New Area of Study

Now that I know much more than I did previously about the Russian Revolution, another, perhaps more urgant, subject has captured my attention: The Nazi Party's rise to power in Germany. I am eager to learn how such a destructive force could have come to power, though what small bits of information I do know tells me that anti-Semetic beliefs have been prevalent in Germany since, as far as I am aware, the latter half of the 19th century. Another area of anti-Semetic motivation comes from an article I recently read about the heritage of many Bolshevik/Soviet leaders in Russia, listing many, many of the prominent figures in Russia at that time as Jewish, and ideological strife between the USSR and the Third Reich was always tense, comparable to the ideological struggle between the USA and the USSR after WW2, but without external interference motivated by ideology*.

Count Leo Tolstoy argues in War & Peace (which I am almost finished with) that historians only attribute a movement to the actions of one man instead of all the forces that lead to it and make it inevitable, and while Count Tolstoy is remarkably intelligent, he misses the fact that the job of the historian is to explore and identify these forces. We may cite Lenin as the man most known as the instigator of the second Russian Revolution (Bolsheviks overthrow Provisional Govt in 1917 and Lenin assumes power), and Tolstoy is right in his stressing the important of the other multitude of forces that culminates and catalyzes a given historical event, but his criticism of historians is largely unfounded because they do just that.

*During the Cold War, the USSR and the USA armed competing third- and second-world countries such as Israel & Palestine, Pakistan & Afghanistan who seemed to adopt their respective ideologies in order to gain influence in that region (relating to USA's fear of the spread of Communism). This is when many governments that exist there today were set up, and often in pictures of African soldiers, they are using our arms because we gave them those guns to fight our conflicts against the Soviet Union.

Jesus who?

Is Jesus really a legitimate philosopher? Judging by the case of famous author Ayn Rand, whose case is strikingly similar, I have the audacity to say no.

Ayn Rand claimed to be a renegade individualist, championing the individual over society, etc, and after a while, as her fame grew, she and her top ideological subordinates formed organizations that encouraged conformity to a non-conformist philosophy. Make sense? I didn't think so.

Jesus really was self-interested, more than Ayn Rand. "Believe in me and you will have eternal life, blah blah blah, Those who do not believe in me shall perish" (Revelations). Besides curing a few people, reforming the Jewish heirarchy, and talking about how great he was, he didnt do much until he was nailed to a post. According to recently-found written documents, Jesus told Judas to betray him. Jesus the master mythmaker? Could it be that the world-famous toga man from Bethlehem wanted the world over to believe in him forever, and completely fabricated the foresight? ("One of you here has betrayed me...tomorrow they come to arrest me.") Could this also imply that Peter was also told to deny him 3 times?

It's very well possible that Jesus was a fraud, much like, ironically, many who believe in him.

Curious George and the Stem Cell Veto

Still, it seems, no matter how promising the situation seems (as neutered, unreliable, and confidence-less as our incompetent Tsar is), we cannot get things done. Curious George vetoed a stem-cell bill today, proving once again that we are still stifled by Christianity as a 1,000-hp diesel truck with a boulder chained to it is stifled on the Autobahn.

The Republican party also took another major blow yesterday: One of its most intelligent members (it's not hard to achieve that in the party these days), Michael Bloomberg, mayor of NYC, defected to an independent position. Bloomberg, also happened to be a major thoughtcriminal within the party - pro-choice, pro-environment. Many are speculating the possibility that he might run for President, but I'm more interested in ideological scruples.

I can only speculate, much like anyone else, but the dissatisfaction amongst voters, and, much more probably, the combination of utter hubris, arrogance, incompetence, sycophancy, and rampant corruption, could have left Mr Bloomberg utterly disgusted. Mr Bloomberg, in any case, I congradulate you in your individualist decision, demonstrating yourself to not be bound to party allegiance or ideology.

Kudos to the Queen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6756149.stm

Mr, no, Sir, Salman Rushdie has been knighted by the British Queen. Someone is thinking straight!

It is not often an American gets a pleasant surprise (we get surprises, but often are they unpleasant).

This is the most poignant and powerful blow to religious tyranny in recent history. I have recently finished The Satanic Verses, and Ayatollah Khomeini and his lockstep, robotic, lemmings do and did have cause for offense. Coupled with the Danish cartoon scandal, The Satanic Verses puts Islam down into its place. "Mahound / Moehammered" was self-serving, as was Jesus, and he was also a conqueror.

I have a picture on my computer of a man holding a poster, and on the poster is "BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS VIOLENT." I suppose we should first start with Muhammed?

This, Queen Elizabeth II, is the first intelligent political move in six years. I congradulate you on your intellectual capacity, and I also congradulate Sir Rushdie.

What if Mr Gore Ran for President?

And, my mother's question, "Who are the remaining 30-odd percent that think Bush is doing a good job?"

The anwer to her question is remarkably easy: the same 30% that believe that the hundred billion or so species of creatures on the planet lived within walking distance of Noah's house, that the immense resources and deforestation required to build such a vessel to house those 200-billion animals (male and female) existed, that Noah knew in the first place how to build boats, and that the boat wouldn't capsize under such pressure, and either that Adam and Eve rode domesticated dinosaurs to church, and that God is lying to us by putting giant bones in the earth and giant reptilian skulls with teeth nearly the size of human heads. Under their perverse form of reasoning, Bush is creating a good, Christian society and laying the foundation for The Handmaid's Tale to become a reality. These 30% also believe that God/Jesus/Mahound will magically restore anew whatever damage, no matter how catastrophic or extensive, done to the only planet we have.

Keep this in mind for my first query.

So, if Al Gore ran for president, and provided people have wizened up to their catastrophic mistake, given the percent of people who voted in 2004, rounghly 30% or so voted for Bush. Who were these 30%? Look above. Now, for the remaining 68-70% (I'm sure they'll jump in after what their neutrality has done), the minute Al Gore announces his candidacy, the race is basically sealed in his favor, even if the D-3 keep fighting (Democratic 3: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) it out. The conservatives, however, would have not a chance in the hell they created. The remaining 30-32% who would be manipulated against Mr Gore (for questionable motives), would basically have full reign over the Red primary election, and it might just be Mr Brownbottom. No matter.

What would Gore have to do? Nothing: Go all in and sit back and watch them fold. He has an Oscar award (name one person who hasn't heard of An Inconvenient Truth) and a new book out, which I just bought today.

No more Christian BS. No more nation-building. No more manipulating scientific reports. No more sycophants in high positions. Mr Gore, we need you.

No One Ever Said that the Third Reich was Committed to Human Rights

But nearly everyone said America was. It was what our Constitution was based upon. And, ironically, what do we have to say for it? The list goes on, but I'll divulge anyway: Slavery, several unjust, and horrifically destructive, imperialist wars, our own labor camp program in WW2 against Japanese-Americans, cultural suppression of women, and, recently, an answer to the Soviet Union's gulags in Siberia, a grassroots Hitler-Youth-esque Pentecostal children's camp, and an answer to the Soviet Union's gulags in Siberia. That's right, an American Gulag, named Guantanamo Bay. Even more ironic is that its located within a Communist country. The Russians at least had it in their own land.

Even if, in practice, we aren't yet as bad as Jong Il, Saddam, Khomeini, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, etc, the fact that we said we were the "liberators" and pro-human rights makes all the difference. America the Great Hypocrite. Nicholas Kristof in the NYTimes wrote about how he attempts to rail human rights practices in China only to be met with scoffs and accusations of hypocrisy. And you know what? They're right. Thanks to Curious George and his villainous circle, we, as a nation, as "world police," as a past President once called us, have absolutely no credibility in this regard whatsoever.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did we blow off Angela Merkel's carbon emmisions proposal? Who's decision was it to do this? I'm almost speechless, the words remaining are obsceneties; I am dumbfounded at the utter incompetence, ignorance, and arrogance that our country displayed leading up to the G-8 conference. Even funnier, perhaps, is that the Egg House had to change its mind and Curious George was somehow pursueded to come up with emmissions goals of his own! I am of the opinion that only catastrophes have the power to change human minds; Bush must have gotten a nice slap in the face by someone in his dark circle.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't even want to talk about the latest Repiglican debate. I'm absolutely disgusted. There's a book coming out soon by a Science Columnist in the New York Times about why democracies make bad decisions. The question is, will they do it again?

"I pledge allegiance
To the Christian Flag
And to the Saviour,
For whose Kingdom it stands.
One Saviour, crucified, risen and coming again,
With life and liberty for all who believe."

I don't have much confidence.

------------------------------

I think I know how to fix this country. As a model, I cite the Articles of Confederation. To start, I think the federal government should be less than minimal, its only function would be to resolve disputes between states and the production of national currency. States would be almost completely independent, much like a tiny EU, with freedom to rule as liberally or conservatively as they wish. There would be no federal military institution, and it would be illegal for any state to possess anything more than the police forces we have now, and illegal to use those forces as paramilitary units. War would thus be impossible. Of course we would have very little role in international affairs, but after Iraq, could we afford to? I see this model as a way to provide the most people with the most freedom. Other states could follow suit after a good idea gestates in another, or conversely, other states could resist a more oppressive measure passed in another.

While being somewhat idealistic, and not without flaws, with some examination and tweaking by political scientists, I think my proposal could be quite useful. But now I'm just tooting my own horn, so to speak. I apologize.