There's an interesting correlation between those that promoted vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and vaccine passports, and those that are advocating for military intervention in Ukraine to stop Russian aggression. Many of the people calling for the West to go to war with Russia to protect Ukraine are the same people who have, for the past year, scapegoated and demonized the unvaccinated and were pushing for draconian vaccine rules so as to render the unvaccinated personae non gratae. Furthermore, those supporting the idea of waging war against Russia are often the same people who - during the heights of the Covid propaganda campaign - failed to question if the threat before them with was being accurately presented by their governments and news outlets, and were eventually convinced that it was their civic duty to embrace mass vaccination. Many who endorsed vaccine mandates and lockdowns - failing to question the broader implications of these policies (What if the vaccines have side effects? What are economic, social, and psychological impacts of lockdowns? What if it doesn’t stop at just one or two shots? How can vaccine passports be misused in the future? What if these policies fail to curb the spread of Covid or actually make the pandemic worse?) - seem to now have been whipped-up into a virtual nationalistic frenzy and are hellbent at the prospect of waging war against Russia to defend a country and government many have never heard of until last week, and are now failing to consider the ramifications of military intervention in a conflict halfway across the globe (What if the pretense to intervene is base on lies? What if intervening makes matters worse, like in Syria, Libya, and Iraq?) We were told by the pharmaceutical-industrial-complex that the vaccines would not only protect us, but that to be vaccinated was an act of morality because you were protecting the vulnerable, and that “anti-vaxxers” who oppose mandates or those who support trucker convoys are anti-social and should be ostracized (if not worse). Similarly, those who fail to question the sanctity of the Ukrainian government and are incredulous of mainstream media characterizations of the conflict are considered Putin lapdogs or enablers of Russian war crimes.
Why is that during times of crisis people are willing to suspend their skepticism of the the motives of governments, corporations, and international institutions and agencies (W.H.O, U.N., E.U., N.A.T.O, etc.), that ordinarily warrant the utmost scrutiny? (During Covid, we were supposed to believe that these corrupt drug companies who have paid the biggest criminal fines in history suddenly saw the light and reformed into honest and magnanimous actors.) Because if you don’t believe that your government is acting in your best interest in times of public health emergencies or wars, then you must entertain the alternative notion: that your government and the agencies that you have entrusted with your well-being are either nefarious themselves or controlled-by nefarious actors that despise you, or both. People just don’t want to believe that our government and the institutions that they have put their faith in would act to harm their citizens at a time when their citizens need them most. Like a self-defense mechanism which prevents them from shattering their perception the benign role of government, their faith kicks in and justifies a concession to these policies and platforms nomatter how irrational or insane they may be.
What follows is a letter that I wrote to a friend in response a Facebook conversation which I have posted at the bottom of this entry.
Dear Friend,
Sorry that this response took so long and will be a little disjointed. I have scant time to sit down and write thorough pieces nowadays, so I’ve been cobbling this response together intermittently. Here’s the letter:
Over the past few weeks I believe that what has happened is that the meaning of kneeling is changing. Previously, people would take a knee mainly in symbolic opposition to police brutality. While this is often still the case, there is a growing group of activists calling for others to kneel in order to sympathize with those who are oppressed. Protestors have repeatedly demanded that police officers “take a knee” or in some cases prostrate themselves entirely. Speakers at protests have asked all attendees to kneel before they led followers in a group-chant that has little to do with police brutality and parallels acts of worship one would find in a religion or cult. There are cases of white people getting on their knees after being asked to do so in order to apologize for their white privilege (the main example below embedded is in part a farce, but it is not the only example). There are cases of white people being asked to kiss the boots of black people to atone for the crimes of their forefathers (I recognize that these demands are made my black supremacists, often religious fanatics, and do not reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of black people, just like white police who kill minorities don’t reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of white people.) And there are cases of white people shining the shoes and washing the feet of black people, an act which may or may not have been performed with the understanding of the reference to the historical Christian practice. I made a hyperbolic jump to this final act in my statement, but I hope you can see what I was getting at. And while it can be said that for now these instances are few and far between, I see no evidence of a trend reversal. For the record, I’m not denying that police brutality and white privilege do not exist, but these examples of reconciliation through identity politics will not only fail to resolve disparities and injustice, they will exacerbate such problems by encouraging black people to feel victimized and oppressed, and white people to feel guilty, shameful, and self-loathing.
Protesters in Bethesda attend a woke sermon to cry about their white guilt. Note that not a single one of them is social distancing. Two weeks ago, the media would've called them terrorists. pic.twitter.com/rOJCsmPs9v
Again, I believe the act of getting on your knees to protest police brutality is now being conflated with the idea of repentance for crimes an individual has not committed. Increasingly, those kneeling are meant to feel guilty simply for being white (the ‘sins of the father’) or to kneel in recognition for the pain that the black community is suffering at the hands of a white power structure. Law enforcement officers are also asked to kneel to demonstrate that they too sympathize with the victims of police brutality. Of course every individual has the right to decide if they want to express their repentance in this way, but I can easily see kneeling transition away from a voluntarily act of solidarity for those who have suffered under police brutality to a forced act of genuflection intended to make those who kneel demonstrate their sympathy for an exclusive group of victims. I understand that my concerns may seem like an overreaction, but I hope you understand that I am coming from a viewpoint that throughout history crazier things have happened than forcible kneeling or being compelled to take a knee out of sympathy for unknown or distant crimes. It’s not a road I want to see our society go down, because there have been other societies that have taken similar ideologies to their utmost extreme – the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the Cultural Revolution in China come to mind. I can easily see how these movements can be hijacked by extremists seeking to impose their views of the world on others, and in the case of the recent protests, the extreme views that I have observed rising to the top are those of forcible atonement for white privilege, white guilt, and the erasure of artifacts with any perceivable connection to oppression. This, I believe is linked to a greater trend of striving to achieve equitable outcomes (which is different than equal opportunities) at the expense of logic and meritocracy. (Recent examples of this include a UCLA professor getting fired because he did not excuse from class those black students who wanted to go protest, and the head of Reddit stepping down because of her white privilege, the Mrs. Monopoly game giving a leg-up to females, Merriam-Webster changing the definition of racism). Not to mention the whole cancel culture cascade that has befallen us recently. There are serious problems in this world – including modern slavery, which I have never seen a protest against – but Splash Mountain, Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah, Swing Low Sweet Chariot, Gone with the Wind, GitHub’s use of the word ‘master,’ Uncle Ben’s rice, and Aunt Jemima’s pancake mix and syrup and are not among them.
This brings me to the statues. Over the
This brings me to the statues. Over the past few weeks we have not only seen Confederate statues torn down and removed, we have seen a broad array of historical figures removed, torn down, or vandalized. Obviously, a distinction needs to be made by those that have been removed by decree of elected officials and those that been torn down by mobs. Either way, I would qualify both such methods as forms of selective moral indignation, where a criminal or crime is cherry-picked and deemed so offensive that it must go, while crimes of equal or greater significance are allowed to persist. The rioters are champions of this, and other than Trump, exhibit the finest extents of ignorance, arrogance, and hypocrisy I’ve seen in my life (Chaz is turning out to be a perfect example). In my view, people should just leave the statues there. Yes, their existence is unfortunate, and there are statues (many which should have never been put up in the first place) of some disgraceful individuals who have wreaked havoc and misery upon countless people, but if we begin removing statues of historical figures in a retroactive kangaroo courts/drive-bys where we’ve deemed their crimes so reprehensible that their images must be erased, there will be no end to this practice. It may seem like I’m oversimplifying this, but where are we supposed to stop with the desecration of these statues and monuments? There are statues to ruthless and murderous warlords, genocidal dictators, and tyrannical Emperors the world over. Ones that come to mind include Julius Cesar, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great. How many statues are there of Ottoman and Barbary Coast leaders who enslaved millions of Europeans (apparently many less Africans were enslaved in America comparatively) throughout the 15thand 19th centuries? There are images of bygone heinous criminals bedecking objects ubiquitously; there are structures erected by slaves at the behest of kings and rulers all over the Earth. Should we tear down the Washington Monument, the Roman Coliseum, the Pyramids of Giza, Teotihuacan, then burn every sculpture, painting, and artifact that was ever commissioned by those in positions of power? There will be no end to this insane demolition of statues and revision of history because there will always be a group whose sensibilities are offended. After all, the radical leftists inclined to support the removal of monuments have in the past taken political correctness to a whole new level altogether:
Tearing down statues is easy, but erecting them can prove difficult:
People inside the Seattle “Autonomous Zone” have been working on days to construct and erect a giant black power fist. They used torches to burn wood planks black for the material. They were unable to lift the structure up. pic.twitter.com/MnRlv97jiX
At this point, we’re witnessing an irreversible trend of razing statues of any historical American who had any association to owning slaves or apparent predilection toward racism. Teddy Roosevelt today, Benjamin Franklin tomorrow (Franklin owned two slaves and a newspaper which ran ads for the selling of slaves). Many statues of abolitionists have been torn town. Because no one is stopping theses mobs who are so displeased with the statues of people like Ulysses S. Grant, Cervantes, Abraham Lincoln (all of who stood against slavery, and in the case of Cervantes was a slave himself), Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or religious icons like Junipero Serra (yes, I get it, he was a bad guy) – I predict that in a year from there will be the shattered remnants of hundreds of sculptures and statues scattered across the grounds of America. But if you think it’s going to stop there, just at statues, then I’m sorry to say that you are gravely mistaken. What about other religious symbols and objects, what about the Constitution, what about human beings? While they represented a minority of society, the fanatics carrying out these acts in a demented fury have a highly myopic and destructive mindset, they appear to be borderline philistines and are mostly ignorant of history and I would argue the state of affairs in the world. In my opinion, with their iPhones containing cobalt mined in the Congo and sweatshop-made apparel and silence on issues of war and imperialism, they are spoiled brats and hypocrites who are absolutely dripping in slavery. (How many of them, for instance, are aware of or care about the slave markets that were thriving in Libya as recently as last year as a result of the dissolution of that country following the Obama-Hillary war to remove Gadhafi? How many of them spoke up against that war or against Obama’s war on Syria, against the six other countries that he bombed, or his support for the ignoble Saudi war against Yemen?) We have entered a very, very slippery slope, and even the people who support these actions now will not like where this ends. Again, if you take this to the utmost extreme, you get the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the destruction of Palmyra by ISIS in Syria. This is why, as reprehensible as they are, it would be wiser to keep the statues and educate our children about the sins of our fathers, instead of trying to sweep them under the rug. I do not think that moving them into museums or parks would work, because there is no limit to the insanity and stupidity of a mob. But, like most lessons that people truly learn in life, we’re going to have to learn the hard way. I hope you can see where I’m coming from. In closing, here’s an excerpt from George Orwell’s 1984:
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
Preface: I believe that one of the greatest challenges in the weeks and months ahead will be staying offline and getting actual productive work done (reading, writing, exploring, exercise, learning or improving skills, completing house and art projects, etc.). The urge is to be constantly following the news, locked into the mainframe and digital information channels, but by doing so people will squander an opportunity to do those things which are truly meaningful – and that would surely be a tragedy and epic fail.
As Coronavirus cases near 400,000 and the death toll nears 16,000, governments across the world are taking wartime measures to implode economies (destroying small businesses especially), calling out the National Guard to implement martial law, and gouge civil liberties such as the right to travel. This is all being done to suppress the spread of a virus which has killed less people than car accidents do in the United States each year (roughly 35,000). While extreme measures (such as quarantine) to curb the spread of Coronavirus seem necessary in order to mitigate the high infection and fatality rates, it’s important to gain some perspective regarding the justification of these measures, the way governments and corporations are capitalizing on the crisis, and the magnitude of this pandemic compared to those of the past. From colossal bailouts to indefinite detention, from censorship to seizing private property, unprecedented actions are being taken to upend our way of life and transform society – with the possibility that some of these draconian measures will remain in place even after the threat has disappeared (as is the case with the regular renewal of PATRIOT Act – which was supposed to be a temporary measure – or when the Olympics or World Cup come to town and the police and surveillance state apparatus used to clear out the favelas remains in place long after the games are done). To help examine the multitude of changes taking place, let us turn to some expert contrarians who are wisely challenging the basis for the cornucopia of drivel that is spewing out the mouths of our leaders.
First, check out Visual Capitalist’s History of Pandemics chart to see how the puny Coronavirus measures up against other plagues that have scourged humanity throughout history.
Patrick Henningsen examined Coronavirus hysteria on the March 22nd, 2020 episode of the Sunday Wire.
Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams, professional contrarians (who may be a little less skeptical now that Rand Paul has tested positive), talk about the government’s exploitation of the pandemic environment in the March 16th, 2020 episode of the Liberty Report:
Again, Ron Paul dissects the extreme, economically destructive measures fear-mongering officials governments are taking to supposedly counter Coronavirus "hoax":
Paul Joseph Watson attempts to put the threat of Coronavirus into perspective here:
Lastly, Jack Chapple provides an excellent overview of the ramifications of increased unemployment rates to be endured in the impending economic recession or depression. (A little less skeptical, but I wanted to fit this in somewhere because his video presentations are so informative (see here, and here).
What follows are segments of an email exchange that I had with a friend who is a Bernie supporter for the most part. As Bernie’s place in the primary dwindles, it appears Joe Biden will be the Democratic Party presidential nominee. While I don’t feel bad for Bernie Sanders, I do feel bad for many (but certainty not all) of his supporters who I know are truly good people that want the best for their country and fellow countrymen (I also believe this to be true of many Trump supporters). As someone who likes supporting the underdogs, I hate to see Bernie get dragged through the mud by DNC cronies, mainstream media pundits, and establishment politicians. Even though I find unbearable his perpetually aggravated demeanor and berating delivery, I share Bernie’s sentiments about the unfair and unjust systems of power ruining America. I cringe at the thought the only options for President that America has are Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and would much rather see a Trump versus Biden matchup. And while I’m inclined toward the radical political perspective that the two-party system in America is a racket and only offers two sides of the same coin, it’s sometimes hard to shrug off the presidency as something mundane and unimportant considering the damage inflicted on humanity and the planet throughout the first part of the century by George W. Bush, and arguably to a lesser extent by Barack Obama. Nevertheless, at this point in my life I still cannot bring myself to support a man who is decidedly and ardently Socialist. Part of my reasoning is explained in this email to my friend, excerpts of which are below:
Aaron to Friend:
You may have heard of Jordan Peterson. I had intended to send you some links to some of his lectures but never got around to it. He kind of reminds me of you in that you both talk like Kermit the Frog. I’ve slowly been getting through his latest book (Jordan Peterson’s). It’s a little long, but I think you’ll find this lecture pretty interesting (it picks up as it progresses and I still haven’t finished the whole thing). He touches on some of the concepts you and I were discussing over the phone.
Friend to Aaron:
My friend Berto turned me on to Jordan Peterson. I think you met Berto at my wedding -- Native American-looking guy, about 15 years older than us. I spent a day or two watching a bunch of videos. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said, appreciating the clarity of his thought, and really admiring his voice (HA!!).
I will check out this video.
Are you familiar with Ivan Illich? Have I mentioned him to you? Wrote a bunch of books in the 70s criticizing various aspects of industrial society. I think he's brilliant and often dead-on right (though his writing is very dense--requires slow, patient reading).
Deschooling Society is his first book. See if you can find it. He calls our education system the longest, most drawn out initiation ritual in the history of the world. And, of course, it's just gotten longer since the 70s.
Friend to Aaron again:
I watched the whole thing, minus some of the question and answer section. Good stuff.
What stood out for me was a comment he made about "socialists" that he met in Canada--something that he realized after reading a book by George Orwell. The young socialists weren't socialists because they loved the poor. They were socialists because they hated the rich.
Unfortunately, I think this is also an issue with the Bernie phenomenon--and based on the crowd I saw at his rally (including myself, my brother, and his fiancée), less of his main base of supporters is poor or working class and more of them just hate the rich who are oppressing the poor and working class.
Anything about the lecture particularly strike you?
Aaron to Friend:
You think I want to start some fucking online discussion with you or something, whitey?
Just kidding. Yeah, I too found The Road to Wigan Pier backstory compelling insofar as Orwell's realization that socialists can be selfish assholes, too.
Warning - this email will be super helter-skelter - even that word leads me on a tangent by reminding me of a story by James Thurber - ever heard of him? The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (good movie, too). You'd like him - before you go any future with this email please go click on this link and read Chapter Five, pg. 44 - More Alarms At Night, in its short entirety - found here and available in PDF format:
I have a lot of friends supporting Bernie but I can't because I don't like the way he looks. Just kidding, I have nothing against that, but I'm can't throw my vote (which matters much anyway less in populous Cali) behind someone who's principles I question. There's something that strikes me odd about a multi-millionaire with three houses who flies around in private jets to campaign (I realize that that may be the only way to do it effectively) and didn't pay his staff the $15/hour he advocates. Not that I want Trump to be in office, nor am I worried about Socialism. (for some reason my friends who are willing to vote Trump over Bernie if it came down to it think that if Bernie were elected America as a whole would swing far left and we'd go full-blown Soviet Union with the Squad girls appointed Czars to various ministries. I think Bernie would face massive political and populous resistance, which would pretty much only result in higher taxes and business as usual - meaning things would get done but done slowly.) In other words, I don't fear Bernie and I don't think he's a bad guy. I feel bad for him because the DNC is gunning for him, but then I don't feel bad for him because he doesn't defend himself and rolls over and takes it, similarly to how he endorsed Hillary in 2016. A part of me wants to see him endorse Biden just so his supporters can finally realize he's a shill. But yeah, in the bigger picture I can't bring myself to get behind socialist principles because I think they undermine freedom. I'm want to pay taxes and help care for those who need the help in society and the world, but I don't trust politicians or government agencies to save us from our complicated societal dilemmas, many of which are caused by human behavior which cannot be modified by the state. I do think in a free society a person can voluntarily act as a socialist - meaning you can give away your money and help those who you see fit by, for instance, offering up your property to those who need shelter or donating money to those in a homeless camp - but I don't see any of my private property owning friends with expendable incomes and Bernie Sanders bumper stickers doing that. Which gives me the impression that they see the system as flawed and expect to change it by electing a President that will do that for them (maybe that's oversimplified. Separately, I am a little disconcerted by some of his more radical supporters, but maybe in the same way that Trump has supporters that blindly support his every move and believe his every word -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD3NQtIzQng). It may be a bit of a cop-out, but saying that I'm not a socialist prevents me from having to behave as one voluntarily. I think a true socialist should abide by his egalitarian beliefs regardless of the type of economic system at play, meaning they could re-distribute their wealth and offer their property to others on their own volition, but no one seems willing to do that. I also think there’s sometimes a failure of them to realize how well -- despite all it's flaws -- our current system (and the capitalistic parts of it) has actually worked for them and how much better off their lives are because of it. Having said that, I hate the way our current system is set up - namely the military industrial complex and waging war for the sake of empire - something I think Sanders will not change. This reminds me of a quote from a good book by Arundahti Roy from her book on Power Politics which looks at the problems of big dams in India. She writes:
If we have the right institutions of governance in place - effective courts, good laws, honest politicians, participatory democracy, a transparent administration, that respects human rights and gives people a say in decisions that affect their lives - then the globalization project will work for the poor, as well. They call this "globalization with a human face." The point is, if all this were in place, almost anything would succeed: socialism, capitalism, you name it. Everything works in Paradise, a Communist State as well as a Military Dictatorship.
I would also defer to Martin Luther King on the Communism vs. Capitalism question (I've uploaded a collection of his speeches and sermons to google drive:
Now I would like to take a few minutes to say something about this method or this philosophy of nonviolence, because it has played such a prominent role in our struggle over the last few years, both north and south. First I should say that I am still convinced that the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and human dignity is nonviolent resistance. I am convinced that this is a powerful method. It disarms the opponent, it exposes his moral defenses, it weakens his morale and at the same time it works on his conscience, and he just doesn’t know how to deal with it. If he doesn’t beat you, wonderful. If he beats you, you develop the courage of accepting blows without retaliating. If he doesn’t put you in jail, wonderful; nobody with any sense loves to go to jail. But if he puts you in jail, you go in that jail and transform it from a dungeon of shame to a haven of freedom and human dignity. Even if he tries to kill you, you develop the inner conviction that there are some things so precious, some things so dear, some things so eternally true that they are worth dying for. And in a sense, if an individual has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live. This is what the nonviolent discipline says. And there is something about this that disarms the opponent and he doesn’t know how to deal with it.
Another thing about this method is that it makes it possible for individuals to struggle to secure moral ends through moral means. One of the great debates of history has been over this whole question of ends and means. There have been those individuals who have argued that the end justifies the means. Sometimes the whole systems of government have gone down this path. I think this is one of the great weaknesses and tragedies of Communism; it is right here, that often the attitude that any method, any means can be used to bring about the goal of the classless society. This is where the nonviolent philosophy would break from Communism or any other system that argues that the end justifies the means, because in a real sense the end is pre-existent in the means. And the means represent the ideal in the making and the end in process. And somehow in the long run of history, immoral means cannot bring about moral ends. And so the nonviolent philosophy makes it possible for individuals to work to secure moral ends through moral means.
-The American Dream, Martin Luther King, Jr., February 5, 1964, Drew University
Also:
This is true in our international struggle. We look at the struggle, the ideological struggle between communism on the one hand and democracy on the other, and we see the struggle between America and Russia. Now certainly, we can never give our allegiance to the Russian way of life, to the communistic way of life, because communism is based on an ethical relativism and a metaphysical materialism that no Christian can accept. When we look at the methods of communism, a philosophy where somehow the end justifies the means, we cannot accept that because we believe as Christians that the end is pre-existent in the means. But in spite of all of the weaknesses and evils inherent in communism, we must at the same time see the weaknesses and evils within democracy.
Democracy is the greatest form of government to my mind that man has ever conceived, but the weakness is that we have never touched it. Isn’t it true that we have often taken necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes? Isn’t it true that we have often in our democracy trampled over individuals and races with the iron feet of oppression? Isn’t it true that through our Western powers we have perpetuated colonialism and imperialism? And all of these things must be taken under consideration as we look at Russia. We must face the fact that the rhythmic beat of the deep rumblings of discontent from Asia and Africa is at bottom a revolt against the imperialism and colonialism perpetuated by Western civilization all these many years. The success of communism in the world today is due to the failure of democracy to live up to the noble ideals and principles inherent in its system.
And this is what Jesus means when he said: “How is it that you can see the mote in your brother’s eye and not see the beam in your own eye?” Or to put it in Moffatt’s translation: “How is it that you see the splinter in your brother’s eye and fail to see the plank in your own eye?” And this is one of the tragedies of human nature. So we begin to love our enemies and love those persons that hate us whether in collective life or individual life by looking at ourselves.
-Loving Your Enemies, Martin Luther King, Jr.
It's not secret that almost all people are stubborn about their outlook on the world and reality (I am the king of this). "Perception is reality" goes the saying. I listened to a really good interview lately about how people are dead-set in their ways and really suggest you check it out:
People do not formulate their beliefs on the basis of evidence. They think they do, but instead, they cherry pick pieces of information or pieces of data to support the beliefs they already have. The key thing to understand is that people formulate their beliefs because of some moral impulse, derived from a community to which they belong. They have a strong moral sense of why they ought to believe something. Arguing with evidence doesn’t work. That triggers something called the backfire effect — it’s well established in the literature — where people just hunker down or double down in their beliefs.
I was recently reading about that in a New Scientist piece. But it this idea that perception is reality can go much deeper than just politics. It literally can take effect in preceding the physical matter in space differently according to our own biases.
2) I can't find the lecture I watched it in, but there's another Road to Wigan Pier-type excerpt from Neitzsche (whom I have read zero of and whose name I can not spell) from his book Thus spoke Zarathustra that JP reads, and it's an interesting parable that gets at Orwells point about men who seek power for the benefit of others:
Thus I speak to you in a parable—you who make souls whirl, you preachers of equality. To me you are tarantulas, and secretly vengeful. But I shall bring your secrets to light; therefore I laugh in your faces with my laughter of the heights. Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.
The tarantulas, of course, would have it otherwise. "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge"—thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not"—thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!"
You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy—perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers — erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge.
3) Have you taken a look at his recommended reading list? (https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/books/book-list/) I did for the first time last month, and was happy to learn that I've read a number of books on there, and was even at that time reading The Painted Bird by Jerry Kosinky - same guy who wrote Being There, the film of which we've discussed since. (Chance the Gardene at the party talking to the gay man: I love to watch. "I'll go get Warren!")
I've become less anthropocentric lately. Meaning, I'm starting to care less about people and their stupid people problems. You should hear the shit I have to deal with at work: "blah blah blah blah blah, yada yada yada" It's like, just shut the fuck up for once. I've been trying to learn more about the non-human world and the other billions of species and mind-blowing forms of life that inhabit the planet. Obviously I'm using the tools and knowledge (books, writing, digital media) developed by people in order to get there. Some things come to mind when I say this. Some natural history writers that I like: Martson Bates (you really should read Gluttons and Libertines, you'd love it. Then check out the Forest and the Seas. On top of that try to get a book called Science Made Stupid, it's fucking hilarious. The writing Loren Elisey and Aldo Leopold are up there with with Ed Abbey in terms of their enjoyable writing on the wonders of the natural world. Carl Sagan's Cosmo's has been really influential to me (as I write I'm burning you the MP3s to listen to (for your eternally-belated care package), but by reading the book or watching the original series one can attain the same if not great impact. The only magazine that I subscribe to and barely have time to read is New Scientist - it's great. Last year I started, then stopped, but would like to finish Aristotle's History of Animals - pretty cool read. At my night job, where I do most of my YouTube video watching while cleaning instruments on the weekends, I watch the amazing Eons series, which has really gotten me interested in deep time and paleontology, would highly recommend it: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzR-rom72PHN9Zg7RML9EbA). (Separately, as an evil capitalist I watch a bunch of investing videos because I'm trying to figure out how to have my money make money. Sometimes it's annoying to talk about money so apologies in advanced, but thanks to those Coronavirus videos by Chris Martenson I was able to see the economic crash coming, so quit while I was ahead and pulled all my money out. Since then I've gone full-crypto as result of watching videos on digital currencies at work. It's a gamble but if you're ever looking for an interesting bet you may want to look a bitcoin and ethereum.)
Something related to all this is how I've changed in relation to our impact on the planet. I used to think that we're killing the Earth and are totally doomed, and while that may be true especially when it comes to over-fishing, pollution (especially plastics in the oceans and industrial accidents like Fukushima), biodiversity loss, and waste as it relates to trade (https://www.localfutures.org/programs/global-to-local/insane-trade-short-film-factsheet/), and while we are always on the brink of a nuclear holocaust that can annihilate everything, I've slowly been leaning to a very controversial stance that things are not a bad as they seem when it comes to climate change and terrible weather events. This is definitely a position that I'm still learning about and am trying to figure out where I stand because I don't know enough about it (especially the science ((for instance, check out these two episodes -One,Two - if you want to get an idea of how difficult it is to wrap one's head around some of the climate stuff is) to adequately defend myself (my skepticism is fed and compounded by spending too much time on the Watts Up With That? site), but nowadays I kind of roll my eyes when I hear about how terrible the effects of carbon dioxide and how we need to overhaul the system for the greater good. But I also recognize that I'm naturally a contrarian and that perception is reality so I probably won't believe anything anyone tells if I don't like them, and I usually like the underdogs (I have a Tulsi bumper sticker. I think she's principled, which I dig in the same way I dug Ron Paul who is still working hard with an excellent podcast and YT show: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkJ1N-7g9Q6n7KnriGit-Ig -- because of him I've lost all trust in central banks, the federal reserve, fiat currencies, and have been buying 5 silver coins each week from JM Bullion for the past three years or so).
I wasn't sure where to throw this quote in but in so I'll insert it here at the end. All this talk about the world ending and shit going up in flames really remind me of two things:
1) The History of Rome - how they must of felt during periods of their 1000 year roll from Republic to Empire. I cannot recommend this podcast more: https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com
2) My second favorite quote form Ivo Andric's noble prize-winning novel the Bridge on the Drina - an amazing novel that spans 400 year is is about a Bridge in modern-day Bosina. (You should put that on your reading list too):
Every human generation has its own illusions with regard to civilization; some believe that they are taking part in its upsurge, others that they are witnesses of its extinction. In fact, it always both flames up and smoulders and is extinguished, according to the place and the angle of view.
Yes you have mentioned Ivan Illich to me. I have Toward a History of Needs on my bookshelf but haven't read it yet. I'm hoping there's a multi-month quarantine and I'll have the chance to catch up on some much need reading and writing.
His response sums up American foreign military policy in a nutshell: fuck you, pay up or die. Sixteen years of war, military occupation, and immeasurable tragedy, destruction, and the deaths of hundreds of thousandsof Iraqis brought upon by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Trump demands they pay up or else face the consequences. Iraqis have already paid the ultimate price. We have shattered their country, maimed their people, poisoned their land, while American weapons corporations made a killing in the process. We should be down on our knees apologizing from the bottom of our hearts and seeking the forgiveness of God and the mothers of the children whom we have slaughtered over decades of exercising corrupt and inimical positions of aggression and greed, administration after administration. Instead, we have the audacity to threaten a poor and broken nation, the very nation we have ourselves crippled, with further vengeance and sanctions if they exercise their right to freedom by seeing us out. This “keep the oil” extortion mindset is not only pitiful, despicable, and heartless – it is evil.
Hardly a week into the new decade and here we go again – another year, another dipshit President, another major war in the Middle East. To be fair, a full-blown war has yet to begin, but even before the attacks from Iran on U.S. military bases in Iraq, even before the dust settled vis-à-vis the see this most excellent Liberty Report episode leading up to the degree of Iranian influence in the siege of the U.S Embassy in Bagdad and an understanding had been established as to why general Qasem Soleimani had landed (see this most excellent Liberty Report episode), war seem very probable after the general was killed in an airstrike signed off on by President Trump. What is it with Donald Trump lobbing missiles from his golf course Mar-a-Lago? The last time Trump ordered an attack that pushed the world to the brink of WWIII was also at his south Florida resort in April, 2017 when he was eating chocolate cake with the President of China and decided to launch 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria. Incidentally, it now turns out that that attack was likely based off of lies and/or a false flag military operation (see here, here, and here).
Suffering from amnesia, and appearing to exhibit signs of total insanity/inanity and doublethink in backwards land (i.e, claiming that their airstrike on one of Iran’s top generals was to prevent war: “We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.”), present Trump has failed to take the tweet advice from past Trump:
Trump on Nov. 16, 2011:
“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected — and as sure as you're sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.” pic.twitter.com/usZFLiHnBw
In response to the killing of Soleimani, the Iraqi Parliament voted on a non-binding resolution to expel the U.S military and other coalition forces from Iraq. The resolution states, “The government commits to revoke its request for assistance from the international coalition fighting Islamic State due to the end of military operations in Iraq and the achievement of victory… The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.”
1. To oblige the Iraqi government to cancel the request for assistance from the international coalition fighting against ISIS, due to the end of the military and war operations in Iraq and achieved victory and freedom of the areas. 2. The Iraqi government must do everything to stop the presence of all foreign forces on its soil and ban them from using its air, land and water space for any reason. 3. The Iraqi government and foreign ministry must submit a complaint to the United Nations against the US for violating the country’s sovereignty and security. 4. The Iraqi government should also conduct investigations at the highest possible level to identify the ambiguities of the US bombing and report the results to the House of Representatives within seven days of the ruling. 5. This decision is effective from the date of voting.
Trump’s response to our sovereign ally and the Iraqi democratic process that America fought and overthrew Saddam Hussein to implement was to say that we would not leave unless we were paid to do so, and that if Iraq expelled us without compensation we would levy sanctions on them. He said, “We've spent a lot of money in Iraq… We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. ... We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it." Adding, we wouldn’t leave on a "very friendly basis" if they tried to kick us out. The U.S. invasion of "We will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."
His response sums up American foreign military policy in a nutshell: fuck you, pay up or die. Sixteen years of war, military occupation, and immeasurable tragedy, destruction, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis brought upon by the U.S invasion of Iraq, Trump demands they pay up or else face the consequences. Iraqis have already paid the ultimate price.We have shattered their country, maimed their people, poisoned their land, while American weapons corporations made a killing in the process. We should be down on our knees apologizing from the bottom of our hearts and seeking the forgiveness of God and the mothers of the children whom we have slaughtered over decades of exercising corrupt and inimical positions of aggression and greed, administration after administration. Instead, we have the audacity to threaten a poor and broken nation, the very nation we have ourselves crippled, with further vengeance and sanctions if they exercise their right to freedom by seeing us out. This “keep the oil” extortion mindset is not only pitiful, despicable, and heartless – it is evil.
Trump’s arrogance was also on display when he said that he has a list of 52 cultural sites in Iran – a country with a rich and important history many times older that America’s – that he would strike if Iran retaliated. Why would he want to destroy such historical sites and religious monuments when little to no strategic military advantage would be achieved in doing so? Only a monster would threaten such acts and mean them. Do you know who too wiped-out religious sites? ISIS. Apparently Trump has since retracted his threat, but that hardly salvages his morality.
I leave you with a video I uploaded to YouTube recently. It’s an excerpt from the 1/5/20 Sunday Wire news broadcast in which Patrick Henningsen breaks down the basis for all the current turmoil. The video that follows is some footage of a march in Iran following the news Solemani’s death.
Monday, February 28, 2022 at 02:53PM 
The Garden of Earthly Delights, Hieronymus Bosch
