“In principio Dio creò il cielo e la terra. La terra era informe e deserta e le tenebre ricoprivano l’abisso e lo spirito di Dio aleggiava sulle acque” (Genesi1,1).

“Mai più mi chinai e nemmeno su un fiore,
più non arrossii nel rubare l’amore
dal momento che Inverno mi convinse che Dio
non sarebbe arrossito rubandomi il mio.

Mi arrestarono un giorno per le donne ed il vino,
non avevano leggi per punire un blasfemo,
non mi uccise la morte, ma due guardie bigotte,
mi cercarono l’anima a forza di botte.

Perché dissi che Dio imbrogliò il primo uomo,
lo costrinse a viaggiare una vita da scemo,
nel giardino incantato lo costrinse a sognare,
a ignorare che al mondo c’e’ il bene e c’è il male.

Quando vide che l’uomo allungava le dita
a rubargli il mistero di una mela proibita
per paura che ormai non avesse padroni
lo fermò con la morte, inventò le stagioni.

… mi cercarono l’anima a forza di botte…

E se furon due guardie a fermarmi la vita,
è proprio qui sulla terra la mela proibita,
e non Dio, ma qualcuno che per noi l’ha inventato,
ci costringe a sognare in un giardino incantato,
ci costringe a sognare in un giardino incantato
ci costringe a sognare in un giardino incantato. ”

(Fabrizio de Andrè, “Un blasfemo”)

“E spera e spera, il Papa arriverà
L’immagino in strada, nei cortei, fra noi
Gridare forte, combattere
Sacrificarsi per chi crede in lui

E l’uomo in bianco scese dal cielo
Ma era al di là dalle barricate
E l’uomo in bianco vide la muerte
Ma era al di là delle barricate
E dittatura e religione fanno l’orgia sul balcone
E dittatura e religione fanno l’orgia

Santiago del Cile
Padre, tuo figlio dov’è?
Santiago del Cile
Io no lo vedo più
Natale di sangue
No, non lo scorderò

Vangelo, pistola
Dimmi la pace qual è?
Santiago del Cile
Padre, tuo figlio dov’è?

Santiago del Cile
Io no lo vedo più
Natale di sangue
No, non lo scorderò
Vangelo, pistola
Dimmi la pace qual è?”

(Litfiba, “Santiago”)

Al giorno d’oggi riesce difficile, ma purtroppo neanche tanto, trovare qualcuno che prenda troppo sul serio la bibbia. E’ chiaro che, per quanto tanta gente possa essere stata riempita di panzane e fregnacce varie, come tutte le generazioni passate e purtroppo anche quelle future, è difficile continui a credere in serpenti parlanti, costole che diventano donne, bambini nati da vergini e tanto tanto altro (roba da cartoni animati di serie b). Sicchè i più cocciuti, coloro che devono difendere a tutti i costi dai “dissacratori” la propria fede, già folle in quanto tale, avanzano teorie di interpretazione metaforica e non letterale dei passi della bibbia, o semplicemente si barricano dietro la giustificazione della fede cieca (cosa può mai la cecità giustificare?). Senza dubbio è più accettabile ascoltare un credente parlare di un’interpretazione metaforica di alcune narrazioni bibliche che non di una loro presa alla lettera.

Ma anche a voler interpretare, il cristianesimo è una finta dottrina volta ad addolcire le masse, lavorarle ai fianchi acchè siano più docili per i governanti di turno, sia del potere temporale che spirituale. Da una parte instillando in loro la rassegnazione, l’obbedienza e dall’altra terrorizzandoli con l’ira di dio. Per quanto riguarda quest’ultima questione, abbiamo un’esempio tratto dalla bibbia (lo giuro, non è il corano):

“1 Vi preoccuperete di mettere in pratica tutto ciò che vi comando; non vi aggiungerai nulla e nulla ne toglierai.
2 Qualora si alzi in mezzo a te un profeta o un sognatore che ti proponga un segno o un prodigio 3 e il segno e il prodigio annunciato succeda ed egli ti dica: Seguiamo dèi stranieri, che tu non hai mai conosciuti, e rendiamo loro un culto, 4 tu non dovrai ascoltare le parole di quel profeta o di quel sognatore; perché il Signore vostro Dio vi mette alla prova per sapere se amate il Signore vostro Dio con tutto il cuore e con tutta l’anima. 5 Seguirete il Signore vostro Dio, temerete lui, osserverete i suoi comandi, obbedirete alla sua voce, lo servirete e gli resterete fedeli. 6 Quanto a quel profeta o a quel sognatore, egli dovrà essere messo a morte, perché ha proposto l’apostasia dal Signore, dal vostro Dio, che vi ha fatti uscire dal paese di Egitto e vi ha riscattati dalla condizione servile, per trascinarti fuori della via per la quale il Signore tuo Dio ti ha ordinato di camminare. Così estirperai il male da te.
7 Qualora il tuo fratello, figlio di tuo padre o figlio di tua madre, o il figlio o la figlia o la moglie che riposa sul tuo petto o l’amico che è come te stesso, t’istighi in segreto, dicendo: Andiamo, serviamo altri dèi, dèi che né tu né i tuoi padri avete conosciuti, 8 divinità dei popoli che vi circondano, vicini a te o da te lontani da una estremità all’altra della terra, 9 tu non dargli retta, non ascoltarlo; il tuo occhio non lo compianga; non risparmiarlo, non coprire la sua colpa. 10 Anzi devi ucciderlo: la tua mano sia la prima contro di lui per metterlo a morte; poi la mano di tutto il popolo; 11 lapidalo e muoia, perché ha cercato di trascinarti lontano dal Signore tuo Dio che ti ha fatto uscire dal paese di Egitto, dalla condizione servile. 12 Tutto Israele lo verrà a sapere, ne avrà timore e non commetterà in mezzo a te una tale azione malvagia.
13 Qualora tu senta dire di una delle tue città che il Signore tuo Dio ti dà per abitare, 14 che uomini iniqui sono usciti in mezzo a te e hanno sedotto gli abitanti della loro città dicendo: Andiamo, serviamo altri dèi, che voi non avete mai conosciuti, 15 tu farai le indagini, investigherai, interrogherai con cura; se troverai che la cosa è vera, che il fatto sussiste e che un tale abominio è stato realmente commesso in mezzo a te, 16 allora dovrai passare a fil di spada gli abitanti di quella città, la voterai allo sterminio, con quanto contiene e passerai a fil di spada anche il suo bestiame. 17 Poi radunerai tutto il bottino in mezzo alla piazza e brucerai nel fuoco la città e l’intero suo bottino, sacrificio per il Signore tuo Dio; diventerà una rovina per sempre e non sarà più ricostruita. 18 Nulla di ciò che sarà votato allo sterminio si attaccherà alle tue mani, perché il Signore desista dalla sua ira ardente, ti conceda misericordia, abbia pietà di te e ti moltiplichi come ha giurato ai tuoi padri, 19 qualora tu ascolti la voce del Signore tuo Dio, osservando tutti i suoi comandi che oggi ti dò e facendo ciò che è retto agli occhi del Signore tuo Dio. ” (Deuteronomio 13)

Ma siete matti? Tutto ciò nel nome del nulla. Di un dio che esiste solo nella mente malata di chi ci crede davvero e pensa di sentire la sua voce. E pensare che questo è un pezzo di bibbia che ho aperto a caso. Non l’ho ancora letta tutta, ma ho intenzione di farlo nonostante nuoccia gravemente alla mia salute peggio di qualunque altro vizio. Mi ripugna e infuria, come altrettanto mi ripugna e mi infuria il fatto che una tale dottrina sia così largamente diffusa, abbia tanti fedeli e riesca a fare tanto proselitismo.

Il cattolicesimo, sin dagli inizi, ha attecchito maggiormente liddove si trovava ignoranza, ed è tuttora così. E quando dico ignoranza non bisogna pensare solo ai poveri che non potevano permettersi di studiare, ma anche a coloro che, pur essendo benestanti o ricchi, non si sono mai interessati a capirci davvero qualcosa sulla propria natura e su quella di tutto ciò che ci sta intorno. Già perchè “è più facile dominare chi non crede in niente” (non ricordo chi è l’autore di questa citazione). Così è altrettanto facile dominare chi crede in dottrine come quella cristiana che, stando a guardare il valore sostanziale e pratico dei suoi dogmi, si può tradurre in quel niente che rende molto facile il gioco dei marionettai, proprio perchè tramite questi dogmi ti inoculano quei principi che a loro fa comodo che tu faccia tuoi. E’ quindi un niente in relazione a quelli che sono davvero i valori e le necessità umani.

Il cattolicesimo insegna ai popoli ad essere deboli, giustifica i potenti di turno ad essere manipolatori e feroci in nome di dio e travisa i significati di ogni cosa. Dà anche degli insegnamenti giusti, ma solo perchè tali “insegnamenti” rientrano comunque in quella categoria di cose che il buon senso, di cui ogni essere umano è dotato, sa già da sè che sono giuste. La presenza di queste ovvietà tra i loro precetti, starebbero a giustificare le altre frescacce e non potrebbero non esserci perchè il complesso dogmatico altrimenti suonerebbe troppo anomalo quasi a qualunque povero disperato in cerca di certezze e di tutte quelle altre grandi cose che la chiesa cattolica e la sua religione, in tutte le sue forme, millantano di donare al genere umano, o che donano davvero ma sono insegnamenti pessimi passati per supremi, come il porgere l’altra guancia.

Il cattolicesimo da speranza, nel senso che invita, spinge i suoi discepoli a vivere di speranza (e sappiamo che fine fa chi di speranza vive). Ad avere fede in un essere supremo che si “manifesta” a dettare legge solo ad uno alla volta e solo se si trova isolato dai suoi simili, non può apparire a tutti. Ancora a credere in una sua incarnazione in un tale che nasce da una vergine (?), in una grotta, il 25 dicembre, che viene torturato e crocifisso per i nostri peccati (??), che resuscita dopo tre giorni e due donne ne vanno a dare l’annuncio eccetera eccetera. Per di più, mi sorprende che a nessuno dei fedeli venga il dubbio, che in realtà è una dote di cui può essere dotato solo chi usa la ragione, che la storiella di cristo e compagnia bella non sia affatto originale. Troviamo tante analogie, alcune delle quali documentate niente meno che da sant’Agostino, in altre saghe di altre divinità di altre religioni molto più antiche, come quelle del mitraismo, del culto di Horus, di Krishna e chissà quante altre. Per quanto riguarda le analogie con il dio Horus, egli era il figlio del dio Osiris, nacque da una vergine il  25 dicembre (come tutti gli altri), fu tentato quando si trovava da solo nel deserto, aveva poteri taumaturgici (curava i malati anche col solo tocco), camminava sulle acque, cacciava i demoni, resuscitò Asar che, come Lazzaro,  significa “dio ha soccorso”, aveva 12 apostoli, anche lui è stato crocifisso e dopo tre giorni  due donne ne annunciarono la resurrezione. Avete letto bene, stavo parlando proprio di Horus.

Eusebio di Cesarea dice “…. anche se noi siamo certamente un popolo giovane, e questo innegabilmente nuovo nome di Cristiani è diventato noto solo ultimamente tra tutte le nazioni, ciò nonostante la nostra vita e modo di condotta insieme ai nostri principi religiosi, non sono stati inventati recentemente da noi, ma quasi dagli inizi dell’uomo furono costruiti sui concetti naturali di quelli che amarono Dio nel lontano passato…”

Il fatto che troviamo così tante analogie tra le fiabe del cattolicesimo e quelle delle antiche credenze pagane, significa che “squadra che vince non si cambia”, anche se in questo caso si parla di “tattica” che vince. Infatti i manipolatori di tutti i tempi, nel costruire miti idonei ai loro scopi, si sono sempre ispirati a quelli precedenti ricalcando la loro storia proprio perchè l’inoculazione di determinati principi, tramite varie figure, storie, personaggi e quant’altro,  nelle genti ignoranti, ha sempre funzionato. Questi manipolatori, nei millenni, hanno mutato tanti nomi, forme, collocazione nel sistema di potere (col mutare dei vari sistemi di potere nel tempo e nello spazio) e modi di abbigliarsi. Dei, semidei, sciamani, stregoni, alchimisti. Da qualche secolo tutto ciò è convogliato nel sistema massonico ed ecclesiastico (almeno nei paesi ad alto tasso di cattolicismo). Quello massonico è già a sua volta mutato nel tempo per quanto riguarda i loro riti, il loro reale legame all’esoterismo ed alla conoscenza della natura umana e dell’universo. Infatti oggi la combriccola massonica, che ha anche subito varie scissioni, preferisce relegare le proprie riunioni più alla macchinazione di inciuci di ogni genere, tra i suoi adepti, ed a riti orgiastici (per carità, su questo nulla in contrario), piuttosto che alla crescita spirituale, cosa cui un tempo qualcuno di loro si dedicava.

Ma torniamo al cattolicesimo ed ai manipolatori. Circa due anni fa mi sono imbattuto in un libro di cui non avevo nemmeno mai sentito parlare ma che, parlando di argomenti analoghi a questo articolo, la mia ragazza (grazie Ale!) mi ha suggerito: 1984 di Eric Arthur Blair, alias George Orwell. La storia è ambientato in un futuristico ma non troppo 1984, appunto. Il libro è stato scritto nel 1948, quindi il titolo ne è l’anagramma e non può certo essere una coincidenza. Infatti il significato di questo titolo sta in un messaggio preciso di Orwell ai propri lettori: la storia che vi si svolge è ambientata in un futuro, si, ma non troppo lontano. Infatti suona più come un avvertimento che come un semplice romanzo di fantascienza.

Nella trama troviamo il personaggio principale, Winston Smith, che vive in un mondo suddiviso in tre mega-nazioni costantemente in guerra tra loro, Oceania, Eurasia ed Estasia. Queste sono dominate ognuna da un solo grande, unico, potente partito, ognuno con un solo grande capo. Lui vive nella Oceania in cui vige la dittatura del Partito al cui vertice si trova il Grande Fratello. Egli è, tra le tante cose, l’occhio che tutto vede e tutto sa, grazie alle spie (ognuno è obbligato a denunciare anche il fratello se si mostra contrario ai principi del Partito, vedi Deuteronomio 13) ed ai teleschermi presenti in ogni casa. Winston lavora al “Ministero della Verità”, un organo del partito che si occupa di riscrivere la storia a seconda delle necessità del momento, e sulla cui “bianca facciata” era possibile leggere “in eleganti caratteri, i tre slogan del partito:

LA GUERRA E’ PACE

LA LIBERTA’ E’ SCHIAVITU’

L’IGNORANZA E’ FORZA”

Bene, leggendo questo illuminante libro, più volte il mio cervello è andato ad associare il Partito alla chiesa, per i suoi metodi ed i suoi fini. Allora, per togliermi la curiosità di sapere se qualcun’altro avesse già pensato a queste analogie, ho fatto una ricerca su Google scrivendo “1984 orwell chiesa partito” ed ho trovato un documento interessantissimo scritto dalla prof.ssa Simonetta Ronchi Della Rocca, dell’università di Torino che parla approfonditamente proprio di questo parallelismo. E’ paurosamente esplicativo e lo riporto di seguito per intero:

“Paradossi, ambiguità e scienza in 1984

Simonetta Ronchi Della Rocca

1984 è un testo ricchissimo, che può essere analizzato da molteplici punti di vista: io vorrei qui guardarlo, sulla base della mia cultura scientifica, da un’angolatura molto parziale, per evidenziarne la struttura logica. Infatti 1984 è un raffinato gioco logico, che stupisce per ampiezza e rigore. Il gioco logico è essenzialmente condotto usando lo strumento del paradosso. Ma essendo duplice la natura stessa del paradosso, usi intrecciati di questo possono avere effetti molteplici. Ci conviene quindi cominciare “ab ovo”, per chiederci: che cosa è un paradosso? Paradosso (dal greco parà-doxon) significa letteralmente: oltre il senso comune. Questa definizione può però generare due diverse interpretazioni, a seconda della semantica che vogliamo adottare per l’accezione “senso comune”.
1)    “Senso comune” può significare “opinione corrente”. Quindi, se assumiamo (d’accordo con Manzoni) che gli individui possano essere anche intelligenti e colti, se presi singolarmente, ma che le masse possano essere solo stupide e ignoranti, l’opinione corrente è quasi sempre sbagliata. In questa accezione, il paradosso può indicare una pura e semplice verità, troppo sottile per essere capita dalla massa. L’affermazione che la terra è rotonda in epoca medioevale era paradossale, anche se adesso sappiamo essere vera. Del resto Shopenauer diceva: “ la verità nasce come paradosso e muore come ovvietà”. (Paradosso ontologico, o positivo)
2)    Se invece si intende come “senso comune” la verità, nel senso di verità logica e quindi universalmente accettata, il paradosso diventa un argomento che logicamente non può essere spiegato, una assurdità. Ad esempio, il paradosso del mentitore: “questa frase è falsa”, che consiste in una affermazione che non puo’ essere né vera né falsa. (Paradosso logico o negativo).
Ovviamente, visto che siamo in un libro di Orwell, e conosciamo la sua matrice genuinamente socialista, non possiamo pensare di poter dare ai paradossi di 1984 il primo significato (verità troppo raffinate per il volgo). Possiamo assumere quindi, in prima istanza, di trovarci di fronte a paradossi del secondo tipo, cioè ad assurdità.
In effetti gli slogan del Partito sono paradossali: “La guerra è pace”, “La libertà è schiavitù”, “L’ignoranza è forza”. Sono paradossi logici che tendono a minare la capacità di ragionamento.
La logica è stata inventata da Aristotele come formalizzazione del ragionamento corretto, e alcuni principi della logica sono completamente introiettati nel nostro modo di ragionare. Il principio basilare della logica aristotelica, o classica, è il principio del terzo escluso, cioè il principio per cui una affermazione è o vera o falsa, non esistono altre alternative. Qui si asserisce in uno slogan l’identità semantica di due parole che sono opposte l’una all’altra secondo l’interpretazione ovvia, negando così il principio del terzo escluso. Linguisticamente  si tratta un ossimoro, logicamente è un paradosso.
L’esercizio del paradosso porta al bi-pensiero (doublethink), che, nella definizione di Orwell, consiste nel «sapere e non sapere; credere fermamente di dire verità sacrosante mentre si pronunciano le menzogne più artefatte, ritenere contemporaneamente valide due opinioni che si annullano a vicenda, sapendole contradditorie tra di loro e tuttavia credendo in entrambe, fare uso della logica contro la logica…e saper anche applicare il medesimo procedimento al procedimento stesso»1. Per Julia, più giovane e vissuta sempre nella realtà del Partito, il gioco logico è già riuscito: «…ai suoi occhi la differenza tra vero e falso non era poi così importante».
Introiettare questo atteggiamento mentale, come alla fine del libro si sforza di fare Winston Smith, significa addestrarsi a non ragionare più: «L’addestramento implicava anche una sorta di ginnastica mentale, vale a dire l’abilità nel fare in un certo momento un uso raffinatissimo della logica, per poi passare un attimo dopo alla cecità di fronte agli errori logici più marchiani. La stupidità era indispensabile quanto l’intelligenza, ed era altrettanto difficile ad acquisirsi. ».

E a questo punto ci sembra di aver capito tutto: Orwell svela, con l’uso dei paradossi logici, il gioco del potere che cerca di annebbiare l’intelligenza per guadagnare consenso. E ne ammiriamo la capacità di svelare strumenti usati non solo in contesti politici di regimi dittatoriali (pensiamo ai processi ai dissidenti sovietici) ma anche nelle nostre situazioni apparentemente libere, dove ormai la politica è divenuta un prodotto pubblicitario, e quindi da trattare con le relative regole di marketing.  Recentemente il responsabile della pubblicità della Coca Cola dichiarava, in un’intervista, di considerare più efficace l’inserimento di uno spot in un programma cretino piuttosto che in uno intelligente, perchè il programma cretino, procurando un’abbassamento della tensione intellettuale, rende gli spettatori più ricettivi al messaggio pubblicitario, che certo perderebbe molta della sua forza se analizzato con intelligenza.
Ma dove Orwell rivela la sua genialità logica è alla fine del libro, quando i giochi del Partito sono disvelati, prima dal testo di Goldstein e poi dai discorsi di O’Brien a Winston Smith imprigionato. Qui improvvisamente gli slogan paradossali cambiano aspetto, diventano uno strumento duplice: sono assurdità finalizzate a schiacciare il libero pensiero della maggioranza delle persone, ma hanno anche contenuti di verità, se analizzati alla luce di una logica “diversa”. In fondo la verità di una affermazione dipende dal contesto in cui questa viene analizzata, e O’Brien sa cambiare il contesto con un’abilità raffinatissima. Ad esempio, come spiega O’Brien lo slogan “la libertà è schiavitù”? Primo passo logico: la frase asserisce una eguaglianza tra due termini, e l’uguaglianza gode della proprietà simmetrica, cioè si preserva scambiando i termini tra di loro. Quindi “La schiavitù è libertà”. E poi basta giocare con il contesto: «Da solo, libero, l’essere umano è sempre sconfitto. Deve essere per forza così, perchè l’essere umano è destinato a morire, e la morte è la più grande delle sconfitte. Se però riesce a compiere un atto di sottomissione totale ed esplicita, se riesce ad uscire dal proprio io, se riesce a fondersi con il Partito in modo da essere lui il Partito, diviene onnipotente e immortale».  Sembra assurdo, ancora? Ma se sostituiamo alla parola partito la parola Chiesa, abbiamo la esplicita promessa di immortalità della religione cristiana. Del resto Orwell stesso accosta la politica del potere assoluto del Partito a quella della Chiesa cattolica.
Ed ecco che i paradossi non sono più solo del secondo tipo, cioè paradossi negativi, sono contemporaneamente anche  del primo tipo, perchè contengono verità troppo difficili per il sentire comune.
L’abilità di Orwell è diabolica: alzi la mano chi non è stato almeno un po’ convinto dai discorsi di O’Brien!
Ma perchè O’Brien rivela a Winston Smith i meccanismi che il partito usa per piegare le coscienze? Potrebbe ottenere la sua resa anche senza esplicitarli, anzi, sembrerebbe più semplice piegarne la coscienza senza disvelare la sete di potere che è la sola giustificazione dell’intero sistema. Un maggior uso di menzogne forse qui sarebbe stato più utile. Si potrebbe pensare ad un espediente letterario: il lettore deve sapere non solo il “come” (già rivelato dal libro di Goldstein) ma anche il “perchè”. Ma l’autore potrebbe rivelarlo al lettore senza per questo rivelarlo a Winston Smith. Il fatto è che il lettore “è” Winston Smith, e non deve solo capire, ma deve provare quello che Winston Smith prova. Quindi il procedimento usato da O’Brien per piegare Winston Smith è il procedimento usato da Orwell per illustrare al lettore la struttura del potere di Oceania. Nella definizione del bi-pensiero, Orwell dice che bisogna «..saper anche applicare il medesimo procedimento al procedimento stesso», e lui per primo mette in atto l’insegnamento, applicandolo alla costruzione del romanzo.  Un bellissimo gioco circolare, che fa ricordare alcuni scritti di Borges, ma in particolare l’introduzione di Carl Gustav Jung al Libro dei Mutamenti cinese (I CHING), che era usato come oracolo attraverso un complicato sistema di codifica della forma assunta da un gruppo di steli di millefoglie. Jung, per illustrare l’interrogazione dei Ching, racconta minuziosamente e interpreta il responso alla sua interrogazione, che consiste nel chiedere ai Ching come scrivere l’introduzione al libro stesso!

Ma il gioco della logica è troppo pericoloso per permetterlo a tutti. E allora lo strumento per vietarlo è la neo-lingua (newspeak). La costruzione della neo-lingua è paradossale in sè. «Tu credi, immagino, che il nostro compito consista nell’inventare nuove parole. Neanche per idea! Noi le parole le distruggiamo, a dozzine, a centinaia» dice Syme a Winston Smith. La neo-lingua si basa sulla associazione pensiero=parola. Cancellare una parola dal linguaggio alla fine impedirà di formulare un pensiero attorno ad essa. «Non capisci che lo scopo principale a cui tende la neolingua è quello di restringere al massimo la sfera di azione del pensiero?».
1984 svela meccanismi che sono profondamente attuali: la creazione del linguaggio “politicamente corretto” segue un piano che è proprio quello della neo-lingua: vietare la parola, non offensiva in sè ma che può essere usata in accezioni offensive, proprio per abituare il pensiero ad assumere invece denotazioni solo positive. L’accezione “portatore di handicap” o (peggio ancora) “diversamente abile” sono ridicole tanto quanto la parola “ocoparlare” (duckspeak) in neo-lingua!
L’associazione tra capacità logica e ragionamento politico è ben rappresentata dalla parola “stop-reato” (crimestop), che «implica la capacità di arrestarsi, come per istinto, sulla soglia di qualsiasi pensiero pericoloso. Comprende anche la capacità di non cogliere le analogie, di non percepire gli errori di logica, di fraintendere le argomentazioni più elementari quando sono contrarie al Socing».
La cancellazione delle parole non è il solo strumento con cui la neo-lingua si propone di perseguire il suo scopo. L’altro è l’eliminazione dell’ambiguità semantica. Per definizione un linguaggio è semanticamente ambiguo quando una sua frase può assumere più di un significato. Orwell ha chiaro che l’ambiguità del linguaggio naturale è una sua grande ricchezza, perchè ne aumenta l’espressività. Il progetto della neo-lingua apparentemente sembra del tutto sensato: ripulire il linguaggio in modo da renderlo non ambiguo, quindi tale che ogni frase abbia un solo, unico significato. A prima vista l’unico scopo sembra essere quello di eliminare possibilità di incomprensioni ed errate interpretazioni. Un sogno positivo, quindi. Come questo poi si adatti alla trasmissione di idee politicamente corrette viene spiegato chiaramente nell’Appendice al libro, dedicato alla struttura della neo-lingua: «Il lessico della neolingua era articolato in modo da fornire un’espressione precisa e spesso molto sottile per ogni significato che un membro del Partito potesse esprimere, escludendo al tempo stesso ogni altro significato, compresa la possibilità di giungervi in maniera indiretta».
All’epoca di Orwell non esisteva ancora una formalizzazione completa di un linguaggio non ambiguo. Ad una analisi superficiale, sembrerebbe non ambiguo il linguaggio della scienza, basato sulla matematica, e usato per secoli dagli scienziati per veicolare i loro pensieri. Invece ad una analisi raffinata il linguaggio scientifico è profondamente ambiguo. E’ un linguaggio creato per comunicare concetti precisi, ma si intende che debba essere usato da scienziati, che sono pur sempre esseri umani; di conseguenza funziona per la formalizzazione della scienza solo in quanto gli interlocutori sono in grado di disambiguarlo facilmente, sulla base della loro conoscenza scientifica comune. Il linguaggio formale con cui si comunica con il calcolatore è un esempio (e forse l’unico) di linguaggio veramente non ambiguo. Non a caso si usa con una macchina, che non è in grado di risolvere l’ambiguità. Questo chiarisce lo scopo ultimo della creazione della neo-lingua: trasformare le persone in macchine, che non hanno pensiero. Interessantissima riflessione di Orwell, in un periodo in cui la struttura dei linguaggi di programmazione non era certo di conoscenza comune!

Ho parlato finora di paradossi, di ambiguità, ma nel titolo ho citato anche la scienza. La scienza sembra non trovare molto spazio nel romanzo, di sicuro non ha spazio l’applicazione della scienza, cioè la tecnologia. In questo, 1984 si distacca totalmente dai romanzi ambientati nel futuro, in particolare dai romanzi di fantascienza, che in genere si affidano a mirabolanti invenzioni tecnologiche per procurarci lo straniamento di una ambientazione nel futuro. L’unica invenzione tecnologica presente in 1984, il teleschermo, non è altro che l’unione di tecnologie già esistenti all’epoca in cui il libro fu scritto, la televisione e la ripresa cinematografica. L’effetto di straniamento è procurato in modo molto sottile, fin dall’inizio, con l’orologio che batte 13 colpi (in un paese in cui le ore vanno da 1 a 12) e quando si parla di distanze in chilometri (in un paese che allora usava i piedi e le miglia). [Tra l’altro, nella prima edizione, la parola “chilometro” era stata sostituita dal tipografo dalla parola “miglio”, convinto che si trattasse di un refuso!] Quindi Orwell non “usa” la scienza, ma fa alcune riflessioni interessanti sulla scienza. Nel mondo di 1984, non solo la neo-lingua ha distrutto già un mucchio di parole, ma molte conoscenze scientifiche si sono già dimenticate. In particolare, la parola “scienza” non esiste più. Spiega O’Brien: «Oggi esistono due soli tipi di scienziati: da una parte un essere a metà tra lo psicologo e l’inquisitore, intento a ….sperimentare tutto ciò che induca un essere umano a dire la verità, dai farmaci all’elettroshock… dall’altra il chimico, il fisico, il biologo, che della sua disciplina utilizza solo quanto serve a togliere la vita» o a toglierne le parti più rivoluzionarie, come il piacere sessuale: «Aboliremo l’orgasmo. I nostri neurologi ci stanno già lavorando». Il resto non serve, O’Brien lo dichiara apertamente: «Quando avremo raggiunto l’onnipotenza, non avremo più bisogno della scienza». Orwell vede molto chiaramente la connessione tra scienza e libertà di pensiero, e quindi non può far vivere quella in un contesto in cui non ha più spazio questo. Nella simbologia di 1984, “2+2=4” rappresenta l’affermazione paradigmatica della verità e della libertà. L’ultimo pensiero di Winston Smith, prima di essere arrestato è «Il futuro apparteneva a loro (i prolet)… Voi eravate i morti, ma potevate aver parte in quel futuro se mantenevate in vita la mente così come essi (i prolet) mantenevano in vita il corpo, tramandando quella dottrina segreta secondo cui due più due fa quattro». E non a caso Winston Smith è completamente asservito nel momento in cui O’Brien lo guida, con l’esercizio del bi-pensiero, ad affermare che due più due fa cinque.

1 Le citazioni da 1984 si riferiscono alla traduzione di Stefano Manferlotti (Oscar Mondadori).”

Ed è così che la chiesa ed il cattolicesimo possono vantare due miliardi di credenti, o, almeno, di battezzati, su un totale di sei miliardi di persone. I quattro miliardi rimanenti sono divisi tra Eurasia ed Estasia, ops! Chiedo scusa, è stato un lapsus, volevo dire tra le altre grandi e piccoli culti e relativi enti e capi religiosi, come ebraismo, islamismo, induismo e altri.

Fortunatamente c’è ancora tanta gente che tramanda e mantiene la sanità mentale e morale della ragione umana e dell’umano sentire, dell’istinto, dell’inconscio. Vorrei che fosse sempre di più ma pare destinata ad essere sempre meno, dal momento che nei secoli, oltre alla religione, si sono aggiunti tanti altri modelli di vita sordidi diffusi da ciarlatani vari, televisioni, programmi televesivi demenziali  e disinformatori passati per buoni (il principio di “la libertà è schiavitù” ecc.) e tanto tanto altro pattume che continua ad obnubilare le menti umane, ad uso e consumo di chi si tramanda la vera conoscienza e le vere verità segretamente, per linea di sangue (nemmeno in tutti i casi) e per tradizione gerarchica all’interno dei propri circoli privati, logge, lobby di potere e quant’altro. Sempre le stesse oligarchie che tengono il raziocinio per se stessi diffondendo il più possibile l’ignoranza,  lo sragionamento, distraendo dall’idea della ricerca della verità con mezzi meschini come la televisione e le loro riviste “specializzate”, i giornali,  la necessità del lavoro per la sopravvivenza e con le religioni instillando obbedienza e, quanto più possibile, demenza.

Com’è possibile essere così ciechi? E’ possibile con secoli e secoli di indottrinamento, disinformazione passata per informazione e lavaggi mentali di massa, tramandati di padre in figlio, per generazioni e generazioni, a scuola, al catechismo, in casa, in tv, sui libri, sui giornali, ovunque. Come si suol dire, le vie del signore sono infinite, no?

Tornerò sull’argomento con altri articoli con trattazioni di passi della bibbia aperti a caso. Fatelo anche voi, nel blogroll ho aggiunto un link alla bibbia online. Cliccate a caso tra i tanti passi della bibbia e divertitevi ed adiratevi e diffondete il vostro pensiero. Questo è l’unico modo di diffondere la sanità mentale e morale, la condivisione della vera conoscenza e della vera informazione.

Ms Scarlet is back with the bit between her teeth.  No longer playing with her bush, but indulging in a spot of rubbing down and touching up, I believe. And her merry chorus is in fine form. 

But really, what could a “live/work” unit be?  Is that where Winston Smith lives these days? 

http://scarlet-blue-scarlet.blogspot.com/2009/11/dreams-and-schemes.html

The special music series that I have developed for Fordmodels.tv continues with this interview I did with Stones Throw recording artist James Pants. The music in the video comes from his forthcoming records The Seven Seals, which will come out 8 December 2009 on Stones Throw. James Pants cites amongst other sources the Book of Revelation as inspiration for the album’s darker themes. The album artwork to The Seven Seals by artist Liger is a sort of William Blake meets Winston Smith visual amalgam. Liger’s original album artwork will be up for auction at Ebay following the December release of The Seven Seals. The record itself is brilliant both in concept and execution. Its sound is much closer to his excellent Ice Castles than Welcome, but is nonetheless wholly James Pants.

I forgot to go to Kreator last night and spent my night scanning images from my notebook, I stuck down a heap of images from old magazines so i can make collages and scanned em so i can use them all on photoshop.

I did scan some pieces I’d made by hand and will post them up soon too – I like them a lot, a bit like Winston Smith. Also on the subject of W. Smith I bought the Burning Hearts CD with his art on it for $3 so i can display that on my wall now — the cd is for sale on ebay though – they remind me of Oasis and I HATE OASIS!

Here’s something I made an age ago:

I made a cake the day before – look at it.

I sat down to watch this again because I’ve just read Ray Bradbury’s classic science fiction novel, Fahrenheit 451 (for review go to theplanetharrisbookblog) and saw certain parallels. Bradbury’s take on the dehumanization of mankind is that reading falls slowly out of fashion and is eventually outlawed when the authorities realize that those who sit and stare at wide-screen pap from the comfort of their own living rooms are less likely to harbour anti-establishment thoughts.

Kurt Wimmer’s film echoes this in part: war and hatred have been declared symptoms of a disease called human emotion and thus all materials which might encourage emotion, positively or negatively, have been banned. Just as in Bradbury’s novel, these materials are burned, not just books but works of art, music, perfume – anything that can cause an upsurge of feeling. To reinforce the deadening of human emotional responses, everyone takes regular doses of an emotion-inhibiting drug.

Christian Bale is perfectly cast as the government agent who is forced to reassess the destruction and killing that his work necessitates. Taye Diggs appears to take malicious delight in portraying the new partner thrust upon Bale after the removal of Sean Bean, and grows into his eventual nemesis. As the plot moves from Bradbury-style critique to Orwellian totalitarian nightmare, Bale’s impassive glare falters and the Matrix-alike fight scenes and special effects begin to take over. In one sense this is a pity as there could have been a subtler, more thought provoking movie to be made from this material. Yet the action is brilliantly choreographed and the combination of martial arts and handguns provides a spectacular visual treat.

What does it say about movie makers that pretty much most modern films of this kind end with the hope of regime change? The Matrix, Aeon Flux, The Island, Ultraviolet (also by Wimmer) – they build to finales with huge explosions and the probability, if not the certainty, that the plucky underdog protagonists have ushered in a new era of democracy. The current American dream played out on the silver screen as a response to the ongoing and seemingly unwinnable wars in Iraq and (especially) Afghanistan? Or simply a need to throw a positive spin on movies which have cost billions to make and therefore need to recoup those billions at the box office by giving the public what they think they want?

While I enjoy this sort of film and love the indulgence of such bang-tastic denouements, I also need open-ended narratives, ones which leave the viewer with much to consider rather than closing off all but the most optimistic and obvious readings of the story. For this reason I fervently pray that the rumoured remake of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four stays faithful to the novel and does not decide we need a high-octane ending in which Winston Smith gets the girl and brings about the downfall of Big Brother.

Existem diversas formas de se expressar e a arte é, sem dúvida, uma das mais poderosas — quem sabe uma das mais variadas e abrangentes.

Partindo disso, por meio das artes gráficas o paulista Kauê Garcia pode ser considerado um grande comunicador!

Através de colagens com imagens publicitárias, fotos de família, retículas de outdoors e coisas achadas (ou roubadas, afinal o vandalismo não deixa de ser uma intervenção), suas obras transparecem visões críticas, sejam elas sociais ou religiosas.

Não à toa, sua exposição — que abre dia 19 de setembro, às 19h, no Centro Cultural da Juventude, na Vila Nova Cachoeirinha, em São Paulo/SP — chama-se Arte Punk: Distorção do Desconstruído.

Conversamos com o bem humorado Kauê que nos falou sobre seu trabalho e suas influências — entre elas Winston Smith, Gee Vaucher, Hüsker Dü, Black Flag, Leptospirose, Lourenço Mutarelli e Stewart Home.

Então fiquem ligados porque a exposição fica na CCJ (Av. Deputado Emílio Carlos, 3.641, ao lado do terminal Cachoeirinha) até o dia 31 de outubro!

Para ler a entrevista e conhecer o trabalho do Kauê, clique aqui!

By K. Reed
12 August 2009

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/goog-a12.shtml

The following is the first of a two-part article on the Google Book Search settlement. The concluding part will be posted August 13.

In George Orwell’s 1984, protagonist Winston Smith secretly obtains a copy of what is known as “the book” in his quest to learn the truth about the dystopian world in which he lives. His inquiry is cut short, however, when he is arrested by the Thought Police for reading the forbidden text.

Paradoxically, if you locate 1984 with Google Book Search and try to read the novel online, you will likely experience an Orwellian moment. After viewing just a few pages, the following warning appears: “You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book.” While nothing found on Google Book Search is banned (not yet, as far as we know), obviously someone, or more accurately something, is watching you!

As it turns out, Google’s copy of Orwell’s 1949 classic is a digital duplicate of the 1990 Signet Classic edition and is republished under copyright restrictions. In this case, Book Search tracks the number of pages viewed and, when the limit stipulated by the copyright holder is reached, Google cuts you off. If you wish to find out the fate of our poor Winston Smith, you will have to purchase a copy of 1984 or borrow it from your local library.

Google provides the following explanation: “Many of the books you can preview on Google Book Search are still in copyright, and are displayed with the permission of publishers and authors. You can browse these ‘limited preview’ titles just as you would in a bookstore, but you won’t be able to see more pages than the copyright holder has made available.

“When you’ve accessed the maximum number of pages allowed for a book, any remaining pages will be omitted from your preview. You can order full copies of any book using the ‘Buy this book’ links to the right of the preview page.” Google also provides links to libraries that can lend you the title.

“Limited preview” of copyrighted works is just one of the ways books can be viewed on Google Book Search. Titles in the public domain are displayed in “full view” and can even be downloaded onto local computers for later offline reading. Two other options are: “snippet view,” in which basic information about the book is displayed along with a few snippets of text that show the search phrase in context; and “no preview,” in which only the basic information is displayed like in a library catalog.

What is Google Book Search?

Google Book Search is a system that marries the scanned images of printed book pages with the conversion of their content into searchable text. When a book in Google’s database is found in a Web search (using Google, of course), the Book Search item will appear as one of the results in the list. Google promises that its Book Search entry will not appear above the fourth item. In the 1984 example above, a search for “George Orwell 1984” yields the Book Search link as the fifth item.

The company changed the name of its service from the original Google Print to Google Book Search because of the way people actually used the technology. Most often, readers come across a title within Book Search during a standard Web search of a word or phrase. When Google locates the search phrase in the text of one of its online books, the title is shown in the results list. When the title is clicked, the search phrase is highlighted throughout the viewable portion of the book in the Book Search window.

Google’s Book Search is no doubt a significant technological achievement. Announced in 2004 in partnership with Harvard, the University of Michigan, the New York Public Library, Oxford and Stanford, and called the Google Print Library Project, it was established to digitize the entire collections of these institutions. The combined number of volumes in these libraries is estimated at more than 15 million titles. As of October 2008, Google reported that 7 million books had been scanned and made available through Book Search.

Indeed, the creation of the universal digital library—access to everything ever written, by everyone, everywhere, at any time—will be a significant social accomplishment. The technical implications were summed up creatively by Kevin Kelly in his May 14, 2006, New York Times Magazine article entitled “Scan This Book!”: “All this material is currently contained in all the libraries and archives of the world. When fully digitized, the whole lot could be compressed (at current technological rates) onto 50 petabyte hard disks [1 petabyte is equal to 1000 terabytes].

Today you need a building about the size of a small-town library to house 50 petabytes. With tomorrow’s technology, it will all fit onto your iPod. When that happens, the library of all libraries will ride in your purse or wallet—if it doesn’t plug directly into your brain with thin white cords.”

But is this really what Google has in mind? Google’s Book Search is not the only online library of printed books. It is distinct from government or non-profit online library projects like American Memory, Project Gutenberg or

Internet Archive in that it is privately owned and funded by the most powerful of Internet companies. From its inception, the Book Search project has been a priority for the founders of Google, Sergey Brin and Larry Page. They see it as a critical component of Google’s mission to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

As one of the world’s largest publicly traded Internet technology companies with a market capitalization of approximately $140 billion, Google has been the subject of considerable criticism. Despite the company’s efforts to prove itself harmless (the informal corporate slogan is “Don’t be evil”), Google has been attacked on a number of fronts: for violations of privacy by tracking and logging user search activity, for collaborating with the Chinese government’s censorship and surveillance program and for gathering user data to feed its enormous advertising revenue requirements. It has even been taken to task for the excessive amounts of energy required to power its estimated 700,000 servers with up to 8 petabytes of memory.

Clearly, these aspects of Google’s corporate operations are examples of the negative social and political implications of the world’s information organizer run on the basis of private ownership and the profit motive. This is what imparts to the Google Book Search system its bittersweet character.

The contradictions embedded in the Book Search technology are examples of a fact of modern life: digital media technologies are outstripping the legal and social forms within which they were born. As with the controversies over sharing recorded music (Napster) and uploading copied videos (YouTube), the inevitable conversion of the entire back catalog of the printed word into digital information on the Internet has thrown the publishing business, the copyright system, the government and Google itself into turmoil.

Our digital world is revolutionizing the things we have up-to-now taken as given in our lives: the book, book publishing and the library. These critically important developments in the history of human culture are being merged together and transformed into something entirely new. As with Gutenberg’s invention of the mass production of printing type (and the consequent expansion of literacy) and its intersection with the emergence of capitalist society in the Middle Ages, so too the current digital media revolution represents one of the technological foundations of the emerging socialist transformation of society. However, there looms the very real possibility that this technological achievement will be harnessed for destructive and reactionary purposes instead of being used for progress and the betterment of humanity as a whole.

What are the issues in the 2005 copyright dispute?

Initially, Google’s interpretation of copyright law came into conflict with that of the American Association of Publishers (AAP) and the Authors Guild (AG). Both of these organizations filed independent class-action infringement suits in 2005 (The McGraw-Hill Companies et al. v. Google Inc. and The Authors Guild et al. v. Google Inc.) aimed at halting the Book Search project.

The plaintiffs claimed that Google had violated copyright law by not obtaining authorization from copyright holders of literary works before digitally duplicating their books and putting them online. They additionally sought injunctive relief for what they considered “Google’s planned unauthorized commercial use” of the books.

Google defended its program on the grounds that creating searchable copies of books on the Internet constitutes “fair use” and is in keeping with the intent of US copyright law. As explained on their Book Search site: “Copyright law is supposed to ensure that authors and publishers have an incentive to create new work, not stop people from finding out that the work exists. By helping people find books, we believe we can increase the incentive to publish them. After all, if a book isn’t discovered, it won’t be bought…. That’s why we firmly believe that this project is good news for everybody who reads, writes, publishes and sells books.”

After nearly two years of behind-the-scenes legal work, an out-of-court deal was reached on October 28, 2008. Google announced that the settlement with the AAP and AG satisfied the interests of all three parties. The agreement (available here) establishes a framework for online republication of out-of-print books that are both in- and out-of-copyright as well as in-copyright works that are readily available in bookstores. A compensation structure called the Book Rights Registry is planned for participating authors and publishers who agree to opt-in to the Book Search program.

The settlement defines a book as a published or publicly distributed set of written or printed sheets of paper bound together in a hard copy. It specifically excludes periodicals, unpublished personal papers such as diaries or letters, or works with a large amount of musical notation and lyrics.

Google would have everyone believe that the settlement is very simple and, by satisfying the interests of the AG and AAP, the public interest has also been safeguarded. However, the reality is that the agreement runs directly across the interests of nearly everyone not included in it, especially the public at large. Meanwhile, the settlement is so complicated (134 pages and 15 appendices) that the Federal Court overseeing the case had to extend the deadline for authors and publishers to opt in by an additional four months.

There are no doubt enormous financial interests at stake in the struggle for online publishing supremacy. The American Association of Publishers is an organization that represents a multi-billion-dollar industry with over 300 member companies, including some of the largest publishers in the world such as McGraw-Hill (lead plaintiff in the Book Search lawsuit), Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and Simon & Schuster.

McGraw-Hill is a worldwide leader in the production and distribution of materials in the “financial services, education and business services markets.” The corporation had annual sales in 2008 of $6.3 billion and a net profit of $800 million. The company Chairman, President and CEO Harold “Terry” McGraw III earned over $6 million last year.

The book publishing industry has suffered significant losses in recent years due to the combined impact of digital technologies, changes in buying behavior and the economic crisis. For McGraw-Hill that meant a 6 percent decline in sales in 2008 and 21 percent decline in net profit during the same period. The company recently announced 550 layoffs, as it has been hit hard by the reduction of education spending for textbooks as a result of budget cuts.

Learning from the crises of the recorded music and video industries, the book publishers and authors associations are working with Google to ensure the erection of a profitable business model that protects digital assets from illegal duplication. Thus, a paramount concern of the Google Book Search settlement is the prevention of piracy and unauthorized online distribution of copyrighted works.

To be continued

Considering that the vast majority of  Americans continue to sleep their lives away and gloss through their days uncaring of the huge events occurring on what seems like a daily basis, Mr. Murray pinpoints many issues and myriad feelings I’ve been unable (and almost afraid) to utter.  I tip my hat to you, sir, and applaud your strength of conviction!  Perhaps more than I, having gone through the public school mill, you’ve got what it takes to state the obvious and the contemptuous to the progressives.  Should we duck now? 

IN GOV WE TRUST

By R.C. Murray
August 19, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

“How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity?
and the scorners delight in their scorning,
and fools hate knowledge?”
–Proverbs 1:22

Obama the Fly-Slayer is right about one thing: America is no longer a Christian nation. Christians are no longer the majority in these Divided States of America. In fact, most Americans are little more than religious heathens who follow political preachers spewing out their socialist gospel, carefully crafted fables and vain philosophies.

Oh, I know an overwhelming majority claim to identify with the Christian religion, but it’s evident most Americans don’t know the Christ of the Bible. Would Jesus support the slaughter of babies? And yet, millions of Americans claiming to be his followers support humanist politicians who take pride in being on the abortion industry’s pay role. They disregard what the Bible says in Exodus 20:22-23, mockingly claiming the question of when life begins is too far above their pay grade. Such matters are spiritually discerned, I suppose, which is more evidence they’re spiritually dead.

Would Jesus – the one who created them male and female – support a perversion to the sacred institution he established? But again, millions of so-called Christians disregard the judgment of God and take pleasure in those who pervert the biblical concept of marriage. But it’s not enough to give the government’s blessing upon these unnatural unions; they want to forever silence those of us who believe the Bible and use our 1st Amendment right to vocally disapprove of their lifestyle.

The Bible is the key issue. Most Americans do not have a biblical worldview because most Americans have never read the Bible or even the New Testament. Most Americans rely totally on what they’ve heard some liberal, self-acclaimed spiritual expert tell them the Bible says. Besides, thanks to 150 years of public education, most Americans couldn’t read their dumbed-down versions of the Bible even if they wanted to.

I heard recently that less that 10 percent of Americans have a biblical worldview. In a nutshell, a biblical worldview says that regardless whether you think in your mind or feel in your heart a thing is right, if it’s contrary to the Bible, it’s wrong:

Christians with a biblical worldview believe every word of the 66 books that make up the Holy Bible are the inspired words of God; that God our Creator created the world in six, 24-hour days; that he destroyed it with a worldwide flood, saving only eight members of one family; that God himself became a man by being born of a virgin, only to die on the cross as the perfect sacrifice (payment) for our sins; that he arose from the dead so we who believe in him can have eternal life through his shed blood; that he sent his followers into the world to preach the gospel (good news), so no one has to go to hell if he or she only trusts Jesus as his personal savior; and that Jesus himself will be coming again soon to claim his bride (church) then judge the rest of the unbelieving world.

Yeah, that’s a lot to say in a few words, but it says so much more than biblically ignorant, pseudo-Christians can understand.

Rest assured though, there are folks who at least know what we believe and are already making preparations to cure us of our thought crimes. The Hate Crimes Protection Act has nothing to do with protecting any supposedly-oppressed minority and everything to do with rounding up and eliminating those who disagree with the established church of America, the Church of Humanism. If you doubt it, explain why the National Guard has been advertising for “internment specialists.”

And what about those internment camps the government will not acknowledge despite evidence of them in remote areas like Oklahoma, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and on military bases in this country, not Cuba, Iraq, Kuwait or Afghanistan? For whom do you suppose these camps were created?

Big brother is watching you “angry mob,” “un-American” types who attend tea parties and disrupt town hall meetings, where otherwise functionally illiterate Proleslisten intently to the party line, gobbling up every lying word preached to them by their masters. Oh, and since Big Brother is watching you, you can expect one day he’s coming to get you to take you to his Ministry of Love.

For years, I’ve quoted or alluded to George Orwell’s prophetic book, Nineteen Eighty-Four, because he did predict one all-powerful nation would one day rule all English-speaking people. Orwell’s Oceania consisted of the United States and the United Kingdom. Did you know the Council on Foreign Relations has plotted for at least 90 years to establish just such a British-American Empire?

Orwell was right about desk top computer and surveillance cameras, both used by Big Brother today to keep tabs on us. And he was right about the Party’s purpose being to perpetuate itself. He was even right about the Party’s use of continual war with its “Support our Troops” campaign rallies, as well as shortages of everyday consumer items – all distractions meant to keep the ignorant masses from concentrating on what was really important, like their government controlling every aspect of their lives.

But I think he got it wrong about the Proles, the functionally illiterate majority that the Party used as cannon fodder in its continual state of war and as expendable labor in its factories and on its state farms. In his diary, Winston Smith said the only hope had to be found in the Proles. And yet, he admitted rebellion wound never come until the Proles became aware of their oppressed condition but that they’d never become aware of their condition until they rebelled. What Winston Smith and subsequently George Orwell failed to realize was that the Proles were the very source of the Party’s power. The combination of their great numbers and their willful ignorance was how the Party came to power and how it stayed in power. The same is true in this country today. We live in a Prole nation, not that Proles rule over us necessarily but their great numbers put those who do in power.

Again, I must emphasize if you asked them, the majority of America’s Proles will tell you they’re Christians, but as I said earlier, they don’t know God. They only know government.

Christian Americans really believe what it says on the dollar bill: In God We Trust. We live by faith. Proles claim they trust God, but if they really did, their trust wouldn’t be dependent upon federal, state and local governments robbing from and sharing the wealth of others with them.

They wouldn’t look to the government to provide them with each of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs at the expense of their Constitutional right to be responsible for themselves and their own families. They would cherish the libertiesspelled out for them in the Bill of Rights and as much as possible live free from government interference.

Instead, Proles beg that government to supply (via tax payers) their physical needs (via food stamps, subsidized housing, etc.), safety needs (via gun registration and confiscation; an established police state, from your local SWAT force all the way up to the Department of Homeland Security; welfare; Medicaid; socialized medicine, etc.), social needs (via public schools, employment quotas, hate crimes protection, etc.) and self-esteem (pride, the original sin and most important subject taught in public schools today).

Of course, Proles will never reach self-actualization because that would require them to actually think and do something for themselves, but they make up for this unfulfilled need by demanding even more government control over every aspect of their miserable, slavish lives. The motto for America’s Proles is really, In Gov We Trust.

“…Left to themselves, they (Proles) will continue from generation to generation and from century to century, working, breeding, and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is…What opinions the masses (Proles) hold, do not hold, is looked on as a matter of indifference. They (Proles) can be granted intellectual libertybecause they have no intellect…” George Orwell

When I released my last book, LegallySTUPiD: Why Johnny doesn’t have to read, a lot of folks were offended by the title. Some people think it’s wrong to call anyone stupid, regardless the height or depth of their ignorance. And in that sense, I’d agree.

Stupid though is not merely the lack of knowledge. Stupid is willful ignorance; it’s being dumb on purpose! The closest biblical reference to being stupid is being a fool. I found 60 verses in the Book of Proverbs alone that teach us about fools. Proverbs 1:22 asks this question, “How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?” And we know the first half of Psalm 14:1 tell us, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God…”

Before I comment on Psalm 14:1, take another look at Proverbs 1:22. Who are the simple ones and who are the scorners? And is no one wise? Not really. As surely as there are none that are truly righteous, there are none that are truly wise – all the time. Even Solomon, the author of most of Proverbs, was not all that wise, for he wasn’t bright enough to know a man cannot have 1,000 wives, an error that resulted in the dividing of his kingdom.

Let’s first look at the scorners. The Book of Proverbs mentions scorners 13 times; in other books, the scorner is also called a scoffer. At first glance, it would appear a scorner/scoffer is not greatly different than a fool as both tend to do stupid things. The one great difference seems to be that the fool is incapable of understanding because he hates knowledge itself, but scorners hate those with knowledge they don’t have, and they tend to provoke fools to act against them. They are the elected and especially the unelected elitists who work the ignorant masses into a frenzy about a need for change for change’s sake, a need for revolution for the sake of revolting.

Their numbers are small, representing less than 5 percent of the whole population. Their influence, however, has destroyed nations and cost the lives of billions over the centuries. Their influence in the country will soon cause its downfall; they’ve already racked up a body count too high to estimate, when you consider the ethnic cleansing tried on Native Americans and a so-called Civil War that was anything but civilized, all for the sake of preserving a union that has not been united since December 1860.

Scorners then are Orwell’s Inner Party elites. Whether or not you believe conspiracy theories about Illuminati and others, you have to admit the folks elected to office are not the ones really calling the shots in this country, or else there really would be change following an election. Aside from a thorough education for the benefit of the Party, the only real difference between Inner Party members and Proles is their ruthless resolve to perpetuate the Party above their personal lusts and ambitions. They are like the fools described in Psalm 14:1 and the scoffers in II Peter 3:4.

By now it should be easy enough to recognize the first group mentioned in Prov. 1:22. If you’re a regular reader of NWVs, you can see that’s us. We’re the simple, Orwell’s Outer Party members. We don’t hate knowledge like the fools, and we don’t let envy fill our hearts against the scorners who might sometimes express a few words of wisdom. Our problem is much like the one I expressed in a NWVs article well over a year ago in Dumb Wish. Do you ever feel sometimes like throwing down that newspaper or just turning off the news or deleting messages unread from news bloggers? No, I’m not talking about those times when you grow extra frustrated with the blatant media bias. I’m talking about a desire to ignore all that’s happening in the news, to just let the world go by because you feel overwhelmed and unable to do anything about anything?! Yeah, me too. There’s a reason they say ignorance is bliss.

And that’s exactly what the scorner-elitists want and how they got into power and how they stay in power. Oh, sure, they use academia, Hollywood, the news media and others to pound us to pieces with propaganda. And sometimes, they influence even the best of us to believe we have no better option than a John McCain and that although a third political party founded on the Constitution would be nice, it’s just not practical, so we either have to vote for the liberal calling himself a conservative or stay home.

In recent elections, more than 10 percent of us Outer Party members have been duped into falling in with the Proles and Inner Party scorners and voting for our own demise. Proles – represented by that 40 percent of Americans education statistics tell us are functionally illiterate – tend to vote as a single block. They can barely read and understand anything more complicated than the sports page, but they get to decide the amount of taxes we’ll pay. It wouldn’t bother me so much except this same 40 percent seems to be the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes.

It’s not going to get any better, even if all of us simple folks get together in 2010 and 2012 and vote so-called conservatives into office, even if it results in a conservative majority in every level of government. As I said in my last NWVs article, The Last Americans, those who look to the Republican Party to get us out of this mess That One has gotten us into need to be reminded the Bush administration not only got us into this war, they gave us the Patriot Act, the Veterans Disarmament Act and National Defense Authorization Act.

There is no real difference between the two major parties; they’ve both been driving this country toward a socialist state for 150 years! The only difference is that one party tends to drive the bus a little faster than the other, which makes their subversive activity a little more conspicuous – even to simple folks like us.

What’s going to save this country is not more politics. We’re going to have to give up our simplicity and realize we’re in a war to save our country, one we can’t win without God. That’s because the war we’re in is really a spiritual war. There is no political solution, and may I remind those who might be thinking something else what civil war did to this country last time. It’s going to take prayer, lots of constant, daily prayer that God himself will intervene on behalf of those who believe in him and trust him, not government.

By the way, in that NWV last article I requested prayer about finding a publisher for a new book. Thank you for your prayers. That new book now has a publisher. It was slightly revised, so its title will not focus on that minority who still believe the Holy Bible and support the U.S. Constitution. Instead, its title will focus on the majority of our fellow citizens who made our country what it is today. I ask you now to pray that Prole Nation will reach as many Americans as possible. And to all those who read it, please pray that the near future my book predicts will not come to pass. Thanks.

© 2009 – R.C. Murray – All Rights Reserved
www.voicefromthepews.com

An excellent book review by Winston Smith.

“Just say no.”

Not bad advice as far as it goes but, then again, it doesn’t go all that far. When it comes to dealing with sexual sin, willing yourself to say “no” usually isn’t enough. And thankfully Christ doesn’t just help us to say “no” but gives us so much to say “yes” to. That’s what I like about Winner’s book, Real Sex. It isn’t just one more plea for Christians to say “no” to sexual sin, but a help to say “yes” to sexual purity by appreciating the connections between sex and the riches of life in Christ.

An Old Approach Made New: Chastity.

Interestingly, one of the ways Real Sex helps us to say “yes” to purity is by refusing to downplay the difficulties of sexual purity. Winner understands that sexual sin isn’t an annoyance that can be flicked away, an addiction that is excised with a therapeutic scalpel, or a cultural wave that we simply must brace ourselves against. No, sexual temptation has been and always will be with us. Successfully navigating it requires a long view, discipline, and an awareness of how the means of grace apply. In part, Winner does this is by reintroducing us to the concept of chastity as a spiritual discipline. Viewing chastity as a discipline reminds us that sexual purity is hard; it reminds us that the Christian life is hard. Real Sex isn’t a cookbook of magical formulations that make purity easy – and neither is the Bible. Winner shows us how chastity, rightly understood, points us to life in Christ. That gives us hope, direction, meaning, purpose, and even great power and resources in battling sin. But the help is not in the form of a three, five or twelve step program that allows us to simply tackle one problem and move on to the next. Winner gets the big picture of the Christian life and so chastity is presented as a vibrant, time-honored and biblical way of battling sexual sin.

I found Real Sex especially helpful as a biblical counselor who always lives with the pressure of needing to bring immediate and practical aid to my counselees. Sexual sin often creates a sense of urgency that sometimes pushes me towards behavioral interventions and it’s easy to forget how sanctification roots us in Christ and requires us to take the long view of change and growth. At the same time, Real Sex does not simply shoe horn a modern audience into an old discipline. Winner urges us to take the modern/post modern experience of sexuality into account as we think biblically. She convincingly describes the nature of sexual temptation in our culture and demonstrates how good advice and even the words of scripture are sometimes fruitlessly applied when we’ve failed to carefully understand the experience of sexual temptation. This should resonate with counselors who have learned that unless our counselees know that we understand their experience, we have little hope that our input will be helpful or welcome.

Communal Aspects of Sexuality

As I counsel those who battle with sexual sin, I also regularly observe how easy it is to believe that sex is entirely a private matter, especially in the areas of pornography and masturbation but even when it involves adultery. The cultural ethos is essentially that whatever happens behind closed doors between consenting adults is no one else’s business. Winner comments on just how odd this is. On the one hand, we can’t escape public displays of eroticism and sex while, on the other hand, we are forbidden to make any comment on it other than approval. We have no right to find it harmful, only arousing.

Winner explains how sex is both private and public—that there is always a communal aspect to sexuality. Because sex is part of how we were designed to image God, it is more than an expression of biological urges or a private indulgence. It always powerfully affects and forms us shaping who we are and how we live with others. And biblically we should always care about how we are affecting others. Winner reminds us that as Christians we always live as a “people”. She goes on to describe how marriage itself is part of a larger social unit, the “household”. Sex must be understood not just as the private and impassioned expressions of lovers, but as part of the life and workings of households. Household life requires us to shed culturally touted demands for the new and exciting and learn to appreciate sex within the contours of everyday life. Like every aspect of household life, it isn’t always exciting, fun, or easy but must always be shaped, appropriately so, by the needs and demands of those we live with.

Lies

One of our Enemy’s favorite weapons is the lie. To resist him we need to know what he sounds like and Winner does a great job of identifying and deconstructing the lies that can make chastity so difficult. Interestingly, Real Sex contains two chapters on lies. One describes the lies that come at us from the world. If you’ve given much thought to sexual purity, some of these lies will be quite familiar to you, though you’ll still find her analysis thought-provoking and helpful. The second, perhaps more surprising chapter, deals with three lies that come from within the Church. These are lies that you may be familiar with as well, though you may not have recognized them as lies before:

Premarital sex is guaranteed to make you feel lousy.
Bodies (and sex) are gross, dirty, or just plain unimportant.
Women don’t really want to have sex, anyway.
I don’t have room to expand on them here, but perhaps by listing them I’ve peeked your curiosity. All of the lies Winner details deserve our careful thought but perhaps it is the one’s sometimes promoted by the church that deserve the closest attention. After all, it’s the lies that we believe that are the most devastating.

I think anyone would appreciate Real Sex. Lauren Winner is an excellent thinker and biblically astute. She writes clearly but tersely. To get the full value of Real Sex expect to read it more than once. Since she writes with wit and her prose is lively, it’s no chore. She is expounding a model, a way of thinking about sexuality, that we need to stay rooted in.

*****

Lauren Winner, Real Sex: The Naked Truth abuot Chastity, (Wheaton, IL: Brazos Press, 2006) 192 pages.

A Review by Winston Smith as posted at:
http://www.ccef.org/lauren-winners-real-sex-naked-truth-about-chastity

Winston T. Smith
Winston is the director of counseling at CCEF, a faculty member and has been counseling for nearly fifteen years. He holds a Master of Divinity degree from Westminster Theological Seminary, where he is also in the process of attaining a Doctor of Ministry degree. Winston has been married to his wife, Kim, for nineteen years and they have three school-age children. Winston enjoys reading, listening to music, exercise, chess and other games of strategy. Areas of interest/experience: marriage and family, depression and anxiety.

“A pre I.M.F. seminar of eminent economists could not agree on what money is or how banks create it” Page 1, Wall Street Journal, Sept 24, 1971

Questions on the above quote:

1. If the economists do not know what the ‘money’ is, how did the economists determine that the banks created the money?
2. If the economists do not know what ‘money’ is, how come 200 million people think they do know what ‘money’ is?
3. If the economists do not call the paper and metal tokens in use today ‘MONEY’, what do the economists call the paper and metal tokens in use today?

“Those who issue and control money and credit determine the policies of government and hold the destinies of the people in the hollow of their hands” -Sir Reginald McKenna

“Our monetary system would not work if all of the world’s bankers were not in collusion” -Merrill M.E. Jenkins

The Birth of Inflation

“Though the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some” -John Maynard Keynes

When you lose due to inflation, someone GAINS. Your wealth can not just disappear into thin air unless it was gaseous in the first place. When millions are losing thousands by inflation, a handful of men somewhere are gaining by the billions or trillions. It should be expected that such men would train and hire all of the economists they need to confuse everyone including those economists about inflation.

For the few to control the many with inflation fear, chemicals, tax illusions and propaganda, their victims must not know what inflation is, who creates it, that they are controlled with it, that taxes are illusory or why they have the illusion. Nor should they know why their water is fluoridated or the true purpose of the FDA. Amusements must be everywhere for everyone. To muse is to think. Amuse is without think. Amusements are devices intended to keep us from thinking about things that we should think about such as money, taxes, government, freedom and liberty. The Romans had bread and circuses. We have food stamps, football, foos ball, fools on TV ad infinitum.

There is no purpose on Earth for economists than to confuse everyone including themselves about inflation. CPA’s are people you hire to certify that you are as confused as they are. We must either seek fusion (unity) or confusion. Economists, accountants, lawyers and bankers are united against us whether they know it or not. No man’s judgement can be any better than his information says Stuart Crane Ph. D. What do we have when information is kept from the economists, accountants, lawyers, bankers, doctors, teachers etc. Whom we trust? When a handful of men create unlimited money (credit) out of thin air and get get everything for nothing with it, why should they share all of their secrets and see their privilege to create unlimited money abolished? Shouldn’t you expect them to work hard at maintaining secrecy by all means of communication?

“History shows that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance” -President James Madison

“In fact, evil men and false teachers will get worse and worse deceiving many, they themselves having been deceived by Satan” -Timothy 3:13

Centuries ago, people exchanged their perishable wealth for non-perishable gold which is also wealth in spite of the fact that it was called “money”. In time, they began to store their gold in the vaults of goldsmiths and received paper receipts for it. As more time passed, they wanted to exchange their gold for other wealth and found it practical to just deliver their receipts for gold rather than the gold itself. Since the receipts for gold were almost as acceptable as the gold itself, the receipts too were called “Money”

The goldsmith eventually became aware that only about 10% of the gold they stored for others was ever claimed and the rest just collected dust. Finally on one fateful day, a goldsmith issued a receipt for non-existant gold and either spent or lent it into circulation AS money. Inflation was born! There was no INCREASE in the money supply as economists are trained to tech us the “cause” of inflation. There was only an increase in the RECEIPTS for money (gold). Inflation then as now was a fraudulent claim for wealth. When the 2nd such fradulent receipt defining ‘inflation’ as an “increase” (of something) only deceives the victims as to what inflation really is and paves the way for more inflation is the form of fraudulent receipts for wealth.

Quoting the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in Modern Money Mechanics:

At one time bankers were merely middle men. They made a profit by accepting gold and coins brought to them for safekeeping and lending them to borrowers. but they soon found that the receipts they issued to depositors were being used as a means of payment. (But were not actual payment) These receipts were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.

Then bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving borrowers their promises to pay (bank notes). In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.

AND WHEN THEY DID NOT KEEP ENOUGH GOLD ON HAND, THEIR FRAUD WAS EXPOSED AND THEY WERE HUNG BY THE NECK! When they held only 1000 ounces of gold and issued notes for 12,000 oz., what do you suppose happend when 10% of the note holders showed up to claim their gold?

“Demand deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries to the credit of borrowers which the borrowers, in turn, could ’spend’ by writing checks” – ibid.

Creating money out of nothing was fun and profitable but the hangings caused convulsions and DEATH. How could they continue this fraud without the hangings? Well, the problem arose when too many notes were presented for redemption.What would happen if they knew that one person kept many notes in his house and they burnt his house down? There would be no problem with redeeming those notes would there? What if he had his notes hidden somewhere and they simply killed the note owner? What if they hired someone to steal the notes while he slept? What if they established a government and taxed the notes away from everybody who had them and taxed gold away from those who had gold and used that gold to settle the claims of survivors who still had notes? What if they used all of these means and still could not get the notes out of circulation fast enough, do you think they could collect more taxes if they kept the people believing that a powerful enemy might invade them and high taxes were needed to provide for a defense? Would the bankers create and sustain an “enemy” just for that purpose? We are told that Russia borrows from western banks and the Bible says: “The borrower is servant to the lender” proverbs 22:7. Do YOU think the Bible is wrong? Would you rather just think this verse is being misconstrued? Can you think of why the Russians would give up their valuable gold for paper that cost the world banking system nothing if they were not in fact servants of same?

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it” -Economic Sophisms by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

In 1848, bankers hired a man by the name of Karl Marx to draw up a plan to perpetuate their plunder with non-redeemable notes. It is known today as the “Communist Manifesto”. The 5th plank called for the establishment of a central bank which would legalize what bankers in the establishment of a central bank which would legalize what bankers in the past were hung for, the process known as “fractional reserve banking”. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd planks call for real estate tax, income tax and inheritance tax to get their fraudulent notes out of circulation after they plunder us with them. Rebel against these taxes and you learn about the 4th plank which calls for “confiscation of property of rebels!” The 10th plank calls for “free education in public schools” so that acceptance for this system of plunder is gained at an early age.

There are millions of Americans aware of most everything written here who agree that every president in this century has been owned by the bankers along with all of their appointees and employees. It seems that they fail to see the only purpose of all of those people which is to see that their masters keep creating money out of thin air to control all of us. Probably most of our Congressmen are honest people who think the President and his cabinet aim to serve the American people but the Bible tells us that no man can serve two masters. So the cabinet members, their employees and the President testify before Congress to influence legislation that will give the bankers even more control over us. In addition, they influence the news media that influences us to demand the legislation they need to control us. It IS a cancerous system!

In colonial times, this country was plundered with non-redeemable paper currency known as the “Continental dollar” and the people suffered greatly under the legal tender laws that compelled them to accept nothing for something. In 1789, our Constitution was written to protect us from such inflation and the tyrannical government it makes possible. Legal tender was prohibited in Art. 1, sec 10 with the words: “No state shall pass any law impairing the obligations of contracts” AND the 5th amendment words: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.“For an accurate description of that period of history, please see The Mircale On Main Street by F. Tupper Saussy.” This book has the solution to our problem with inflation.

It is not possible for people to control public servants when the servants print paper that the people call “money” and accept as payment for all of their labor. When they accept such paper, they cease to have servants and gain MASTERS. “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all commerce and industry” -President James A. Garfield (He was shot)

In the Constitution, Art 1, Sec 8, we authorized Congress to COIN money (not print it), regulate the value(weight) thereof and of foreign coin and to FIX a standard of weights and measures (for the coins). When we authorized them to borrow money, we authorized them to borrow some of the metal that they coined. Today, they only record that they borrow and there is no limit to what they can record. THAT explains why we can’t control them. He who pays the piper calls the tune!

On April 2, 1792, Congress passed the MINT ACT which established gold and silver soins as the money of account and FIXED the dollar as a WEIGHT of gold or silver in coin form. They also provided a penalty of DEATH for officers of the mint who might take part in debasing our coins because they knew that counterfeithers could overthrow our Republic. It wasn’t too long before somebody divided the 480 grains in an ounce by the 24 3/4 grains in the dollar of gold and came up with a “price” of gold in dollars per ounce which is little different than dividing the number of ounces in a gallon by the number of ounces in a pint and obtaining the price of milk! Nevertheless, gullible citizen accepted this bit of legerdemain entity rather than a measure of weight fixed by Congress. It was just a matter of time before the people believed that entity was a piece of paper. It it were, wouldn’t 10 dollars have to be 10 pieces of paper?

The day of infamy was Dec 23, 1913, when Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act and, in omplementing this 5th plank of Karl Marx’s communist manifesto, they legalized what bankers in the past had been hung for. Though we authorized Congress to provide penalties for counterfeiting, this infamous act provided presses, paper, ink and labor for counterfeiting by government. To control the volume of counterfeit used by its victims, the 16th amendment was passed in the same year, i.e. Marx’s 2nd plank, a progressive income tax.

For details of the skullduggery involved in these two pieces of legislation see “None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen“. It is an excellent book for one buck even though Allen prints the banker’s sophistic reason for the tax: “To pay the interest on the debt”. Its true purpose was written by economist John Maynard Keynes in Economic Consequences of the Peace:

“If governments should refrain from regulation (of our consumption) the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer”

After all, what good are 200 million slaves who consume all they produce? Careful observation of the legislation promoted these days indicate that our subrosa government’s total efforts are in finding even more ways to regulate our consumption even if they have to kill us to do it. The diabolical thing about it is that they use their controlled press to get us to demand the legislation they need to control us-be it for taxation, fluoridation, busing or whatever.

One thing the sorry 16th DID NOT DO was to authorize compulsory filing of income tax returns! It could not do so without repealing our 1st amendment right to remain silent, our 4th amendment rights to privacy and our 5th amendment right not to be a witness against ourselves. These rights as well as rights guaranteed by the 9th and 13th amendments are waived when any person files a tax return. If congress could pass a law that requires us to waive our rights, then we have no rights! Is THAT right? No such law has ever been passed. How then are people who assert their rights convicted? Well, the truth is, that you have no more rights than what jurors know about and Marx’s public schools were not intended to teach citizens their rights! With enough educated jurors we could break the bankster’s stanglehold on us. It has been reported that it is nearly impossible for the IRS to get a conviction in Montana due to an educational campaign there. As for the rest of the country, there are less than 500 convictions per year with some 25 million less filing over an 8 year period. A conviction is “milked” for all it is worth to terrify hundereds of thousands of the Fed’s victims. First, there is a news release that the victim was arrested and charged with “willful failure to file!. That terrifies some. Then there is a rigged trial where the judge and prosecutor intimidate a jury they choose. Another news release the victim was found guilty. That terrifies people again. Then several weeks later, the victim is sentenced followed by another news release.. He appeals. Eventually the appeal will be denied and the victim is sent to jail with still one more news release. See how much “milage” they get out of just one victim? There is no way a victim can be freed upon appeal because if he were, everybody would copy what he did and wreck the system. Murders and rapists are dred because they pose no threat to the Fed’s system of plunder, in fact, they are allies because their release helps to create an aura of justice.

“Often the masses are plundered and do not know it” -Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) in Economic sophisms. Worse yet, they will defend and reelect the plunderers while they ridicule and condemn those who try to expose them! Try to tell a graduate of the public fool (sick) system that the monetary system is not right and they are quick to insist that it “works”. And it is working them out of lives, liberty and property! Graduates of the private schools are little wiser. Their textbooks may have been written by victims of the public fool system.

There can be no modern wars and no communism without bank credit and legal tender. Communism is just a sophisticated theft. The credit and legal tender tokens are like the leavings of pack rats, animals that steal shiny objects and leave sticks or stones in their place. Taxes and tax illusions conceal the theft in two ways, one is that they get credit and legal tender away from us after we are robbed with it so that a certain scarcity is maintained which is a basic requirement for anything to serve as money. Secondly, it leaves the thought that government wouldn’t tax it away from us if they did not need it to spend themselves. Endless reports of “wasted tax dollars”divert the people’s attention from the truth that there are NO tax dollars that go anywhere. How can YOU send them any money when all you have in the bank is numbers and the Fed states: “The Federal Reserve systsem (of plunder) operates (on us) only with credit”?? Beware of any economist or economic writer who speaks of money AND credit. Money IS credit! You don’t send the IRS money, you send them an authorization for your bank to reduce your credit. The IRS neither wants nor collects money. They are forbidden by official guidelines to even tell you what is current as money. See Congressional Record Feb 21, 1979, page E609.

So, with the Fed creating unlimited credit, they must control the volume to remain our “absolute masters”. With money being anything USED AS a medium of exchange, there are 3 ways to control the volume. They can tax it away from us so that we don’t use it. They can demand high interest (usury) to discourage usage and they can simply see that users or potential users of credit are exterminated. WHO should go? When they need less consumption and more production, they need to eliminate non-productive consumers. You know what they are doing about babies! Sugar, salt, tobacco, aluminium and fluoridated water over a period of years with perhaps other slow posions help to insure that we expire before we retire. “If there were fewer people bidding against each other.. money (credit) would keep its value” – Keeping our money healty pub, Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Whenever you visit a Veteran’s cemetary, remember that paper money made it possible. “My people perish for lack of knowledge” -Hosea 4:6

The newspapers keep us fearful of a country can’t whip Afghanistan in 3 years and Napoleon said that he feared 3 newspapers more than 100,000 bayonetts! Students of this conspiracy will agree that Russia has owned by New York and London bankers since 1919. See “None dare call it conspiracy” for more on this.

President Garfield told us that whoever cotrolled the volume of money in any country was absolute master of all commerce and industry. For the secret owners of the Fed to control the volume of money and become our absolute masters, they had to get the gold away from our grandparents. This was accomplished in 1933 with the treats of fines and imprisonment by their president Franklin D. Roosevelt whose aide Harry Hopkins said: “Elect, elect, elect, tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, spend, the people are too damned dumb to understand”

Hopkins words were really proven accurate when the Treasury began to steal our silver with the Thomas amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933. It provided a tax of 50% on all private sales of silver when the “price” of that money was 80 cents an ounce. Simultaneously, the treasury agreed to pay 50 cents an ounce for silver. When congress fixed the dollar as 24 3/4 grains of gold, they also fixed it as 412 1/2 grains of silver or about 3/4 ounce of silver. That meant that 50 cents was 3/8 of an ounce of silver. So, with the treasury “paying” 3/8 of an ounce of silver for an ounce of silver, they were stealing 5/8 of all silver produced and the victims could not see it because they thought the dollar was a piece of paper! “What fools these mortals be” -Shakespeare

Please keep in mind that all if this skullduggery was possible because the bankers owned the President and his Secretary of the Treasury. Of course they also own the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State and everybody else they need to provide us with wars whenever they think they need one to thin our ranks or to distract us. We are supposed to believe that Liberty Bonds in 1918 and Saving Bonds in World War II were used to finance these wars but the truth is, the Fed created all the credit they needed out of thin air and the bonds were used to reduce our consumption so that we would not bid prices to the sky and expose their fraud perpetrated with the credit. Who would ever consider that government prints the bonds AND the paper with which to buy them? Yes, Hopkins was right!

As they kept printing more paper and more people were wainting silver coins, it looked like the “price” of silver could exceed 1.29 pieces of paper called “dollars” per ounce and the people might melt the silver to exchange for paper bills at a “profit” so the silver coins had to be taken out of circulation. The Vietnam war provided an outstanding smokescreen for the confiscation of our silver. The Tonkin Gulf “incident” that provided the excuse for bombing North Vietnam was in August 1964, just weeks before Congress stopped coining money (silver) never to start again. We were told that food and technology were given by us to Russia during that “war” and also told that Russia supplied North Vietnam. We might well have sent it direct and we may have actually done that too! In any event, both sides were financed with credit that bankers created out of thin air. “The Federal Reserve system operates (on us) only with credit”, said the New York Federal Reserve bank in 1960 in Keeping our money healty. Do you like to be operated on? Gold and silver coins are barter.

There are only two economic systems on Earth; God’s and the Fed’s. God commanded a barter system with the words; “Thou shall not steal” The ONLY purpose of credit is to take people’s property without payment. True, the taker may eventually pay if there were lawful coins to pay with but in 1968, Congress authorized the Fed to steal all of the lawful coins on deposit in our banks making lawful payments impossible. In their place we have unconstitutional and God forbidden legal tender paper and copper tokens that the people call “dollars” and the sole purpose of legal tender is to take property without payment. The expression, “cash and credit” is to take property without payment. The expression, “cash and credit” is an absurdity when the Fed says the system operates only with credit! A “cash” register is now a debt register that records how much merchants were robbed. What “cash or credit” really means today is, bills of credit or credit. The paper tokens called “dollars” give physical embodiment to credit, creating the illusion that we use a real medium of exchange when we are on the THOUGHT standard. If you think you have money and a banker agrees, then you have it. Otherwise, you ain’t got it! Our constitution mandates a barter system both with the words: “No state shall make any THING but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt” and “… nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation“. Compensation means “payment” and the purpose of credit is to avoid payment, especially when the credit we use today was described by Anatol Balbach of the St. Louis Fed on KSD radio as “perpetual debt“.

The diabolic aspect of this system of plunder is that the victims can not see they were robbed as if a purse was snatched. They end up with a piece of paper that permits them to steal an equal amount (less taxes) from their neighbor IF THEY HURRY. What most ail to consider is that the first user of the paper got it for absolutely nothing and the last user MUST get absolutely nothing for it. Those in between help the first user rob the unknown last user and are proportionately robbed themselves depending on how long they held it. They seek the paper while condemning inflation not knowing they are one and the same. “A double minded man is unstable in all of his ways” James 1:8. We are a nation of destabilized doublethinker’s. George Orwell was born 30 years to soon!

“We are in a time of disorted words and phrases. Meanings have been twisted and reversed. It is the day of “doublethink”. Money is no longer means money. Income no longer means income. Voluntary no longer means voluntary. I could go on and on with the government’s game of doublethink, exchaning means and perpetuating a system of lies and deception that is as old as Satan himself. The purpose pf keeping the public confused and causing them to question their own truth, no matter how evident it is. Once we have doubted the truth that we see and know in our hearts, it is easy to get us to accept a lie” -The Sentinel

If you are revising 1984 you might like to check out these notes on Winston Smith:

Spark Notes

Pink Monkey

Gradesaver

CliffsNotes

Orwell era verdadeiramente um profeta.

Na “Folha” de 5/7/2009, caderno “Cotidiano”:

“SP já possui uma câmera para cada 16 habitantes

Até o metrô começou monitoramento do interior dos vagões em tempo real

Para associação de empresas do setor de vigilância eletrônica, cidade tem pelo menos 600 mil câmeras, em uma estimativa conservadora

VINÍCIUS QUEIROZ GALVÃO
DA REPORTAGEM LOCAL

Quem anda num dos cinco novos vagões com ar-condicionado da linha verde do metrô não sabe, mas deveria sorrir, porque está sendo filmado. Os novos comboios têm 26 câmeras -quatro por vagão, mais duas externas no primeiro e no último carro da composição.

A imagem é transmitida em tempo real para um monitor na cabine do maquinista. Até o final deste ano, outros 16 novos trens com a mesma tecnologia devem entrar em operação, e mais 98 antigos estão em reforma para se equipar de câmeras.

Menos de dois anos atrás, o Metrô inaugurou um centro de controle de segurança para monitorar as estações, que hoje têm 930 câmeras vigiando as plataformas -e os usuários. Em um ano, elas serão 1.318.

‘Mentira que estamos sendo filmados. Como não tem aviso disso?’, diz Ângela Gonzaga, que andava anteontem na linha que cruza a avenida Paulista.

Os olhos biônicos do sistema de transporte subterrâneo são um indicativo de que a cidade está cada vez mais na mira das lentes de vigilância.

Dados da Abese, a associação das empresas de segurança eletrônica, mostram, na estimativa mais conservadora, que São Paulo já tem 600 mil câmeras, uma para cada 16 paulistanos. Há dez anos, elas eram 50 mil.

‘No momento em que sai de casa, todo mundo já passa a ser gravado. Tudo é possível de ser monitorado’, diz Selma Migliori, presidente da entidade. As poucas exceções livres de gravação são o interior de banheiros e de provadores de roupa.

Instaladas recentemente até em cemitérios para evitar o furto de restos mortais e de objetos dos túmulos, as câmeras estão instaladas nas regiões com maior circulação de pessoas, como a avenida Paulista e no comércio popular da rua 25 de Março, e em bairros de maior poder aquisitivo, como Jardins, Itaim Bibi e Morumbi.

Num condomínio, um sistema de circuito interno de TV pode custar R$ 100 mil.

Só a prefeitura tem 3.585 câmeras, controladas em sua maioria pela Guarda Civil, pela SPTrans, pela Secretaria da Educação (para vigiar as escolas públicas) e pelo departamento de trânsito. A Polícia Militar tem mais cem instaladas e outras 30 em teste.

As da CET nas marginais, por exemplo, têm alcance de quatro quilômetros em zoom. A primeira delas, ainda em operação, foi instalada há 25 anos. Todas passam por restauração para modernização e devem ficar prontas em outubro.

Somados radares e câmeras, a companhia de tráfego tem 605 aparelhos para monitorar o trânsito e aplicar multas.

‘Tendo a violência como desculpa e o medo das pessoas como justificativa, invade-se a intimidade. O nível de neurose e o medo aumentaram, mas a sensação de segurança da população não é maior com esse aparato’, diz Sérgio Kodato, coordenador do Observatório da Violência da USP”.

On Saturday, June 20th, following TRPS Rock Art by the Bay at Ft. Mason, Merle Becker’s documentary American Artifact: The Rise of American Rock Poster Art, had it’s world premier at The Red Vic on Haight St. in San Francisco. The movie is a must see for any rock poster collector or fan. Not only are you seeing poster artists in their studios talking about their craft, you also get a solid history lesson about the rock poster evolution from Elvis to Pearl Jam. Visit americanartifactmovie.com for the screening schedule.

I took some photos outside the theater while waiting in line and also during the Q&A segment after the screening. Below are some of my favorites.

Red Vic marquee

Ron Donovan

Scott Johnson

Paul Imagine

Lindsey Kuhn

Scrojo

Dennis Loren

Merle Becker and Ron Donovan

Chuck Sperry

Ron Donovan

Justin Hampton

Winston Smith

This Biopoem is from Michael

WINSTON

intelligent, naive, ++ungood, skeptic

his mother’s son

lover of Julia

who feels alone, insignificant and paranoid

who needs a the truth, freedom and an identity

who fears The Party, restraint and the Thought Police

who gives away his life for rebellion, defiance and revolution

who would like to see Goldstein, life without telescreens, accurate news

resident of Airstrip One

SMITH

This is a Biopoem about Winston written by Toby.

Dream guys, celebrity magazines, sexual fantasies, masturbation, pornography…what’s so bad about these? No one gets hurt, right? Aren’t they better than indulging in actual sexual indecencies with other people? Check out this short audio from CCEF faculty member Winston Smith on what’s sinful (if anything) about these “victimless” indulgences.

The Rise of American Rock Poster Art

WORLD PREMIERE: June 20th, 5pm, 7pm (additional show just added) 
Red Vic Movie House
1727 Haight Street, between Cole and Shrader
San Francisco, CA, 94117

In this documentary, Merle Becker crosses the country interviewing rock poster artists from different eras and discovers that America is currently in the midst of a “rock poster art movement.” Thousands of artists are silk screening rock posters, inspired by the music and spirit of our era. Director and artists in attendance for Q & A at all shows. Special guests for the 7pm screening include Chuck Sperry and Ron Donovan from Firehouse, Scrojo, Justin Hampton, Winston Smith, and author and gallery owner Dennis King. Special Admission: $8 

All artists, their work, and their websites  featured HERE.  Everyone unfortunate enough not to be near the S.F. Bay area for this Premiere, (that’s includes me) click  for screenings nationwide.

President George W. Bush on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture – June, 26, 2003 -

“The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.  I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. . . . Nowhere should the midnight knock foreshadow a nightmare of state-commissioned crime.  The suffering of torture victims must end, and the United States calls on all governments to assume this great mission.”

I am still shocked at all the relevations of torture and abuses perpetrated by the CIA and American military of detainees during this ridiculous War on Terrorism.  I think it has gone about as well as The War on Drugs and the War on Keeping Fat People Out of McDonalds.  But I have been troubled the last few days over President Obama’s refusal to release the rest of the alleged detainee torture photos.  His reasoning is sound stating that there is no need to further endanger American troops in Iran and Afghanistan.  I buy that argument under the premise that we were assured that the photos are no worse than the photos already released.

But logic dictates that that there is something faulty with the premise.  If the photos are no more malevolent than those previously released, then what is the problem of releasing them?  Retired Army General Antonio Taguba who investigated Abu Ghraib in 2004 told the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph newspaper that the remaing photos show images of  “torture, abuse, rape, and every indecency.”  Two of the alleged photos are said to depict a male U.S. soldier raping a female prisoner while another has a male U.S. translator raping a male prisoner.  Other assaults are said to include a trucnheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Of course the Pentagon has denied these allegations saying that the Telegraph had misquoted General Taguba.  The alarm level was raised even furhter when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went on to slam the reliability of the Telegraph.  My only question is what reason would a retired flag officer from the Army have to lie?  And why is the White House so vehemently trying to paint the Telegraph as some sort of National Enquirer.  The only answer is to release the remaining photographs.  The Obama Administration came in with a message of transparency.  My only hope is that they don’t become the Orwellian Ministry of Truth!  Winston Smith worked for the Bush Administration.

One of the few loves of my life that has persisted is dying — the printed, paper book. Though it will probably still outlive me, it is a moribund technology, and it will need none of the firemen of Fahrenheit 451 to usher it out. The paper book is dying because it is inefficient.

If you work in an office environment or are in school, you see the emphasis on electronic texts, typically in pdf format, but sometimes in other formats as well. (Perhaps you no longer see it, perhaps it has become the waterfall you live beside whose roar has faded into the imperceptible, the unnoticed.) Manuals, textbooks, virtually everything “written”, has migrated online, and is accessible only through a screen or, conceivably, through a printer if one is willing to damn future generations to some type of Mad Max after-the-holocaust type existence because of one’s selfish love of paper. And what is there, online, is no longer here, in your hand, on your bookshelf.

It is much cheaper. It is practically free. Editing can be done at any time, and the text can be updated as frequently as one wants. And did I mention the trees?

And with the demise of the book dies the permanent record as well. Editing can be done at any time, which means Winston Smith’s job has become that much easier, and excuse my cynicism if I believe that there are already many people currently performing the job he performed.

But I did not fall in love with books because they provided a permanent record. I’m confident that Anna has slept with Vronsky, is sleeping with Vronsky, and will continue to sleep with Vronsky for the foreseeable future, regardless of the medium in which her story is presented. I fell in love with books, in their tangible form, because each book that made its way to my bookshelf was an accomplishment, it represented someone whose ideas I had taken in, whose world I had inhabited, whose words I could look up whenever I wanted and live it that world again. It was something perpetual in a way a pdf file can never be.

I do not believe it is coincidence that the decline of the book happens today as the aggressively illiterate rule popular culture. (It’s sometimes difficult to understand if those ostensibly encouraging reading are even serious themselves.) If it doesn’t fit on a few screens of a Blackberry or if the page does not load quickly enough, most today are not particularly interested. They see no value to books, much less paper books.

I see this every day as I take the train into work in Boston. Most of those on the train above fifty read, novels, non-fiction, actual paper books. (I reserve judgment on the new generation of electronic readers, such as Kindle, since I have never seen one, but I’m not optimistic.) Most of those under thirty annoy me with tinny cacophonies seeping out of the brain-siphons they have inserted into their ears, either that or they play breakout and solitaire, three-minute games, each of which is virtually indistinguishable from the last

I look at my books in my house. I enjoy even looking at them, at the fading covers, at the dust they collect. Their yellowed, brittle pages give me such pleasure as I turn them. I know you don’t see that. Go back to your solitaire and think of all the trees your willful lobotomization is saving.

This is not a book review of these two timeless classics! Both of them werewritten before my parents were born! A lot has been written and said about both these books, and I wonder if I can say anything new. I guess I can’t.

On The Road: The intensity is terrifying! 10 pages into the book and already you realise you have a great urge to pack your bags and hit the road. Brilliant book! I am shocked that I didn’t hear about this book till a year ago!…There I am, an Ignorant bum! A must read for those who are restless and impulsive.

 1984: A shocking portrayal of an imaginative dystopian world. Somehow, I am convinced that George Orwell had a time machine way back in 1948; the ease with which he paints this dystopian world is sheer stroke of genius. At another level, I keep thinking, maybe this book has given new ideas to the superpowers of the world to try and create new ways in warfare and controlling information. 60 years after the book was first published, a lot of things described in the book are already in action and the rest of them aren’t too far either. Fantastic, shocking and terrifying! A must read for everyone!

Otra vez la  night mare re-reloaded en Oceanía … si es que alguna vez desaparació … pffff

Puede esta normativa pasar por encima de nuestros derechos más humanos, más fundamentales?

Pueden pasar de nuestras Constituciones, aprobadas por nosotros mismos?

Pueden regular para nosotros SIN nosotros?

Por nuestro bien? Para protegernos? Porque nos aman?

http://meneame.net/story/ue-admite-cortar-internet-sin-autorizacion-judicial/1

Robots: we know they’re out to destroy us once they get powerful enough, just like how the Europeans did to the native Americans. Vast swaths of continents swept away of all existing megafauna, replacing people with androids and real cows with robot cows & their surprisingly delicious robo-milk. But that day is still far from now; until then, we can safely rely on our subjugated subordinates to perform daily, menial tasks that would take Mexicans weeks to perform.

Or can we?

As reported by The Local, Sweden’s authoritative English news source, robots are performing “sneak attacks”. Of course, for years now the devious, untrustworthy Californian people have been turning their backs on humanity, building robots specifically for “death matches”, and just last year a robot killed a man just because the operator told it to in a disgusting lack of moral fortitude. But this is different.

The Local reports on a Swedish factory worker who was attempting to perform maintenance on a supposedly “defective” robot when the machine “suddenly came to life and grabbed a tight hold of the victim’s head”. Amazingly, the man was able to fight off the attack, but not without sustaining serious injuries.

Of course, the suicidally pro-robot Swedes refused to prosecute the robot, despite it being a clear case of attempted murder. But why would they? The Scandinavian culture is filled with dangerously, even repugnant, pro-robot personalities. Take for instance Henrik Christensen, a Danish roboticist who predicts that humans will be fucking robots in five years time (and that was a year-and-a-half ago that he said that!). Hey, Christensen: if everybody’s having sex with robots, who’s going to be making babies?

Not only does Christensen think people will have sex with robots, he thinks people will enjoy it. His radical imagination paints a picture of the future where sex with robots is so good that all of mankind will be reduced to living in their parents’ basements with a closet full of “favorites”, ultimately being reduced to Winston Smith like characters of sickly health and unquestioned obedience to our new sexy, robotic overlords. This dangerous ideology could lead to a future similar to “The Matrix” but much less cooler: a world rampant with passionless, weakly performed and consistently less fulfilling sex acts, and few, if any, bad-ass machine guns hidden beneath slick leather trench coats.

It is time for Scandinavia to abandon this foolish path of robotic-world domination before America has to once again step in on behalf of all the world and destroy them with nuclear weapons. God bless nuclear weapons – obviously much more beneficial to mankind than robots.