Perhaps I have gone mad, perhaps not. Perhaps I have never been sane. In any case I symbolically call on all those who oppose America to declare their intentions openly and try to stop us. Pacifists, just go ahead and throw away your ideals and throw a single punch in anger.

Terrorists, hostile nations, unfaithfull allies. Dont hide in any way shape or form. I hear outrage and hatered against us and so I want you to step forward and just give us an excuse. Stop us, please. What are you going to do.

The most desireable type of enemy is one you can see.

Sorry. I had to vent.

Tisk tisk. It must be so frustrating being part of a camp seeking to change the world by military force. Big mobilizations are going the way of marching in ranks on battlefields like Gettysburg. America's most dangerous enemies are melting away and multiplying before the Bush Doctrine.

America is winning no popularity and goodwill through occupations in the Mideast. Our enemies will continue to be undesireable, continue to fight dirty, continue to erode our physical and psychological security, and continue to drain our economy.

Passive resistance could provide the frustrating lack of a physical punch in return, a maddening refusal to cooperate in violence or servitude, widespread derision upon despoilers be they tin-pot dictators or superpower juggernauts.

The world- even America - is ready to recognise injustice and condemn it, especially when issues are less clouded by violent conflict. Nonviolent resistance isolates oppressors dramatically in world opinion.

Unfortunately, Arabs have no Ghandi thus far. Violence will likely only escalate and spread more death, suffering, and poverty. But through foresight or attrition, America will ultimately desist from playing the self-righteous bully.

It's frustrating for the warrior in all of us to accept that war can't solve our problems. But how encouraging that we can find other ways to vent.

Darwin observed that intentioned purpose has little play in evolutionary success.

It's all about necessity.

We are now consciously directing our own evolution with intentioned purpose. Darwin doubtfully had occasion to reflect on this. It is an even further stretch to apply strict Darwinism to human aggression and geopolitics.

Do you suggest that we withdraw and leave the rest of the world alone. Except to pic fights with who attacks us? Hyper?

hype:

No. You are unnecessary. ;)

....give me 2 years, I am still working on my nuclear program, THAN call me out!!!

hehe ill help you out there mate but i'm more interested in singularty technology tbh ^_^

Originally posted by shadows
Do you suggest that we withdraw and leave the rest of the world alone. Except to pic fights with who attacks us? Hyper?

Of course not, we should attack anybody that even thinks of having a WMD without a democractic government. Then we can nuke the shit out of all those EVIL regiemes that don't treat their people as nice as we do.!! GOD BLESS AMERICA... and those other places too if there's some still left over.

"Do you suggest that we withdraw and leave the rest of the world alone. Except to pic fights with who attacks us? Hyper?"

American prosperity has been built on an open society with cooperative, symbiotic relationships worldwide. No, it hasn't been perfect, and yes, we have always had enemies. However, the new American posture can only serve to undermine American credibility, erode the goodwill we have long enjoyed, and endanger our geopolitical position.

The occupation of Iraq is already seen by the world at large as illegal and disruptive to world stability. In the war of words American leadership has been perceived as deceptive and hubristic.

Since the invasion began I am hoping it will run its course as bloodlessly as possible. I hope that somehow the Balkanization of Iraq will be avoided, and Iraqis will be able to choose their own destiny democratically. But I remain skeptical.

Here in America, especially among many who have never traveled, the world outside is little understood and seldom thought about except in times of turmoil. Throughout our society, there is such a lack of empathy that we are quick to support forcible imposition of policies on other nationalities that Americans would never tolerate if the tables were turned.

For Americans who travel little, it is hard to recognize that the "developing" world is catching up fast in every respect. In many respects, because of the position they are in other countries have populations better educated and more aware of the issues effecting them than do Americans.

All the way up into American government, there are assumptions made about the superiority of the American lifestyle, politics, and economics that are not the same perception of reality as most of the rest of the world holds. These assumptions now translated more brazenly into foreign policy, present a danger to America.

The US has become consumer society with ever-increasing critical dependencies on foreign relations. Should these relationships continue to sour, there is an unknown threshold at which our economy may begin to lose its underpinning. Should this happen and become recognized under the present American zeitgeist, there is a danger that diplomacy will continue to be discarded, and the use of force will be employed as an earlier response in an effort to enforce the accommodation of American interests wherever they are proclaimed. A vicious cycle then is likely wherein anger results in terrorism, which results in US intervention, which results in anger, etc.

America has been cautioned. In the prelude to this war NATO and the UN have both been severely damaged. Many Americans cheer such developments as clearing the way for a new era of American supremacy. These developments are indicators of the exact opposite trend. America is headed toward moral isolation, military overextension, and economic vulnerability. In the midst of a historic argument with the world over our rightful status as defacto world ruler, we are going to get our national feelings hurt. We are going to be attacked in ways that make us angry and violent. We are going to react improperly and become what we and our founders purport to abhor most.

America can combat terrorism by using our incredible influence to solve conflicts, not inflame them. America can gain the moral high ground by building partnerships through logic and diplomacy, and not through bribery, coercion, and subterfuge. America can show through here deeds that freedom and justice make us mighty, not that might makes right. America must not allow herself to lose her soul in vanity, hubris, and reactionism.

America is strong. But without the consent of the world outside providing for our largess, we will decline. I do not wish for this outcome.

I guess i've been listening to youse pro-war-baby-killing-right-is-might-mother-phuckers too long!

I SAY TO THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT - NUKE THE PHUCKIN WORLD BACK TO THE STONE AGE. LEAVE NO ONE ALIVE! KILL EVERY PHUCKING THING MOVING AND IF IT'S NOT MOVING KILL IT TOO! THEN GAS THE PHUCK OUTTA EVERYTHING! START THIS SHIT ALL OVER! PEOPLE ARE JUST FULL OF SHIT AND NONE DESERVE TO LIVE! NOT A SINGLE ONE!

...yes i feel better now, thank you very much {anybody got some prozac?}

{anybody got some prozac?}

How about some black tar heroin?

...ya know after reading that kitten thing you posted, that blacktar sh:m:t sounds like the plan for the night:D

I don't oppose America!

Just some particular Americans, that's all.

Yeah, they all say that.

I oppose America because American principles are far more imporant than what America is right now. Besides, American principles teach you to be critical of your own government.

The president is not America.

I was wondering how any educated person could ask such a silly question. Then I read this (http://www.thememoryhole.org/edu/school-mission.htm).


In his 1905 dissertation for Columbia Teachers College, Elwood Cubberly—the future Dean of Education at Stanford—wrote that schools should be factories "in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products...manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry."
The next year, the Rockefeller Education Board—which funded the creation of numerous public schools—issued a statement which read in part:
In our dreams...people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

At the same time, William Torrey Harris, US Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906, wrote:
Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.

In that same book, The Philosophy of Education, Harris also revealed:
The great purpose of school can be realized better in dark, airless, ugly places.... It is to master the physical self, to transcend the beauty of nature. School should develop the power to withdraw from the external world.

Several years later, President Woodrow Wilson would echo these sentiments in a speech to businessmen:
We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.


While President of Harvard from 1933 to 1953, James Bryant Conant wrote that the change to a forced, rigid, potential-destroying educational system had been demanded by "certain industrialists and the innovative who were altering the nature of the industrial process."
In other words, the captains of industry and government explicitly wanted an educational system that would maintain social order by teaching us just enough to get by but not enough so that we could think for ourselves, question the sociopolitical order, or communicate articulately. We were to become good worker-drones, with a razor-thin slice of the population—mainly the children of the captains of industry and government—to rise to the level where they could continue running things.
This was the openly admitted blueprint for the public schooling system, a blueprint which remains unchanged to this day.
Although the true reasons behind it aren't often publicly expressed, they're apparently still known within education circles. Clinical psychologist Bruce E. Levine wrote in 2001:
I once consulted with a teacher of an extremely bright eight-year-old boy labeled with oppositional defiant disorder. I suggested that perhaps the boy didn't have a disease, but was just bored. His teacher, a pleasant woman, agreed with me. However, she added, "They told us at the state conference that our job is to get them ready for the work world…that the children have to get used to not being stimulated all the time or they will lose their jobs in the real world."


So I guess that from someone that comes through an educational system like that, the "please stand up so we can shoot you" request isn't all that unexpected...

ps. Clockwood, if we wanted to bring down the US, we'd sell oil for euros.

In any case I symbolically call on all those who oppose America to declare their intentions openly and try to stop us.

Openly ?

The most desireable type of enemy is one you can see.

I think its far to crazy that anybody even calls assaults , oh wait obviously in your case nobody did .

Hype
The world- even America - is ready to recognise injustice and condemn it,

Is this your imagination talking ? Im sorry but no such thing would happened as our history and even todays actuality proves us . Lets not even speak about fase 3 , doing something about it .

Unfortunately, Arabs have no Ghandi thus far

I was more thinking Che or Stalin even .

Violence will likely only escalate and spread more death, suffering, and poverty

Pacifism results in extinction .

But through foresight or attrition, America will ultimately desist from playing the self-righteous bully.

How exactly will pacifism make USA stop funding Israel ? How exactly will pacifism make USA leave Iraq ? How exactly will pacifism make USA cutting ties with Saudi ? How exactly will pacifism ensure USA cutting ties with the mini-whore-states ?

I wonder

But how encouraging that we can find other ways to vent.

like ?

American prosperity has been built on an open society with cooperative, symbiotic relationships worldwide.

What ? Are you crazy ? American prosperity has been build through genocide , slavery and then imperialism . Through enforcing brutal regimes for controll of the country's resources , through attacking and occupying countries wolrldwide , through funding genocide and mass murder worldwide . Stop doing business with all undevelopped countries and their non-democratic regimes and we will see how far you can go .

yes, we have always had enemies.

Amerika's greatest enemy is virtue . As important what you do is the position you are doing it in .

dkb
PEOPLE ARE JUST FULL OF SHIT AND NONE DESERVE TO LIVE! NOT A SINGLE ONE!

Excuse me ? What wrong did BILLIONS of poor and shitty peoples do not to deserve to live other than being a SUFFERING IDIOT ?

Mr G :
aDarwin observed that intentioned purpose has little play in evolutionary success.
It's all about necessity.

Necessity can be fabricated by intelligence . Zionism has done such in the past , it is proven succesfull .

Oh haha: oh yes! Let's play 'kill eachother'!!!

EI Sparks

I promise, I'm not just begging hits; I haven't even installed a counter on this page. But I decided to use a blog as a place to put stuff I thought was interesting but had no immediate use; kind of an electronic idea drawer. At any rate, this is the second time I've gotten to point someone to it since yesterday.

I excerpted Beard & Cerf's Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook (http://homepage.mac.com/bdhilling/Refuge/B1264349581/C1789925295/E451008047/index.html), just as something to refer people to when it became useful again, but included among those excerpts is the following, from a section on "Suspect Ideas":
reading: Houston Baker, Jr., professor of human relations at the University of Pennsylvania, has declared that "reading and writing are merely technologies of control. [They are] martial law made academic." In 1991, perhaps on the strength of insights such as this, Baker assumed the presidency of the Modern Language Association.:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Oh haha: oh yes! Let's play 'kill eachother'!!!

Have we ever played any other game ? You rather suggest we stop when we are on the loosing side ?

Its what man has allways done everywhere if they got the chance.

Its what man has allways done everywhere if they got the chance.
I'd say Ghandi, but I'm not sure you'd know who I meant.
From your country, therefore, I point out Martin Luther King.
And tell you to take your game and shove it.

Nobody else who matters seems willing to follow in their footstep.

Nobody else who matters seems willing to follow in their footstep.
*Looks pointedly at Clockwood*
Yup. Reckon you're right there.

I am matter, as a matter of fact. The fact that I don't matter to you does not matter in this. :)

no: serious: I opose violence, but what violence I see happening out there in the world: most people don't even care about it, since it's not really them getting affected.

But realise this: every human is interconnected with the universe and we all share our pain. When we see injust things happening> does it matter wich side you are type-casting yourself in? Reconing that one day you might experiance such shi* for yourself?

if it's a situation in wich YOU certainly wouldn't want to be> then why would you, in your good sensed mind, agree that 'others' might experiance these problems, sometimes existencial troubles.

I don't understand why people agree to that. In good consious areeing and even allowing people to suffer, just to take a stance for 'a' side.

I don't have a 'side'. I am a universal human being, just as the whole of humanity will someday (hopefully:)) be aware of this fact that we ALL are in touch with the truth and eachother.

Homo-Universalis
Fukushi