as an outsider in Washington and his record of achieving meaningful and effective compromise and cooperation with people any simple Democrat might write off as insignificant (and thereby achieve nothing at all).

Barack Obama cannot be America's savior, but he alone among the contenders for the White House is willing to give the American people the chance to save America themselves. He is not perfect, but he is tuned in to the voice of the one entity that is as close to perfect as any political body can be — the voice of the People, tempered with the fair judgment of Reason.

We are not a cult of personality, we are a generation of Americans who refuse to settle for mediocre and ineffective government. We are not sheep being led by a deceptive shepherd, we are a growing band of disaffected, disenchanted citizens who are declaring independence from the status quo. We are a movement, and we are marching to recover the ground lost by failures on both sides of the isle. In Barack Obama, we have found a chink in the armor of the power mongers who have betrayed our trust. And we intend to exploit it.

Let the pundits dismiss us out of hand as invalid and inconsequential. Let small minds be concerned with small things like the difference between a "Conservative" and a "Liberal." We are the People, and we do not need the blessing of small minds and small agendas to act in the best interests of our self-government. And if Barack Obama is ultimately defeated in his quest for the Presidency, let them wonder why the Cult of Barack Obama continues to wage war against incompetent and self-destructive government, even without its "savior."

Okay forget what you thought when you read that topic headline. Admittedly, this idea is probably going to fall on deaf ears but at least hear it out.

The ideas in the thread going on that led to the idea of GASMs went beyond Discordians posting Want Ads for teamwork-driven mindfucks. I think my original idea was the concept of a self-replicating, self-perpetuating meme that could be designed and introduced into a population that could, with little or no administrative effort, result in a premeditated result.

So I've been thinking about ways to test that theory, or at least do a little more R&D on the topic. I think what we need to start with is a population that is already susceptible to, if not actively seeking, memetic infection. Tying a meme to a subject that is already intended for distribution, like politics, should make trasmiting the meme that much easier. We also need to be able to narrow down targets for initial infection as far as possible in order to cut down on the legwork we have to do.

In a little over five weeks from now, the state of Pennsylvania will hold Democratic Party primaries. What we know is that it is considered unlikely for Obama to win this contest. Personally -- I'll admit it -- I'd like to see him win. But I also think that Pennsylvania for the next five weeks is going to be full of people looking for a reason to change their minds, because they'll be constantly bombarded with political sloganeering and they'll be in a more immediately political frame of mind.

So the idea is to test the theory of the "Smart Meme" by designing various kinds of contagious memebombs and releasing them into the wild in Pennsylvania, to see if we can effect any kind of statistical change in the election results. Sounds huge and daunting I know, but if the idea flies at all, it ought to fly in this situation. And it isn't like I expect to turn the results around completely, even if it's a runaway success.

this is a question i've been meaning to ask somebody for a while. i don't very often IRL because people think it's a stupid question or something. but, this is the internets, and all questions here are stupid.

musicians write/perform music, usually. but do you think that sometimes, like with truly great pieces of musical art, musicians aren't writing the music so much as like accidentally stumbling across the songs?

Note -- please excuse the 'mainstream' tone of this article, it's intended for wider distribution than just Discordians

It's a hotly debated topic lately. Should we torture suspected terrorists when they might give up information leading to a deadly attack on Americans (or American interests)? Most people I talk to seem to think that if it ultimately saves lives then it is unfortunate but justified. Personally, I can't seem to reconcile that opinion with my understanding of what America is supposed to be.

Putting aside for now that when a person is tortured, they will say anything to make the torture stop -- which makes any information gained from torturing a person extremely unreliable -- there is a much larger question when it comes to the use of (and eventually the reliance on) torture as a means of intelligence gathering and threat deterrence. And even if we gain reliable information from a tortured suspect -- even if it results in saved American lives -- we cannot ignore this question.

Do we believe everything the Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence? Do we really believe what Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense? Do we, as a nation, still have any faith in reason, in civility, and in the existence of inalienable Human rights? Do we still believe that suspected criminals are innocent until proven guilty?

These questions form the core of what America is -- a free nation, where everyone has a chance. Our dealings with foreigners have for most of our history followed the same model. Now, with the question of torture, we must reexamine these beliefs to see if they are still relevant in today's world.

Are America's good intentions and high-minded rhetoric of any practical value? If we must resort to torture to defend ourselves, then the answer is no. If, for our own survival, we must violate the philosophies we hold dear as a free nation, then we are deluding ourselves. If universal respect for everyone -- including our enemies -- is a weakness in a time of war or danger, then it is a false hope. If America embraces torture as a valid means of self-defense, then America admits that all of the things we have fought for over two centuries -- universal equality, Human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion -- are not worth really believing in.

Can we rely on our honor, integrity, and our sacred ideals to carry our nation through difficult times? Or are those ideals worthless and disposable when we are faced with the difficult decision between saving lives and staying true to ourselves? Can we depend on freedom to justify and defend itself, or must we resort to tyranny and barbarism to secure it? The way we answer this question as a nation will define who we are as a people, more loudly and more permanently than any resolution passed by a band of rebels two centuries ago.

Make people go on random treasure hunts. Distribute memebombs at the same time.

ON THE RECORD THIS TIME:

Right now, I'm reading Moby Dick, because I'm totally into "expanding" my "horizons."

The PDCOM Research Department has spent the past year or so researching the definitions and characteristics of The Machine(TM), delving into the psychological nature of the Black Iron Prison in which people trap themselves, and making up a lot of silly terms for almost every tendency people accidentally give themselves. Some have said that this is all a lot of intellectual masturbation, that we were going nowhere, or that there is no practical application of all this stuff beyond the off-chance that some of the propaganda we produced might snap somebody out of Robot Mode.

It seems, however, that all these naysayers were in fact wrong about everything, and we were right to call them Ass Bandits. Although even our researchers themselves were largely unconcerned with where our research was heading, it turns out that there may be a practical application of this knowledge after all.   To address what this application is, it might help to give a brief recap of some of the highlights of the PDRD's work.

First, we examined The Machine. The Machine is a difficult thing to define and is heavily nuanced, and it outside the scope of this paper to go all that detail. Suffice to say that The Machine is what happens when a society's internal power structures begin to lose absolute control over it. The Machine is the collective habits and unconscious reactions of a society's members, perceived as being almost an organism unto itself, with much the same behaviors, instincts, and requirements of a "natural" creature. A society at this point is characterized by political systems that, in spite of being enormous and powerful, are capable of directing the movement of the society, but incapable of outright declaration of the society's directions.

Secondly, we examined the Black Iron Prison. This is an individual-oriented concept describing the psychological, spiritual, experiential, and emotional "bars" we build and use to define our self-identities, determine our actions, and influence how we see the world around us and other people in that world. These "bars" often go completely unnoticed by a person until he is faced with a situation that forces him to re-examine his worldview in depth. They are constructed out of assumptions, religious beliefs, or anything else that is convenient to use when defining something we are initially unsure of or ignorant about. Because there is almost an infinite degree of information that can be learned about any particular subject, we almost always place a "bar" when dealing with things as a means to pin down what it is so we can move on to some other (usually more interesting) thing, and then tend to forget that the final definition we put on the thing was really only a convenient place for us to stop investigating it.

It is likely that both of these topics will be the subject of further exploration forever (and here I have hardly scratched the surface of what we already know), but we have gleaned enough usable information to move on to other things as well. Adding these to other topics of research such as Meme Dynamics and Military theory, we are at a point now where we can begin work on PDRD's next product. This product is exciting, because it steps beyond research and propaganda into the actual development of a testable model. This model has no official name yet but since I am egotistical and it fits with one of my posts, I'm going to call it the Game.

The central theory behind the Game is that it should be possible, knowing what we do about the nature of The Machine and the Black Iron Prison, to purposely construct an organization that uses human automation to produce pre-defined results in a larger society in which it is set in motion. The idea here is that a set of instructions would be introduced into a population, taking the form of a network among individual members, driven to recruit new members, and designed to produce a generally-defined effect.

This is not an organization in either the traditional hierarchical or flat-network sense. This system is designed to be self-sustaining and resilient to attack and dissolution like a network, yet share the benefits of deliberation and motive that are normally in the jurisdiction of hierarchical systems.

FURTHER INFORMATION PENDING RESEARCH.
DON'T YOU LOVE THE OPEN-SOURCE MODEL OF "RELEASE EARLY, RELEASE OFTEN?"

I guess the duty falls to me.

ATTENTION AMERICA

BARACK OBAMA WINS. HILLARY IS EATING A SHIT SANDWICH AT THIS MOMENT.

on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee takes the cake (and probably the hookers backstage but we won't hear about that until later)

This could mean that, come November, the race for the White House will be a toss-up between:

A) A WHITE CHRISTIAN MALE with a stick up his ass who thinks he's on a mission from God to rid America of "immorality."

and

B) A PROGRESSIVE BLACK MAN with a history of listening to the facts before making his decisions, and admitting he doesn't know absolutely everything.

OH GEE I WONDER WHO AMERICA WILL PICK.

fuck this, I'm moving to Switzerland.

Maybe it's the fact that it's now an election year in the US that's got me thinking politics again, or maybe it's the fact that society and other things under Human control continue in this modern age to suck what can only be described as a whole lot of ass.

Anyway, in my travels online and in conversations IRL I have had with different people (and different kinds of people), there is a large and growing consensus that whatever floated the Colonists' boat two centuries ago, it just isn't working anymore. Of course, something like that is seldom spoken out loud for fear of sounding like a Revolutionary, which is somehow synonymous these days with everything a Good American is supposed to hate.

Besides that, there are the not insignificant facts that if Americans were to revolt en masse against their government, they would be laid to waste by the strongest military power the world has ever known; that most Americans just don't care enough to defend something as abstract as Liberty against a tyrannical government when they have something as literal as an iPod and "bills to pay;" and that nobody outside of the Establishment would have the first clue about how to design a proper Government anyway; so even if there was a Revolution, it would fail.

Well, that kind of thinking is depressing for a person like me who not only thinks the system has failed but has long since outlived its usefulness anyway. Add to that my delusions of grandeur and my foolhardy wish to "live in interesting times" (which is an old Chinese curse, by the way), and it's just a mood killer when you tell me how broken the world is and then say, "Eh, but whatcha gonna do?"

Usually, when your logic tells you there's no good way to avoid something, it's right. Sometimes, though, your logic is flawed. Sometimes your logic just isn't equipped to deal with the problem you're facing, because it's based on the same set of circumstances that led to your problem in the first place. I believe that right now, we as Americans (and probably people in "The West" in general) are living in just such a time. All the signs are pointing to the apparently undeniable "fact" that our governments are becoming more and more ubiquitous and all-seeing all the time; that "privacy" is something you only read about in fairy tales and lawsuits against peeping Toms; and that We the People are just in for it, no matter how you look at it.

But what if that's all just hogwash, and the only reason we believe it is because we've been conditioned to believe it? What if the reality is that the Government and the "System" in general is just a great big game of Monopoly set up two hundred years ago and has been hijacked, exploited, cracked open, broken into, and under constant attack since before it started? If that were true, if the Government we supposedly "owe" our allegiance to, just because it happens to be in power, is only a game, then what's keeping us from just walking away?

This isn't about taking off and living in the hills. It's about a paradigm shift that's desperately needed by millions of people. It's about recognizing what the hell is going on, really. There are people in Washington and London and Paris and everywhere else, and these people are playing a game called Politics. The game has its own rules, etiquette, and protocols.  And like any game worth playing, there is a prize if you "win." But unlike most games, the prize for this one is quite literally stolen from people who never signed up for the game in the first place. Most people don't realize that politics is a game. They think it's Serious Business, but it isn't. Have you seen the great big stupid grins that get stuck on politicians' faces whenever they're hanging out with each other? Those aren't fake.

So all of politics is a game. Everything, from international warfare, to micromanaging regulations within Federal departments, to the lines painted on the streets you drive on every morning, is a part of this game. The money you carry around with you is not actually worth anything -- it's just a "promise" that it's okay to pay you in paper because other people are all playing the same game that you're playing, and will also accept that paper as payment.

The problem of course is that this game has very high stakes, and it doesn't care who gets the short end of the stick. Especially with the jackasses who are currently playing at the top levels of the game, any recourse for the Little Guy is drying up quick. That's why there's so much talk about the System failing and everybody's wringing their hands because it doesn't feel good to know there's something wrong that you can't fix.

Except we can fix it. Politics is a game, so quit playing. Make a new game, and alternative game, make it open to anybody who wants in so you can grow quickly. Make it simple, make it fair, and put it into practice wherever you can. Model community groups after it. Model online groups after it. All that we really need to do is make that intellectual leap from this dogmatic "There is only one Government and My Government is The Government" drivel, to knowing that politics is only a game and you're perfectly within your natural rights to make your own.

People are (generally) born with two hands, two feet, and two eyes. Know how many governments we are born with? None.

If there are any of you good-for-nothing comatose bastards lurking here, I'd just like to tell you to knock off your shit.

FSM is a terrible rip-off of Discordja, plus when you go around spamming schoolboards and shutting down their plans to teach ID to classes full of impressionable youngsters, you're not doing anyone a favor.

Plus, if you slackers can accomplish something like that, pretty soon people are going to start wondering why Actual Discordians(tm) spend all their time fapping to GIGGLES' avatar and pissing and moaning about how nobody ever pulls off the Perfect Jake!

SO JUST QUIT ALREADY.

thx.

(for Operation Spinback)

Every year during the Holiday Season there are, everywhere you look, people arguing about what Christmas really means; about where to draw the line between recognizing religious culture and enforcing it; and about what it means for traditional Americans and their beliefs to be under attack from the forces of soulless modernism. Increasingly the months from October through December are becoming a battleground with people on all sides claiming a right to something that, if you think about it, really defies ownership.

But every year, without so much as a nod to each other's right to exist, the battle rages on among the various parties with an interest in "winning" the fight. And it inevitably becomes a question of patriotism. Just what is America, anyway? Is America an oasis of fundamentalist Christianity trying to blossom in a world of cold-hearted post-modern atheism? Or is America a shining light of reason, broadcasting a message of tolerance and acceptance like a lighthouse to a world sinking ever faster in religious war and spiritual genocide? And just what did the Founders have to say about this argument?

The concept of Church versus State lies at the root of almost every argument at the forefront of American politics today. It seems that everything from abortion to public prayer to how to care for the poor hinges on a question of the States power to rule the Church or the Church's power to rule the State. And to many, it seems that the old way of answering these questions — by observing the democratic process established by our Constitution — is now failing. It is not failing because there are no answers, it is failing because those answers are wrong.

As America weathered the storms of the 20th Century, a good portion of Americans lost their faith in God. The old standby slogans that were once considered inherently American are now under attack, as more and more people wrestle with their personal definitions of right and wrong. Rather than turning immediately to the Church for their answers, and those answers being reflected in law, people are finding other sources of morality, and the Christian character of our nation has been tarnished.

While America enjoyed a century and a half of outright Christian rule, America prospered. Now beginning the 21st Century, Americans are asking a lot of questions about our spiritual direction. Still, the vast majority of Americans are strong Christians; more of us believe in Christ than in Darwin; and even if legally we are restricted from enforcing our religion on others, we have not yet lost the fact that in polite company, it is better to behave like a Christian even if you're not a believer. But who knows when that will change?

The headline of the article says "God Bless America," and once that phrase was used all the time, as a statement of fact. Today, it is said almost as a plea — God, bless America! But as we say it, are we considering just what we are asking for? Are we asking God to give America what is best for America? Or are we, selfishly, demanding that God "return" America to the Christians, as if America is something that must be owned by someone?

Christians, beware. When we begin asking for the erasure of any separation between Church and State — even if that is what we believe the Founders wanted for America — we are asking for more than recognition and equality. We are asking for more than our rights. We are demanding that we become a privileged class, owed everything by, owing nothing to the nonbelievers. Beyond that, we are losing sight of the fact that Christ Himself stated plainly that His kingdom is not of this world. We are attempting to build the Kingdom of Heaven on the backs of sinful men — and for no reason other than that we feel cheated by the turn of history away from forcing the masses to bow before a God they might not otherwise choose for themselves.

If God were to really bless America, do you think He would come down in a chariot of fire to impose morality on the heathen masses? Is that what the Declaration of Independence asks for? Or do you think that God would bind the hands of the religious opportunists and profiteers, and return America to the rule of the American People — without the interference of dogma, for better or for worse?

Requiring belief from unbelievers just to be allowed to function in society has always been the quickest way for Christians to corrupt themselves. Did Christ reform the Roman Empire? When Christians finally turned the government to Christianity, nothing changed except who was eaten by lions. Remember the fall of Rome and ask yourself if the slogan had been GOD BLESS ROME, where would the Catholic Church be today?

Humans are assholes. We want to dominate each other, we get off on power-tripping, we're all pissed off that slavery is "wrong." Every last one of us is constantly calculating everybody else's demise, and none of us are immune. The "nice guys" are up to something, the "peacemakers" are just fighting a different kind of war, the prophets talk nice, until somebody offs them, and then heads roll. Even your sweet old granny was playing you. How do you think she lived so long? She was draining the life force out of all the relatives you never met for 50 years. You always knew there was something in her chocolate chip cookies and now you know what it was.

We have seven billion complete assholes piled on top of each other, all of them talking bullshit and committing indiscriminate acts of psychotic manipulation. You think that can lead to anywhere good? Of course not. It leads to a whole planet covered in disease, war, poverty, and all the other shit those do-gooders interrupt late-night TV to complain about. And you hit the mute button when that shit comes on, don't you. See? You're an asshole, just like me.

And not only are people assholes, they're also stupid. In fact, we are tied for intelligence with dolphins.

Fucking DOLPHINS.

And, after a hundred thousand years of people being shitty to each other, we have reached the point now where we can, with the click of a button, wipe everyone and everything off the face of this ball of dirt we call home. You think that at some point, some dickwad isn't going to actually DO IT? Face it. Humanity is the crowning achievement of evolution -- and if you've been paying attention you'll see that evolution is an asshole, too.

What do you think is gonna happen? What is the cumulative effect of seven billion angry, distrustful, petty, stingy, half-retarded hairless apes who have nothing better to do than kill each other over stupid things like sneakers and imaginary friends? You think that one day, they're all going to see the light and join hands and say I'm sorry? If that's what you beleive, then you need to get some tinfoil and duct tape and build an impenetrable fortress out of sofa cushions in your living room because you are just the sort of person that natural selection is aiming for.

In the end, it's all going to come down to the very thing you're already imagining and have been imagining since the first time you looked at the Evening News. And you know it, so quit deluding yourself into thinking there's something better worth defending.

It's a sideshow out there, and you're the freak. So quit buzzing around the office all fucking day chit-chatting with people you can't really stand, and find your reason to care whether there's a tomorrow or not. Because the way I see it, really caring about something other than your car or your bank account is the only shot this fucked up species has at survival.

A new kind of "rant" that isn't intended to piss people off (except maybe Discordians). The prevailing technique in media/government propaganda is to take 1% truth (or well-established buzzwords) and apply it to 99% bullshit. Operation SPINBACK reverses this technique -- 1% bullshit to soften the blow and 99% truth. Actual percentages may vary as the situation requires, but the intention is to draw the gullible masses in, making them think they're reading another propaganda piece that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy, and then hit them with "wake up you fucking moron." Two examples follow:

FREEDOM ISN'T FREE

There is a price for everything in this world. Nothing that's worth having is free, and that includes our rights in this country. With everything that could be improved in America, one thing has been true for our entire history -- we are a free people, and we fight for our freedom. With every generation, there is a new threat to that freedom, and we have always met those threats head-on.

When Americans talk about freedom, we mean a lot of things. We mean that we can have opinions that are different than our neighbor's, without having to shoot at each other to figure out who's right. We mean we can go to church on Sunday without worrying who might be plotting to bomb us on the way. Maybe most importantly, we mean that we expect to be treated with respect and with dignity, for no other reason than that we are human beings with a right to live.

To secure that freedom, there has always been a price. Sometimes, that price has been paid in gold. More often, it has been paid with the blood of Americans who take up arms against the enemies of liberty. And recently, the price was paid with the blood of unarmed innocents in the first major strike of a new war. We cannot deny that today, as always, we must remain vigilant if we are to remain free.

We know that the price of freedom is a heavy one. Some are asked to give up their lifes in its defense; some, like many during the last World War, are asked to give up instant gratification. Today, however, many believe that the burden of paying for our freedom rests solely on the backs of our soldiers. It seems that while outside our borders there is a war raging -- with our freedom hanging in the balance -- but here at home, civilians are not asked to sacrifice anything.

But this war is costing us something at home. In one of history's great ironies, the American People have latched on to the belief that the best way to safeguard our liberty is by giving it up. While we herald the bravery of our men and women in uniform at the many fronts in the War on Terror, we have effectively given our President and the Congress a blank check to spend from our reserves of domestic freedom at their discretion.

Rightfully, we appreciate every loss of life or limb that is sustained by our armed forces in the cause of saving liberty and civilization. But we have begun to pay for our freedom in the corrupt currency of complacence; we say the word "freedom" but what we really mean, in many cases, is "conformity" and "obedience." We insult one another when we disagree; our national dialogue has become a contest of buzzwords and slogans; we avoid listening to each other at all costs. We believe every word that comes rattling out of the TV; we heed the admonitions and directives of the politicians as if politicians are capable of anything beyond pandering and posturing; we have come to trust and depend upon the institutions we created two centuries ago merely as necessary evils.

Freedom is not free -- that is absolutely true. But its price cannot be paid by unquestioning loyalty to anyone, regardless of their intentions. Its price cannot be paid by blending in with the masses and doggedly obeying the demands of an opportunist government. Like your faith, your freedom is something that cannot be simply bestowed upon you: it is something you must claim if it is to be of any value at all. The price you pay for each is eternal vigilance against anyone who can separate you from it: not only powerful foreign foes, but your own greed, your own ignorance, and anyone who professes to be defending you while simultaneously tying your hands.

-and-

SUPPORT THE TROOPS

Right now, half a world away in a sunbleached windblown hellhole, there are thousands of Americans risking their lives so you can stay cozy and comfortable. Almost every day, a few of them die and attain the honor of having given their lives in pursuit of someone else's happiness and liberty. This is a fact of living as an American in today's world with so many threats to our domestic peace. We cannot all serve in this way, and there are many who do much to defend us without ever picking up a weapon or coming within miles of a combat zone. Nevertheless, our troops are our nation's teeth and claws -- and when push comes to shove they are the ones who state unequivocolly that America will not become subservient to another nation -- because we, the People, demand liberty and will settle for nothing less.

It is only right then that in order to justify their sacrifice, and to faithfully honor what they have given us, that we practice the freedom for which many of them have died. To allow such noble men and women to give up everything so we can be free, and then to simply walk in line with an ungrateful majority of Americans who hardly notice, is the most insulting and selfish thing I can imagine.

If your liberty has been saved by a soldier -- and it has -- then how unthankful must you be not to take advantage of that liberty? Of course, most Americans do make good use of that liberty. But there are some who don't seem to get it. These are the people who will always jump at the chance to put soldiers in harms way to "defend our freedom," but themselves don't seem to appreciate that freedom.

When, for example, someobdy doesn't dress the way they should, or when someone speaks out against some government policy or politician, or when there are large movements in our country to affect democratic change, these unappreciative war-mongers will be the first to call for an end to freedom of speech. When someone chooses a religion that seems abnormal, or refuses to have their children indocrinated with any kind of religious dogma at the hands of the public education system, these people who profess to be glad that our freedom is being protected from Islamofascism will be the first to declare it "unfair" that some Americans choose to exercise their freedom of (or from) religion!

To go about our daily lives doing only what is expected of us, or obeying ridiculous laws, or signing over our private affairs to government scrutiny and bureaucracy, we are actually spitting on the faces of our fallen heroes in uniform. Every time we blindly assert that supporting America always means supporting our President, we are dancing on their graves. If we, without any critical thinking or skepticism, always believe everything we are told to believe by the government or by the media, then we are not only taking for granted the freedom we claim to love, but we are killing it. "Use it or lose it" is never more true than it is with freedom.

It should be clear by now that supporting our troops must be more than a bumper sticker: it must be practiced every single day, regardless of who is standing between us and freedom. To support the troops is to exercise every one of our rights, loudly. Anything less is a lie that eventually leads directly to forfeiture of everything our brave soldiers have died to defend.

RIGHT NOW, there is an asshole sitting behind a big desk in Washington DC who has absolute power over your life. He can, with a lazy misguided stroke of his pen, sentence you to interminable imprisonment or worse. He can send a squad of goons to root through your stuff. He can send a lynch mob to deal with you if you're rocking to boat. He can nationalize your "local" National Guard and order a battalion of tanks to swarm your neighborhood. He can suspend legal government in favor of martial law. He can, without the approval of anyone but the voices in his head, say the magic words "state of emergency" and dissolve every last so-called "right" you think you have.

There is a corrupt system of bureaucracy running amok in the synapses of your country. The power it holds over you might never be wielded in such blatant displays of outright totalitarian bullshit, but that power exists nonetheless and it's out of your hands. There are, literally, millions of brainwashed gun-toting killing machines doing nothing but waiting for orders to storm your town and turn your neighborhood grocery store into an "enemy combatant processing center." There are entire fleets of planes and trains and boats idling somewhere, waiting for the green light to lock you up and cart you away. There are fully-functioning gulags operating in the silence of media blackout right now, and the only thing their prison blocks are missing is you.

Even if you have nothing to hide, even if you're a good doggie who'd never bark at a superior, even if you are an anonymous nobody with nothing to gain and everything to lose from even wanting to know why all of this is true; even if you are afraid of what might happen to your mind if you let yourself in on this; you should take the time to understand one simple fact. It may be that no one will ever come knocking on your door (or blasting through it) to take you and your family away from your "freedom;" but the fact remains that they might, and they can if they want to. And there is absolutely no one who is even going to try to stop them. If that day comes, there is no court who will ever hear your case. There are no citizens' groups who can act fast enough even to slow them down. You are on your own, and if you think waving a flag in their faces as they come swarming into your living room is going to ward them off like waving a cross at a vampire, you're going to be a casualty.

Normally, this is where you'd expect to see a paragraph begin with, "So let's do this..." But this rant contains no such paragraph.

[UNO]

Today started like most other days, with me getting out of bed and wondering what was on the Teevee (and between the screams of my two kids, I was able to catch most of a shitty C-Rate film about Beowulf). Dinner was boxed again, but quick, and adding enough salt almost gave it flavor. I stepped outside for a cigarette -- the last vestigial remains of my youth -- and then my flashy cell phone I pay too much for every month rang, and I answered it. It was my buddy Lunchbox, or "Chris" as he weirdly refers to himself these days. He calls up sometimes to bullshit. A couple of months ago he called a lot about forming a band and playing shitty songs for drunken roughnecks at shady bars, but lately he's just been calling to bullshit.

Then, it happened.

He didn't call to bullshit this time. He called for another, far more sinister purpose. He told me he and his wife (he's married now, believe it or not, and even has a few kids of his own) had gone to WalMart and picked up a pack of UNO cards, and he wanted to set up some time when me and my wife could go over to their place and play cards.

I don't think you heard me. This jolly fat guy who used to play kick ass punk music until his band blew their last offer at a record deal, called me up to play UNO.

UNO.

And what did I do? Did I berate him? Did I snap him out of it? Did I threaten to pawn his guitars and buy him a fucking Blackberry? Nope. I said I'd talk to my wife and see when we could do it.

And then I hung up. And then, I died a little.

Don't ask me why it took this one phone call to draw my attention to this fact. I'm sure I must have noticed something slowly overtaking me, I've just been "too busy" to care. It isn't that living with "the wife and the kids" is a bad thing, by itself. By itself, it's a good thing. That it's 180 degrees away from where I planned to be by 25 isn't the sticker, either. The part that really kills me is that in the half a second it took for me to click my phone off, I took a silent inventory of everything I do every day and I realized there are only two things left to do for my life to be complete.

Register as a Republican, and join a church.

Because for all my talk I might as well be every other Joe Schmoe out there, I'm no different than any of the wifebeating assholes who go "bowling" because they're too pious to just go to a bar like honest men. I get up every day, I go to work, I come home and have a prefabricated dinner, I smile at the kid and then I go to bed hoping I die of a stroke while I'm sleeping so I don't have to do it all over again tomorrow.

But it's alright. I've found solace in the one god who can really save me from this mediocrity -- the TeeVee. Maybe if I watch enough fucking soap operas on the Discovery Channel about midgets, listen to enough shitty third-rate emo music and subscribe to the Triple Digital Deluxe package, there'll be something in my life to offset the fact that I've given up everything but the attitude of a free man, and even that barely makes an appearance unless I feel like offending the sensibilities of all the wrong people.

Maybe if I convince my boss to let me grow shoulder-length hair and wear the bottom half of a bad goatee I'll be able to look myself in the mirror, like I'm getting ready to go tear shit up at the coffee house like some pretentious Beatnik, pissed off about all the injustice of non-recycled newspaper.

On second thought I'll just stick to the TV. I might be slipping into the world of prepackaged citizenship, but if I ever start looking up to Beatnik's, I'll hang myself.

THERE IS NO GRAND TRANS-GENERATIONAL CONSPIRACY AFOOT.

Stop blaming:
-The Gays
-The GOP
-The Democrats
-The JOOOS
-The Muslims
-The Government

There is no concerted effort to make people stupid.
There just isn't much being done to make them smart.
PEOPLE ARE ALREADY IDIOTS. They do not need any help.

The government does not control Hollywood. There are too many major motion pictures coming out with obvious anti-government-policy messages. You could say the government doesn't care or that people are using these movies so they can "beat the government" vicariously through these movies while leaving the real world alone. But no self-respecting totalitarian regime would allow such outright dissent, much less a conscious conspiracy movement.

As much as I like to blame shit on people who don't deserve it, I have to face the facts.

There is no conspiracy, and the only evil genius at work in the world today are the heaving masses of seven billion half-retarded monkeys with too many shiny doomsday buttons at their fingertips.

When America Went Fascist

"Fascism: a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator" —The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000

It is a truism in the blogosphere that one more terrorist attack will turn America into a fascist state. People speculate about what fascism in America will look like, or how they might fight it. Others boast that they plan to flee the country ahead of the coming fascist takeover of the United States. One cannot read these posts without a sense of bitter irony, because one thing is clear to those who are watching carefully:

The United States of America is already a fascist state.

The United States turned fascist on December 11, 2000. On that day, the Supreme Court essentially appointed George W. Bush president of the United States, stopping the recount of Florida votes, and, hence, the democratic process. The justices of the court then slipped away by night, ashamed of their role in murdering America's great experiment in democratic rule.

The Supreme Court decision of December 11, 2000 is the modern American equivalent to German President Hindenburg's swearing in of Hitler as chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. By swearing in Hitler as chancellor, Hindenburg set in motion a process which led to the Nazi dictatorship and World War II. In the case of the Nazis, the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933 was the catalyst they needed to cement their grip on power. In the case of Bush and his backers, the tragedy of September 11, 2001 was the catalyst they needed to complete their full takeover of the American government.

When one looks at present-day America and reads plaintive musings about if and when America will turn fascist, it is useful to ask oneself the following question: When do you think the average German realized that he or she was living under a fascist dictatorship? How about the Japanese or Italians of the same period? Do you think that Hitler, Mussolini or Tojo made a public announcement to the effect of, "Dear Citizens: Please be advised that you no longer have any rights or political power. We have taken control of the government. Opposition and resistance are futile and will be punished."

The fact is, most of the "good" citizens of these countries clung desperately to the notion that it was business as usual long after constitutional government was dead and buried. Sure, they knew that their governments were a little further to the right than normal, but as long as they kept earning money and eating well, they ignored the grim realities of fascism.

It's easy to understand why: the "good" citizens weren't members of officially scapegoated groups or political activists, and thus they never felt the iron first of fascism. It's not like the government just suddenly started rounding up people at random and trucking them off to camps and executing them. No, it was only the "bad ones" who were carted off. It was the John Walker Lindhs, the Jose Padillas, the illegal immigrants and the Muslim Americans of their day who were carted off.

In fact, for the average citizen of Germany, Japan or Italy, it was only when the military adventures of their fascist governments started to go seriously awry did the reality dawn on them. Until then, if anything, they merely felt the stirrings of extreme patriotism and perhaps even satisfaction as their countries expanded outward. Indeed, for many, it was only when their countries lay in ashes did they fully understand what had happened. Only then could they see that a kind of cancer had run wild in their countries and come perilously close to destroying them.

In 2007, the average American is in exactly the same position as the typical German, Japanese or Italian citizen of the early to mid-1930s. Unless you happen to be a Muslim, a left-wing political activist, or a regular reader of left-wing political websites or journals, you could be forgiven for thinking that it's business as usual in the United States of America. You rise in the morning, read the morning paper, commute to work, get a paycheck, hit the ATM and watch the usual shows on television in the evening. Sure, we're officially "at war" but other than a few news stories and the usual yellow ribbons and bumper stickers, this doesn't really intrude into our realities.

But while all of us go about our lives like nothing has changed, the Constitution of the United States has been suspended, and with it, the democracy that it enshrines. Sure, Bush has never announced that he has suspended the Constitution. Rather, he has subjected it to a death by a thousand cuts. For, at last count, George W. Bush has appended 139 signing statements to laws passed by Congress, containing challenges to over 750 individual laws. These signing statements amount to 139 written declarations that George W. Bush and his allies consider themselves to be unconstrained by the law of the land and the will of the people. Or, to quote Mr. Bush: "(The Constitution) is just a goddamned piece of paper!"

On top of this, the Bush administration has repeatedly ignored subpoenas asking for information and directed aides not to comply with requests for information. And, more broadly, the Bush administration has made it clear that it will respond neither to the will of the people nor the will of Congress. Thus, in word and deed, the Bush administration is a dictatorship. And a country under the rule of a dictator is, at least by the definition at the start of this article, a fascist country.

Thus, in the last seven years, the United States has gone from a weak democracy, in which the people had weak but nominal control over their government, to a system where the government is under the control of "a unitary executive." And, of course, "unitary executive" is how you say "fuhrer" in modern American English.

Of course, this is not news to those unfortunate Americans who are presently languishing in military prisons without access to lawyers or due process. But, for most Americans, it seems absurd or even hysterical to declare that we are living in a fascist state. Arguments about signing statements, unitary executive theory or past Supreme Court decisions are mere abstractions and gain little traction.

Perhaps this is because fascism is like pornography: it's hard to define, but you know it when you see it. Indeed, the best way to distinguish pornography from art is not logical but aesthetic. Similarly, I would suggest that the best way to determine if a country is fascist is not intellectual at all, but aesthetic.

Fascism has a style, a language and a mood all its own. When enough of these outward signs of fascism are present, you can reasonably conclude that the country in question is fascist. For this reason, I have put together this short guide to some of the more obvious distinguishing features of fascism.

A Brief Guide to the Aesthetics of Fascism:

—Hypnotized by symbols: Whether it be the swastika of the Nazis, the rising sun of imperial Japan or the fasces of the Italian National Fascist Party, simple, visually striking and endlessly repeated symbols are the "look" of a fascist government. Check out any Bush speaking engagement, from his "mission accomplished" speech on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to the Republican National Convention, and you will see him surrounded by the Stars and Stripes. And where Nazi leaders wore swastika armbands, American fascists wear American flag pins on their lapels. Sinclair Lewis observed that, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." The symbols may be different, but if it looks like fascism, it's probably fascism.

—Impoverished language: Umberto Eco wrote that, "All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning." George W. Bush's tortured syntax is perfectly suited to speaking this language. In describing Newspeak, Orwell declared that words will be "not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be." Bush's speeches are peppered with words like freedom and democracy, when in fact, he means slavery and tyranny. Moreover, Bush is fond of accusing countries like Iran of illegally interfering in the affairs of other countries, much as Hitler accused other European countries of aggression as his armies overran the continent. The language may be different, but one fact is inescapable: if it sounds like fascism, it's probably fascism.

—Mood of pervasive fear: In Bush's America, people rightly believe that you may be subject to violence, harassment, arbitrary arrest or even torture if you challenge authority figures or speak out against the government. Since I started writing articles on political topics I have heard the comment repeated time and again: "You're going to be put on a list." Americans of all stripes live in fear of their government and few, if any, would dare question any authority figure, even if faced with the most blatant and unwarranted abuse of power. It is a sad fact that Americans are the only people in the developed world where citizens actively fear their own government. The tools of torture may have changed, but the essential fact remains: if it feels like fascism, it's probably fascism.

—The nation as homeland: The exaltation of the nation state as a promised land is perhaps the most basic sign of a fascist state. Twenty years ago, it would have been unimaginable to refer to the United States as a "homeland." The word would have stuck people as both antiquated and overtly totalitarian. Now, it is bandied about freely and we actually have a Department of Homeland Security. The strikingly fascist overtones of the word itself are troubling enough, but more troubling still is the thinking behind the word: America is an island in a hostile sea, surrounded by enemies who we must either vanquish or be vanquished by. Once again, if it sounds like fascism, it's probably fascism.

At this point, it is clear that America is in the early stages of fascism; it hasn't yet metastasized into the outright jackbooted fascism of Nazi Germany. But the country is poised like a boulder at the top of a slope, ready to roll into the abyss. In fact, it will take a miracle to keep this from happening. Consider the factors that could easily unleash outright fascism in the United States: the accelerating collapse of the US dollar; the follow-on effects from the subprime loan debacle; soaring energy prices (peak oil); catastrophic weather events caused by global warming; and, of course, the one thing that Bush's entire foreign policy seems almost guaranteed to bring about: another large-scale terrorist attack on American soil. Any one of these by itself could trigger outright fascism. Combine two or more, and American fascism is 100% certain.

We must realize that the full machinery of outright fascism is already in place. Private security firms like Blackwater are ready and willing to serve as the new Blackshirts. Patriot Act II has been written and provides the full "legal" framework for completely revoking the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and establishing martial law. The Pentagon has established Northcom to organize military operations in the United States and Canada. The Posse Comitatus Act has been gutted to allow the National Guard to serve in police actions all across the country. And detention centers have been built across the land and plans have been laid to intern millions of Americans.

History teaches that there is a point of no return in the evolution of a fascist state. Once that line is crossed, there is no turning back until the country lies in ashes and millions lie dead both inside and outside the country. If you don't think it could happen in the United States of America, then you don't remember how easily Americans let themselves be robbed of their precious civil liberties in the aftermath of 9-11.

Thus, a presidential candidate who does not make restoration of constitutional government the centerpiece of his or her campaign should not even be considered. The first and most pressing order of business must be to repeal the Patriot Act in its entirety. Provisions that Democratic lawmakers deem essential to national security can be restored on a piece-by-piece basis as parts of other legislation. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which suspended habeas corpus, must be repealed. The Department of Homeland Security must be downsized and brought under full and transparent civilian control.

In the longer term, meaningful campaign finance reform and public funding for elections must be enacted in order to put political power back into the hands of the people and to take it out of the hands of the Pentagon and allied industries. Because ultimately, it is the military-industrial complex, working with the electoral support of right-wing religious fundamentalists, that is behind American fascism.

A final note:

The least discussed news story of recent history appeared in the New York Times on February 4, 2006:
<pre><code>"The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary...KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space."</code></pre>

Since it seems unlikely that cruise ships loaded with illegal immigrants are likely to wash up on American shores any time soon, one has to wonder what they mean by "new programs that require additional detention space".

For the love of God, IS THIS AMERICA?

[A BRIEF DIVERSION ON WAR]

A BRIEF DIVERSION ON WAR

Ever since humanity had the capacity to craw out of its caves, stop wandering around the landscape hunting things in groups, and put down roots at the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution, there have been at least two buffers between any two peoples at war with one another: namely, their respective governments. As cities became established and their populations grew, eventually branching into nations, it became impractical to do everything on a strictly democratic basis. Too many people with too many opinions was a hindrance to getting anything done, especially the large projects that come with sedentary rather than nomadic societies. Tribes were merged and blossomed into whole populations, and some kind of arrangement had to be made for the administration of daily life.

Until the 18th Century or so, these governments were just outgrowths of the populations in geographically separated nations. As the populations grew so did their administrations, reaching the decadence of Empire with the Romans and the top-heavy monarchies of the Middle Ages. Eventually some of them became unwieldy and awkward for the citizenry to maintain, based on flawed philosophy or corrupted by bad judgment, and around the time of the Enlightenment there began to arise signs that these systems would have to go away somehow — some of them by schism, some by revolution. It was also the Enlightenment that did a lot of damage to religion, which had been used to glue these otherwise fractured governments together.

From the time of Greek city-states until the time of the American Civil War, war was almost always the result of insult or necessity; using Religion as a main motivational factor for the masses was a good way to maintain support for various wars but the drive for war itself was normally rooted largely in the population itself, anyway. War was waged when the people of one region hated the people of another region because of an insult or transgression, or needed some hoarded resource that someone else controlled. During this period it was common for the governments of warring parties themselves to be bitterly at odds with one another and for high-ranking government officers themselves to take part in battle. It may be a valuable boost to morale to know you are fighting alongside your king, but many historical accounts of internal strife after a nation's king suffered a deadly blow in battle show that it was not altogether practical. The practice shows that whole societies could be diametrically opposed to whole other societies during a war.

With a few exceptions in the cases of large empires, that is the way war was fought until something changed, gradually, between the 18th and 20th centuries. With the expansion of government bureaucracy and the further removal of the citizens of a country from the underlying reasons for war with other countries, the need for a government to be so morally invested in a war waned. That is not to say the government's interest in war waned — that has actually grown stronger with the removal of the power class from the line of fire.

War became a matter of executive officers commanding armies from a distance rather than fighting with them in the field; then came advances in weapons technology, and with this came a predictable shift toward cannonfodder-based warfare, or the shoveling of enormous quantities of disposable soldiers into the hellish pits of war while commanders who were suddenly too "valuable" to throw away like that directed the action from behind the scenes.

Today, governments of peoples at war with one another need not be at war between themselves. Wars are still fought for the old reasons of course but governments increasingly use the threat of war, and even outright military conflict, as bargaining tools at the ever-important table of diplomacy. In a modern first-world nation, the military is less about self-defense than it is about the capacity to back up and enforce the wild declarations of a government. While this shift in the official paradigm of a state means that a lot more might be accomplished without having to resort to war, it also means that a state's capacity to wage war is always under scrutiny and must be exercised from time to time, even if no real need for it exists, just to show that when a government says it means business, it has the power to back itself up. War is quickly becoming a replacement for the reliability and straightforwardness of government officials and what they say, and because it is easier for a government to blow things up than it is for it to tell the truth all the time, war is now one of the most often used tools in the diplomacy trade.

Large wars the likes of the two "World Wars," have likely gone the way of the dodo. Not because humanity has made any especially admirable advances in the field of avoiding war, but because large states already have an idea of each other's military means and the bargaining between them is based on those universally known facts. Even the two World Wars were not entirely intergovernmental wars (or even wars between peoples), but were more indicative of the transition into the current configuration of Western governments — from more-or-less republican institutions at least somewhat accessible by the population at large, to absolute aristocracies masquerading as republics. The wars sealed that deal by proving to the people, at least subconsciously, that they did not have to approve a war to fight one, and their place in society was secured (later to be enforced) by their government.

War today is beginning to show signs of its eventual status as a tool not only for the protection of a government against external threats, but against internal rebellion as well. The increased militarization of domestic police forces in both appearance and privilege is no accident. Intergovernmental relations are actually closer than ever before, in spite of war or the threat of war, as is evidenced by the "Cold War." Populations are being conditioned to believe that their individual well-being is second to the well-being of the State (which is for some reason now indistinguishable from the "government"), and war is used not only to fuel further government expansion but to keep troublesome populations under control.