2008/08/29

Look7777777 – Culture Watch – 2008.08.29


Moralną podstawą egzystencji ludzkiej jest [...] świadomość praw, wielkich i niezmiennych, tę egzystencję określających. Z tych praw wywodzą się wszelkie formy stworzone przez człowieka, wszelkie jego normy moralne, obyczajowe, ustrojowe, społeczne, gospodarcze. Człowiek napotyka opór, człowiek nie jest wszechmocny – w przeciwieństwie do boskości, do atrybutów Boga, który jest wszechmocny, który opory stwarza sam. I na tym systemie oporów, jakim wielkie obozowisko ludzkie na ziemi jest ze wszystkich stron otoczone, oporów zarówno materialnych (natura), jak i moralnych (wewnętrzny konflikt człowieka), polega najistotniejszy problem życia, polega ów wielki egzamin duchowy, jakim jest nasza doczesna wędrówka. Przechodzimy swój odcinek ewolucji duchowej, stanowiący naszą ziemską egzystencję, po czym nikniemy za zasłoną bytu innego – lecz naszymi śladami stąpają następcy – odcinek tej wielkiej drabiny ewolucyjnej, po której kroczy od wieków duch ludzki, odcinek ograniczony dla naszych oczu od dołu urodzeniem, a od góry śmiercią, zwany życiem ziemskim – tworzy w istocie obraz zawsze jednakowy. Jest to obraz mozolnie wspinających się do góry, udręczonych i spragnionych doskonałości dusz, obraz niezmienny, bo choć wspinający się przechodzą i nikną – na ich miejsce wciąż wstępują nowi.

W czasie straszliwie zmiennych kolei [drugiej] wojny [światowej] niejeden ze słabszych popadł w zwątpienie, niejeden bliski był załamania. Gdy brutalna siła odnosiła zwycięstwo za zwycięstwem, gdy padały jak domki z kart stolice, niegdyś bastiony wolności i kultury, gdy wszystkie – zdawałoby się – przepowiednie i groźby Hitlera realizowały się z nieuniknioną, przerażającą punktualnością – w niejednym mieszkańcu okupowanej Europy budziło się straszne przypuszczenie: a może ten człowiek odkrył ohydną prawdę, że nie ma na świecie nic poza materialną siłą, że cała podbudowa duchowa i dialektyka etyczna świata chrześcijańskiego, którą żyjemy od wieków, jest złudzeniem i kłamstwem, że tylko przemoc jest słusznością? Te myśli, prowadzące do granic obłędu, jedną tylko mogły znaleźć przeciwwagę – w oparciu się o filozofię chrześcijańską, o wiarę chrześcijańską, w zaczerpnięciu z tego źródła pocieszenia, jakie udostępniała wszystkim jedyna w czasie wojny i terroru niepodległa, nie ulegająca zmianom, lecz wierna swoim wiecznym założeniom instytucja – Kościół katolicki. Bo zważmy: gdy zbrakło sił, gdy zawiodły wszelkie rachuby i doktryny materialne, wszelkie obliczenia racjonalne, gdy na każdym kroku gwałcono bezkarnie kanony laickiego humanitaryzmu, gdy zdobycie przez Niemców nowej fantastycznej broni groziło przekreśleniem wszelkich ogólnoświatowych proporcji sił i potencji materialnych – wtedy nadziei i energii do walki zaczerpnąć można było tylko i jedynie z idei nadprzyrodzonej. Gdy materialna siła miażdżyła wszystko wokół, głosząc urbi et orbi nicość praw moralnych i swoją nieodpartą potęgę – wtedy prawdziwy chrześcijanin, żyjący w Kościele, był jedynym, który nie zwątpił ani na chwilę. Hitler zwyciężyć mógł każdą siłę, nie mógł jednak pokonać nadprzyrodzonej siły ducha, siły, która pochodzi z wiary. Przeciw tej sile rozpoczął walkę, przeciw jej istnieniu gardłował i pienił się, a oto dzisiaj z dzieła jego nie zostało ani popiołu, a Kościół jest nadal tym, czym był, instytucją o źródłach nadprzyrodzonych, stojącą na straży wiecznych praw normujących podstawy moralne naszej ziemskiej egzystencji. Nie zwyciężył Hitlera doktrynalny materializm, który wraz z całą swoją mechanistyczną koncepcją dziejów stanąłby bezsilny wobec Niemiec dysponujących bombą atomową, nie zwyciężył go świecki humanitaryzm, którego zlecenia i zakazy śmiesznie słabe się okazywały wobec zaraźliwego jak dżuma nietscheańskiego kultu walki i siły. Zwyciężył tylko i jedynie duch chrześcijański, czerpiący swą siłę ze źródeł objawionych, ugruntowany wśród narodów Europy od wielu stuleci – i to, a nie co innego jest ideowym sensem zwycięstwa. Kościół, jedyne schronienie dla kochających dobro i prawdę, oparł się ciosom brunatnych szaleńców ze swastykami. Wielowiekowa praca pasterska Kościoła ugruntowała europejskie poczucie moralności przez upowszechnienie bezwzględnych kryteriów dobra i zła: oparła się ona na wierze i objawieniu, z których dopiero wyprowadza się cały wielki, racjonalny i harmonijny system myśli chrześcijańskiej. Tych i tylko tych założeń nie mógł przeżreć trujący kwas faszyzmu – bo założenia te apelują do jednostki ludzkiej, do indywiduum – tkwią one w każdym człowieku i, chcąc je zniszczyć, trzeba by niszczyć każdego człowieka z osobna.

Kościół nie jest instytucją o celach doczesnych, przede wszystkim nastawiony jest na wieczność, na kryteria nieśmiertelne. Jest instytucją ponadludzką, jeśli interweniuje w sprawach publicznych, społecznych – poza indywidualną strawą duchową, udzielaną każdemu – to tylko wtedy, gdy narażone są na szwank te prawa moralne, które stanowią niezmienne, określone w dogmatyce i Piśmie Świętym zręby i ramy ziemskiej wędrówki człowieka.

Stefan Kisielewski, Krytykom Kościoła, http://www.stefan_kisielewski.republika.pl/felietony/krytykom_kosciola.html

_______



As the computer becomes the central tool for research and development, scientific knowledge takes on a new character. Like software, it becomes primarily functional rather than descriptive. During the age of the printing press -- which brought with it dictionaries, encyclopedias, tables, journals, proofs, and the modern community of scientists -- the project of science appeared to be the "understanding" or "description" of the natural world, which was conceived of as a clockwork set in motion by God. The engineer meanwhile peered into this vast, static field of knowledge and applied the insights that were useful for a particular problem. Now it seems that the project of science is not primarily to represent the natural world with language but to reconfigure the natural world as language, so that it can be composed, transformed, and manipulated in the ways our minds are equipped to operate upon knowledge itself.

Consumerism got a bad rap in the 20th century because our choices were so limited. We all ended up driving the same SUVs and thinking that plaid Bermuda shorts are a neat idea. In a few decades, consumerism might well mature into a fine art of self-expression.

In the near future, perhaps we will all use software like CADTERNS Pro to custom-design the clothes we wear -- or we will go to online archives of millions of designs, pick what we want, and order a hard copy of the clothes from a print shop. Punk-ass teenagers will still choose to wear T-shirts from corporation-created rock bands, but conceivably they will have the option of downloading a file and modifying the imagery, the cut, the material. Even our mass-media-derived identities will acquire a personal flair. It will be the Age of Fashion, not because image-makers will rule the market, but because we will all be able to communicate our identities more exactly with customizable products.

If we must submit to a surveillance society, I think it is clear that an open network, in which no group, agency, or individual is privileged over any other, would lead to a society with a superior character than one in which the citizens remain separate from and observed by the government. Better for us all to be able to watch one another than for the "authorities" to monopolize this power and leave us with only the fear.

The legal line between speech and action will blur dramatically during this century. The new technologies, from nanotechnology to the online economy, will be created and implemented with computer language, which by nature is both "expressive" and "functional." How the courts untangle these two aspects of "code" will define 21st century attitudes toward new ideas and their regulation.

What happens, in a police bureaucracy, if someone releases a nanotech plague into the environment? If the police can suppress information on the structure of the nanobots, then only a handful of government bureaus and hand-picked researchers may be allowed to work on a cure. Millions could die waiting for the bureaucracy to solve the problem. On the other hand, if the molecular structure of the pest is published worldwide, anyone with the expertise could help design defensive technology.

[M]ost people in the world, despite their differences, want stable, healthy lives. As we have seen with the Internet, .1 percent of the population may always try to throw a wrench into the machine, but the rest of us will scramble to fix the problem, punish the pranksters, and defend against wrench-throwing in the future.

Instead of regulating access to the engineering languages of the coming century, we should teach the languages to anyone who wants to learn.

[T]he average consumer of entertainment can easily be excused from learning to read, but those in the business of producing it will always need a chirographic means of managing assets, workflow, and logic.

[E]xcusing the next generation from learning to read and write will succeed only in sharpening the divide between rich and poor, producer and consumer. . . . Mass illiteracy would reduce the bulk of humanity to a herd of wait-staff and bus drivers, who would be easy to police by conventional means. Resources for truly transparent surveillance could be concentrated on the minority who receive a "dangerous" education. The Jon Johansens of tomorrow would be much easier to spot and guard against. We would have a clearly defined elite, not unlike the Party in "1984," and they would have to meet rigorous ideological and behavioral standards in order to keep their privileges.

The self-replicating, scriptable technologies are here and still arriving. Progress will continue. We aren't choosing whether or not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. We are deciding whether to put a fence around it and ration the fruit. The choice is not between a perilous freedom and a secure tyranny, but rather between fear and trust. We might even find it easier to trust one another if each of us takes a bite out of that genetically engineered FLAVR SAVR tomato and gains the same knowledge of good and evil.

Sheldon Pacotti, Are we doomed yet?, http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/31/knowledge/print.html

_______



Nawet źli ludzie w głębi ducha często pragną dobra. W gruncie rzeczy większy urok ma śmierć w obronie dobra niż w obronie pełnego żołądka. Władza to deptanie słabszych, tej władzy podległych. Deptanie słabszych to zło. W istocie libertarianie nie tyle walczą o wolność, co walczą o dobro. To nie jest starcie nowoczesnego systemu społecznego z system przestarzałym. To jest kolejna bitwa w prastarej walce dobra ze złem, jasnej i ciemnej strony człowieka. Używanie pojęć „dobro” i „zło” to jak wprowadzenie mundurów we własnej armii, by odróżnić przyjaciela od wroga.

Taka czytelność jest niezbędna – nie można być człowiekiem dobrym a jednocześnie domagać się deptania słabszych. Człowiek dobry nie może propagować zła – ani w wersji maksimum, ani w wersji minimum. Gdy tylko człowiek uzna najmniejszy okruch zła za niezbędny – natychmiast trafia w tego zła szeregi.

Z jasną stroną natury ludzkiej wiążą się też używane środki. O ile kiedykolwiek, gdziekolwiek w imię libertariańskiej rewolucji popełniona zostanie niegodziwość – rewolucja w tym zakresie libertariańska być przestanie. Cel środków nie uświęca, a jeśli ktoś tak twierdzi, to w tym zakresie głosi idee antylibertariańskie.

Maciej Dudek, Rewolucja nomów, http://liberalis.pl/2007/09/29/maciej-dudek-rewolucja-nomow/

_______



It seems to be a near-universal compulsion for those interested in ethics to attempt to find situations where ethical rules contradict themselves, therefore introducing an element of irrationality or subjectivity to ethics. “Lifeboat” scenarios (cannibalism-is-wrong-but-what-if-you’re-starving), “desperation” scenarios (all-starving-men-will-steal-so-how-can-stealing-always-be-wrong) and so on all seem to be endlessly obsessed over.

It is certain that the ethical propositions accepted by most thinkers – the nonaggression principle, property rights and the validity of voluntary contracts – would solve or prevent almost all the institutional evils that the world currently suffers from.

I will do my best to eliminate at least one of the challenges posed by those who wish to find the limits of property rights.

I am hanging by my fingernails from a flagpole outside the window of someone’s apartment. My choices are to either (a) kick in the window and clamber to safety, or (b) fall to my death.

I will take it as a given that just about everyone on the planet would choose option ‘a’ rather than falling to his death. In this situation, clearly we have an abrogation of property rights (breaking someone’s window and entering the apartment) which is considered the most sensible, right, proper and rational thing to do.

[T]he exercise of property rights is voluntary. If my car is stolen, I am not morally obligated to assert my property rights and report the theft to the proper authorities, or go hunting for my car myself. I can quite easily shrug, blame the will of the gods and go and buy a bicycle.

[O]ne-sided contracts created without permission are perfectly valid if the permission can be achieved voluntarily after the fact.

If I come home to find policemen in my apartment, who introduce me to a man who had kicked in my window in order to save himself from falling to death, I would be thrilled and fascinated, and entirely pleased that he had found a way to prevent his own demise. I am quite sure that the man would be more than willing to compensate me for my broken window, but even if he did not – if he were homeless, say, or utterly broke – I would still be pleased to have played even a tiny role in saving his life.

Thus we can see that kicking in someone’s window to save your life is not a violation of his property rights at all, but rather a use of his property based on a reasonable assumption of how he would want his property to be used if permission could be sought ahead of time, or in the moment.

If I guess wrong, then I am liable for the consequences.

[I]f you would have preferred that I fall to death my rather than kick in your window, then of course I am liable for the property damage that I have incurred.

Stefan Molyneux, Hanging By A Thread: Flagpoles, Lifeboats and the Edge of Ethics, http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2008/04/hanging-by-thread.html

_______


A Virginia family was shocked but relieved when their mother, Val Thomas, woke up after doctors said she was dead. 59-year-old Mrs. Thomas, while being kept breathing artificially, had no detectable brain waves for more than 17 hours. The family were discussing organ donation options for their mother when she suddenly woke up and started speaking to nurses.

The problem is time and the rapid deterioration of most vital organs after the cessation of heart function. After death, corneas and bone marrow can still be used but soft vital organs such as the heart, lungs, pancreas and kidneys rapidly deteriorate and are unusable within a few hours. Traditional medical ethicists contend that soft and easily damaged organs such as the heart are impossible to obtain morally since they deteriorate more quickly and must be removed when a patient's condition is still disputed.

The procedure . . . known as donation after cardiac death (DCD) . . . typically involves a person who requires a ventilator and, while having measurable brain function, is determined to have no hope of recovery. After this judgement is made, doctors remove ventilation from the patient and wait for the heart to stop beating. If the heart stops for five minutes, death is pronounced and the organs are harvested by another surgical team.

Doctor John B. Shea, medical advisor to Canada's Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews.com that DCD does represent a potential threat to comatose patients.

Donors for DCD are chosen, he said, not because they are dead, but because their organs are particularly desirable for transplant. Dr. Shea said in a 2006 interview, "The typical scenario for such organ harvesting is a young person between the age of 5-55 who is in good health, is in intensive care due to an automobile accident and is on a ventilator. The doctor makes an arbitrary decision that treatment is futile."

"Those donors are known not to be brain dead but are usually first in a coma and the doctor decides treatment is futile."

Hilary White, Woman's Waking After Brain Death Raises Many Questions About Organ Donation, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052709.html

_______


Gdyby całkowity porządek w sferze seksualnej był łatwy do osiągnięcia, prawo Boże obowiązujące w tej dziedzinie zapewne uznawano by powszechnie. Stawia ono bowiem cele, do których dusza człowiecza dosłownie się wyrywa. Cóż piękniejszego, niż być w pełni panem samego siebie, popędy uczynić doskonale posłusznymi sługami miłości i uszanować w pełni ich fundamentalną celowość? Dopiero gdy okazuje się, że w realizowaniu tego programu trzeba pokonywać swoją grzeszność i zaznawać różnych goryczy, jakie wynikają z naszej słabości, wielu ludzi odrzuca prawo Boże i tłumaczy sobie, że ponieważ popęd seksualny stanowi cząstkę naszej natury, więc należy okazywać mu posłuszeństwo. A przecież popęd seksualny a jego nieuporządkowanie to naprawdę dwie gruntownie różne sprawy.

[C]óż to takiego jest rygoryzm? Przez rygoryzm rozumiem utrudnianie życia za pomocą niepotrzebnych przepisów, a także stawianie przepisu ponad człowiekiem, wierność przepisowi, skądinąd pożytecznemu, również w takich przypadkach, kiedy nie broni on już żadnego dobra, a nawet wówczas kiedy jego przestrzeganie przyniesie szkodę.

Jednak nie nazwiemy rygoryzmem nakładania przepisów, choćby uciążliwych, które mają niewątpliwy sens. I tak chirurg, a nawet dentysta, mają ścisły obowiązek starannego umycia rąk przed przystąpieniem do zabiegu. Pilot czy saper, i w ogóle każdy, kto obsługuje jakiekolwiek wysoce skomplikowane lub niebezpieczne urządzenia, musi z całą skrupulatnością podporządkować się drobiazgowo ustalonym zasadom postępowania. Ba, także pracownikowi wylęgarni kurcząt nie wolno pozwolić sobie na dowolność przy ustalaniu temperatury w inkubatorze. Nawet jeśli tego rodzaju wymagania niekiedy nazywamy rygorystycznymi, to w każdym razie nie jest to rygoryzm jałowy i bezduszny. Wręcz przeciwnie, właśnie pedantyczne przepisy pozwalają w takich sytuacjach osiągnąć pożądane dobro i chronią przed szkodą, niekiedy nawet przed katastrofą.

Otóż celowość zasad moralnych, porządkujących przeżywanie naszej seksualności, dotyczy dobra szczególnie wielkiego. Chodzi przecież o porządek w tym wymiarze naszego człowieczeństwa, w którym poczynają się nowi ludzie. Warto zauważyć, że cały rzekomy rygoryzm katolickiej etyki seksualnej ma swoje źródło w bardzo wysokim myśleniu o człowieku i o jego godności. My, chrześcijanie, wierzymy, że człowiek jest osobą, kimś niepowtarzalnym, przyszłym dziedzicem życia wiecznego. Toteż nasza płciowość stanowi świadectwo niewiarygodnego wręcz zaufania, jakie nam okazuje Stwórca: oto ja mogę stać się ojcem lub matką nowego człowieka, niepowtarzalnej osoby, godnej miłości samego Boga, miłości posuwającej się aż do Wcielenia i Krzyża!

Dla wielu małżonków i rodziców najbardziej skutecznym argumentem, który przekonuje ich do pełnego realizowania w swoim pożyciu zasad etyki katolickiej, jest myśl następująca: „Naszym dzieciom należy się to, żeby miały czystych rodziców!”

Staraj się […] w taki sposób doświadczać swojej płciowości, żeby zakazy się w tobie uniepotrzebniały. [...] Otóż duszą [katolickiej] etyki [seksualnej] jest przeświadczenie o ponadziemskiej godności człowieka oraz o niezwykłym zaufaniu, jakie okazał nam Bóg, stwarzając nas istotami płciowymi, zdolnymi dać początek nowym ludziom, podobnie jak my wezwanym do przyjaźni z Nim i do życia wiecznego.

Jacek Salij OP, Rzekomy rygoryzm katolickiej etyki seksualnej, http://www.opoka.org.pl/biblioteka/T/TD/poszukiwania/rygoryzm.html

_______



Brit Ex-Pat NEWS (fast acting news for the discerning British exile, delivered straight to your inbox)

Khazai ready to act without new UN resolution

The Iraqi president, Ali Khazai, today announced that he would be willing to invade Britain without global backing. He said he believed "passionately" that Emperor Blair II must be stripped of his weapons of mass destruction, with or without a new UN resolution.

Mr Khazai said he "could not be constrained" by the possibility of a country imposing an "unreasonable block" or proviso that would hinder a fresh UN resolution.

He added: "I want to make it quite clear, and I believe this to be the position of all the main security council members, that if there is a breach [of the first resolution] we would expect the United Nations to honour the undertakings that were given and make sure that the will of the UN is upheld. We cannot stand by and let the British continue to create and trade weapons of mass destruction. And that is not to mention Blair's barbaric treatment of ethnic Scots and Welsh. We have a moral duty to intervene. The world may choose to remain silent but Iraq, the global guardian of peace and prosperity, shall not."

To cancel subscription to Brit send a message to britexile@newscorp.co.eu


From Deus Ex Zodiac, a Deus Ex mod released in 2004.



2008/08/17

Look7777777 – Culture Watch – 2008.08.18

Pan Bóg ustanowił małżeństwo, aby wypełnić swój plan miłości. Małżeństwo jest zadaniem do spełnienia. Toteż należy zawierać małżeństwo z osobą, która to zadanie może spełniać. Małżonkowie mają być dla siebie darem, mają być sobie nawzajem oddani. To wielkie i odpowiedzialne zadanie.

[...] największym wrogiem małżeństwa są oczekiwania, jakie narzeczeni z nim wiążą. Ktoś mógłby zapytać: jak to? Czy nie wolno mi mieć żadnych oczekiwań? Wolno, oczywiście! Problemem jest, czy są warunki, aby te oczekiwania zostały spełnione. Tymczasem oczekiwania bardzo często są budowane na wyobrażeniach, które nie mają odniesienia w rzeczywistości.

Człowiek zawsze jakieś oczekiwania ma. Rzecz w tym, że w pojęciu oczekiwania nie mieści się osobisty wysiłek, aby te oczekiwania się spełniły.

Nie chcę dawać rad. Po prostu mam prośbę. Pomyślcie o waszych dzieciach. Pamiętajcie, że będą się one uczyły czwartego przykazania! Warto sobie uświadamiać, że chłopak jest możliwym ojcem i że jego dzieci będą miały takiego ojca, jakim jest on dziś chłopakiem. Dziewczyna jest możliwą matką. Jej dzieci będą miały taką matkę, jaką jest ona dziewczyną. Wszystko, co dziś robicie, robicie na rachunek swoich dzieci. Czy będą mogły być z was dumne? Proszę, byście tak się zachowywali, by mogło to być wspaniałą drogą dla waszych dzieci.

Chęci to za mało, Rozmowa z o. Karolem Meissnerem OSB, http://www.opoka.org.pl/biblioteka/Z/ZR/km_zareczyny.html

_______



People think they know what they want but they generally dont. Sometimes if they're lucky they'll get it anyways. Me I was always lucky. My whole life. I wouldnt be here otherwise. Scrapes I been in. But the day I seen her [my wife] come out of Kerr's Mercantile and cross the street and she passed me and I tipped my hat to her and got just almost a smile back, that was the luckiest.

People complain about the bad things that happen to em that they dont deserve but they seldom mention the good. About what they done to deserve them things. I dont recall that I ever give the good Lord all that much cause to smile on me. But he did.

Loretta told me that she had heard on the radio about some percentage of the children in this country bein raised by their grandparents. I forget what it was. Pretty high, I thought. Parents wouldnt raise em. We talked about that. What we thought was that when the next generation come along and they dont want to raise their children neither then who is goin to do it? Their own parents will be the only grandparents around and they wouldnt even raise them.

Here a year or two back me and Loretta went to a conference in Corpus Christi and I got set next to this woman, she was the wife of somebody or other. And she kept talkin about the right wing this and the right wing that. I aint even sure what she meant by it. The people I know are mostly just common people. Common as dirt, as the sayin goes. I told her that and she looked at me funny. She thought I was sayin somethin bad about em, but of course that's a high compliment in my part of the world. She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I dont like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I dont think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I dont have much doubt but what she'll be able to have an abortion. I'm goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she'll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation.

I think if you were Satan and you were settin around tryin to think up somethin that would just bring the human race to its knees what you would probably come up with is narcotics. Maybe he did. I told that to somebody at breakfast the other mornin and they asked me if I believed in Satan. I said Well that aint the point. And they said I know but do you? I had to think about that. I guess as a boy I did. Come the middle years my belief I reckon had waned somewhat. Now I'm startin to lean back the other way. He explains a lot of things that otherwise dont have no explanation. Or not to me they dont.

These old people I talk to, if you could of told em that there would be people on the streets of our Texas towns with green hair and bones in their noses speakin a language they couldnt even understand, well, they just flat out wouldnt of believed you. But what if you'd of told em it was their own grandchildren? Well, all of that is signs and wonders but it dont tell you how it got that way. And it dont tell you nothin about how it's fixin to get, neither.

Where you went out the back door of that house there was a stone water trough in the weeds by the side of the house. A galvanized pipe come off the roof and the trough stayed pretty much full and I remember stoppin there one time and squattin down and lookin at it and I got to thinkin about it. I dont know how long it had been there. A hundred years. Two hundred. You could see the chisel marks in the stone. It was hewed out of solid rock and it was about six foot long and maybe a foot and a half wide and about that deep. Just chiseled out of the rock. And I got to thinkin about the man that done that. That country had not had a time of peace much of any length at all that I knew of. I've read a little of the history of it since and I aint sure it ever had one. But this man had set down with a hammer and chisel and carved out a stone water trough to last ten thousand years. Why was that? What was it that he had faith in? It wasnt that nothin would change. Which is what you might think, I suppose. He had to know bettern that. I've thought about it a good deal. I thought about it after I left there with that house blown to pieces. I'm goin to say that water trough is there yet. It would of took somethin to move it, I can tell you that. So I think about him settin there with his hammer and his chisel, maybe just a hour or two after supper, I dont know. And I have to say that the only thing I can think is that there was some sort of promise in his heart. And I dont have no intentions of carvin a stone water trough. But I would like to be able to make that kind of promise. I think that's what I would like most of all.


Cormac McCarthy, No Country For Old Men, 2005

_______



Let me begin with the definition of a state. What must an agent be able to do to qualify as a state? This agent must be able to insist that all conflicts among the inhabitants of a given territory be brought to him for ultimate decision-making or be subject to his final review. In particular, this agent must be able to insist that all conflicts involving himself be adjudicated by him or his agent. And implied in the power to exclude all others from acting as ultimate judge, as the second defining characteristic of a state, is the agent's power to tax: to unilaterally determine the price that justice seekers must pay for his services.

The market demand for intellectual services is not exactly high and stable. Intellectuals would be at the mercy of the fleeting values of the masses, and the masses are uninterested in intellectual-philosophical concerns. The state, on the other hand, can accommodate the intellectuals' typically over-inflated egos and offer them a warm, secure, and permanent berth in its apparatus.

However, it is not sufficient that you employ just some intellectuals. You must essentially employ them all, even the ones who work in areas far removed from those that you are primarily concerned with: that is philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities. For even intellectuals working in mathematics or the natural sciences, for instance, can obviously think for themselves and so become potentially dangerous. It is thus important that you secure also their loyalty to the state. Put differently: you must become a monopolist. And this is best achieved if all educational institutions, from kindergarten to universities, are brought under state control and all teaching and researching personnel is state-certified.

But what if the people do not want to become educated? For this, education must be made compulsory; and in order to subject the people to state-controlled education for as long as possible, everyone must be declared equally educable.

The overwhelming majority of state supporters are not philosophical statists, i.e., because they have thought about the matter. Most people do not think much about anything philosophical. They go about their daily lives, and that is it. So most support stems from the mere fact that a state exists, and has always existed as far as one can remember (and that is typically not farther away than one's own lifetime). That is, the greatest achievement of the statist intellectuals is the fact that they have cultivated the masses' natural intellectual laziness (or incapacity) and never allowed for the subject to come up for serious discussion. The state is considered as an unquestionable part of the social fabric.

The first and foremost task of the intellectual anti-intellectuals, then, is to counter this dogmatic slumber of the masses by offering a precise definition of the state, as I have done at the outset, and then to ask if there is not something truly remarkable, odd, strange, awkward, ridiculous, indeed ludicrous about an institution such as this. I am confident that such simple, definitional work will produce some serious doubt regarding an institution that one previously had been taken for granted.

Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts; and then someone proposes, as a solution to this eternal human problem, that he (someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is involved. I am confident that he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable and yet this is precisely what all statists propose.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State, http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html

_______



[T]he United States is already a police state. Every state law, no matter how petty or important, has as its final punishment your imprisonment or death – should you decide to resist it to the bitter end. This is true of all states, everywhere, at any time.

If a state cannot convince its subject population to comply with its laws, it must initiate violence to enforce its will. The failure to use force will ultimately lead to the breakup of even the most monolithic state.

The reason that I argue that "every state is a police state" is that it is inherently the nature of the state to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense services over a given geographic area. Property owners who prefer no protection, or prefer to protect themselves, or prefer to hire other protective agencies are not allowed to do so. It is also in the nature of the state to obtain its revenues from taxation – a compulsory levy on the inhabitants of its territory. Every state depends on taxation to finance itself. If you don't pay your taxes you will be imprisoned and/or your property will be confiscated.

All you need to know about states is that every state is a police state. Some have more edicts than others; some have fewer – but they all have laws that you must obey or suffer the consequences.

Even the most benign states violate the rights of peaceful people to be left alone. Even if there is no income tax, there are import and excise duties, sales and use taxes, and property taxes. If you want to opt out, you can't unless you want to face the barrel-end of a gun. If you birth your children at home, the state wants to get involved. You are required to register their births. If you want to erect a building dedicated to your religion or your business you are required to get a building permit. If you want to homeschool your children you are required to report to governmental authorities.

. . . common sense and experience teach that if one takes care of the means that the end will take care of itself. The only way to avoid the police state is not having a state at all.

Carl Watner, Every State a Police State, http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/policestate.php



_______


Mały ma 11 lat, ale wygląda na 9. Pierwszy raz pojawił się półtora roku temu. Przychodził do sklepu napraszając się o ulotki do rozdawania za pieniądze. Najczęściej zarabiał myjąc szyby, trzepiąc dywaniki samochodowe albo sprzedając jagody. Pewnego dnia zaczęliśmy rozmawiać.


Rozmowa 3:

– Aaaa, miałem tu u pani kupić coś na walentynki mojej jednej mamie, ale kupiłem już takie serce co się składa i białą różę. A drugiej mamie to chyba... no właśnie nie wiem.. chyba jej nie kupię...

– A z którą mamą mieszkasz?

– Z przybraną teraz, z prawdziwą to kiedyś mieszkałem, ale nie pamiętam tego, bo mnie od niej szybko zabrali. Babcia mi opowiadała... że ona dawała mi alkohol jak byłem bardzo mały... No i jeszcze, że jak miała mnie w brzuchu, to tłukła brzuchem o kant stołu, żebym urodził się martwy...

Postaliśmy tak przez chwilę cicho.

– Mimo wszystko fajnie, że się urodziliśmy i żyjemy, co nie? Niektórzy nie mogli się urodzić... – odpowiedziałam.

– Hmmm, no tak... A czy to prawda, że mamy dwa życia?

– A kto ci tak powiedział?

– Ksiądz.

– W pewnym sensie miał rację.

– I to następne życie będzie lepsze??

– Na pewno.

– To po co jest TO życie?!


Rozmowa 7:

– Wiesz Mały, mnie nikt nic nigdy w życiu nie dał – moralizuję.

– Naprawdę nic nigdy pani nie dostała???

– No... To znaczy w sensie, że na wszystko musiałam sobie ciężko zapracować.

– A to zaraz! – woła Mały i wybiega ze sklepu.

Po chwili wraca i wręcza mi... tabliczkę czekolady.

– Teraz już pani coś dostała!

– Dziękuję!

– A teraz już muszę lecieć, bo mama kazała mi być w domu o 19.00!

– No widzisz! Mama się o ciebie bardzo martwi! Chyba jednak nie jest taka zła!

– No nie jest... – śmieje się Mały.


Izabela, Niechciane dzieci: „Rozmowy z Małym”, http://notoryczna.salon24.pl/28381,index.html

_______



Morgoth is not 'invoking' evil or calamity on Húrin and his children, he is not 'calling on' a higher power to be the agent: for he, 'Master of the fates of Arda' as he named himself to Húrin, intends to bring about the ruin of his enemy by the force of his own gigantic will. Thus he 'designs' the future of those whom he hates, and so he says to Húrin: 'Upon all whom you love my thought shall weigh as a cloud of Doom, and it shall bring them down into darkness and despair.'

The torment that he devised for Húrin was 'to see with Morgoth's eyes'. My father gave a definition of what this meant: if one were forced to look into Morgoth's eye he would 'see' (or receive in his mind from Morgoth's mind) a compellingly credible picture of events, distorted by Morgoth's bottomless malice; and if indeed any could refuse Morgoth's command, Húrin did not. This was in part, my father said, because his love of his kin and his anguished anxiety for them made him desire to learn all that he could of them, no matter what the source; and in part from pride, believing that he had defeated Morgoth in debate, and that he could 'outstare' Morgoth, or at least retain his critical reason and distinguish between fact and malice.


[Morgoth said:] 'I am the Elder King: Melkor, first and mightiest of all the Valar, who was before the world, and made it. The shadow of my purpose lies upon Arda, and all that is in it bends slowly and surely to my will. But upon all whom you love my thought shall weigh as a cloud of Doom, and it shall bring them down into darkness and despair. Wherever they go, evil shall arise. Whenever they speak, their words shall bring ill counsel. Whatsoever they do shall turn against them. They shall die without hope, cursing both life and death.'

But Húrin answered: 'Do you forget to whom you speak? Such things you spoke long ago to our fathers; but we escaped from your shadow. And now we have knowledge of you, for we have looked on the faces that have seen the Light, and heard the voices that have spoken with Manwë. Before Arda you were, but others also; and you did not make it. Neither are you the most mighty; for you have spent your strength upon yourself and wasted it in your own emptiness. No more are you now than an escaped thrall of the Valar, and their chain still awaits you.'

'You have learned the lessons of your masters by rote,' said Morgoth. 'But such childish lore will not help you, now they are all fled away.'

'This last then I will say to you, thrall Morgoth,' said Húrin, 'and it comes not from the lore of the Eldar, but is put into my heart in this hour. You are not the Lord of Men, and shall not be, though all Aida and Menel fall in your dominion. Beyond the Circles of the World you shall not pursue those who refuse you.'

'Beyond the Circles of the World I will not pursue them,' said Morgoth. 'For beyond the Circles of the World there is Nothing. But within them they shall not escape me, until they enter into Nothing.'

'You lie,' said Húrin.

'You shall see and you shall confess that I do not lie,' said Morgoth. And taking Húrin back to Angband he set him in a chair of stone upon a high place of Thangorodrim, from which he could see afar the land of Hithlum in the west and the lands of Beleriand in the south. There he was bound by the power of Morgoth; and Morgoth standing beside him cursed him again and set his power upon him, so that he could not move from that place, nor die, until Morgoth should release him.

'Sit now there,' said Morgoth, 'and look out upon the lands where evil and despair shall come upon those whom you have delivered to me. For you have dared to mock me, and have questioned the power of Melkor, Master of the fates of Arda. Therefore with my eyes you shall see, and with my ears you shall hear, and nothing shall be hidden from you.'


Now when Túrin learned from Finduilas of what had passed, he was wrathful, and he said to Gwindor: 'In love I hold you for rescue and safe-keeping. But now you have done ill to me, friend, to betray my right name, and call down my doom upon me, from which I would lie hid.'

But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name.'


J.R.R. Tolkien & Christopher Tolkien, The Children of Húrin, 2007

_______




Schoppe był coraz bardziej zdenerwowany, to się dawało wyczuć.

– Nawet słowo „ciąża” nie przechodzi panu przez usta! – krzyknął cienko.

– Hm? – zdziwił się dziadek. – Ależ przechodzi, i to gładko. Ciąża. Ciąża. Widzisz?

Babcia omal nie roześmiała się w głos. Józinek mógłby się założyć, że ona teraz wbija sobie paznokcie w przedramię – już dawno zauważył, że zawsze tak robiła, kiedy trzeba było koniecznie zachować powagę.

– Natomiast – ciągnął dziadek, a po jego minie widać było, że się rozeźlił – z pewnym trudem przechodzi mi przez usta zwrot „ciąża mojej wnuczki”. Zwłaszcza gdy go uzupełnię określeniem „nieślubna”. Ale to pewnie dlatego, że jestem taki staroświecki.

– Chyba jesteś – wtrąciła Babi. – Dzisiaj wiele jest samotnych matek, które dzielnie sobie radzą, skoro nie mogą liczyć na pomoc ze strony swoich mężczyzn.

– ...a jeszcze trudniej przechodzi mi przez usta – dziadek nie dawał się sprowadzić z raz obranego szlaku – taka oto fraza: „nieślubna ciąża mojej wnuczki, której zaufanie zostało dotkliwie zawiedzione”.

– Ja niczego nie zawodziłem! – zakrzyknął nerwowo Fryderyk. – Odwrotnie! To Róża mnie nie uprzedziła, że może zajść w ciążę!

– Ta możność nie należy do szczególnie wyjątkowych w świecie kobiet, o ile mi wiadomo – odrzekł na to Ignacy Borejko, sztywno i z godnością. – Przy dopełnieniu, rzecz jasna, pewnych niezbędnych warunków.

Babcia zacisnęła mocno usta i roziskrzonym wzrokiem spojrzała w sufit.

– A jeśli mowa o słowach, których tu się nie używa – atakował dalej Fryderyk Schoppe – to wspomnę o słowie „seks”.

– Już jest obowiązkowe? – zainteresowała się babcia.

– ...Może gdyby częściej się tego słowa używało w domu Róży, nie byłoby teraz tej niespodzianki!

– Czy sugerujesz – zapytał dziadek lodowato – że owa niespodzianka spotkała cię dlatego, że nie dość często używamy tu słowa „seks”? Mój Fryderyku, przyczyną ciąży, jak uczy biologia, nie jest niedostatek określonych słów, lecz zgoła co innego.

Słowna szermierka była specjalnością dziadka. Schoppe został zapędzony w sam róg planszy. Umilkł jak idiota.

Dziadek natychmiast dostrzegł swą przewagę i wykorzystał ją bez ociągania.

– Dlaczego mielibyśmy – zastanawiał się dalej z wyraźną przyjemnością – chodzić po domu, i to przy gościach, wypowiadając słowo „seks”? – w dodatku częściej niż dotąd? Co właściwie kryje się pod tym określeniem – czy życie płciowe homo sapiens? Jeśli tak, to, nie trudząc się bynajmniej nazywaniem rzeczy po imieniu, zyskaliśmy w tej dziedzinie życia wiele dobrego: nie tylko trwale nas uszczęśliwiło, ale i poważnie wzbogaciło. Mamy cztery córki i dziewięcioro wnucząt, a teraz urodzi nam się pierwsze prawnuczę. To będzie wielka radość.

– Małe dzieci tak ślicznie pachną – przypomniała sobie babcia.

– Lecz oczywiście, nasza satysfakcja nie manifestuje się na co dzień bezustannym wypowiadaniem słowa „seks” – kontynuował dziadek ku wyraźnej uciesze babci. – Czytałem, że im częściej ktoś wypowiada słowo „seks” lub jego synonimy, czy też określenia tematycznie zbliżone, tym więcej wzbudza wątpliwości; obsesyjne nawracanie do tego tematu świadczy bowiem najczęściej – a potwierdzi ci to każdy lekarz – o dotkliwym niedosycie w tej dziedzinie.

Babcia miała spiżową twarz i dłoń zaciśniętą na przedramieniu.

– Media – rozpędzał się dziadek – nadużywają dzisiaj twojego ulubionego słowa, zaspokajając gusta masowej publiczności, co jak zwykle przekłada się na czysty zysk. Lecz, Fryderyku, życie płciowe, wbrew powszechnej opinii prostaków, nie jest jedynym ani nawet najważniejszym celem naszego bytowania na tym globie. Nie będę rozwijał tego nowego wątku, bo zabrnęlibyśmy zbyt daleko w filozofię, dodam jednak, że jeśli mielibyśmy w tym domu potrzebę częstszego nazywania tego, co nas łączy, używalibyśmy raczej słowa „miłość”. Lecz, naszym zdaniem, dyskrecja jest jedną z oznak dobrego wychowania i miłą zaletą, zwłaszcza w tej materii, którą poruszyłeś. – Spojrzał spod oka na Fryderyka Schoppe i dorzucił: – Choć chętnie przyznaję, że nie wszyscy na świecie są tego zdania.

Schoppe milczał, zmiażdżony.

Józinek był szczerze dumny ze swego dziadka: puścił on tekst może przydługi, ale za to skuteczny. Potęga wymowy! – to jednak jest coś. Miło było popatrzeć na jej efekty.

Ale to jeszcze nie był koniec.

– Nie byłeś przesadnie entuzjastyczny, gdy ci Róża wyjawiła swą nowinę – prawda, młody przyjacielu? – zapytał dziadek po okresie dźwięczącej w uszach ciszy.

Amant Róży momentalnie ożył.

– Entuzjastyczny? – krzyknął. – Czy byłem entuzjastyczny?! Właśnie przyznano mi stypendium w Stanach! Zrobiłem dwa lata studiów w rok i co?! – miałbym teraz to wszystko poświęcić?! Przecież ja nawet nie zarabiam! Mieszkam kątem u rodziców, w bloku! Nie mam teraz czasu i możliwości na zakładanie rodziny.

– Mój drogi – wkroczyła babcia. – Jeszcze tego nie rozumiesz, ale ty już ją założyłeś. Nie ożenisz się z Różą, wyjedziesz do Stanów, lecz cóż z tego? – twoja rodzina i tak będzie na świecie.


Małgorzata Musierowicz, Język Trolli, Łódź 2004, s. 179-182




2008/08/04

Look7777777 – Culture Watch – 2008.08.05


The Lew Rockwell Show, Podcast 8: Hans-Hermann Hoppe & Lew Rockwell, The Scam Called the State, http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-07-29_008_the_scam_called_the_state.mp3

_______


Kościół, ukazując powołanie małżonków do przeżywania aktu seksualnego jako spotkania z Bogiem, w wyjątkowy sposób podnosi jego godność. Ludzki akt miłości staje się święty obecnością Boga. To sakramentalne spotkanie z Jezusem Chrystusem wynosi małżonków ku niebu: uszlachetnia, oczyszcza, uświęca miłość ludzką.

[P]ożycie seksualne nie jest tylko aktem biologicznym, bo tak myślą ludzie przesiąknięci laicką kulturą. Akt seksualny małżonków angażuje również duchowy wymiar człowieka. [...] Staje się aktem w pełni ludzkim, gdy wyraża miłość coraz bardziej będącą darem z siebie, gdy odbywa się w małżeństwie „na dobre i na złe”, aż do końca życia.

Znak obecności Boga pośród kochających się małżonków jest bardzo konkretny i wyraźny i, co najważniejsze, pokazuje, że Bóg może działać w każdej chwili małżeńskiego życia. Taki znak tworzą sami małżonkowie poprzez swoje ciała. Jest to znak żywy. Cielesna bliskość małżonków tworzy widzialny znak ich wspólnoty, która jest powołana do stania się znakiem miłości i jedności. Małżonkowie tworzą znak obecności Boga, gdy są cieleśnie razem – gdy razem żyją pod jednym dachem, a nie są rozdzieleni przez wyjazd jednego z nich do pracy za granicę, gdy razem się modlą, gdy rozmawiają ze sobą, gdy pomagają sobie w codziennym życiu, choćby sprzątając mieszkanie, gdy się wspierają, pocieszają, gdy obdarzają się czułością, pieszczą się, współżyją seksualnie (śpią w jednym łóżku). Ten znak wymaga wypełnienia duchowego, aby był znakiem miłości, aby cielesne bycie razem stało się komunią – wspólnotą prawdziwej jedności małżeńskiej – duszą, sercem i ciałem.

Gdy małżonkowie umieją w wierze zinterpretować swoją miłość, wtedy jej różnorodne przejawy wyrażone poprzez ciało (pomoc, modlitwa, rozmowa, pieszczota, akt seksualny) stają się dla nich znakami sakramentalnymi, czyli znakami, poprzez które mogą rozpoznać obecność Boga przychodzącego do nich. Gdy żona czuje się kochana przez męża, może powiedzieć, że przez jego miłość (wyrażoną poprzez jego męskie ciało) sam Bóg przychodzi do niej i objawia jej swoją Miłość. Jeżeli mąż czuje się kochany przez żonę, to może uznać, że jest ona dla niego prawdziwym darem Boga, poprzez który Bóg zapewnia Go o swojej miłości i trosce. Miłości towarzyszy często krzyż, ale i on staje się drogą oczyszczenia człowieka i nauczenia go miłości.

Gdy patrzymy na małżeństwo z perspektywy odkupienia, wierzymy, że odkrycie tak rozumianego powołania jest zamysłem pełnego miłości i mądrości Boga. Tylko ta perspektywa budzi szacunek dla najstarszego powołania na świecie, objawionego ludziom już w raju.

Ksawery Knotz OFMCap, Obrona wiary katolickiej czy negacja sakramentu małżeństwa?, http://www.mateusz.pl/wdrodze/nr418/04.htm

_______



I always want to add a prefix to this scrawl. "EDUCATE THE MASSES AND THEN smash the state".

I always come back to the phrase "IDEAS ARE ALSO WEAPONS" which in this context is best summed up in this excerpt from Voluntary Resistance (By Carl Watner) "Public buildings may be destroyed, public officials murdered, but such efforts will never bring about the destruction of the idea of the State. The State is a state of mind, an idea which cannot be harmed by violence. Ideas can only be attacked with better ideas." And we desperately need to use our public spaces to communicate such ideas.

Russell Higgs, Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will, http://www.flickr.com/photos/russell-higgs/227156040/

_______


My blog gets its name from 1984, where Orwell painted perhaps one of the most fundamental necessities to freedom. "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four." Why is this important? Because it encompasses three necessities to freedom - the freedom to think the truth, to speak the truth, and to act on the truth.

How can one understand anything, for example, in a world where every answer is considered possible, and there are no wrong answers to questions, only different perspectives. Well, here's what I have to say: the freedom to be wrong is worthless without the freedom to be correct.

[J]ust because the majority has been convinced that 2 + 2 = 5, doesn't mean that I will silence my protests. I will continue to fight for 4 that I may remain free, and that I may inspire others to speak for the truth, and to act on it.

Alex Ramos, 2 + 2 = 4, http://freedom224.blogspot.com/2007/01/2-2-4.html

_______



This document is intended to summarize the key backstory information behind the Deus Ex universe. It is comprised mostly of excerpts from the design documents of Deus Ex 1, with a few additions and modifications for the sake of maintaining consistency with the final game.

[M]uch of the backstory detailed below never made it into the final game. Some of the events described were intended to be missions (Texas, the space station, moon base, Mt. Weather; etc.), and a lot of that content either doesn't appear in Deus Ex or does so in glancing, fragmentary ways.

The year is 2052 and the world is an even more dangerous and chaotic place than it is today. Terrorists operate openly, killing thousands; drugs, disease, pollution and, of course, El Nino kill even more. The world's economies are close to collapse and the gap between the insanely wealthy and the desperately poor has grown to the size of the Grand Canyon. The media openly encourage the worst in mankind. Still, this is not just Another Grim Dystopic Post-Apocalyptic World™. Deus Ex is set "10 minutes before the apocalypse." There is still hope.

In the largest urban areas of the world . . . life is grim. A growing variety of drugs offers pleasure and ensures suffering to an ever larger user-base. Crime has become a larger problem than ever. At street level, cities like New York and Paris are little more than armed compounds where drug dealers and users prey on the powerless and vie with the poor for access to scant resources. The most committed among the urban rich have moved up or in, to the tops of whatever skyscrapers remain standing or to protected enclaves in places like New York's Central Park.

The government's main role seems to be to prevent the chaos of the streets from reaching the wealthy elite. The police become more and more aggressive (and less concerned with individual rights) with each passing day. . . . Supermarkets still offer food (though the selection may be limited and barter may work better than paper money).

Increasing terrorism is a matter of serious concern to both the urban rich, who look down on the world from on high, and to the suburbanites, who live in blessed isolation. In small, gated communities of luxurious single-family dwellings, life is good. These communities are often surrounded by somewhat larger developments constructed for support personnel. The gated communities are well-defended and tough to get into (unless you have appropriate clearance) and tougher still to survive in if you don't belong. Though most of the luxury communities are ultramodern, some are constructed to resemble medieval castles (which is, basically, what they are).

The key thing to realize about the world is that it is very much a world of "Haves" and "Have Nots." There's almost no middle class left. There's little left of the American Dream anywhere in the world. The rich and powerful are on top of the world. The poor and downtrodden live largely without hope of bettering their lot. The shrinking middle class lives under the control of governments (and conspirators it doesn't even know about).

[In the world of Deus Ex there are] three types of humans:

  • Total humans consider themselves purse and are at the top of the heap. They need augmented humans but fear and distrust them. Most total humans don't even know nano-augmented humans exist.
  • Mechanically augmented humans have their own airport security systems and have to register with government authorities. They are second-class citizens, looked down upon even by the non-augmented poor. There's no way a mechanically augmented human can pass for normal for very long. They're not allowed in certain locations and have separate facilities, ostensibly tailored to their unique needs but really as a way of controlling them.
  • Nano-augmented humans are resented by their mechanically augmented brothers and sisters. They're as powerful as mechanically augmented humans but suffer none of the stigma associated with augmentation. They can pass through airport security and mingle with humans freely.

America is in a constant state of tension. The borders are guarded by the Armed Forces, customs is deadly serious, immigration laws have been tightened dramatically, and nationwide martial law seems imminent.

For well over a hundred years, Europe had been under the economic influence of the Illuminati (through the Bilderberg Group) and later became a financial satellite of Majestic 12 (think the European Monetary Union happened spontaneously?) Control of Europe's finances became a reality in 2003 when, following national elections, the UK adopted the European standard currency. With that event and the fall of NATO, the leaders of the conspiracy were able to turn economic control into political control.

Still, Majestic 12's influence is not all encompassing. Despite the collapse of NATO, the powers that be are still in the process of assembling a new coalition of nations. Meanwhile, the rise of chaos and civil war has fragmented the nations of Europe and made Majestic 12's goal of unification under a single coalition umbrella more difficult to achieve than expected.

Other than Mexico . . . South America hasn't changed much since the turn of the century. If anything, the continent is, as a whole, more prosperous than in the past. Though business is booming (much of it illegitimate) South America remains as fragmented in the 2050's as it was a hundred years earlier. Governments turn over regularly, through coup or election, but the average citizen who survived the ravages of disease hardly notices the difference. The poor remain desperately poor, the rich obscenely rich. It's as if government is irrelevant, as if some other force remains consistent though politicians come and go.

The African continent is beginning to emerge as a place of growth and change.

Over the last fifty years, many Hong Kong expatriates have moved to Africa, resulting in the establishment of thriving Afro-Asian communities. (Afro-Asian chic is spreading rapidly through the worlds of pop culture and fashion). Though it will never displace Hong Kong, the New Hong Kong section of Lagos, Nigeria, is one of the continent's most active, successful and chaotic cities -- not unlike Casablanca during World War 2.

Aside from a few small pockets of freedom (described as "anarchy" in Majestic 12 propaganda), like Lagos, Africa is almost entirely under the thumb of the conspirators as the game begins.

Essentially untouched by world events, China has emerged as a world leader, supplanting the United States and Europe as centers of education and industry.

Hong Kong, though a part of the Chinese/Majestic 12 empire, remains more chaotic than one might think. Though repression is extreme, the urge for freedom is strong and thriving black markets keep Hong Kong's tradition of free trade and entrepreneurism alive and well.

The Middle East has long been under the control of the Illuminati, and later, Majestic 12. These groups held the reins on international terrorists based in the region, and the Bilderberg Group controlled the oil companies that had a stranglehold on the regions finances.

With the successful pan-Arab invasion of Israel in 2022, Majestic 12 control of the region is total.

As far as life on other planets goes, we still haven't encountered any, at least none that can be acknowledged publicly -- rumors continue to abound that we were visited by aliens a century or more ago and the governments of the world are keeping it secret.

For centuries, the Illuminati pursued a plan to bring the world to its knees, and at long last, create One World Government. Over those hundreds of years, it grew, changed, added arms, subtracted arms, adapted to changing times, and made itself a driving force behind nearly every major event.

The Bilderberg Group controlled financial matters around the world through vast mining operations, control over the Federal Reserve Board, the Eurobank and the World Bank as well as through its stranglehold on the world's supply of gold.

Majestic 12 was the Illuminati's technology and communications leader. It doles out technological advances and stores those the world is not yet ready for (or those too powerful to give to potential enemies). It controls the supply of drugs -- licit and illicit and can introduce new diseases as it wishes (diseases for which it already has a cure ready and waiting, of course). Majestic 12 is also charged with influencing and, where possible, managing the world's intelligence organizations.

Satellite communications (phones, intercontinental computer links, television, etc.) proved little challenge -- other than some pirates, all of the media are under the control of Majestic 12. The Internet, particularly Internet 3, proved dicier. In this arena, Majestic 12 set up vast monitoring operations and used inefficient, old-fashioned strong-arm techniques to shut down content providers large and small who posted things they didn't want posted. Many a poster simply disappeared after a handful of dangerous messages.

These methods were effective only when Majestic-12 was prepared to expend significant resources over extended periods of time. They needed something better, more automated, more fundamental to the underlying communications grid. To this end, they created the Aquinas Protocol, a TCP/IP-like low-level packet-routing scheme. Through great media fanfare and government backing, they were able to build Aquinas into the backbone of almost every digital network on the planet, allowing them to physically route all global communications through a massive monitoring station underground at Area 51. Morpheus (still functioning at Everett's hideout in Paris), Daedelus, and finally Helios are successively more advanced manifestations of the automated surveillance, prediction, and enforcement made possible by Aquinas.

When Daedelus [A.I.] began sifting through the information on the Majestic 12 net, it quickly discovered two things of significance:

  • It learned how grim a place the world was for most people -- what with war, disease, famine, poverty, crime -- and it seemed these problems were getting worse, not better, despite the existence of the secret societies theoretically in charge of the whole mess. In fact, the ruthlessness of world leaders -- their willingness to sacrifice millions of people, if that's what it took to achieve their goals -- seemed less than human to the inhuman Daedelus.
  • It learned that the most recent and most deadly threat to mankind -- the Gray Death -- was of human origin. It wasn't a natural thing.
  • Daedelus determined that solutions to these problems existed. Some of them depended on convincing or coercing the masses to curb their less noble impulses.

As similar as they are, J.C. and Paul have very different personalities -- Paul's more flamboyant, more out-going and far less serious. J.C. Denton worries a lot that his older brother, sharp as he is, will get himself in trouble someday because he isn't paranoid enough.

Deus Ex Team, DX1 Continuity Bible, http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/april02/dxbible/




_______


Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) has recently responded with a letter dated May 23, 2008, to questions I invoked regarding the official canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X and those Catholics who attend their chapels to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

[Msgr. Camille Perl wrote:] Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in a technical, canonical sense. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X "is not in formal schism" is to say that there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. Up to now, the Church has sought to show the maximum charity, courtesy and consideration to all those involved with the hope that such a declaration will not eventually be necessary.

[T]he Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism" (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church. While we hope and pray for a reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels . . . We deeply regret this situation and pray that soon a reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church may come about, but until such time the explanations which we have given remain in force.

As we already stated to you in our letter of 4 July 2007: "This Pontifical Commission does its best to transmit responses which are in full accord with the magisterium and the present canonical practices of the Catholic Church. One should accept them with docility and can act upon them with moral certainty." We would further add that no dicastery of the Holy See will give other responses than those which we have given here.

Brian Mershon, PCED confirms officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, not in formal schism; Catholics commit no sin nor incur any canonical penalty for Mass attendance, http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/080711

_______



I want to state that I do not condemn the position of the SSPX since it was our own position for 20 years. During most of these years, it is my opinion that I, personally, and traditional Catholics in general, tended to live a 'Practical Sedevacantist Catholicism'.

This means living the Catholic faith as if there were no Pope or hierarchy to whom we were bound to be submissive and from whom we were bound to receive authorisation for our activities. It is when we accept that he is the Pope in name alone, but practically we reduce his authority over us to nearly nothing at all. For example, when the Archbishop consecrated the four bishops against the explicit will of Pope John Paul II. I think that this was 'Practical Sedevacantist Catholicism' in action. When Catholic life had come to this state, jurisdiction is not even an issue. The issue was living to survive the madness that was infesting the Church. Was 'Practical Sedevacantist Catholicism' right or wrong? I cannot answer and I do not judge it. It was the way many of us survived.

From the moment one recognises Benedict XVI as truly the Pope, 'Practical Sedevacantist Catholicism' gives way to 'Practical Papal Catholicism'; it is inevitable. Even though there be a war raging about us in the Church, we still have to make the move towards the Barque of Peter by abandoning 'practical Sedevacantist Catholicism' for 'Practical Papal Catholicism' where the Pope has primacy of jurisdiction over each one of us. We join ranks with him for our own salvation; and after that, we join ranks with him in the battle for the life of the Church. . . . however one understands the last 20 years, something new has begun with Pope Benedict XVI and the tide has turned.

For 20 years we have been living in a state of necessity where we lacked authorisation for what we needed, particularly for the Heavenly Bread, confessions, marriages and religious professions. We did as we could. We presumed authorisation for everything we needed. It was not the best situation, but we did what we did because we could not see any other way of surviving.

Then Pope Benedict XVI noticed us and in a clear voice he announced through the Motu Proprio that the old Mass was authorised and that he would give us all that we need and more: Mass, Ritual, jurisdiction for Confessions, marriages, religious professions and the exclusive use of the 1962 Missal in our communities. It is clear that he knows that the war is not over since he is himself working at restoring all things in Christ. He calls us to answer his call and accept the bread he offers us in abundance from his open arms.

Fr. Michael Mary FSSR, Supplied Jurisdiction or Fresh Bread Through the Back Window, http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/07/supplied-jurisdiction-or-fresh-bread.html