On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 03:14:23PM +0200, markus reichelt wrote: > Pavel Minev Penev <pavpen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Anyway, the only way to security is to make sure society serves the > > principles of the universe, and not financially powerful empires built > > on empiricism, > > ack on that but what can one really do? granted, resist individually > and trying to make it public, but there's just too many lemmings out > there who either just don't care or are incapable of doing so. That exactly why Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. organized an international counter-intelligence (publishes EIR, accessible from larouchepub.com) and an international youth movemet (wlym.com). Of course, there were about four attempts for assassination against him, he has been in jail, and while there, an agent from Mexico working for the Synarchist International --- Fernando Quijano --- tried to destroy LaRouche's organization from inside (he definitely demoralized it and had it somewhat discredited). In addition, Denis King was hired (sponsored by the right wing, IIRC) to write a book of slander against LaRouche (Dale Amon seems to be citing some of the materials used for the book). I don't want to be rude, but resisting individually agianst multi-billionare cartels is slightly beyond nonsense. And indeed, LaRouche's collaborators were able to identify how did it happen so that such a massive population of people can sit indifferent to the organized (by the same Synarchist International) depopulation of Africa, South and Cetral America, Eastern Europe, and recently, even North America. (What the _Children of Satan_ three-part series, now published as a complete book, reveals.) The historico-philosophical fight between slavery and freedom has been traced by many to ancient times. It is known that ancient Greeks had slaves and Spartans had a pretty cruel empire resembling in some ways the empire designed by modern oligarchs, such as Bertrand Russell and Aldous Huxley. LaRouche has identified the source of the fight as the question of how does one know. Empiricists, such as Aristotel, say that the only way to know something is to look at what your senses indicate in an as sterile manner as possible. But since senses could be tricked, this presumpion leads empiricists (explicitly noted by the ancient nihilists) to the conclusion that one cannot know anything, because one's senses may have been tricked all the time (i.e. one could be in the Matrix). Therefore, nihilists say: 1) nothing exists, 2) if anything exists, it is not known (you cannot tell if your senses are tricked or not), 3) if something exists and is known, it is not communicateable (other people could not tell if you are telling them the truth, or if you even exist). Bertarnd Russell himself, said `I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.' Empiricism is also the basis of sophism which was a way of disputing that the ancient sophists used to persuade someone in whatever they were paid to persuade this person. Empiricsts tend to adopt the idea (in which, they don't believe, but still hold to) that the only thing that matters is satisfaction of the senses. People like that don't care if people are enslaved, or dying, or even if humanity becomes extinct, after all these people may not even exist. Also, empiricists have been known to create occultist science, because since they think nothing can be known, it suffices to give a discription of what is observed, and it does not matter what the description is. (That's when scientists say that they are just going to assume some unprovable axioms, i.e. arbitrarilly, and work with them.) Idealists, like Plato, on the other hand say that the universe is lawful, in other words there are principles behind every single process. Therefore, by looking at the processes --- shadows of the principles --- one can infer the principles, and thus know things, even if one is unable to sense them. For example, Kepler discerned that planets orbit according to some interaction between them similar to the electrostatic one (Kepler discovored the principle of gravity, in _Mysterium Cosmographicum_, which was later appropriated by the chairman of the Royal Academy of Science --- Newton who was studying black magic at the time); therefore, today we know that the Earth orbits the Sun, even though we cannot explicitly sense that process (and even Kepler could not). The tradition of idealism is the one from which all the great scientists come from (such as Plato, Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss, or even Einstein and Heisenberg). Of course, there have been operations against them throughout all the history --- Leibniz's calculus developed in the attempt to solve Kepler's problem was privatized by Newton, Gauss's and Einsten's discoveries have been incorporated in an empirical formal system that starts with unproven axioms, stripping the whole method of knowing that has been incorporated in these discoveries, etc. Anyway, as to modern history, the period of the second World War and the times after that are quite important. It was in these years that the Farkfurt school of thought (that originated at the university in Frankfurt am Mein in Germany) conducted extesive research on what kind of idiology does one need to have in a population, so that the population can accept fascism. They developed bulky theories based on empiricism. For example, the method of Logical Positivism came out of there. The premise of this method is that the only way one knows something is by starting with some (of course, unprovable, i.e. arbitrary) axioms and then following formal logic. Incidentally, this seems to have been a technique exploited by the sophists to persuade people in whatever they wanted. Of course, logical positivism has proven unusable in the physical universe for the purposes of science and has been thrown out of some disciplines (for example, archaeology). It however, served many of the Frankfurt school philosophers, and was emloyed in the fields of sociology (which was started at that school IIRC), psychology, and the arts. Here is something about Theodore Adorno (who became head of the psychology department of the Frankfurt school) from <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Frankfurt_School&oldid=4862683>: Adorno, a trained musician, wrote The Philosophy of Modern Music, in which he, in essence, polemicizes against beauty itself-- because anything which does not further the destruction of bourgeois society, reinforces the "authoritarian" impulse. Hence: "What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man... The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the technical structural law of music. It forbids continuity and development. Musical language is polarized according to its extreme; towards gestures of shock resembling bodily convulsions on the one hand, and on the other towards a crystalline standstill of a human being whom anxiety causes to freeze in her tracks... Modern music sees absolute oblivion as its goal. It is the surviving message of despair from the shipwrecked." Adorno continues, "...It is not that schizophrenia is directly expressed therein; but the music imprints upon itself an attitude similar to that of the mentally ill. The individual brings about his own disintegration... He imagines the fulfillment of the promise through magic, but nonetheless with the realm of immediate actuality... Its concern is to dominate schizophrenic traits through the aesthetic consciousness. In so doing, it would hope to vindicate insanity as true health." To anyone who is not fully of the Frankfurt School persuasion, such sentiments can only be disturbing. So the Frankfurt school has engineered the sociological and artistic basis of a modern form of dictatorship. And what was the main idea of this basis? That one cannot know, that art should not be demonstrating any idea (principle) by creating irony (just the way a not-yet-known principle manifests itself by creating a paradox, or a certain unexplained structure, in the course of a process). Adorno also authored the scenario of how to instill this new kind of art in the existing societies (in one of his essays IIRC). His plan was to first fetishize art, which meant associating artisting performances with some kind of fetish. For example, people should start going to the opera not for the performance itself, but for showing that they are of high social status, or that they are rich, or that they are educated, etc. After that the performances can be stripped from the ironies that demonstrate principles through art. The next step was to create new fetishes and associate them with entirely new forms of art (Adorno notes the special role of the radio for that). The new forms of art should be such that not only will they hinder people's ability to discover principles and lead them into oblivion, but also the new art should be naturally unpleasant to the human being. Why? Because with this form of art people will stop to paying any attention to art. Only the fetish will remain. People will never again think that art can express anything. Adorno notes however, that after a continuous consumption of this new form of art some people do realize that they indeed hate it and turn against it. As a solution of the problem, Adorno proposes that there should be many differnt kinds (well, styles) of this art that should be accepted as being totally different, althogh they are in the same philosophical framework (that humans cannot know). For example, there should be metal that is held to be totally different from hip hop that is held to be far from techno, etc. In this situation, when an individual rebels against a style the individual will naturally adopt a different one, from the same framework. And so, as some CIA reports, as well as Francis Saunder's book _The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters_, reveal, during the Cold War there was a somewhat calendestine cultural war between the west and the communist bloc. An OPC (well, a subdivision of the CIA at the time) contact Michael Josselson together with Melvin Lasky organized a congress that opened on June 26, 1950 in Berlin. This was the second convening of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a.k.a. CCF, (the previous not particularly successful attempt was on April 30 in Paris). Anti-communist artists were carefully chosen for the congress beforehand. At it, in front of thousands of ``cheering Berliners'' was expressed the ideology of art that had come from the Frankfurt school: the idea that art should be free, meaning it need (and even shouldn't) be based upon principles. Everything is now art. Your piss is art, your fart is art, a succession of random frequencies (i.e. `cat /dev/random > /dev/dsp`) is art, etc. After the CCF (called by LaRouche the Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism) there was a massive operation by the CIA in which thosands (=millions today) of dollars were spent (mainly in Europe) on sponsoring newspapers, articles, TV shows, individual artists, etc. to produce the new form of art with an ideology that has been publicised by the CCF, so that people can start consuming the art. Before going to more recent years, I should mention that right after the second World War, parallel with the Frankfurt school was operating the Tavistock Institute in England. This institute was researching psychotropic substances (that is, how to control the central nervous system of a human being (well, or animal) chemically). William Sargant was also doing research in this area. He studied many cults around the world and tribal rites to see how the mind can be controlled. Based upon this research the prominent oligarch Aldous Huxley wrote his _Brave New World_. Indeed Huxley went on to study psychotropic substances on his own. (Some facts and an engineered interpretation of them can be found at http://somaweb.org/w/huxbio.html, Huxley's speech about the Ultimate, or Final, Revolution is here http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/audiofiles.html#huxley). Funny, people call Huxley's society `a possible world', `fiction' and `dystopia', but today you could order Soma on the Internet, and your psychiatrist may well prescribe it to you... Huxley's policies match Bertrand Russell's ones like: The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will be arrived at. First, that the influence of the home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. ... Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The population will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. -- Bertrand Russell, 1951, _The Impact of Science on Society_ These policies approach reality around the 60s with the counter-culture. The baby-boomers (the children of the World War II veterans, children that have grown up with the new forms of art and social ideology) rioted against `the evils of the world' like the Vietnam war, essentially saying `We are going to solve our problems with the evils by dropping out of school, taking drugs, being promiscuous, and performing other bestial and mind-destroying acts.' And the counter-culture didn't come in `on its own', there were people behind the riots and `celebrities' popularizing bestial behaviour. That was an implementation of Huxley's model of a society in which people were just finding _outlets_ to make themselves uncapable of acting by any way that can have a sizeable effect upon the universe (or oppose the policies being implemented for that matter). These same people are in today's government, universities, industries, etc. They run the US society. Or more acurately, they are used by financially powered cartels (of oligarchs, of course) to run the US and other similar societies. Well, I didn't mention how did today's financial system come about; and why money today are not related to anything in the physical universe. This question is important because it gave financial powers full control over the population. Multi-billionare cartels today can determine prices of currencies, the fate of industries, even art, the population of a region, etc. And this goes back to Maastricht. But I think I wrote enough for today. I will just mention that the following policies are part of what is being implemented: At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars. War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? -- Bertrand Russell, _The Impact of Science on Society_, Routledge Press, New York, 1951. ... nothing stirs me, nothing seems worth doing or worth having done: the only thing that I strongly FEEL worth while would be to murder as many people as possible so as to diminish the amount of consciousness in the world. -- Bertrand Russell in a letter to a friend from 1903. In an effort to stop writing I will jump to the present moment, mentioning that the LaRouche Youth Movement in the USA is campaigning for John Kerry with the parallel efforts to teach Kerry some of the classified history of our civilization and have him see the principle's behing the variuos massive infrastructure projects developed by LaRouche's collaborators (well, some of them are based on already existing designs that never came into being) that will stimulate businesses and help the world economy get rebuilt after the ~40 years of destruction. Of course, ending the bankers' financial system will be crucial, so that money can be used for what their purpose in society is --- to allocate human resources to the different branches of society development. Courage for freedom, -- Pav http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/2004/eirtoc_3125.html ,., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Frankfurt_School&oldid=4862683 ,``:'', http://www.bilderberg.org/ccf.htm {o ! o} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society ] -+- [ http://bss.sfsu.edu/fischer/IR%20360/Readings/Readings.htm \ ! / http://www.againsttcpa.com/ http://swpat.ffii.org/ My type: Dvorak. `-'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945 `shell$ gpg --keyserver x-hkp://search.keyserver.net:11371 --recv-key 164C028F` - Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/
