Israeli internet vandals, in an effort to censor opinions that are critical of Israel's role in provoking world terrorism, have attempted a massive network flood of this website.

A recent posting here provided links about the Israeli campaign of genocide in Palestine and Osama bin Laden's explanation that the 9/11 strike was retaliation for the U.S. support and funding of Israeli's ongoing action. There was also a mention of Israeli efforts to provide false information about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq so they could get the U.S. to attack a neighbor that Israel hates -- while tricking the U.S. into paying for the attack, which costs $177,000,000 every day.

Though claiming to be champions of free speech when they want their interests promoted, Israelis often covertly try to censor the expression of any opinions contrary to theirs. Some people suggest that this irrational, hateful, and passive-aggressive behavior is the reason they have only found misfortune throughout history.

The proliferation of unreality flowing from media today can only be met by grand mockery. We were told for many years by inspectors that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the power of disinformation continues to become stronger and stronger.

The U.S. and U.K., at the urging of Israel's irrational hatred of Arabs and deliberately manufactured information about "hidden weapons", invaded Iraq despite the urging of the civilized world that reason and evidence be demonstrated first.

Getting along with people, or other nations is a fairly simple proposition. You don't invade other countries because you want their oil. You don't invade other countries because you hate their leader. You don't kill people in other countries by starving them to death with sanctions. You don't support nations that try to genocide other nations out of insane religious hatred. Most of all, you don't make up phony excuses and pretenses. Then if choose to harm other nations and kill their people, you should expect to eventually get hit back.

"Bush says and claims, that we hate freedom, let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'"
[Osama bin Laden]

The press is as useless a public service as Jon Stewart accuses them of being. Rather than demand a response to the points Osama bin Laden makes about Bush's deception and predatory behavior, they are satisfied with quotes from presidential candidates that say they will continue their mission to destroy infinitely replaceable "terrorists" who are retaliating against U.S. attacks and for the U.S. support of Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people. That wild statements of determination and empty promises of victory passes for discourse and aren't challenged or even questioned shows that no one cares at all for rational discussion.

Welcome to the end of the empire when people are too stupid from television, too busy pursuing amusement, too diverse to have common interests, and too aborbed in self-image and fantasy to care about anything of actual importance.

"As Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. They are barbarians."
[John Kerry]

Yes, hunt down the barbarians and kill them all in great orgies of blood!!!

Laci was one of those goofy, "fun" girls at college who was never really good at anything and but was a great girlfriend. She's a little silly, so she doesn't mind screwing on the parents' sofa when they head out to pick up a pizza, or getting a little sloshed three nights a week, or even participating in group sex. She liked to drink, she liked to socialize, and she had a tattoo, a large sunflower on her left ankle obviously designed to prove her originality as an artistic persona.

[Scott Peterson Fan Club]

A message from the White Dot International Campaign Against Television The average American watches 4.5 hours of television every day. You sleep for eight hours. You get up and work for eight hours. Come home, eat some dinner and turn on the television. A few hours later you're getting sleepy. Time for bed. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?? We're not kidding. All those things you wanted to have in your life: passion, romance, love, childhood, parenthood, adventure? when are you going to do all that? You're staring at a piece of furniture! SOLUTION: Hangs on your keychain and turns off virtually any television in 3 continents!

So will it be another term for President Chimp, or will we get a different interchangeable millionaire who pretends to aspire to be our public servant while making the well connected even more wealthy? The two parties of Republicrats are little more than puppets for hire, with impressive management orchestrating their performances so they can be elected to serve the special interests who invest in political power on the cheap for great returns. The money you can make from the stock market, gold, and real estate pales in comparison to what you can make from buying politicians.

With presidential campaign spending already exceeding $1,200,000,000 for a job paying $400,000/yr it's pretty obvious that the money interests are lining up for their rewards, and often sending cash to both sides so repayment is assured.

Last month, the Republicans spent $57,000,000 while the Democrats spent $77,000,000 on propaganda to "increase public knowledge" and "educate" the masses by repeating idiotic soundbites, factual misrepresentations, failed idealized theories, assorted irrelevancies, harmful social policies, and obscured details -- all of which deftly avoid dealing with the real problems facing the country. Welcome to democracy, the system the Greeks warned us about as the worst possible form of government: mob rule decided by the whims of the unintelligent and uneducated, as manipulated by clever profiteers.

Police chaplain Bryan Lynch said, "This is wrong. This is so wrong. We should not be here this morning. ... But Jesus will right this wrong one day." Brian Lynch is a two bit disgusting liar when he says, "Jesus will right this wrong one day." Jesus has never righted a wrong and never will. The Constitution has never righted a wrong and never will. Force wielded by people like you is the only thing that will right wrongs. Symbolism, pacifism and procrastination are what are destroying our people.

[Overthrow.com]

We Are Using 20% More Resources Than The Earth Can Produce

The human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life, according to a report by WWF. The Living Planet Report 2004 shows that humans currently consume 20 per cent more natural resources than the earth can produce, and that populations of terrestrial, freshwater and marine species fell on average by 40 per cent between 1970 and 2000.

"We are spending nature's capital faster than it can regenerate," said Dr Claude Martin, Director General of WWF International. "We are running up an ecological debt which we won't be able to pay off unless governments restore the balance between our consumption of natural resources and the earth's ability to renew them."

[http://www.overclockersclub.com/?read=9837320]

[Taking up all resources and instigating starvation, crippled food supplies, water wars, and energy shortages is one way to force the overpopulation issue. It's unfortunate that humans are too individualistic and stupid to realize the bigger consequence of their actions and inactions.]

"Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth."

-Pentti Linkola (my greatest discovery of 2004.)

Disease, climate change and habitat loss are threatening one-third of the world's fragile species of frogs, toads, newts and salamanders, according to the first global assessment of amphibians.
...
"What happens to amphibians now could well be a prophecy of what happens to other species, maybe even ourselves,'' Stuart said. "They serve as an early warning system.''
San Francisco Chronicle

We poison the air, land, water, and food supply, then go into denial and wonder why life is dying off, the climate is changing, and people are unhealthy.

Living in cities, away from natural communities, as an anonymous consumer and laborer, is necessarily dehumanizing. Such people can only be treated with industrialized techniques that assign numbers and process human subjects indiscriminately. Though these consumers are active in purchasing items, no one knows their names or cares about them, and they are never more than human cattle. As workers they are warm bodies that fill needs and perform tasks without loyalty, just as the employer has no loyalty to them. All of this is the result of progress, the dystopic undertaking that removes our closeness and connection to others.

A gardener would tell you that even the best seeds will produce an inferior and sickly garden in the city, and it would be unreasonable to expect any other result. Likewise, there are no attractive people in the cities: either the city attracts the sickly and ill constituted or it makes people ugly. In either case, this is appropriate because the signs of ascending life belong to nature and declining life belongs to anti-nature.

I have recently spent a lot of time in cities and find them fascinating. Cities cause immediate distress in any healthy individual, and for that reason stimulate at first out of a need for self-preservation, just as disappointments in life can cause depression as a natural psychological instinct of preservation that promotes rational reflection. Similarly, the poisons nicotine and caffeine operate by causing the blood vessels to constrict and stimulate the central nervous system in an effort to quickly move the poison out of the body.

My first instinct upon arriving in a city is to flee. Then I try to find an area with open space. Fresh air or a little quiet are too much to ask for.

In a city, people are self-absorbed actors, money chasers, or the beaten down. They choose from a handful of pre-manufactured lifestyles, many novel items to consume, and a wide range of entertaining products to spend time watching. Their individualism appears in a mass marketed way by conforming to images constructed to convey uniqueness (e.g. "the guy with red sunglasses", "the girl with the belly ring"). In a well developed city, it is possible to spend years without having to bother with an original thought or any reflection at all.

Q. Why is it that you don't engage in polemics?

Foucault: I like discussions, and when I am asked questions, I try to answer them. It's true that I don't like to get involved in polemics. If I open a book and see that the author is accusing an adversary of "infantile leftism," I shut it again right away. That's not my way of doing things; I don't belong to the world of people who do things this way. I insist on this difference as something essential: a whole morality is at stake, the morality that concerns the search for the truth and the relation to the other.

In the serious play on questions and answers, in the world of reciprocal elucidation, the rights of each person are in some sense immanent to the discussion. They depend only on the dialogue situation. The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has been him: to remain unconvinced, to perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasize different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, etc. As for the person answering the questions, he too exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his own discourse he is tied to what he has said earlier, and by the acceptance of dialogue he is tied to the questioning of the other. Questions and answers depend on a game - a game that is at once pleasant and difficult - in which each of the two partners takes pains to use on the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of the dialogue.

The polemicist, on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in the search for truth, but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is harmful and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then, the game does not consist of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak, but of abolishing him, as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final objective will be, not to come as close as possible to any difficult truth, but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied.

Perhaps, someday, a long history will have to be written of polemics, polemics as a parasitical figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search for truth. Very schematically, it seems to me that today we can recognize the presence in polemics of three models: the religious model, the judiciary model, and the political model. As in heresiology, polemics sets itself the task of determining the intangible point of dogma, the fundamental and necessary principle that the adversary has neglected, ignored, or transgressed; and it denounces this negligence as a moral failing; at the root of the error, it finds passion, desire, interest, a whole series of weaknesses and inadmissible attachments that establish it as culpable. As in judiciary practice, polemics allows for no possibility of an equal discussion: it examines a case; it isn't dealing with an interlocutor, it is processing a suspect; it collects the proofs of his guilt, designates the infraction he has committed, and pronounces the verdict and sentences him. In any case, what we have here is not on the order of a shared investigation; the polemicist tells the truth in the form of his judgment and by virtue of the authority he has conferred on himself. But it is the political model that is the most powerful today. Polemics defines alliances, recruits partisans, unites interests or opinions, represents a party; it establishes the other as an enemy, an upholder of opposed interests, against which one must fight until the moment this enemy is defeated and either surrenders or disappears.

Of course, the reactivation, in polemics, of these political, judiciary, or religious practices is nothing more than theater. One gesticulates: anathemas, excommunications, condemnations, battles, victories, and defeats are no more than ways of speaking, after all. And yet, in the order of discourse, they are also ways of acting which are not without consequence. There are the sterilizing effects: Has anyone ever seen a new idea come out of a polemic? And how could it be otherwise, given that here the interlocutors are incited, not to advance, not to take more and more risks in what they say, but to fall back continually on the rights that they claim, on their legitimacy, which they must defend, and on the affirmation on their innocence? There is something even more serious here: in this comedy, one mimics war, battles, annihilations, or unconditional surrenders, putting forward as much of one's killer instinct as possible. But it is really dangerous to make anyone believe that he can gain access to the truth by such paths, and thus to validate, even if in a merely symbolic form, the real political practices that could be warranted by it. Let us imagine, for a moment, that a magic wand is waved and one of the two adversaries in a polemic is given the ability to exercise all the power he likes over the other. One doesn't even have to imagine it: one has only to look at what happened during the debates in the USSR over linguistics or genetics not long ago. Were there merely aberrant deviations from what was supposed to be the correct discussion? Not at all: they were the real consequences of a polemic attitude whose effects ordinarily remain suspended.

"Good writers are those who keep the language efficient. That is to say, keep it accurate, keep it clear. It doesn't matter whether the good writer wants to be useful, or whether the bad writer wants to do harm.

If a nation's literature declines, the nation atrophies and decays.

Your legislator can't legislate for the public good, your commander can't command, your populace (if you be a democratic country) can't instruct its 'representatives' save by language.

The fogged language of the swindling classes serves only a temporary purpose."

- Ezra Pound, ABC of Reading

Stages of changing values as a culture declines

1. PROMOTE what is noble, healthy, wise, and furthers life; this is the will of the gods.
2. PREVENT what is ignoble, unhealthy, ignorant, and degenerate so that it does not cause harm.
3. DESTROY what is ignoble, unhealthy, ignorant, and degenerate if it appears despite preparations to prevent it or because of systemic cultural decline that allows it.
4. ISOLATE what is ignoble, unhealthy, ignorant, and degenerate so that it becomes the problem of the localized community that allowed it to come into existence, while taxing their resources.
5. TOLERATE what is ignoble, unhealthy, ignorant, and degenerate and decline thereby.

"This is a thoroughly unscientific observation, based entirely on what the pros call anecdotal evidence. Yet it does appear that something bizarre is taking place in the United States, that bizarre something being that American women in extraordinary numbers are becoming extraordinarily fat. Men also, but not nearly so many.

Americans who might be called ample, or well-upholstered, who weigh ten or twenty percent more than the accepted norm, are increasing in numbers, too. The unscientific observation, however, applies not to them but to those who are vastly overweight, lady sumo wrestlers who make you stare in amazement and wonder how they perform the ordinary chores of life, how they get through the day.

Some strain, wobble, and hesitate going up steps a few inches high. Aboard commercial aircraft, they occupy their own seats and, with their flesh jutting over and under the armrests, virtually surrounding the armrests, half of the seats next to them. Passengers in front of them cannot lean back; there is no room. These people must weigh, many of them, three hundred pounds and more, and they are of all kinds and ages. They fill their outsize clothes to the last centimeter.

What is causing this ballooning? There is apparently a new view of these matters, a let-it-all-hang-out attitude. Maybe people who tend to be overweight are deciding that it isn't worth the trouble to deprive themselves of food and drink they enjoy. Once started down that road, they simply grow larger and larger. Then, too, so-called fast food may be playing its part. It's easy to get and is eaten almost absentmindedly. Television may be involved -- all that staring at the screen, often munching on something. Add the American addiction to the automobile.

It is strange that this phenomenon should turn up at the same time that so many Americans are devoted to fitness and cultivation of the body muscular. Maybe the fatness is a defiant reaction. There, in any case, the fatness is, and it is disquieting, as though some sinister force is out to disable a large part of the population. What is going on?"

-Edwin Newman - "I Must Say: On English, the News, and Other Matters"

This year, the propaganda repeating masses are sure that there are either more jobs or fewer jobs, and that they deserve lower taxes or more social programs, or both, not to mention protection from ever-looming terrorists who strike at their leisure without warning.

Unfortunately the masses aren't concerned about long-term issues of consequence, such as slowing massive climate change, reducing the world population that consumes limited resources, stopping the poisoning of food supplies, or addressing the reckless deficit spending that puts every citizen in over $25,000 of debt.

Before the reduction of the masses to idiot working slaves without attention spans, political debate was of high caliber. The Lincoln-Douglas debates are still studied and provide a stark contrast with the distractionary non-issues raised today. Gay marriage is a pressing issue? California apparently has solved the Mexican invasion and its subsequent budgetary problems since they had time to complete legislation outlawing necrophilia. This comedy of distractions and stupidity is exactly what Kaczynski wrote about in his parody of modern politics.

As long as people happily debate the little, trivial things, the big issues go ignored so we can all suffer the consequences later.