Ministry of Truth

The United States must be the only industrialized western country in which religion plays a major role in government. A large number of simple-minded and unquestioning folk, who live in an area referred to politically as the Bible Belt are electing representatives who have more in common with the clergy than with their fellow senators and congressmen. Fanatic minorities as these are not as minor as their name suggests. They are spread across the country like paprika. A recent poll done by Newsweek reveals that 79% of Americans believe that the story of Christmas, as written in the Bible, is historically accurate. Another 55% say that the Bible is historically accurate to the word. The only other places in the world that have the potential to boast results such as these are the Vatican or a retirement home in Sicily.

The problem with the population extends right up to the President himself. Bush II has increased defense spending, alienated the US from the rest of the world, ignored the UN, attacked a defenseless country, and crushed civil liberties. The Government has even taken stands on social issues like gay marriage, arguing that it is immoral, because the almighty condemns gays. While men like Bush II apply the teachings of God to government, and Pope Benedict kindly points out the violent nature of Islam, Noam Chomsky gives insight to the true nature of the Bible itself:

The God of the Bible - not only did He order His chosen people to carry out literal genocide - I mean, wipe out every Amalekite to the last man, woman, child, and, you know, donkey and so on, because hundreds of years ago they got in your way when you were trying to cross the desert - not only did He do things like that, but, after all, the God of the Bible was ready to destroy every living creature on earth because some humans irritated Him. That’s the story of Noah. I mean, that’s beyond genocide - you don’t know how to describe this creature. Somebody offended Him, and He was going to destroy every living being on earth? And then He was talked into allowing two of each species to stay alive - that’s supposed to be gentle and wonderful.” - Noam Chomsky

Even if we ignore the contents of the Bible, and famous misprints such as “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” (Exodus 20:13), this old book is still too abstract and too devoid of proof to play a role in the government of any country. Religious governments have never thrived for long. Iran for countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are full of Koran schools, resulting in a generation of ignorance. It is not coincidence that 61% (Washington Post) of suicide bombers in the middle east come from Saudi Arabia. That figure reflects the beliefs of the people there. The United States doe not (yet) have as severe an ignorance epidemic as the Saudis do. Nevertheless, the US is a country in which people are tought to believe rather than to think, and that results in incompetent, God-fearing leadership.

www.biblegateway.com

The economic policy of Ronald Reagan is strikingly similar to the one we live under today. For starters, both Presidents believed in supply-side economics, and therefore supported big businesses. Both also Presidents increased military spending (Reagan by 40%) to pay for increased defense of the most secure country in history. Reagan created the missle-defense system in an attempt to ward off possible nuclear assault, and to help pay for it, he cut taxes to encourage spending, just as Bush II did. In a startling inconsistency, Reagan also supported the Federal Reserve Board’s tight money policy, which discouraged spending. To my knowledge, Bush II did not destroy his credibility in this fashion. However, his tax cuts only affected the rich. To no surprise then is the fact that the poor and those suffering in poverty suffered under Reagan and Bush II. Though welfare must be abolished, the poor must not be the only ones being taxed. Tax cuts that benefit only the rich contradict the american dream, because the poor are unable to work their way up the ladder of success if they are weighed down by taxes. Bush continues Reagan’s tradition of granting the missle defense system $9,500,000,000 annually (Pentagon). According to the American Society of Physicists, the missle defense program would not work from a physic standpoint; “Now that is just one example of a clinically insane allocation of your tax dollars…that’s what Bush is: a taxer of grandchildren.” -(Ralph Nader). In short, both Presidents believed in subsidizing large corporations (supply-side economics), and cutting taxes, while drastically increasing defense spending for unnecessary wars in countries like Iraq, Grenada, and Nicaragua, which are not a threat to anyone in the United States, just as they were not a threat to their neighbors.

http://borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html

Democracy in the United States is in need of an update. The electoral college is a roadblock preventing the creation of a system that will be able to reflect the Americna voice. Hopefully, American minds are not yet so simplified that a two-party system will suffice to represent all of the people. The electoral college prevents smaller parties from gaining the popular support that one would expect them to have. Of course, there are several small third parties such as the Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionals, and the American Independent Party, but these play no significant role in elections. In fact, third parties are treated as second or third class citizens by mainstreaqm voters and by the two major parties. Ralph Nader, who ran in 2004 as an independent candidate with Winona LaDuke was accused of handing the election to George Bush, because his voters may have voted for John Kerry, the democrat. This sent a clear message to every third party in the US: “How dare you give our voters choice!” Ralph Nader responded to critiscism himself: “You would never see this kind of thing in western democracies in Europe…The issues of the Green Party and the issues of the Libertarian Party are majoritarian issues.” And yet they are not brought to the table. The United States is split almost 50/50 by two parties whos minor differences are made superfluous by their towering similarities. Change is needed, and if the Electoral College is abolished, then the true and undistorted sound of American voices can be heard.

http://www.lp.org/

http://www.nader.org/ 

http://blog.zmag.org/ttt -A blog by Noam Chomsky himself. Offers a very informative Q and A.

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/ -The official Libertarian Party Blog.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/ -Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

With the Baker Commission report released, and the “grave and deteriorating” tactical situation on the ground in Iraq now in writing, we find ourselves at a good vantage point from which to survey important events; both past and recent.

Before discussing the dire situation that is unfolding before us, it is necessary to look back at the origin of current events. What lead to the current situation? Why Iraq? That is a difficult question to answer. Many say “oil”. Others say ”democracy and moral responsibility”. The former is without question a factor, but probably not the prime reason. The latter is ridiculous- naive and contradictory. Iraq was most likely attacked because it is a defensless country, convenliently rich in natural recources, and a great way to preserve the war on terror as an excuse to discipline the population at home. The United States was the only country in the world that feared Saddam Hussein. Even his neighbors realized that he was harmless after desert storm, and the genocidal sanctions placed on the iraqi population after the first Gulf War. Saddam posed no threat, and the only thing that could be suspected was his possible possession of weapons of mass destruction. If possible possession of WMD is the pretext for war against Saddam, why not attack a country who’s possession of WMD is beyond doubt? Why not attack North Korea? Kim Jong Il is known to have several nuclear weapons, whereas Saddam is merely a suspect of such a “crime”. It seems that the reason North Korea wasn’t attacked is precisely that: they have dangerous weapons, and upwards of 1,000,000 men at the DMZ. As Noam Chomsky points out, the message is clear: Arm up, or the United States Government will crush you! It seems that the ultimate outcome in Iraq will either by total chaos, or a dictatorship elected by radical islamists, who’s ranks are swelling due to US action as we speak. In the latter case, the US Government will have replaced one dictator with another. One can only hope that the benefits of oil and global warmongering outweigh the cost of such destruction.

Iraq and Vietnam are two countries that will be long remembered for being a quagmire for United States troops. Although the United States lost exponentially more men in Vietnam than in Iraq so far, (58,000 compared to 2,878) both wars are/were very unpopular worldwide. However, the proposed invasion of Iraq was extremely unpopular at the outset. Unlike Vietnam, worldwide protests against the invasion (which are the largest anti-war protests to date) started before the war itself did. Furthermore, according to the Pew Research Center, a war conducted by the “coalition” forces would get a worldwide approval of only 10%. Clearly, the Coalition does not represent the forces of liberty and democracy. In fact, Rumsfeld and Bush had declared that they would invade Iraq regardless of the U.N.’s stance on the issue, and regardless of public opinion abroad.  

Although the war in Iraq is arguably even more  unpopular than the Vietnam conflict, both wars are wars of aggression. In the Vietnam war, the United States interfered in proposed elections for a national leader of a united Vietnam because it was fairly obvious that Ho Chi Minh, a communist, would win a landslide victory. In short, the United States sent large numbers of advisors and frontline troops to Vietnam in order to prevent the Vietnamese from voting the wrong way in a free election. In Iraq, the public was mislead into believing that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11, that he was a direct supporter of Al-Queida, that he had WMD, and that he was therefore a threat to the United States. The purpose of the Vietnam War was to stop the spread of an ideology (communism), not of WMD. Today, the public is a little bit more free thinking than at the time of the Vietnam conflict, and although we are far from free of ignorance, the public is able to make better decisions now than it was then. The Vietnam war had more support at the outset, because the world was afraid of the scourge of communism. Today, that is not the case, so people can make a more informed decision when they face the prospect of going to war. Unfortunately, that didn’t stop Bush. However, it did lead do a large amount of dissent, both at home and abroad. This dissent was met by contempt for democracy:

“In the two major European countries, Germany and France, the official government stands corresponded to the views of the large majority of their populations, which unequivocally opposed the war. That led to bitter condemnation by Washington and many commentators.” (Chomsky)

The war in Iraq is eating the heart out of the United States, just as the Vietnam war did 40 years ago. Sadly, the debate is no longer about the best interests of our citizens and soldiers, but about which of our two incompetent major parties will “cut and run” first. Still worse is the fact that this international atrocity is being done in our name, with our taxes, just as Vietnam was.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

The best solution to racism, discrimination, and deficiencies in our economic system is reasonable and intelligent behavior. Time will destroy the last remnants of this old and tiresome problem, but only if society can stop taking an extreme (and hypocritical) position to counter racism.

“Racism will become an ugly memory only when universities teach a valid concept of human nature: one based on the tenets that the individual’s mind is competent, that the human intellect is efficacious, that we possess free will, that individuals are to be judged as individuals—and that deriving one’s identity from one’s race is a corruption.” -Gary Hull, Ph.D.

As Dr. Hull points out so eloquently, celebrating racial differences and valuing individuals based on their race is not the answer to traditional racism and discrimination. On the contrary, such multicultural are racist in and of themselves. If you cannot learn to be colorblind, society will continue to be involved in this infantile catch-22.  

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_diversity

I’ve given this issue more thought ever since I finished my last post on the subject. My opinion regarding multiculturalism and political correctness hasn’t changed and I feel the need to explain why multiculturalism is keeping the problem afloat. Racism is any view that sees skin color. Whether men choose to glorify or frown upon differences in skin color is irrelevent. The problem is simply that most men pay more attention to skin color than to other factors such as hair color. Men do not judge one another based on hair or eye color, so why is skin any different? In fact, it isn’t. Unfortunately, many institutions are too underdeveloped to make such a logical realization. Colleges brag about diversity, and there is many an instance where a minority student has been accepted, and a white student of equal achievement has been deferred. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I for one think that “racism” would be a proper and fitting term to describe such an event. People advocating diversity in this manner are, in essence, racists.

“Advocates of “diversity” claim that because the real world is diverse, the campus should reflect that fact. But why should a campus population “reflect” the general population (particularly the ethnic population)? No answer. In fact, the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning, not to be a demographic mirror of society.” -Michael S. Berliner

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_diversity

The world is a grand meritocracy (fair to say?). People are respected or disregarded based on their achievement and power (fair to say!). The wealth gap that Mr. Conley describes in his works is an example of this. Unfortunately, many if not all minorities are discriminated against in some way. As you may have guessed that is not a direct meritocracy. Instead, it is only the contemporary remains of the old and one-sided contest that was western expansion. The question deserves to be asked, “Why are minorities discriminated against? Why do they have a command of less recources than whites?” A possibility is this: Europe has arguably been the world’s most infuencial region, and all corners of the earth have seen some degree of westernization. Europe spread to the whole world, and it started centuries ago. With the spreading of one culture comes the enslavement of another. History teaches us so. That’s the first part of a simple equation, and I’m sure you can figure out the rest. Enslavement was typically based on race, and its scars remain today. Hence the wealth gap. History is responsible in this sense. However, the contemporary enemies are these: political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, and schools. Michael S. Berliner says it better than I, as he usually does:

“Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: colorblindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.” -Michael S. Berliner

Learn more here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_diversity

The US Armed Forces represent a terrific option for those who are unsure about their future. The Army can pay for college and offer substantial financial support, making it an attractive possibility. The Army has a lot to offer: 

The strength, training and salary you earn as a Soldier in the Army are only a fraction of the overall benefits. The Army also offers money for education, comprehensive health care, generous vacation time, family services and support groups, special pay for special duties and cash allowances to cover the cost of living. -www.goarmy.com

Is that fair? Let the army offer any deal they wish. Deals and offers made by the armed forces for the benefit of the enlisted man/woman are not the draft. Nobody is being impressed into service; men and women enlist because they want to, not because they have to. I fail to see any that anything unjust is involved here. Of course it is likely that the lower-middle class will be the one to find it’s way to the recruitment office, but that’s because they find the Army’s offers beneficial and attractive. The Army simply cannot afford to offer benefits that will motivate the rich to fight. The upper classes can afford college already. If you, my dear reader, are disturbed by poor men in the Government’s Army, then it’s because you respond to war in a visceral manner, not in a rational one (not that I blame you in the least).