Two bills now in the House of Representatives provide further
evidence the government wants to tell you how to raise your children.
The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343)
aim to micromanage families in the military and those that fall below
the poverty line.

According to Chelsea Schilling,
writing for WorldNetDaily, the two bills “could give the federal
government unprecedented control over the way parents raise their
children – even providing funds for state workers to come into homes
and screen babies for emotional and developmental problems.” The
proposed legislation supposedly aims to prevent child abuse, evaluate
medical conditions, and “close the achievement gap in education between
poor and minority infants versus middle-class children.”

Of course, only the government is capable of determining the “emotional
and developmental problems” of children, not parents. Under this
program, ready for debate in the House, the government will decide the
“cultural awareness” of children, not parents. “There’s some blather in
the language of the bill about having cultural awareness of the
differences in parenting practices, but it seems like that never
applies to Christian parents,” pediatrician Karen Effrem told WND. In
other words, the state will decide what sort of “education” children
receive and that process will now start before kids enter a state
inculcation camp, otherwise known as a public school. In fact, the
language of HR 3289 — lovingly called the “Pre-K Act” — suggests
children are to be steered into a preschool or daycare that follows
state standards while mothers are to be moved into the “workforce,”
that is to say disassociated from the education of their children.

“Once they are involved, they don’t have any say over curriculum,”
Effrem said. “There’s plenty of evidence of preschool curriculum that
deals with issues that have nothing to do with a child’s academic
development – like gender, gender identity, careers, environmentalism,
multiculturalism, feminism and all of that – things that don’t amount
to a hill of beans as far as a child learning how to read.” In other
words, children will be brainwashed by the state. State education
obviously has nothing to do with literacy or academic development. It
has to do with making sure children are trained to follow the dictates
of the state. It is about breaking down the family in deference to
feminism, gender identity, and careers outside the family. It is about
“family planning” and eugenics. It is about programming impressionable
minds to accept homosexuality and abortion.

As Effrem notes (see Preschool Socioemotional Screening),
a “movement already exists within organized psychiatry to label and
drug people mentally ill based on highly controversial political and
religious criteria, such as ‘intolerance’…. Due to reimbursement
patterns, government promotion, and pharmaceutical industry influence,
treatment almost always means use of psychotropic drugs. According to a
survey of members of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 9 out of 10 children that see a psychiatrist receive a
prescription for psychoactive drugs.”

While HR 3289 and HR 2343 “may not be mandatory for low-income and
military families, there is no wording in the Education Begins at Home
Act requiring parental permission for treatment or ongoing care once
the family is enrolled – a point that leads some to ask where parental
rights end and the government takes over,” writes Schilling.

Obviously, according to the state, parents do not have rights,
especially if they are “intolerant” Christians, home schoolers, or they
have their own ideas about how their children should be educated. Once
passed, it is said HR 3289 and HR 2343 will be voluntary, but as we
know such programs have a way of eventually becoming mandatory,
especially if a family is receiving some sort of state or federal
“assistance.”

“If we and our children do not want to be a
sociologically-controlled and semi-ignorant members of the United
Nations New World Order, we need to recognize the importance of
knowledge, and reject attempts at emotional manipulation and knowledge
limitation,” writes Erica Carle.
“Today’s problem-solving and decision-making system of education uses
students, plays on their emotions, and tries to alienate them from
those who should be closest to them. It creates animosity between
classmates; wastes valuable learning time by forcing students to form
opinions and listen to the uninformed opinions of their classmates; and
discourages intelligent and moral behavior. It turns students against
their own country and its Constitution in favor of the United Nations
New World Order management system. Is this what we want for America’s
children? If not, let’s get to work informing our state’s legislators
that they must reclaim the schools and restore the Constitution.”

HR 3289 and HR 2343, likely to become mandatory for all pre-school
age children, is part and parcel of this NWO management system.

Se dovessimo immaginare uno scenario distopico, il primo pensiero che ci verrebbe in mente potrebbe essere quello di un regime in cui trionfano miseria presso il popolo e controllo totale, o cose alla 1984 di George Orwell. Ciò che il lungimirante Aldous Huxley formulò nel 1932 rappresentava tutto un altro genere di mondo: pensate ad un mondo florido, senza guerre nè malattie e nel quale gli esseri umani hanno libero accesso ad ogni sorta di piacere materiale, dalla droga [il soma] ai giochi sportivi al sesso agli svaghi [i cinema odorosi].

Detto così sembrerebbe quasi un'utopia, infatti non è tutto: se questo è quello che percepiscono gli abitanti di quella civiltà, ciò che c'è alle spalle e alla base della società de "Il mondo nuovo" è un sofisticato sistema di controllo delle nascite [che avvengono in provetta; non esiste la figura materna], di predestinazione sociale e di ipnopedia [educazione meccanica all'ordine e alla convenienza perpetrata ai bambini durante il sonno], e altre agghiaccianti caratteristiche.

Huxley, ben 76 anni fa, aveva già compreso e di conseguenza predetto numerose dinamiche sociali: dal consumismo al presunto benessere materiale, dalla omologazione all'annullamento dei sentimenti sconvenienti all'ordine sociale fino all'appiattimento dell'individualità. Un regime per essere efficiente non dev'essere sanguinario, temibile e poliziesco; tutto è più semplice se questo può godere del consenso implicito di una popolazione imbambolata e dipendente da un benessere superficiale. Subdolo e dolce, si tratta di un regime light, estremamente moderno, anzi contemporaneo. Quantomai vicino alla realtà dei nostri giorni.

Nel 1958 viene pubblicato "Brave New World Revisited" ["Ritorno al Mondo Nuovo"], opera di carattere saggistico in cui Huxley rianalizza alcuni temi del romanzo del 1932 e constata che una gran parte di ciò che aveva teorizzato era già in atto. Un'immagine molto efficace ci viene data per esempio dalla similitudine uomo-uccello:

"Libero come un uccello" diciamo noi e invidiamo quelle creature alate che si possono muovere a piacimento nelle tre dimensioni. Ahimè, ci siamo scordata la sorte del tacchino. Quando un uccello impara a ingozzarsi a sufficienza senz'essere costretto a usare le ali, rinuncia al privilegio del volo e se ne resta a terra, in eterno. Qualcosa di simile vale anche per gli uomini [...]

"Il mondo nuovo" è la storia di un'utopia all'interno di una distopia troppo grande, che finirà per sconfiggerla; la lotta di individui come Bernardo e Helmholtz, in cui la sensibilità e la determinazione per un cambiamento è presente in loro sotto forma potenziale, ma limitati e condizionati anch'essi dal lavaggio del cervello della società totalitarista in cui si trovano; l'amore e l'irrequietezza di un Selvaggio. Huxley ci consegna una narrazione precisa e attenta di un mondo iper-organizzato in verticale, alla quale però non mancano punte di intensità come la scena del contatto con la Natura [«Ma è terribile!» disse Lenina ritirandosi con orrore dal finestrino. Era terrorizzata dal vuoto turbinoso della notte, dai neri flutti schiumosi che si sollevavano sotto di loro..] o del matrimonio in cima allo strapiombo.

Veramente una lettura necessaria e importante. Consigliatissimo anche "Ritorno al mondo nuovo".

fabio

...sehen mittlerweile so aus.

es ist egal geworden, ob rechtstaatliche gerichtsverfahren stattfinden oder nicht. woran erinnert mich das denn nun wieder? ach ja, genau! an die damals allseits beliebten SCHAUPROZESSE DER NAZIS.

finden sie es nicht merkwürdig, dass eine regierung, die so genau wußte, wer hinter den anschlägen vom 11. september 2001 steckten, dass sie in ihrer schrittschwellenden selbstsicherheit sogar zwei länder ohne offizielle kriegserklärung überfielen und dort hundertausende von zivilisten mit präzisionsbomben und uran-munition ermordeten, nun zu feige zu sein scheint, um den "überführten" terroristen einen fairen prozess zu machen?

und finden sie nicht auch, dass wenn die schuld dieser handtuchköpfe eh so klar ist, dass es im grunde ziemlich blöde ist, wenn man das ganze spektakel nicht a la o.j. simpson-prozess täglich im fernsehen überträgt?

ich denke das bequemste an dieser art von prozessen für die bush-junta ist v.a. der faktor, dass sie als "ankläger" nicht das geringste beweisen muß - so wie es in einem RECHTSTAATLICHEN GERICHTSVERFAHREN obligat wäre.

in westlichen zivilisationen (hah!) gilt nämlich nach wie vor der grundsatz, dass nicht der angeklagte SEINE UNSCHULD beweisen muss, sondern der ankläger muss die schuld des angeklagten beweisen. doch dies scheinen die verblödeten bevölkerungsmassen besagter zivilisationen in ihrem von gleichgeschalteten massenmedien angestachelten islam-hass ungeschickterweise ein klein wenig aus den augen verloren zu haben.

der grund für dieses penetrante beharren auf jenen widerlichen militär-tribunalen kann m.e. nach nur ein einziger sein: der bush-junta fehlen die beweise für die schuld der gtmo-häftlinge und dies würde sie, wenn auch nur ein einziger auf "nicht schuldig" plädieren würde, in sehr sehr dumme rechtfertigungs-notstands-situationen bringen.

wäre es anders, könnten sie doch völlig entspannt, siegesgewiß und öffentlich anklage gegen diese "terroristen" erheben. doch nein, sie machen es heimlich, versteckt, verstohlen und pissen wieder einmal auf den rechtstaat.

BRAVO USA! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, CONSTITUTION ABOLISHED

FAREHELL.

cato

Neil Postman contrasts the world of George Orwell's 1984 and Brave New World: "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us" (Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, 1986, foreword).

zum ersten mal werden diese playmobil-krieger vor dem REICHSTAG vereidigt. schön medienwirksam. das schafft stimmung im gestählten geistfreien volkskörper. und affinitäten. und assoziationen.

ganz nebenbei senkt es, wie all die anderen puzzleteile vorher, die hemmschwelle. das militär wird normal. im gegensatz zu den abnormalen sachen von den wir deutschen uns beflissen distanzieren - allgmeine gefährder undso schäuflezeuchs.

"dieser staat wird euch nicht mißbrauchen", stammelt da nikotin-schnauze-schmidt. klingt doch irgendwie ertappt und prophylaktisch, nicht wahr? fast so, als wolle er beruhigen, wo im grunde kein beruhigen nötig sein sollte. ziemlich seltsam das ganze.

apropos "mißbrauch"! lustig fand ich, dass mir gestern ein kalter schauer über den rücken lief, als ich in der glotze sah wie dem oberpfaffen - nachdem er tags zuvor in australien sein bißchen bedauern über diese dumme, dumme kindersache durch die blume definitiv deutlich gemacht hatte - ein kind gereicht wurde und er es dann drückte und küßte (ja, nur ganz flüchtig. damit niemand normales auf abnormale gedanken kommt?). heilige scheiße, das war schon ein abnormales gefühl, aber was sind schon gefühle, wenn man einfach an alles glauben kann?

übrigens, falls man jetzt ein schuft wäre, dann könnte man mal fünfe grade sein lassen und den (abnormalen?) verdacht äußern, dass die katholische kirche vielleicht nur deshalb so vehement gegen die abtreibung ist, damit ihr der nachschub nicht aus geht. glücklicherweise ist man aber kein schuft, nein, man ist gläubiger katholik.

egal, jedenfalls glaube ich ganz fest daran, dass sich alle diese (abnormalen?) kuttenträger ändern werden und kein kind jemals wieder (nach salbungsvoller aufforderung?) runzelige schwänze lutschen muß, denn der papst hat sein bedauern ausgedrückt und ich glaub dem papst. alles. immer.

FAREHELL.

cato

PS: ich würde gern in münchen einen "herodes-gedächtnis-kindergarten" gründen. mal schaun, ob die kirche das mitfinanziert - als weitere kleine geste des bedauerns sozusagen.

exhibit A: digital portrait (see "conspiracy theory", poem)

© 2008 henry toromoreno

When first drafting this essay I went to great lengths to deconstruct both the far right views of literal creationism versus the far left views of Darwinism. I had reduced both of them to materialistic goals of trying to explain the world. Literal creationists assert claims that don't mesh well with the physical evidence presented by Geology. Darwinists assert that the world created itself and thus DNA codes in effect write themselves. A simple experiment where two inorganic particles are meshed together and result in an organic particle would prove evolution, however to my knowledge this has never been done. I assert that the human race was created by the grace of God and that the biblical creation story is about as literal as the book of Revelation, since snakes do not talk ect. Evolution can perhaps account for prehistory and the physical evidence present in the world at large, but there was a totally a divine hand involved at some point and thusly the missing link. It is a relevant topic about how easily humans can be divided over frivolous matters and does fit in with this discussion of the end of history. However I felt like I spent too long with tearing down both arguments and less time on the decline of civilization itself, I may deal with this issue in depth at a later date.

I had this idea for a novel once where the corporations fake an apocalypse. I had plenty of ideas for how they might go about it. Naturally a capitalist would profit more from a complete controlled society, so let's speculate on how to get there. First you need to crush differences of opinion, the best way to do this would be to make them fight to the death. The process of this, of course, would be a long one so the trick would be to make them worship the same thing a pure capitalist would - money itself. Once you have a society made purely materialistic, with all beliefs reduced to but a mere idolatry of money. The trick is to make the society in question openly acknowledge their materialism but never condemn it. There are a great many dangers in taking life too seriously. Once people truly take their consumer based lives too seriously and are willing to do whatever it takes to make the ends meet, a clash of civilizations can begin which the capitalists can then exploit. There are many conspiracy theories about how this is done or accomplished, and many of them point a finger at some conspiracy lurking in the shadows plotting to destroy civilization. The true conspiracy is very apparent, it only works with near full participation, to blame this on anything material is to not do the evil plan proper justice. I find there is no greater culprit than the pride of life itself - society's vast materialism and lack of a thorough introspection. Once a people believe what they are told, you can tell them whatever you want to, a capitalist with a sheer lack of proper business ethics would be much obliged an opportunity to exploit that. Let us contemplate absolute Atheism as the ends to the means of a society completely poisoned with its own materialism. Let us envision the regulation of the internet as the beginning of a domino effect, a rhetorical war on information with the end result being an internet as useless and uninformative as television itself.

For in my quest to unravel the tragedy of history I have found are no greater enemies to mankind than outright materialism and the darkness of ignorance. Mankind's true enemies are these such concepts, and not any member(s) or other such materialistic division of the human race. We are all one race in a struggle against such darkness. Regardless of what you believe in philosophically there is one thing you should know and understand about economics. Capitalism itself is based on materialism and it is necessary for our daily lives.There seems to be no way around this and this is an accepted fact of life in the Western World. However over time a society believing that is was evolved from monkeys shall become such monkeys entangled in a class struggle analogous to survival of the fittest. The corporate world is a macrocosm for this, as the empires expand buying out the little guys not indifferent from a Tyrannosaur in a world of sheep. All is good and well as long as the market is regulated. But see capitalism is based on being ever expansive, no different than the empires of the Old World. Alexander the Great didn't need to try to conquer the India, but there was more money in it. I was taught in World Civilization at the University of Tennessee that Wal-Mart was now the largest economy in the world (2004), which would in turn make them among the greatest of all empires. As the world changed, warfare changed. The Old World notions of rape and pillage were not forgotten but they were transformed into a legacy of underdevelopment. When one rapes and pillages everyone that participates in the raids gets a little bit of the profit, but when one underdevelopments only the investors that paid for the raid reap any reward.

As we press forward in the 21st century, capitalism continues unabated. The markets become closer together and the people themselves become close together through the internet. This could be a good thing, but the fact remains that the means do not justify the end. The people of the world cannot be conquered by hostile takeover but only through mutual understanding. The internet taught me that and that is why it will one day be shutdown. There is no money in mutual understanding and a rejection of materialistic means that have kept us blind from such for so long. Even hip-hop artists tried to warn us of this. Tupac Shukar said that we needed to make some Changes and he got shot. Biggie Smalls said 'Mo Money, 'Mo Problems and he got shot as well. Their messages left unheard as the next generation rapped on and on about Gold Chains and spinning rims all the while proclaiming that Tupac and Biggie inspired them. Our problems are still here and they are still bigger than hip-hop. This isn't a new concept or without precedent, the same thing happened in the 70's when music devolved from social philosophy into disco. This sad tale is but an analog with a thousand other dead heroes because there was just no profit to be had in pointing out that profit was ultimately pointless. In the modern world we believe we can buy happiness, but we feel like we are missing something in the end.

Regardless of what social, theological or philosophical school of thought that you subscribe to, material means all meet the same ending. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The scales of justice themselves tipped in strong favor of the overwhelming mass of the bottom line as the governments corrupt in favor of the greater wealth of the commercial empires. One by one the nations fall into the same supermarket checkout line, the end result of the works of greed and deceit all the while the secular authorities teach the children that they are but the descendants of mere apes. As entire cultures are consumed in this vacuum, national sovereignty erodes to the point where this no longer any checks and balances, nor is their consumer advocacy, nor any form of oversight. At this point the safety net was long destroyed, crushed under the weight of the bottom line of a one world consumer society's misguided ambitions and desires and the entire social order is left to plummet into the abyss of absolute darkness. This such is the hypothetical blizzard of the world that will only result in the winter of our discontent when all of the great words of the heroes, the philosophers, the poets, the prophets and the honest historians are ultimately forgotten.

And inevitably there will be this day, when all of the resources of the world have been plundered to the point that the wealth of the nations all sit together in the same vault, the capitalists now content to become communists . At which point the new emperors shall fancy themselves as gods, just as the emperors of old once did, for their materialistic accomplishments of conquering the entire world. When this has come to pass, these emperors will then want slaves and become interested in human souls themselves. And they are going to come to you and attempt to brand you as their slaves. An entire generation truly believing itself to be the descendants of mere apes and completely ignorant of the glorious past that came before this point. That cursed day when everyone is asked to sellout, the finality of a cruel world built on betrayal in the name of fattening the bottom line. The circle now completed since the new emperor's of the world's constituents are no longer in demand of rights, history erased, the dissidents repressed eternally and the next generation shall only know what they are allowed to. The whole of society reduced to mere animals by their own designs and excuses, all beliefs degenerated into pure atheism where there is no longer any intelligent question since everyone truly believes that they are nothing more than the descendants of mere apes. The eerily humbled remnants of a once great world civilization reduced to but mere automatons oblivious to the true culprit of their real ancestor's vanity. The tragedy of history forgotten now complete and ironic of its own demise.

This is merely a hypothetical scenario which can be prevented from ever happening. The internet can be the light of a pure democracy, save the internet and damn the empire.

Review by George Orwell of
We by E.I. Zamyatin
Tribune, January 4, 1946

Several years after hearing of its existence, I have at last got my hands on a copy of Zamyatin's We, which is one of the literary curiosities of this book-burning age. Looking it up in Gleb Struve's Twenty-Five Years of Soviet Russian Literature, I find its history to have been this:

Zamyatin, who died in Paris in 1937, was a Russian novelist and critic who published a number of books both before and after the Revolution. We was written about 1923, and though it is not about Russia and has no direct connection with contemporary politics--it is a fantasy dealing with the twenty-sixth century AD--it was refused publication on the ground that it was ideololgically undesirable. A copy of the manuscript found its way out of the country, and the book has appeared in English, French and Czech translations, but never in Russian. The English translation was published in the United States, and I have never been able to procure a copy: but copies of the French translation (the title is Nous Autres) do exist, and I have at last succeeded in borrowing one. So far as I can judge it is not a book of the first order, but it is certainly an unusual one, and it is astonishing that no English publisher has been enterprising enought to reissue it.

The first thing anyone would notice about We is the fact--never pointed out, I believe--that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World must be partly derived from it. Both books deal with the rebellion of the primitive human spirit against a rationalised, mechanised, painless world, and both stories are supposed to take place about six hundred years hence. The atmosphere of the two books is similar, and it is roughly speaking the same kind of society that is being described though Huxley's book shows less political awareness and is more influenced by recent biological and psychological theories.

In the twenty-sixth century, in Zamyatin's vision of it, the inhabitants of Utopia have so completely lost their individuality as to be known only by numbers. They live in glass houses (this was written before television was invented), which enables the political police, known as the "Guardians", to supervise them more easily. They all wear identical uniforms, and a human being is commonly referred to either as "a number" or "a unif" (uniform). They live on synthetic food, and their usual recreation is to march in fours while the anthem of the Single State is played through loudspeakers. At stated intervals they are allowed for one hour (known as "the sex hour") to lower the curtains round their glass apartments. There is, of course, no marriage, though sex life does not appear to be completely promiscuous. For purposes of love-making everyone has a sort of ration book of pink tickets, and the partner with whom he spends one of his allotted sex hours signs the counterfoil. The Single State is ruled over by a personage known as The Benefactor, who is annually re-elected by the entire population, the vote being always unanimous. The guiding principle of the State is that happiness and freedom are imcompatible. In the Garden of Eden man was happy, but in his folly he demanded freedom and was driven out into the wilderness. Now the Single State has restored his happiness by removing his freedom.

So far the resemblance with Brave New World is striking. But though Zamyatin's book is less well put together--it has a rather weak and episodic plot which is too complex to summarise--it has a political point which the other lacks. In Huxley's book the problem of "human nature" is in a sense solved, because it assumes that by pre-natal treatment, drugs and hypnotic suggestion the human organism can be specialised in any way that is desired. A first-rate scientific worker is as easily produced as an Epsilon semi-moron, and in either case the vestiges of primitive instincts, such as maternal feeling or the desire for liberty, are easily dealt with. At the same time no clear reason is given why society should be stratified in the elaborate way it is described. The aim is not economic exploitation, but the desire to bully and dominate does not seem to be a motive either. There is no power hunger, no sadism, no hardness of any kind. Those at the top have no strong motive for staying at the top, and though everyone is happy in a vacuous way, life has become so pointless that it is difficult to believe that such a society could endure.

Zamyatin's book is on the whole more relevant to our own situation. In spite of education and the vigilance of the Guardians, many of the ancient human instincts are still there. The teller of the story, D-503, who, though a gifted engineer, is a poor conventional creature, a sort of Utopian Billy Brown of London Town, is constantly horrified by the atavistic* impulses which seize upon him. He falls in love (this is a crime, of course) with a certain I-330 who is a member of an underground resistance movement and succeeds for a while in leading him into rebellion. When the rebellion breaks out it appears that the enemies of The Benefactor are in fact fairly numerous, and these people, apart from plotting the overthrow of the State, even indulge, at the moment when their curtains are down, in such vices as smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. D-503 is ultimately saved from the consequences of his own folly. The authorities announce that they have discovered the cause of the recent disorders: it is that some human beings suffer from a disease called imagination. The nerve-centre responsible for imagination has now been located, and the disease can be cured by X-ray treatment. D-503 undergoes the operation, after which it is easy for him to do what he has known all along that he ought to do--that is, betray his confederates to the police. With complete equanimity he watches I-330 tortured by means of compressed air under a glass bell:

She looked at me, her hands clasping the arms of the chair, until her eyes were completely shut.
They took her out, brought her to herself by means of an electric shock, and put her under the bell again.
This operation was repeated three times, and not a word issued from her lips.

The others who had been brought along with her showed themselves more honest.
Many of them confessed after one application.
Tomorrow they will all be sent to the Machine of The Benefactor.

The Machine of The Benefactor is the guillotine. There are many executions in Zamyatin's Utopia. They take place publicly, in the presence of The Benefactor, and are accompanied by triumphal odes recited by the official poets. The guillotine, of course, is not the old crude instrument but a much improved model which literally liquidates its victim, reducing him in an instant to a puff of smoke and a pool of clear water. The execution is, in fact, a human sacrifice, and the scene describing it is given deliberately the colour of the sinister slave civilisations of the ancient world. It is this intuitive grasp of the irrational side of totalitarianism--human sacrifice, cruelty as an end in itself, the worship of a Leader who is credited with divine attributes--that makes Zamyatin's book superior to Huxley's.

It is easy to see why the book was refused publication. The following conversation (I abridge it slightly) beteen D-503 and I-330 would have been quite enough to set the blue pencils working:

"Do you realise that what you are suggesting is revolution?"
"Of course, it's revolution. Why not?"
"Because there can't be a revolution. Our revolution was the last and there can never be another. Everybody knows that."
"My dear, you're a mathematician: tell me, which is the last number?"
"But that's absurd. Numbers are infinite. There can't be a last one."
"Then why do you talk about the last revolution?"

There are other similar passages. It may well be, however, that Zamyatin did not intend the Soviet regime to be the special target of his satire. Writing at about the time of Lenin's death, he cannot have had the Stalin dictatorship in mind, and conditions in Russia in 1923 were not such that anyone would revolt against them on the ground that life was becoming too safe and comfortable. What Zamyatin seems to be aiming at is not any particular country but the implied aims of industrial civilisation. I have not read any of his other books, but I learn from Gleb Struve that he had spent several years in England and had written some blistering satires on English life. It is evident from We that he had a strong leaning towards primitivism. Imprisoned by the Czarist Government in 1906, and then imprisoned by the Bolsheviks in 1922 in the same corridor of the same prison, he had cause to dislike the political regimes he had lived under, but his book is not simply the expression of a grievance. It is in effect a study of the Machine, the genie that man has thoughtlessly let out of its bottle and cannot put back again. This is a book to look out for when an English version appears.

George Orwell
Tribune, 4 January 1946

INTEGRAL POINT OF "WE" (Mateja answers questions Melissa had)

ESSENCE OF WE & 1984 (Mateja writes an essay summarazing "We" and comparing it to "1984")

Mateja says Zamyatin's "We" has meaning, depth and metaphors about society and people in general

Ed says that the way Zamyatin describes architecture in "We" is quite innovative for the age, early 1920s

Melissa just finished reading "We" and has a list of questions needing answers

John wonders about the book "We" by Zamyatin and what influence it had on Orwell

Reader says "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin is another novel of truth."

Well now.  Here’s something interesting. 

Not only is the Orwellian title attention-grabbing in its own right (and absurd, since experience hath shewn that governments by their nature do the opposite of “save lives.”), but just read this perversity and see if you don’t get cold chills.  Just think about the ramifications - our corrupt, foolish and selfish politicians collecting and owning all DNA data from everybody born in the USA:

• Our politicians’ record with data security (from both hacking and plain old screwups) is just awful.  Mistakes will be made.  Huge ones.  The United Kingdom, our apparent role model, already screwed up with DNA samples, among other things.
• You think “pre-existing condition” exclusions are bad now!
• What little good could come out of such a thing is certainly outweighed by sci-fi mischief and Keystone Cops incompetence.

Oh, but it sounds so well-intended and helpful, doesn’t it?  What’s the history of that as applied to politicians?

Anyway, it’s scheduled for debate in the House of Representatives.  Nearly all reps will vote on this without having read a word of it.  They may tell a 20-something legislative aid to read it for them, but most of those starry-eyed future congresscritters haven’t lived long enough to get through a history book and they’ve never heard about such a thing as constitutional limitation of powers.

It’s up to you to tell your reps what’s what and just who they work for.  Brave New World?  It's still your choice.

© 2008 henry toromoreno

...mit den bodenlos inkompetenten

was mich wieder einmal zu der frage bringt:

"wie dämlich darf sich ein staatsdiener eigentlich ungestraft anstellen, hm?"

mit solche meldungen vor augen möchte man meinen: beliebig dämlich?

in der tat scheint es keine behördliche obergrenze für denkverweigerung, unfähigkeit, technik-resistenz, unwissenheit, unverschämtheit, rücksichtslosigkeit und gallopierenden wahrnehmungsstörungen in diesen verschlägen zu geben.

und das bringt mich zur zweiten wichtigen frage dieses kontextes:

"warum suchen sich solche leute keine jobs, die ihrer überschätzten geistigen leistungsfähigkeit gerecht werden?"

FAREHELL.

cato

PS: hey, ihr himmelhunde, der z-wert meines iq ist 2,6 und was habt ihr auf der pfanne? reicht's für diese liga oder wird euch grobmotorischen kinderporno-jägern jenseits der 1,7  die luft zu dünn?

übrigens, ein hausmeister-service ist nicht so kompliziert und bringt auch gutes geld - hab ich gehört.

Which means the only way of kicking things into shape is globally -  which is worryingly a bit New World Order. Obviously things like the UN are supposed to be a step in that direction, but the UN has to serve it's member countries' interests - which are as diverse as Metallica and Peter, Paul & Mary - and so tends to get sod all done in a hurry. Take Darfur as an example. However the only reason for all this is £, € and $. Take Iraq and Kuwait for example - definitely based on the need for oil and governments friendly to the West. You can bet that if Mugabe was sitting on oil reserves he wouldn't be there any more!

And of course these decisions are taken at government level - governments who are supposed to represent us - the people - on a national and international level. Only they don't, and that's regardless of political parties, because that would mean they weren't in charge, we would be - the voting public. What a dangerous proposition, who'd trust the voting public - well done David Davis (god that stuck in my throat). Only that's how they got there in the first place!! And also, that would mean they might have to listen to their constituents instead of their partly leaders - which would mean party politics doesn't work - shock horror. Which brings us round to communism, which doesn't work and is just as insidious and nasty as fascism - back to you Il Duce.

Which, in a massive cyclical way proves that politics (as we know it) is a dead dog, kept alive, at least on first inspection, by the activity of all the little creatures living off it. Nice. And the reason it doesn't work is down to human nature, which is worrying as that suggests we're not capable of governing ourselves. However democracy is the nearest thing we have to a working political model, it probably just needs a service - someone to check under the hood and changer the plugs once in a while - cue Barak Obama?

Really, as I said in LRP1, it comes down to us as individuals to sort the problems out by getting together and telling governments around the world we want change. Like with Make Poverty History, only not letting the bastards drag things out for years until we've all forgotten about it. And saying to our own government - "sod what the rest of the world are doing, we want you to cancel any debts we have a claim on", "not nuclear power, green, responsible, long term renewable power". Because at the moment all the little voices are being ignored because they're split across a myriad of global needs - poverty, environmental issues, human rights - but really it's all to do global equality, peace and harmony - which should be viable if that's what most people want - shouldn't it?

Unfortunately, I'm not terribly optimistic, especially given the following description of the new discussion format to be applied this year:

Unlike the previous thirteen meetings, this year’s Lambeth conference will not feature large sessions ordered toward producing resolutions. It will instead consist of small discussion groups (called indaba, a Zulu term for “gathering”) aimed toward the eventual production of a communal “Reflections” document.

Some have been skeptical of the intent and effect of the new design. There may well be sound reasons for the change; it can be difficult for all voices to be heard in enormous parliamentary sessions. But some are concerned that the new design will actually have the effect of preventing any outcomes such as the ones at the 1998 meeting, where the numerical strength of Global South bishops led to the passage of resolutions that were unpalatable to Northern liberals.

Perhaps I'm being too uncharitably cynical, but when compared to what I've seen in the RC neighborhood regarding innovations (very) allegedly dictated by Vatican II, I'm not surprised to see this kind of thing happen when you let the Lib...er, religious progressives get their foot in the door.

für alle narren, die glauben, dass regierungen die freunde der bürger seien:

verdrängt das!

FAREHELL.

cato

Product Description

This volume contains the names of over 50,000 metal bands. Presuming that each of these bands had an average of four members, and multipling that by the number of bands, one might figure that at least a quarter of a million humans have pledged allegiance to one of them at some point is his or her lifetime. Never has a genre of music relegated to the underground of a civilization had so many devotees; no radio needs to transmit the power of this music, for it is sought out fiercely and freely by the doomed and the dispossessed, whose ears are never soiled by songs of love and weakness.

These names are invisible tokens to be spoken aloud, each representing a human quest for superhuman spectacle: shaking floorboards and quivering walls, split ears leaking blood, with faces painted and ornaments pointy, voices uttering eternal truths shunned by woman and man alike.

Theognis is the only writer represented in this volume whose poetry has come down to us by a regular manuscript tradition.  His works are to be found, in whole or in part, in more than forty manuscripts, the oldest and best of which belongs to the early 10th century.  We have almost 1400 lines of elegiacs, which are variously divided to form between 300 and 400 poems, most of them single couples, the longest two poems of 30 lines.  At last, the novice might think, the critic's task is straightforward: he is dealing with compete poems instead of stray fragments and he can ply his trade in peace.  But alas!  the field of Theognidean studies is battle-scarred, strewn with theories dead or dying, the scene of bitter passions and blind partisanship. Welcker in1826 divided the poems into a small corpus of 'genuine Theognis' and a large mass of poetry by other writers, earlier and later.  Separatists of various shades of opinion held the field till 1902, when Harrison published a vigorous defence of the unity of the  corpus, and since then combat has been continuous, except for interruptions due to real wars. (emph. mine)

-D. A. Campbell, Greek Lyric Poetry. 343-344.

...aber keine drei funktionierenden neuronen im schädel, hm? meine fresse, dafür gibt's die analysephase bei it-projekten, ihr narren! dann klappts auch mit den "anderen" fingerabdrücken.

ich gewinne zunehmend den eindruck, dass die maximal erreichbare verblödung nach oben unbeschränkt ist, sobald sich dinge, die in behörden arbeiten, mit computern befassen.

FAREHELL.

cato

...aber die gesetzes-schlinge um den hals der bürger, die weitgehend unbemerkt und nahezu wöchentlich immer mehr zugezogen wird, ist für meinen geschmack einfach zuviel.

ich bin in diesem zusammenhang der auffassung, dass man die persönliche vorliebe gern u.v.a. oft ausleben soll, aber deswegen muss man sich nicht sofort dem fetischismus an den hals werfen.

es ist natürlich klar, dass solche gesetze so ausfallen, denn gerade mächtige lassen sich vermehrt von dominaten damen in hundekostüme stecken und dann ein wenig be-stra-fen. hö-hö-hö ("böser hund! böser hund!).

da fällt mir ein: "gibts eigentlich passende hundekostüme für rollstuhlfahrer?". egal, was juckt's mich.

FAREHELLO BELLO.

cato

... fantastisch, hm?

das bemerkenswerte daran ist weniger der punkt, dass solche gadgets entwickelt, gebaut und vermarktet werden, sondern vielmehr, dass die staatsdiener eines "westlichen demokratischen rechtstaates" (was auch immer das heute sein mag) ernsthaft darüber nachdenken, solche sachen wirklich einzusetzen. das sollte euch, die ihr nichts zu verbergen habt, ein klein wenig zu denken geben, wie ich meine.

FAREHELL.

cato

Entertainment

Americans vote Ulysses best novel

Read any good books lately?

Banned as obscene for many years, James Joyce's Ulysses has been voted the 20th century's greatest novel written in English by a panel of mainly American writers.

Ten members of the board of the New York Modern Library, an offshoot of Random House publishers, selected what they considered the 100 best works.

The choice of novels made by board members - who include Maya Angelou, AS Byattt and Gore Vidal - have sparked hot debate among listophiles the world over.

After Ulysses, F Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby was second, Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man came third, fourth was Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita and fifth - Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

Poor showing for the young and the female

Only one novel in the top ten is by a living author - Joseph Heller (Catch-22 at No 7). Younger British writers such as Martin Amis, Irvine Welsh and Julian Barnes are absent from the list.

Also, women are far and few between. Virginia Woolf's To The Lighthouse appears first - right down at No 15. There were just seven other female writers on the list - Carson McCullers, Edith Wharton, Willa Cather , Jean Rhys, Iris Murdoch, Elisabeth Bowen and Muriel Spark.

Notable by their absence are Dorris Lessing, Mary McCarthy, Nadine Gordimer, Alice Walker, Morrison and Harper Lee.

Ernest Hemingway, credited by generations of literary critics as having reshaped the English language, comes in at a lowly No 45 with The Sun Also Rises.

Attack from Net readers

The Random House website was swamped with e-mails from readers criticising the list for omitting to include writers from other parts of the English-speaking world, such as Africa, India and Australia.

Online voters put Frank Herbert's sci-fi tome Dune top of the list on the publisher's site.

No surprises there. And No 2 was Atlas Shrugged by arch-conservative novelist Ayn Rand.

America's top one hundred

1. ULYSSES by James Joyce
2. THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald
3. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
4. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
5. BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
6. THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
7. CATCH-22 by Joseph Heller
8. DARKNESS AT NOON by Arthur Koestler
9. SONS AND LOVERS by DH Lawrence
10. THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck
11. UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
12. THE WAY OF ALL FLESH by Samuel Butler
13. 1984 by George Orwell
14. I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
15. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
16. AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY by Theodore Dreiser
17. THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
18. SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
19. INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
20. NATIVE SON by Richard Wright
21. HENDERSON THE RAIN KING by Saul Bellow
22.APPOINTMENT IN SAMARRA by John O'Hara
23.USA (trilogy) by John Dos Passos
24. WINESBURG, OHIO by Sherwood Anderson
25.A PASSAGE TO INDIA by EM Forster
26. THE WINGS OF THE DOVE by Henry James
27. THE AMBASSADORS by Henry James
28. TENDER IS THE NIGHT by F Scott Fitzgerald
29. THE STUDS LONIGAN TRILOGY by James T. Farrell
30. THE GOOD SOLDIER by Ford Madox Ford
31. ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell
32. THE GOLDEN BOWL by Henry James
33. SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser
34. A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh
35. AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner
36. ALL THE KING'S MEN by Robert Penn Warren
37. THE BRIDGE OF SAN LUIS REY by Thornton Wilder
38. HOWARD'S END by EM Forster
39. GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN by James Baldwin
40. THE HEART OF THE MATTER by Graham Greene
41. LORD OF THE FLIES by William Golding
42. DELIVERANCE by James Dickey
43. A DANCE TO THE MUSIC OF TIME (series) by Anthony Powell
44. POINT COUNTER POINT by Aldous Huxley
45. THE SUN ALSO RISES by Ernest Hemingway
46. THE SECRET AGENT by Joseph Conrad
47. NOSTROMO by Joseph Conrad
48. THE RAINBOW by DH Lawrence
49. WOMEN IN LOVE by DH Lawrence
50. TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
51. THE NAKED AND THE DEAD by Norman Mailer
52. PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT by Philip Roth
53. PALE FIRE by Vladimir Nabokov
54. LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner
55. ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac
56. THE MALTESE FALCON by Dashiell Hammett
57. PARADE'S END by Ford Madox Ford 58. THE AGE OF INNOCENCE by Edith Wharton
59. ZULEIKA DOBSON by Max Beerbohm
60. THE MOVIEGOER by Walker Percy
61. DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP by Willa Cather
62. FROM HERE TO ETERNITY by James Jones
63. THE WAPSHOT CHRONICLES by John Cheever
64. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by JD Salinger
65. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
66. OF HUMAN BONDAGE by W Somerset Maugham
67. HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
68. MAIN STREET by Sinclair Lewis
69. THE HOUSE OF MIRTH by Edith Wharton
70. THE ALEXANDRIA QUARTET by Lawrence Durell
71. A HIGH WIND IN JAMAICA by Richard Hughes
72. A HOUSE FOR MR BISWAS by VS Naipaul
73. THE DAY OF THE LOCUST by Nathanael West
74. A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Ernest Hemingway
75. SCOOP by Evelyn Waugh
76. THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE by Muriel Spark
77. FINNEGANS WAKE by James Joyce
78. KIM by Rudyard Kipling
79. A ROOM WITH A VIEW by EM Forster
80. BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
81. THE ADVENTURES OF AUGIE MARCH by Saul Bellow
82. ANGLE OF REPOSE by Wallace Stegner
83. A BEND IN THE RIVER by VS Naipaul
84. THE DEATH OF THE HEART by Elizabeth Bowen
85. LORD JIM by Joseph Conrad 86. RAGTIME by EL Doctorow
87. THE OLD WIVES' TALE by Arnold Bennett
88. THE CALL OF THE WILD by Jack London
89. LOVING by Henry Green
90. MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN by Salman Rushdie
91. TOBACCO ROAD by Erskine Caldwell
92. IRONWEED by William Kennedy
93. THE MAGUS by John Fowles
94. WIDE SARGASSO SEA by Jean Rhys
95. UNDER THE NET by Iris Murdoch
96. SOPHIE'S CHOICE by William Styron
97. THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
98. THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE by James M. Cain
99. THE GINGER MAN by JP Donleavy
100. THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS by Booth Tarkington

"Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n" - Satan, Paradise Lost, Book I Line 263

Independence is an interesting thing. How much do you value it? Is it not reasonable to believe that it should be valued above all else? Is sovereignty subject to pleasure? Should independence be sought only when it will be of utility (see Utilitarianism)?

The essential question that I place before us is this: Which is of more value? Independence? Or happiness?

"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin." - John, Brave New World

Dependence is essentially a weakness. Although we're all dependent upon certain things; we have to be. But at what point is it too much? John realized that the world in which he was thrust was one of debasement in which no one could live for themselves. The choices they made were unimportant and were laid before them by others. What meaning can an action have when one has no choice in it?

Ironically, Satan felt the same way, and rebelled against God. John reveals a telling insight when he notes that his brave new world was not only godless, but also sinless.

How much do you value your independence? After John's line above, the conversation between John and Mustapha Mond continues:

"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."

"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension  of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.

"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.

It is my conviction that independence is the schemata through which actions acquire valuable meaning, and through which happiness can be absolved.

eine wirklich sehenswerte dokumentation

doch der perfide sinn der verwendung von DU-Munition erschließt sich erst, wenn man eins und eins zusammenzählt: der herr kissinger hat m.k.n. in seinem national security memorandum 'NSM-200' in den 70er darüber geschrieben, nein, empfohlen, dass man der sich damals bereits abzeichnenden überbevölkerung der erde begegnen muss. was wäre besser dieser mentalität dienlich, als die gebiete, in denen es öl gibt, mittel- und langfristig weitgehend zu entvölkern und neuansiedlungen dauerhaft zu verhindern, dabei das problem der verbrauchten brennstäbe der atomkraftwerke elegant zu delegieren und gleichzeitig den machtbereich der usa auszudehen.ja, das macht sinn, denn diejenigen, die den einsatz von DU-Munition befohlen haben, wußten ganz genau, was sie taten. sie kannten die konsequenzen und deshalb geht es nicht einmal mehr um fahrläßigkeit, sondern um VORSATZ.

klar, daß die amerikanische und britische militär-junta nicht auf die verwendung von DUM verzichten will und sich rechtfertigungen und verharmlosungen aus den fingern saugt.

die veteranen künftiger kriege erhalten keine orden mehr, sondern mißgeburten. das ist dann der dank der regierungen und des vaterlandes (diese patrioten-pisse).

glaubt irgendwer, wenn es demnächst in den iran geht, dass sie dann wieder mit ordinären kugel schießen werden? pah! klappts einmal, klappts wieder.

FAREHELL.

cato

Still, there are different kinds of dystopia. Forced to choose between the societies of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World, the latter is unequivocally preferable: it's certainly warped, but compared to the inescapable brutality of Orwell's London, Huxley's alternative of sex, clones and soma looks like a candyland. In books like Scatterlings and Obernewtyn, Isobelle Carmody's dystopia hinges on a struggling, semi-agrarian, post-nuclear holocaust world, where technology is elevated to the level of magic (and where actual magic makes an appearance, too). Unsurprisingly, the most popular dystopia is also the kindest, stretching to the borderlands of straight sci-fi. To paraphrase Joss Whedon's summary of his comic, Fray, this version of the future is much like everyone else's: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and there's flying cars. These four variations more or less encapsulate the different subgenres of dystopia: political warning (Orwell),  what if (Huxley), neo-feudalism (Carmody) and same-but-worse (Whedon). Creatively and imaginatively, it's the latter two which hold the most sway; and with examples like The Fifth Element and Scott Westerfeld's Uglies, it's easy to see why. 

Because for all it hinges on distruction, dystopia can be devilishly joyful. We savour it, not sadistically, but because it represents the ultimate escapism: seeing the rules and restrictions of our own society wrecked, inverted and removed. Just as children fantasise about blowing up their school, adults fantasise about society crumbling - not out of anger or a desire to hurt, but simply because they, like their younger counterparts, don't always want to attend. On this base level, dystopia is the glee of impractical opportunism: without actually having to live through a cataclysm, we thrill to imagine what role we'll take in the new order of things, or wonder how that order might arise. Although the characters struggle, the audience doesn't: instead, we live vicariously through survivors of a world which would most likely break us.

We're funny like that.

Since Huxley's novel, brave new world has become synonymous with an ironic, stunted dystopia, drained of hope: we hear the phrase, and any laughter is mocking. But Huxley was quoting Shakespeare, as his book makes clear: Miranda's lines from The Tempest. A naive girl raised on an unknown island, Miranda has never encountered villany or vice; and when finally confronted with the prospect of other people - schemers, drunkards, sages and politicians all - she is overjoyed.  'Oh, brave new world/that has such people in't!'  Here, then, is the ultimate source of Huxley's cynical title, and a perfect metaphor for dystopia: beautiful youth embracing a more treacherous future than it can possibly realise.

Which is why, in another dystopian in-joke, the Reaver-world in Joss Whedon's film Serenity is called Miranda. Meta-cathartic, ne?

die menschen werden immer glücklicher! ist das nicht wunderbar? und eine echte studie beweist es! da möchte man am liebsten gleich irgend jemandem hirnlos zuwinken oder ein six-pack stürzen. so viele länder sind glücklicher als vor jahrzehnten. toll.

ein wenig störend finde ich dabei lediglich diese dumme sache mit den 3.000.000.000 (drei milliarden) menschen, die täglich mit weniger als 2 USD auskommen müssen.

ja, ihr dekadenten idioten, macht mehr solche spatzenhirn-studien und ...

FAREHELL.

cato