Sunday, September 04, 2005

Drug War II

So true, this is analogous to the problem with the legalize MJ movement of the 70s. They were all too stoned to coherantly put their case. I agree that "junkies" are a pretty low bunch. But I disagree with the idea that all opiate/coke etc users are "junkies". The hard core junkies are often good people turned into lying scum by prohibition which makes their next shot all they care about. Euthanasia might well work best for some of them, seeing as they have no self respect. But I stress, Prohibition did this to them. Take away prohibition and no more "junkies", just users of a drug other than alcohol. But outside the realm of junkies there are sensible users of these drugs who don't, even under the current tyranny, behave that way. It's just that they don't sculk around the city. They pay their taxes, and live in the suburbs. Someone once said all that prohibition achieves is to make a drug addicts life hell. I hate junkies, and perhaps there's always going to be a core of people who care so little about themselves that they will go to excess regardless. At least without prohibition they can do it in private and kill themselves in private. The rest of us can, if we so chose, use drugs responsibly and at a reasnoble price, both in financial and criminal terms.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Democracy Doesn't Work

The western system of Government has evolved from the English struggle for freedom. England has gone through ups and downs, ups during the middle ages, downs during the Tudors and Stuarts, in that battle, but by the time of Victorian England Freedom was at it's zenith. Why? Because the monarch was now merely a figurehead subordinate to Parliament and the electrate was INFORMED. It wasn't the perfect system, but it produced a rationist system of Government, and probably the closest to a Libertarian system. Since that time democracy has eroded, the reason is that too many people have the right to vote. The uninformed, the retarded, the elderly, the religious fanatic, the soccer mom. Indeed, while a minority are rational beings, one finds in the majority an irrational streak which results in "tribal" voting, not informed voting.

The best system is one which allows for those who have rationally considered the issues to vote. Instead we have groups, like the evangelicals who systematically vote for the Right wing, simply because it sings its siren song of "family values". These are not the informed voters, these are near apes, voting as their lower brain compels them. They vote for Bush because they have some gut liking for the man, not any serious consideration of issues. The same applies to radical lefties, like the idiot Green voters who cost Gore the election. Too many people vote! I believe that only those who pass a knowledge test should vote. One could complete this test when enrolling to vote. For example, such questions could be asked as, have any WMD been found in Iraq? Where is Iraq on this map? Perhaps an IQ test? This may lead to a better democracy, one in which instead of stampeed like voting practices, citizens carefully weigh up the issues and vote accordingly.

Maybe you think I speak in jest, but let me give you an example. I was recently speaking to an elderly couple about politics. Now, as a student of Neuroscience I am familiar with the theory that as one ages one becomes less able to learn new things. Subsequently, views established in this couples brains 50 yrs ago have prevailed to this day. The result of my conversation left me in no doubt these two old farts shouldn't have the right to vote. They believed the most ridiculous nonsense. When I said no WMD had been found in Iraq, and that even the Republican admin had said this, they both simply ignored this. They also had some rather foul anti-semitic and anti-black opinions which quickly came to the surface. The point is that reason meant nothing to them. Their brains were incapable of taking in new ideas. Of course the old notion that their times were so great quickly came into the fore of our conversation. But what about Hitler? Lynchings? weren't those things terrible. This drew a blank expression from both. What about the shadow of nuclear annihalation that hung over us from '48? One terrorist attack - even many could never equal the terror that nuclear holocaust could? Still they could not think, that's it, they COULD NOT THINK. They were like conditioned rats, going to one side of a cage habitually. Anyway, I walked away disgusted and determined that any perfect democracy wouldn't allow ignorant fools to vote, even if that perfect democracy is only a dream.

Monday, August 29, 2005

Did the Jews Gas Themselves?

Before Mossad comes after me I'd like to point out that I have Jewish ancestory. I have at least some Jewish blood. In the circumstances of the holocaust I make no claim that I would have acted any differently than the millions who willingly led themselves to the slaughter. But one wonders why so few Jews revolted? There was only one serious revolt in the camps!

Why didn't the Jews who "greeted" the arrivals warn them of their imminent fate? Why didn't they fight? To me this is a mystery. No other group in history has so willingly chosen to blind themselves to the truth, which by '43 was obvious to any jews in the occupied territories? I have no answers, but I do think that to some extent the Jews gassed themselves. Of course the Nazis were beasts who deserved far worse than the post war pampering given them. But if the Jews had resisted from the start, the whole extermination process would have become bogged down. If the Jews hadn't registered themselves with the Gestapo, then the Germans would have been tied up tracking people down. None of this may have materially benefited the individual, but they could have taken a whole slew of those evil bastards with them. Instead they behaved as obedient cattle to the aboitoirs. Why? Perhaps the Jews had so long been used to ill treatment they grew accustomed to being a divided force out for only the individual not the goup. But they knew by '43 if not before and it is to their eternal shame that they didn't fight.

Anti-semitism is as ridiculous a philosophy as the human race has ever developed. It presents a powerless, diverse people as having unimaginable power. This is what the western governments do with drug users: eg the psycho drug user who kills people, when the vast majority are harmless. But that's the point, a scapegoat must be presented as extremely dangerous and powerful, but in reality be completely impotent against attack. This is why I am appalled that Jews do not opposse the pogroms against drug users. Israel is not an enlightened state re: drug policy. In fact, the Jews have simply milked the Holocaust for their own gain, without accepting a scintilla of blame. The Greeks fought, the Russians fought, but the Jews, on the whole, did not. I'm all for Israel, but the lack of a Jewish voice against the massacres of Tutsis in Rwanda, the lack of a voice against similar tactics being used by world governments, that mirror those of the Nazis I find appalling. It seems that Jews want simply to ingratiate themselves with the Right wing Republicans and care for no other minorities. The most amusing alliance is between the far far right evangelicals and the Jews. once again the Jews are covering their eyes. The evangelicals are the most hateful, evil group in american politics. They want all freedom destroyed, they want all non-believers destroyed - including the jews if they don't convert in time. They wish only death and destruction on homosexuals and drug users and many other groups as well. Where is the Jewish voice saying, this is similar to what happened to us - beware! But no, only the Jews have the moral authority to truly compare current political movements with Nazism. It's considered extreme to accuse anyone these days as being a fascist. It's lost all power. The Nazis have become mythalogical ogors, when they were very real people who simply followed the traditional anti-semitism of Europe to it's logical conclusion.

Do not think, for one moment, that my critisisms of Jews exonerate the Nazis and their allies. It is the Nazis who are to blame. But Jews need to think more carefully about how their fear of losing power in Washington is driving them to keep silent on many issues where politicians are victomising powerless groups as did the Nazis. Speak up!

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Richard III

I had to get to this topic eventually! No, it's not current events, but it is a true morality tale. The denegration of this late medieval king's reputation has been preserved to this day, in the face of both objective fact and logical extrapolation. Let me explain, and you'll understand why this sad tale tells us how little we've advanced these past half a millenia.

I'll not go into the detail of who Richard is etc, if you don't know, what follows will be pointless to you. So I assume you know the classical tale: Richard slays multiple eminent people - his own brother (Clarence), King Henry VI, the Prince of Wales, and of course the Princes in the Tower. Most even half objective research has shown that of all but the last charge he is definatley not responsible. His brother, Edward IV was responsible for the death's of all the first three. As to the Princes in the Tower, we will, sadly, never know. But even if he did order their deaths, such a deed was NOT considered outrageous at the time. Indeed Edward IV had the sons of a Lancastrian executed - one of whom was nine and who asked his executioner if he'd mind the boil on his neck! The problem was that while any focus for oppossision existed - rebellion was inevitable, and there is no doubt that Richard's reign would have been even more strained had the princes lived. However, he very well may not have done it. Both are speculation, but Henry Tudor's mother, the witch Margaret Beaufort, was plotting BEFORE the rumours of the princes' deaths to make her son a candidate for the throne. It was she who was involved in Buckingham's rebellion of '83, and therefore, what interest had she exept if she had known the princes were to die? Either she had them killed, or encouraged Buckingham to do so, or, the princes were killed by Henry VII. The point is the information is scarce, and the only near contemporary writings are all blatant Tudor propaganda designed to provide justification for placing what was the least eligible man on the throne of England. This ushered in the torturers of the Tudor years. These tyrants especially Henry VIII, were the most disgusting vile blots on England's otherwise decent history. Even Elizabeth I was quite happy to rule as her father had done.

We have two strong reasons the "evil" Richard version is still extant today. One is Sir Thomas More, he wrote a life of Richard designed as a morality tale, not a factual account. There is hardly any truth in it, and it was only published after his death. Interestingly, his account ceases before the accession of Henry VII. Given he lived in no democracy, he may well have been having an oblique shot at the far more tyrannical Tudors - one of whom had him executed. So why does this account (written for More's own amusement) hold so much weight? Mostly because More was beatified. How could a saint steer us wrong? Or do wrong? But I'd like to remind the reader that More was not the humane individual he is still presented as. More personally approved of Burning Lutherans at the stake and presided over such sentancings. Also, More was a man happy to fawn over his Tudor King and only departed from that course when pushed too far. In other words More had his price at which he would no longer support Henry VIII and his reforms. But this doesn't mean that he was not an adept political creature before this, and spreading idiotic tales about Richard - such as being in his mother's womb 2 years - was a great way to ingratiate oneself with his tyrannical masters. But, even with these obvious deformities of the truth, More's account is treated as if he were an eye witness (he was 5 when Richard died) and largely factual TODAY. This is the rub; if we as a society are still willing to believe the political brownosing of a man, living in a time where speaking against the monarch meant death, as fact, then it follows we are still the same superstitious gullible fools of the pre-modern era. Which is why the conclusion of my thesis is that the reason people still believe in an interventionist God, Weapons of Mass Destruction and Drug Law being somehow appropriate when it is clearly not, is not so hard to believe when educated scholars still hold as an article of faith that Richard was the tyrant and the Tudors were not. So that a pig farmer in Alabama would say he believe Saddam had WMD's when even the Republican administration said he hadn't, is not a big leap.

Briefly, we also have Shakespeare, a revered English heroic playwright. Clearly his works firstly had not to ruffle the feather's of his political masters, the Tudors, but he was creating theatre. But because he is so revered historians find it hard to critisize his history.

Richard was probably the best king England never had. He presents as, for his time, a humane, just and loyal man caught in very difficult circumstances (what would AntiRichards have done in his place?). If we forget the Princes in the Tower, his brief reign is enliughtened and he is generally magnanimous even to his enemies and a true friend of the lower classes. The reason he was deposed was not because of some outrage at the suppossed fate of the two innocents, but because of the shifting sands of the politics of the time. Richard was not pragmatic or brutal enough and he was foolish, but very brave, enough to charge Tudor personally. There is no doubt that he would have torn Tudor to pieces if he'd reached the coward, but he didn't and the Tudors, NONE of whom ever personally fought, went on to torture and burn and divine right themselves into our hearts. What man has a groom of the stool who wipes his anus? Henry VIII.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Chinese oppression - US profit

Which is worse - China or Cuba? To the rational eye China. But the US kicks the shit out of Cuba while sticking it's nose up Chinas ass. This people is beyond realpolitic this is appeasing the Bully. Do you remember when you had to confront your first thug in school? Your dad would tell you you had to take him on now or else you'd never be free. So you did and even if you got beat up, the bully thought twice about doing it again. The same applies to nations. China is a global bully. The fact that a Communist dictatorship can drag the Western democracies around by the balls is astonishing! China, unlike the USSR (which was a much nicer place), has put spies in every Western country, slaughters political dissenters and gets to trade, most favorably, with the USA and everyone else. Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? When that ridiculous anti-drug day happenned in 1998, China executed 150 drug addicts. In addition a doctor told me that when the drug addicted son of a Chinese doctor ended up dead after 3 days in a "treatment centre", even the boys father backed off after initially going to the press. China is evil, or at least it's govt is. Taiwan, on the other hand is a Democratic country. I mean I'm sure they still treat drug users like shit, but they are democratic. I say to Taiwan declare independance, let Bush put his money where his mouth is. If China attacks, so be it, better now than when they rival the US for world supremacy. To the poor Taiwanese people I say, the longer you wait the less chance you have of escape. China will never be anything but a collosal predatory beast ready to destroy all that is free in this world. I'd like it if China were a free country, but the richer they get the less inclined they are towards this. Look at what happened to Hong Kong. I need to stress that I don't hate the Chinese people as such, just as I wouldn't have hated an German citizen under the Nazis - I'd have to know their true politics. But the greatest threat to true freedom in our world is a powerful China. The more crappy merchandise you buy from them the more powerful China becomes. The cheaper the goods the cheaper becomes freedom.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

The War on Drug Users

This will be a recurring theme in my Blog, as it is such a large issue - and should be for any Libertarian. I saw on the news the other day that a young woman was being sent to prison for 10 yrs for having 2 (count 'em) 2 tablets of MDMA (Ecstacy). 2 tabs could only have been for personal use yet she gets a punishment greater than a rapist and sometimes even a murderer! What's going on? In Alabama 3 possesion of marijuana charges and you go to jail for 15 yrs!? Why? Where is the justice in such ridiculously heavy penalties for an act which hurts no-one but the user? Where else in Law does someone get treated so harshly for what they do to themselves?

Perhaps you argue that a heroin user will end up stealing to fund a habit - but where else in the law does one punish for what one MIGHT do, not what one actually does? Needless to say Heroin is cheap as chips if it were legal and no-one would have to steal even as a full blown addict. And what's so terrible about being an addict, the only thing i can think of is the prohibition which makes an addicts life hell. Take away prohibition and accidental OD's end, crime to fund use ends, and the addict can live out their life as they chose -as should be the right of every adult citizen in a free country. Addiction isn't the bogeyman, prohibition - especially punitive prohibition is.

One day we'll either live in totalitarian societies because prohibitionists always have to up the ante - or the war will end. If the war ends, all politicians who supported it should be tried as war criminals. For it is on their shoulders that the deaths of every drug user who ODed lies. The evil demagougic right-winger (and sometimes left-winger) should be strung up for their presumption. NO ONE will tell me what I can and can't do with my body - I am an adult - I am a good person - I hurt no one, so leave me the FUCK alone and mind your own business.

But I haven't used drugs since college, what do I care - I hear you say. Well you should, because drug law is the thin edge of the wedge - if a govt can interfere in an individuals private life in the name of drugs then what makes you think they won't eventually use that same logic in other areas: adultary, homosexuality, not being a good christian?

The odd thing is I'm yet to hear any argument that justifies sending someone whose only "crime" has been to use a drug to prison. They get tounge tied. That's because there is no logic in it, it is an appalling breach of the notions of Justice our modern western societies claim to be defending against Moslem fundamentalists. Indeed, Bush has cried Freedom so many times one wonders what he actually means? Freedom to be a fundamentalist christian and own a gun perhaps. But even you gun owners should realise they'll eventually get to you. Just like the Jews, they start with a group to weak to defend itself and then move on to everyone else. Rent the movie 1984, it's more probable than you think.

Personally, I think the only way any minority group has gained freedom is by taking it - In the movie Burn the negro says to Marlon Brando - "Freedom cannot be given, it must be taken". It's time drug users - like Homosexuals and Women before them, stopped fucking around and got organized. Some would have to be Martyred but that goes with the territory. For those who say the Law is the Law, I say, no bad law was ever changed if it was never broken. They used to burn Protestants at the stake - if people weren't willing to stick to their beliefs Protestants wouldn't still exist today. Indeed appalling brutality such as burning at the stake, was accepted by the majority, and it was only the Enlightenment that brought it to an end, but the majority would still have accepted it. You must fight for your freedoms. The fact the Federal Govt has tha gall to raid dying people's home because they use MJ, and override a state referendum shows just how obscene this nonsense is, if your dying anyway why not fight the invaders? Didn't a Russian dissident once say that if every time the came to get a dissident that person fought and bit and clawed against the unjust invader that the state would tire of such outrages and give up? Well it's time drug users did the same. No one has the right to arrest you for using drugs - put up a fight - let the rest of the cowed eyed populace realize that you are being wrongly persecuted. If you go meekly as a lamb to the slaughter, this will never end.

You'll here much more on this topic from me, it's the most important issuefacing western democracies.

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Public funding of Art Galleries

Dear reader,

I recently read an article about the large losses Public Galleries were making. Now, a strict economic libertarian might argue that these institutions should fund themselves, but I disagree. Wasn't there a time when art galleries and their exhibitions were considered to be in the public interest? Therefore, their profits or losses were immaterial? This is the way it should be. Art reminds us, especially great Renaisance art, that human beings can aspire to higher ideals. The taxpayer should fund such things, and the institutions shouldn't have to run at a profit. Instead of literal brownnoses running these places, and being subservient to their political masters, true art lovers should run Galleries. I believe it was the Socialists who first scrapped true public galleries because the low class they pretended to represent were not interested in such things, but now almost every political ideology supports this stance. The world has once again moved almost imperceptively, away from the positive spirit of man. The exact same arguments could be used for the space program, and are. Woe be to our species if we lose that pursuit. Only when men look to the stars do they see the prospect of a future less banal, a world filled with more fantastic pursuits. Instead, most men look straight into the assholes of their bosses. We could have gotten to Mars 20 years ago if the space program had been maintained at the rate it was in the 60's. We could have developed a shuttle that could fly into orbit itself: the technology is already there. But, instead, because it's not profitable in the immediate term politicians abandoned it. I once heard a right-wing radio presenter saying "why do we bother with space exploration when there are so many things that need fixing on Earth" Like labotamizing all drug users eh Alan? The point is those problems will never be "solved" not least because no one can even agree on what the problems are. But in space exploration we can all lift our heads to the stars and realize what an incredible Universe we live in, and one day, we may even explore it. Indeed this is why we need MANNED missions, not robotic. Think of the wonder of men setting foot on Mars or even Titan or Europa! It would be a high the whole world could share. Do you think that if Columbus had thought the way that radio presenter did the New World would ever have been found? No. Indeed Europe's Renaissance, I contend, was triggered by that discovery. And the Renaissance was essential for the progression of mankind away from butchery towards a somewhat enlightened world, which peaked in the late 19th century and has been sliding back ever since. Where are we going? Where are the philosophers these days? Politics is now a corrupt parasite on society, where once it had been the champion of reform against tyrants. You tell me cause I'd like to know where the fuck we're going.