The National Security State and the Assassination of JFK, The CIA, the Pentagon, and the "Peace President"
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
Global Research
Just 47 years ago, on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. This marked the turning of the American National Security State apparatus against its own leadership. After having overthrown, assassinated leaders, and orchestrated coups around the world, the moment its growing power was threatened by the civilian leadership in America, the apparatus of empire came home to roost.
MORE...
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Police State USA: TSA Gestapo Empire
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research
November 23, 2010
It doesn’t take a bureaucrat long to create an empire. John Pistole, the FBI agent who took over the Transportation Security Administration on July 1 told USA Today 16 days later that protecting trains and subways from terrorist attacks will be as high a priority for him as air travel.
It is difficult to imagine New Yorkers being porno-screened and sexually groped on crowed subway platforms or showing up an hour or two in advance for clearance for a 15 minute subway ride, but once bureaucrats get the bit in their teeth they take absurdity to its logical conclusion. Buses will be next, although it is even more difficult to imagine open air bus stops turned into security zones with screeners and gropers inspecting passengers before they board.
Will taxi passengers be next? In those Muslim lands whose citizens the US government has been slaughtering for years, favorite weapons for retaliating against the Americans are car and truck bombs. How long before Pistole announces that the TSA Gestapo is setting up roadblocks on city streets, highways and interstates to check cars for bombs? That 15 minute trip to the grocery store then becomes an all day affair.
Indeed, it has already begun. Last September agents from Homeland Security, TSA, and the US Department of Transportation, assisted by the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, conducted a counter-terrorism operation on busy Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, Georgia. Designated VIPER (Visible Inter-mobile Prevention and Response), the operation required all trucks to stop to be screened for bombs. Federal agents used dogs, screening devices, and a large drive-through bomb detection machine. Imagine what the delays did to delivery schedules and truckers’ bottom lines.
There are also news reports of federal trucks equipped with backscatter X-ray devices that secretly scan cars and pedestrians.
With such expensive counter-terrorism activities, both in terms of the hard-pressed taxpayers’ money and civil liberties, one would think that bombs were going off all over America. But, of course, they aren’t. There has not been a successful terrorist act since 9/11, and thousands of independent experts doubt the government’s explanation of that event.
Subsequent domestic terrorist events have turned out to be FBI sting operations in which FBI agents organize not-so-bright disaffected members of society and lead them into displaying interest in participating in a terrorist act. Once the FBI agent, pretending to be a terrorist, succeeds in prompting all the right words to be said and captured on his hidden recorder, the “terrorists” are arrested and the “plot” exposed.
The very fact that the FBI has to orchestrate fake terrorism proves the absence of real terrorists.
If Americans were more thoughtful and less gullible, they might wonder why all the emphasis on transportation when there are so many soft targets. Shopping centers, for example. If there were enough terrorists in America to justify the existence of Homeland Security, bombs would be going off round the clock in shopping malls in every state. The effect would be far more terrifying than blowing up an airliner.
Indeed, if terrorists want to attack air travelers, they never need to board an airplane.
All they need to do is to join the throngs of passengers waiting to go through the TSA scanners and set off their bombs. The TSA has conveniently assembled the targets.
The final proof that there are no terrorists is that not a single neoconservative or government official responsible for the Bush regime’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Obama regime’s slaughters of Pakistanis, Yemenis, and Somalians has been assassinated. None of these Americans who are responsible for lies, deceptions, and invasions that have destroyed the lives of countless numbers of Muslims have any security protection. If Muslims were capable of pulling off 9/11, they are certainly capable of assassinating Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby, Condi Rice, Kristol, Bolton, Goldberg, and scores of others during the same hour of the same day.
I am not advocating that terrorists assassinate anyone. I am just making the point that if the US was as overrun with terrorists as empire-building bureaucrats pretend, we would definitely be experiencing dramatic terrorist acts. The argument is not believable that a government that was incapable of preventing 9/11 is so all-knowing that it can prevent assassination of unprotected neocons and shopping malls from being bombed.
If Al Qaeda was anything like the organization that the US government claims, it would not be focused on trivial targets such as passenger airliners. The organization, if it exists, would be focused on its real enemies. Try to imagine the propaganda value of terrorists wiping out the neoconservatives in one fell swoop, followed by an announcement that every member of the federal government down to the lowest GS, every member of the House and Senate, and every governor was next in line to be bumped off.
This would be real terrorism instead of the make-belief stuff associated with shoe bombs that don’t work, underwear bombs that independent experts say could not work, and bottled water and shampoo bombs that experts say cannot possibly be put together in airliner lavatories.
Think about it. Would a terror organization capable of outwitting all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, the National Security Council, NORAD, air traffic control, the Pentagon, and airport security four times in one hour put its unrivaled prestige at risk with improbable shoe bombs, shampoo bombs, and underwear bombs?
After success in destroying the World Trade Center and blowing up part of the Pentagon, it is an extraordinary comedown to go after a mere airliner. Would a person who gains fame by knocking out the world heavyweight boxing champion make himself a laughing stock by taking lunch money from school boys?
TSA is a far greater threat to Americans than are terrorists. Pistole has given the finger to US senators and representatives, state legislators, and the traveling public who have expressed their views that virtual strip searches and sexual molestation are too high a price to pay for “security.” Indeed, the TSA with its Gestapo attitude and methods, is succeeding in making Americans more terrified of the TSA than they are of terrorists.
Make up your own mind. What terrifies you the most. Terrorists, who in all likelihood you will never encounter in your lifetime, or the TSA that you will encounter every time you fly and soon, according to Pistole, every time you take a train, a subway, or drive in a car or truck?
Before making up your mind, consider this report from antiwar.com on November 19: “TSA officials say that anyone refusing both the full body scanners and the enhanced pat down procedures will be taken into custody. Once there the detainees will not only be barred from flying, but will be held indefinitely as suspected terrorists . . . One sheriff’s office said they were already preparing to handle a large number of detainees and plan to treat them as terror suspects.”
Who is cowing Americans into submission, terrorists or the TSA Gestapo? (Editor's bold emphasis throughout)
Global Research
November 23, 2010
It doesn’t take a bureaucrat long to create an empire. John Pistole, the FBI agent who took over the Transportation Security Administration on July 1 told USA Today 16 days later that protecting trains and subways from terrorist attacks will be as high a priority for him as air travel.
It is difficult to imagine New Yorkers being porno-screened and sexually groped on crowed subway platforms or showing up an hour or two in advance for clearance for a 15 minute subway ride, but once bureaucrats get the bit in their teeth they take absurdity to its logical conclusion. Buses will be next, although it is even more difficult to imagine open air bus stops turned into security zones with screeners and gropers inspecting passengers before they board.
Will taxi passengers be next? In those Muslim lands whose citizens the US government has been slaughtering for years, favorite weapons for retaliating against the Americans are car and truck bombs. How long before Pistole announces that the TSA Gestapo is setting up roadblocks on city streets, highways and interstates to check cars for bombs? That 15 minute trip to the grocery store then becomes an all day affair.
Indeed, it has already begun. Last September agents from Homeland Security, TSA, and the US Department of Transportation, assisted by the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, conducted a counter-terrorism operation on busy Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, Georgia. Designated VIPER (Visible Inter-mobile Prevention and Response), the operation required all trucks to stop to be screened for bombs. Federal agents used dogs, screening devices, and a large drive-through bomb detection machine. Imagine what the delays did to delivery schedules and truckers’ bottom lines.
There are also news reports of federal trucks equipped with backscatter X-ray devices that secretly scan cars and pedestrians.
With such expensive counter-terrorism activities, both in terms of the hard-pressed taxpayers’ money and civil liberties, one would think that bombs were going off all over America. But, of course, they aren’t. There has not been a successful terrorist act since 9/11, and thousands of independent experts doubt the government’s explanation of that event.
Subsequent domestic terrorist events have turned out to be FBI sting operations in which FBI agents organize not-so-bright disaffected members of society and lead them into displaying interest in participating in a terrorist act. Once the FBI agent, pretending to be a terrorist, succeeds in prompting all the right words to be said and captured on his hidden recorder, the “terrorists” are arrested and the “plot” exposed.
The very fact that the FBI has to orchestrate fake terrorism proves the absence of real terrorists.
If Americans were more thoughtful and less gullible, they might wonder why all the emphasis on transportation when there are so many soft targets. Shopping centers, for example. If there were enough terrorists in America to justify the existence of Homeland Security, bombs would be going off round the clock in shopping malls in every state. The effect would be far more terrifying than blowing up an airliner.
Indeed, if terrorists want to attack air travelers, they never need to board an airplane.
All they need to do is to join the throngs of passengers waiting to go through the TSA scanners and set off their bombs. The TSA has conveniently assembled the targets.
The final proof that there are no terrorists is that not a single neoconservative or government official responsible for the Bush regime’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Obama regime’s slaughters of Pakistanis, Yemenis, and Somalians has been assassinated. None of these Americans who are responsible for lies, deceptions, and invasions that have destroyed the lives of countless numbers of Muslims have any security protection. If Muslims were capable of pulling off 9/11, they are certainly capable of assassinating Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby, Condi Rice, Kristol, Bolton, Goldberg, and scores of others during the same hour of the same day.
I am not advocating that terrorists assassinate anyone. I am just making the point that if the US was as overrun with terrorists as empire-building bureaucrats pretend, we would definitely be experiencing dramatic terrorist acts. The argument is not believable that a government that was incapable of preventing 9/11 is so all-knowing that it can prevent assassination of unprotected neocons and shopping malls from being bombed.
If Al Qaeda was anything like the organization that the US government claims, it would not be focused on trivial targets such as passenger airliners. The organization, if it exists, would be focused on its real enemies. Try to imagine the propaganda value of terrorists wiping out the neoconservatives in one fell swoop, followed by an announcement that every member of the federal government down to the lowest GS, every member of the House and Senate, and every governor was next in line to be bumped off.
This would be real terrorism instead of the make-belief stuff associated with shoe bombs that don’t work, underwear bombs that independent experts say could not work, and bottled water and shampoo bombs that experts say cannot possibly be put together in airliner lavatories.
Think about it. Would a terror organization capable of outwitting all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, the National Security Council, NORAD, air traffic control, the Pentagon, and airport security four times in one hour put its unrivaled prestige at risk with improbable shoe bombs, shampoo bombs, and underwear bombs?
After success in destroying the World Trade Center and blowing up part of the Pentagon, it is an extraordinary comedown to go after a mere airliner. Would a person who gains fame by knocking out the world heavyweight boxing champion make himself a laughing stock by taking lunch money from school boys?
TSA is a far greater threat to Americans than are terrorists. Pistole has given the finger to US senators and representatives, state legislators, and the traveling public who have expressed their views that virtual strip searches and sexual molestation are too high a price to pay for “security.” Indeed, the TSA with its Gestapo attitude and methods, is succeeding in making Americans more terrified of the TSA than they are of terrorists.
Make up your own mind. What terrifies you the most. Terrorists, who in all likelihood you will never encounter in your lifetime, or the TSA that you will encounter every time you fly and soon, according to Pistole, every time you take a train, a subway, or drive in a car or truck?
Before making up your mind, consider this report from antiwar.com on November 19: “TSA officials say that anyone refusing both the full body scanners and the enhanced pat down procedures will be taken into custody. Once there the detainees will not only be barred from flying, but will be held indefinitely as suspected terrorists . . . One sheriff’s office said they were already preparing to handle a large number of detainees and plan to treat them as terror suspects.”
Who is cowing Americans into submission, terrorists or the TSA Gestapo? (Editor's bold emphasis throughout)
Friday, November 26, 2010
How to Get Money out of Politics, Wikiarguments or Mass Conversion?
Editor's NOTE:
While Yarrusso's prescriptions are overly Utopian in my view due to the fact that the totality of relevant evidence strongly suggests that human nature is in fact "fallen", the arguments presented are worthy of serious consideration.
Yarrusso's approach is primarily designed to substitute a "process" solution for what is fundamentally a spiritual problem that is, lack of individual conversion or a change in heart in which each human being moves toward the true good, virtue over vice as it were.
If a kind of mass conversion of individuals were to transpire, the common good of humanity would be automatically improved which would remove the ultimate impetus or drive toward gaining unfair advantage on the part of individuals and groups. Nevetheless, Yarrusso's idea has merit in its own right.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Wikiarguments: A Practical Plan to Get Big Money out of Politics
By Carmen Yarrusso
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”--Henry David Thoreau
November 24, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Clearly, our government is deeply corrupted by moneyed special interests. Just look at the immense wake of destruction left by our government and its policies in the last 10 years alone. The resulting human misery worldwide is immeasurable.
The buying and selling of political influence is the driving force of our political system. The Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United has opened the floodgates for legal bribery—our government is now officially for sale to the highest bidder.
What’s even more sinister, a government for sale to the highest bidder forces both moneyed special interests and members of Congress to not only participate in an obvious con game, but to compete among themselves (thus raising the stakes and ruthlessness) in this massive influence-peddling scam that robs the American people of billions each year.
Moneyed special interests would be at a competitive disadvantage if they didn’t buy political influence. Likewise, our "representatives" would be at a competitive disadvantage (getting elected and staying in office) if they didn’t sell political influence. Thus each year, lobbyists transfer millions in legal bribes from moneyed special interests to our "representatives" in return for billions of our taxpayer dollars.
We, the American people, are mere fodder for profit, exploited by both moneyed special interests and our "representatives" in Congress.
The plutocrat buyers of our government maintain strict political control over what they've bought and paid for. Members of Congress who oppose moneyed special interests are promptly punished, ostracized, or replaced (if their offense is great enough).
Big money corrupting our political system dwarfs every other political issue by far because it underlies and thus dominates every other political issue. It’s foolish to expect rational legislation or real reform of our corrupt government as long as our "representatives" are bought and paid for by moneyed special interests.
As long as big money is the driving force of our political system, our government will continue to support patently unfair domestic and foreign policies that not only cost us billions, but also cause vast human suffering worldwide. As long as big money is the driving force of our political system, government "of the people" is impossible.
Getting big money out of politics is the necessary first step in a peaceful, people’s revolution to take back our government.
The beginning of the end of big money in politics
Big money has been in politics since day one. Every legislative effort to significantly diminish its power has failed (e.g., the feeble McCain-Feingold bill). How can we succeed now when so many earnest people before us have failed? By cleverly utilizing the power of the Internet.
We can establish a simple, easy to use, Internet-based system of accountability (using off the shelf software) that will greatly diminish the value of the political-influence "products" now being sold by our "representatives."
Rather than futilely trying to limit how much moneyed special interests can give to members of Congress, we should concentrate on strategies that will make what our "representatives" have been selling virtually worthless. We can do this using the power of the Internet.
The essence of influence peddling is deception
Moneyed special interests are willing to spend millions buying political influence because those millions return billions. Corporations would be betraying their shareholders if these millions weren't wise investments. But what are moneyed special interests actually buying?
They’re buying unfair government policies (or protection from unfair government policies bought and paid for by competitors). Philanthropic groups aside, moneyed special interests don’t pay much for fair government policies - those serving the best interests of the American people as a whole.
The only way our "representatives" can pass and/or sustain unfair government policies and thus be able to sell their political influence for millions is through deception. They must try to deceive us with specious justifications that hide the truth of the unfair policies (e.g., "aluminum tubes," "mobile weapons labs," "mushroom clouds," "vials of anthrax" as justifications for invading Iraq).
The mechanics of deception in Congress
The most powerful tool of deception used by our "representatives" is the lackey mainstream media (essentially the propaganda arm of our government). Mainstream media are supposed to keep us informed about our government's activities. But as profit-driven corporations that receive billions from our "representatives," they're much more motivated to promote and perpetuate government deception than to expose it. It's simply smart business.
Our "representatives" use various tools to deceive us. But all tools boil down to one thing: evasion. Those supporting unfair government policies cannot possibly defend these policies with clear, rational arguments. So they offer shallow, specious justifications (dutifully passed on to the American people by mainstream media) and then simply evade responding to the obvious flaws in their justifications.
Our "representatives" are never forced to defend their justifications using clear, rational arguments. All we ever get are deceptive, evasive snippets of "arguments" and appeals to emotion, never anything remotely resembling a clear, cogent, rational fact-based argument. But usually this is good enough to deceive a sufficient number of Americans to pass and/or sustain unfair government policies.
Demand our "representatives" post a clear, rational argument defending their positions on the Internet for all to scrutinize
Our political system's many entrenched mischief mechanisms (e.g., powerful standing committees, filibusters, earmarks) are regularly exploited by our "representatives" to evade clear, rational argument and open debate on their positions. What would happen if we, the people, no longer tolerated evasion from those who are supposed to be looking out for our best interests? The influence peddling market would crash.
If our "representatives" couldn’t evade, it would be much more difficult for them to deceive us about unfair government policies and thus much more difficult to pass and/or sustain such policies. The market value of political influence would plummet.
Aspects of an Internet-based (wiki) system of congressional accountability
We'd be able to visit an Internet site and view clear, rational arguments for all Congressional proposals (pro and con side by side for easy comparison). We wouldn’t need mainstream media pundits to interpret government policies for us; we’d be getting both sides right from the horse’s mouth. Evasions and flawed reasoning by either side would be made very apparent. A search capability would allow us to find the current best arguments - pro and con - for any bill in Congress.
When a bill is introduced, those "representatives" initiating the bill would post a clear, rational argument explaining the merits of the bill. Those opposing the bill would then post their corresponding clear, rational argument explaining why the bill is unfair and shouldn't pass.
What makes this Internet-based (wiki) system of accounting such a powerful weapon against evasion and falsehood is this: the individual arguments are dynamic. As you will see, using dynamic arguments (referred to as wikiarguments) prevents lots of mischief and tends to punish liars and reward truth-tellers. The individual wikiarguments would be managed very much like Wikipedia entries except there would be multiple entries per subject (pro and con arguments) instead of the one entry per subject in Wikipedia.
Thus all members of Congress would be able to edit – improve and update - the arguments they favor. Both sides of any issue would be free to update their respective wikiargument as new facts emerge or to correct mistakes. In this manner, arguments for both sides - pro and con - would evolve as collaborative efforts, which would converge toward a best argument (consensus) for each side of any given issue (bill).
A wikiargument system would differ significantly from a forum-type venue - where people argue back and forth - because the emphasis is on an evolving, converging final product: a current best argument for each side. Like robot competition, the emphasis would be on building a superior rational argument for a given position, which would then openly compete with its corresponding – opposing - argument on the Internet.
The American people would get to watch as arguments for each side evolve and do battle on the Internet. We would watch our "representatives" slugging it out using their best rational arguments instead of using deceptive TV sound bites.
But unfair policies are often supported by both political parties because both are typically bribed by the same big money. How would a wikiargument system force our "representatives" to post honest arguments against such unfair policies? By providing two additional - pro and con – "shadow" wikiarguments for each issue that could be edited by anyone on earth, like Wikipedia entries.
A visitor to the site would view two pairs of pro and con wikiarguments per issue, one pair maintained by members of Congress and one corresponding pair maintained by the public at large. If our "representatives" weren’t providing strong wikiarguments against unfair policies, the public at large would make those arguments for them. The two (public) shadow wikiarguments would quickly expose weak or disingenuous government arguments when both political parties support unfair policies.
All four wikiarguments would be free to borrow from each other. The four would evolve and converge toward a consensus. The most cogent argument would quickly become apparent, which would then expose which side is supporting big money and which side is supporting the people's best interests.
Demand accountability from those who claim to represent us
We have every right to demand our government "representatives" provide us with clear, rational arguments that explain and justify their positions. If their positions on any given policy, procedure, legislation or action are fair, it should be easy for them to present clear, convincing wikiarguments. Conversely, if their positions are unfair, they won't be able to present wikiarguments that aren't easily faulted by their opponents.
This wikiargument plan has one simple requirement: our government "representatives" must subject their ideas to careful scrutiny by posting their best rational arguments on the Internet. That's it. One simple requirement: respect the intelligence of the American people; give us your best rational arguments so we can carefully examine them for flaws. Careful examination can only hurt unfair ideas and arguments.
Using a wikiargument system, our "representatives" would no longer be able to rely on many of the deceptive practices so prevalent under our current political system. By requiring them to post wikiarguments for their positions, they would no longer get away with making false claims or misrepresenting facts or ignoring evidence against their positions because their Internet opponents would quickly expose this intellectual dishonesty within their own corresponding (opposing) arguments where the American people would always be watching.
Using a wikiargument system our government representatives would be reluctant to make false or deceptive statements on TV or in other public venues. Why? Because they would know anyone could go to the Internet and check out the given issue's opposing wikiargument where their deceptions would be quickly exposed. A political system using wikiarguments would punish dishonesty and reward honesty - exactly the opposite of our current political system.
Our current political system makes it easy for our "representatives" to deceive the American people. It's not about finding truth; it's about playing a political game of hiding truth. Our current political system often allows our "representatives" to make demonstrably irrational decisions without any accountability whatsoever.
A wikiargument system of accountability would not stop all political mischief. But it would significantly hamper the effectiveness of the many built-in mischief mechanisms our government representatives now exploit to evade careful scrutiny and open debate.
Conclusion
We need a political system that seeks truth, instead of one that often hides, manipulates, and even manufactures "truth." We need a political system that creates policy using rational argument and open debate, instead of one that creates policy using wheeling and dealing, coercion, and deception.
We need a political system that operates in plain view of the American people, one that provides a level playing field where all ideas can compete openly and fairly using clear, rational argument.
In short, we need a political system that enforces intellectual honesty instead of one that punishes intellectual honesty while rewarding deceit (Editor's bold emphasis throughout).
Wikiarguments is a first step toward that political system.
Carmen Yarrusso, a software engineer for 35 years, designed and modified computer operating systems (including Internet software). He has a BS in physics and studied game theory and formal logic during his years with the math department at Brookhaven National Lab. He lives in New Hampshire and often writes about uncomfortable truths.
While Yarrusso's prescriptions are overly Utopian in my view due to the fact that the totality of relevant evidence strongly suggests that human nature is in fact "fallen", the arguments presented are worthy of serious consideration.
Yarrusso's approach is primarily designed to substitute a "process" solution for what is fundamentally a spiritual problem that is, lack of individual conversion or a change in heart in which each human being moves toward the true good, virtue over vice as it were.
If a kind of mass conversion of individuals were to transpire, the common good of humanity would be automatically improved which would remove the ultimate impetus or drive toward gaining unfair advantage on the part of individuals and groups. Nevetheless, Yarrusso's idea has merit in its own right.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Wikiarguments: A Practical Plan to Get Big Money out of Politics
By Carmen Yarrusso
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”--Henry David Thoreau
November 24, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Clearly, our government is deeply corrupted by moneyed special interests. Just look at the immense wake of destruction left by our government and its policies in the last 10 years alone. The resulting human misery worldwide is immeasurable.
The buying and selling of political influence is the driving force of our political system. The Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United has opened the floodgates for legal bribery—our government is now officially for sale to the highest bidder.
What’s even more sinister, a government for sale to the highest bidder forces both moneyed special interests and members of Congress to not only participate in an obvious con game, but to compete among themselves (thus raising the stakes and ruthlessness) in this massive influence-peddling scam that robs the American people of billions each year.
Moneyed special interests would be at a competitive disadvantage if they didn’t buy political influence. Likewise, our "representatives" would be at a competitive disadvantage (getting elected and staying in office) if they didn’t sell political influence. Thus each year, lobbyists transfer millions in legal bribes from moneyed special interests to our "representatives" in return for billions of our taxpayer dollars.
We, the American people, are mere fodder for profit, exploited by both moneyed special interests and our "representatives" in Congress.
The plutocrat buyers of our government maintain strict political control over what they've bought and paid for. Members of Congress who oppose moneyed special interests are promptly punished, ostracized, or replaced (if their offense is great enough).
Big money corrupting our political system dwarfs every other political issue by far because it underlies and thus dominates every other political issue. It’s foolish to expect rational legislation or real reform of our corrupt government as long as our "representatives" are bought and paid for by moneyed special interests.
As long as big money is the driving force of our political system, our government will continue to support patently unfair domestic and foreign policies that not only cost us billions, but also cause vast human suffering worldwide. As long as big money is the driving force of our political system, government "of the people" is impossible.
Getting big money out of politics is the necessary first step in a peaceful, people’s revolution to take back our government.
The beginning of the end of big money in politics
Big money has been in politics since day one. Every legislative effort to significantly diminish its power has failed (e.g., the feeble McCain-Feingold bill). How can we succeed now when so many earnest people before us have failed? By cleverly utilizing the power of the Internet.
We can establish a simple, easy to use, Internet-based system of accountability (using off the shelf software) that will greatly diminish the value of the political-influence "products" now being sold by our "representatives."
Rather than futilely trying to limit how much moneyed special interests can give to members of Congress, we should concentrate on strategies that will make what our "representatives" have been selling virtually worthless. We can do this using the power of the Internet.
The essence of influence peddling is deception
Moneyed special interests are willing to spend millions buying political influence because those millions return billions. Corporations would be betraying their shareholders if these millions weren't wise investments. But what are moneyed special interests actually buying?
They’re buying unfair government policies (or protection from unfair government policies bought and paid for by competitors). Philanthropic groups aside, moneyed special interests don’t pay much for fair government policies - those serving the best interests of the American people as a whole.
The only way our "representatives" can pass and/or sustain unfair government policies and thus be able to sell their political influence for millions is through deception. They must try to deceive us with specious justifications that hide the truth of the unfair policies (e.g., "aluminum tubes," "mobile weapons labs," "mushroom clouds," "vials of anthrax" as justifications for invading Iraq).
The mechanics of deception in Congress
The most powerful tool of deception used by our "representatives" is the lackey mainstream media (essentially the propaganda arm of our government). Mainstream media are supposed to keep us informed about our government's activities. But as profit-driven corporations that receive billions from our "representatives," they're much more motivated to promote and perpetuate government deception than to expose it. It's simply smart business.
Our "representatives" use various tools to deceive us. But all tools boil down to one thing: evasion. Those supporting unfair government policies cannot possibly defend these policies with clear, rational arguments. So they offer shallow, specious justifications (dutifully passed on to the American people by mainstream media) and then simply evade responding to the obvious flaws in their justifications.
Our "representatives" are never forced to defend their justifications using clear, rational arguments. All we ever get are deceptive, evasive snippets of "arguments" and appeals to emotion, never anything remotely resembling a clear, cogent, rational fact-based argument. But usually this is good enough to deceive a sufficient number of Americans to pass and/or sustain unfair government policies.
Demand our "representatives" post a clear, rational argument defending their positions on the Internet for all to scrutinize
Our political system's many entrenched mischief mechanisms (e.g., powerful standing committees, filibusters, earmarks) are regularly exploited by our "representatives" to evade clear, rational argument and open debate on their positions. What would happen if we, the people, no longer tolerated evasion from those who are supposed to be looking out for our best interests? The influence peddling market would crash.
If our "representatives" couldn’t evade, it would be much more difficult for them to deceive us about unfair government policies and thus much more difficult to pass and/or sustain such policies. The market value of political influence would plummet.
Aspects of an Internet-based (wiki) system of congressional accountability
We'd be able to visit an Internet site and view clear, rational arguments for all Congressional proposals (pro and con side by side for easy comparison). We wouldn’t need mainstream media pundits to interpret government policies for us; we’d be getting both sides right from the horse’s mouth. Evasions and flawed reasoning by either side would be made very apparent. A search capability would allow us to find the current best arguments - pro and con - for any bill in Congress.
When a bill is introduced, those "representatives" initiating the bill would post a clear, rational argument explaining the merits of the bill. Those opposing the bill would then post their corresponding clear, rational argument explaining why the bill is unfair and shouldn't pass.
What makes this Internet-based (wiki) system of accounting such a powerful weapon against evasion and falsehood is this: the individual arguments are dynamic. As you will see, using dynamic arguments (referred to as wikiarguments) prevents lots of mischief and tends to punish liars and reward truth-tellers. The individual wikiarguments would be managed very much like Wikipedia entries except there would be multiple entries per subject (pro and con arguments) instead of the one entry per subject in Wikipedia.
Thus all members of Congress would be able to edit – improve and update - the arguments they favor. Both sides of any issue would be free to update their respective wikiargument as new facts emerge or to correct mistakes. In this manner, arguments for both sides - pro and con - would evolve as collaborative efforts, which would converge toward a best argument (consensus) for each side of any given issue (bill).
A wikiargument system would differ significantly from a forum-type venue - where people argue back and forth - because the emphasis is on an evolving, converging final product: a current best argument for each side. Like robot competition, the emphasis would be on building a superior rational argument for a given position, which would then openly compete with its corresponding – opposing - argument on the Internet.
The American people would get to watch as arguments for each side evolve and do battle on the Internet. We would watch our "representatives" slugging it out using their best rational arguments instead of using deceptive TV sound bites.
But unfair policies are often supported by both political parties because both are typically bribed by the same big money. How would a wikiargument system force our "representatives" to post honest arguments against such unfair policies? By providing two additional - pro and con – "shadow" wikiarguments for each issue that could be edited by anyone on earth, like Wikipedia entries.
A visitor to the site would view two pairs of pro and con wikiarguments per issue, one pair maintained by members of Congress and one corresponding pair maintained by the public at large. If our "representatives" weren’t providing strong wikiarguments against unfair policies, the public at large would make those arguments for them. The two (public) shadow wikiarguments would quickly expose weak or disingenuous government arguments when both political parties support unfair policies.
All four wikiarguments would be free to borrow from each other. The four would evolve and converge toward a consensus. The most cogent argument would quickly become apparent, which would then expose which side is supporting big money and which side is supporting the people's best interests.
Demand accountability from those who claim to represent us
We have every right to demand our government "representatives" provide us with clear, rational arguments that explain and justify their positions. If their positions on any given policy, procedure, legislation or action are fair, it should be easy for them to present clear, convincing wikiarguments. Conversely, if their positions are unfair, they won't be able to present wikiarguments that aren't easily faulted by their opponents.
This wikiargument plan has one simple requirement: our government "representatives" must subject their ideas to careful scrutiny by posting their best rational arguments on the Internet. That's it. One simple requirement: respect the intelligence of the American people; give us your best rational arguments so we can carefully examine them for flaws. Careful examination can only hurt unfair ideas and arguments.
Using a wikiargument system, our "representatives" would no longer be able to rely on many of the deceptive practices so prevalent under our current political system. By requiring them to post wikiarguments for their positions, they would no longer get away with making false claims or misrepresenting facts or ignoring evidence against their positions because their Internet opponents would quickly expose this intellectual dishonesty within their own corresponding (opposing) arguments where the American people would always be watching.
Using a wikiargument system our government representatives would be reluctant to make false or deceptive statements on TV or in other public venues. Why? Because they would know anyone could go to the Internet and check out the given issue's opposing wikiargument where their deceptions would be quickly exposed. A political system using wikiarguments would punish dishonesty and reward honesty - exactly the opposite of our current political system.
Our current political system makes it easy for our "representatives" to deceive the American people. It's not about finding truth; it's about playing a political game of hiding truth. Our current political system often allows our "representatives" to make demonstrably irrational decisions without any accountability whatsoever.
A wikiargument system of accountability would not stop all political mischief. But it would significantly hamper the effectiveness of the many built-in mischief mechanisms our government representatives now exploit to evade careful scrutiny and open debate.
Conclusion
We need a political system that seeks truth, instead of one that often hides, manipulates, and even manufactures "truth." We need a political system that creates policy using rational argument and open debate, instead of one that creates policy using wheeling and dealing, coercion, and deception.
We need a political system that operates in plain view of the American people, one that provides a level playing field where all ideas can compete openly and fairly using clear, rational argument.
In short, we need a political system that enforces intellectual honesty instead of one that punishes intellectual honesty while rewarding deceit (Editor's bold emphasis throughout).
Wikiarguments is a first step toward that political system.
Carmen Yarrusso, a software engineer for 35 years, designed and modified computer operating systems (including Internet software). He has a BS in physics and studied game theory and formal logic during his years with the math department at Brookhaven National Lab. He lives in New Hampshire and often writes about uncomfortable truths.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
How Firm is the “Firmament”?
by Daniel J. Dyke, M.Div., M.Th., and Dr. Hugh Henry, PhD, Physics
November 19, 2010
Reasons To Believe HERE...
Experimental physics has recently verified the prediction of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity that outer space has structure. Yet was this concept already described by Genesis 1 many centuries earlier? A comprehensive analysis of the complex Hebrew word rāqîa‘ seems to suggest that it was!
Rāqîa‘ appears seven times in Genesis 1. The King James Version (KJV) translates it as “firmament.” This curious word choice is carried over into the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the New King James Version (NKJV). Yet other modern English Bibles translate rāqîa‘ in a variety of different ways: “expanse,”1 “dome,”2 “vault,”3 “sky,”4 “space,”5 and even “horizon,”6 “air,”7 and “solid arch”.8 These various translations seem to convey contradictory concepts; which emphasizes the complex meaning of rāqîa‘. This complexity is reinforced by the fact that modern translations often use different, contradictory words for rāqîa‘ in different passages.9
According to Easton’s Bible Dictionary:
This word means simply “expansion.” It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered rāqîa‘ by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body....It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion” (emphasis added).
Genesis 1:8 says: “God called the expanse [rāqîa‘] ‘sky’”10 (NIV). Hence, based on Easton’s explanation, we might say the word rāqîa‘ could refer to “an expansive (or expanding) solid such as inner and outer space.” This seems nonsensical. Modern educated people know sky is not a solid and that outer space is a vacuum that we usually think of as nothingness.
The purpose of this paper is to propose a plausibility argument that the seemingly contradictory character of rāqîa‘ might be consistent with Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Although one must be careful not to read too much science into Genesis, the ancient Israelites seem to have understood the word rāqîa‘ as conveying a contradictory complexity that might have foreshadowed this revolutionary concept of twentieth century physics.
The Nature of Outer Space
According to general relativity, outer space is not nothingness. Space possesses a structure with real physical characteristics; it has a fabric that can be distorted by the presence of a massive object. General relativity suggests that gravity is a warping of the fabric of space in response to a massive object HERE... and HERE... for further descriptions of general relativity). This is a subtle but significant departure from Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity, which suggests an attractive force between any two bodies. Nevertheless, Newton’s and Einstein’s equations for gravity produce the same result almost all the time.
The idea of gravity as a warping of the fabric of space can be visualized by a marble and a bowling ball on a trampoline. If the trampoline is taut (and nothing else is on it), then a marble will stay wherever it is placed on the trampoline. However, if a bowling ball is placed on the trampoline, it sinks to the center, distorting the fabric of the trampoline. Now a marble rolls down toward the bowling ball with increasing velocity (just as Newton observed). An object thrown out of a window is like this marble. Newton says the Earth’s gravity pulls the object to the ground; Einstein says it slides down the fabric of space, which has been warped by presence of the Earth. But in either case, the object falls to the ground with increasing velocity.
General relativity was first demonstrated in 1919. Recently, NASA’s Gravity Probe B project proved there is indeed a fabric of space; the data also give strong indications that the fabric is substantive enough to be “dragged.” Superstring theory, another theory of modern physics, even predicts that the fabric of space can be torn and patched. Superstring theory is unproven, but if the fabric of space can be dragged, torn, and patched, then it takes on a very real, physical character, even though it seems to contain essentially no matter. Like a lattice, the structure exists as a framework for matter—with or without matter present (editor's emphasis throughout). Hence, the fabric of space is like an expansive (or expanding) solid—even though it is not a solid. It seems, then, that the fabric of space fits with the traditional definition of rāqîa‘ as “an expansive (or expanding) solid such as inner and outer space”!
According to ancient Hebrew tradition, God is beyond the rāqîa‘. This concept is also consistent with general relativity, which forms the basis for the big bang theory. This theory holds that the universe is expanding and may have a boundary.11 A creator-God must, by definition, be outside of that boundary. This is another startling biblical prediction foreshadowing twentieth century physics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to general relativity, outer space is not nothingness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctly Translating Rāqîa‘
Interpreting rāqîa‘ as “the fabric of space” seems to provide—perhaps for the first time—a translation of Genesis 1:20 consistent with the literal Hebrew, which says birds fly upon the paniym(the “face” or “surface”) of the rāqîa‘. English Bibles generally avoid a literal translation of paniym and use words like “in the open” rāqîa‘ (KJV, NASB) or “across” the rāqîa‘ (RSV, NIV, NRSV). Only the NKJV follows the Hebrew by rendering that passage as “across the face” of the rāqîa‘. Nevertheless, the literal Hebrew seems to make sense only within the model that the rāqîa‘ is the fabric of space, in which case Genesis 1:20 reads: “birds fly...on the surface [or across the face] of the fabric of space.” This interpretation fits with general relativity theory.
This fabric of spacemodel for rāqîa‘ easily explains all other uses of that word in Genesis. For example, Genesis 1:8 defines rāqîa‘ as “sky” (NIV), which restates the model. Genesis 1:6–7 says the rāqîa‘ divides the water on and in the earth from the water above. Indeed, the rāqîa‘ separates the water vapor from ground and surface waters; the water vapor is then collected in clouds and converted to rain according to the laws of physics.
Genesis 1:14–15, 17 says the Sun, Moon, and stars are all in the rāqîa‘—and indeed they are. Each of these heavenly bodies warps the rāqîa‘ according to its relative mass and also moves along the warped rāqîa‘ in a precise path as observed by astronomers for centuries. Furthermore, these verses falsify the suggestion that placing the heavenly bodies “in” the rāqîa‘ implies the ancient Hebrews believed the sky or space was a solid dome. Rather, the Bible makes clear that the ancient Hebrews knew that the heavenly bodies moved, beginning with Genesis 1:14 in which the heavenly bodies are described as “for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years” (NASB). Rāqîa‘ implies substance, not solidity.
In summary, interpreting rāqîa‘ as “the fabric of space” seems to match quite well with its seven uses in Genesis 1. However, before making a definitive conclusion, it is necessary to consider this model in the context of its other uses in the Old Testament. And in particular, in order to follow the scientific method in our analysis, it is necessary to attempt to falsify this model by considering problem passages.
Endnotes:
1. See the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), and TaNaKh (TNK, the Hebrew Bible).
2. See the New Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New American Bible (NAB), and the Contemporary English Version (CEV).
3. See the New English Bible (NEB), the Revised English Bible (REB), and the Today’s New International Version (TNIV).
4. See the Message (MSG).
5. See the New Living Translation (NLT).
6. See the GOD’S WORD Translation (GW).
7. See the New Century Version (NCV).
8. See the Bible in Basic English Bible (BBE).
9. This point becomes apparent by comparing rāqîa‘ translations in Genesis to those in Psalms and Daniel. Bible versions which translate rāqîa‘ as “firmament” usually do so consistently, but versions using another word for rāqîa‘ are not so consistent; cf. BBE, CSB, DBY, ESV, NET, NIB, NIV, and NLT translations of Genesis 1:6 and Psalm 150:1, for example.
10. The word translated “sky” here is shamayim, which is more typically translated “heaven” (NKJV, NASB ESV). However, the word “sky,” as used in Genesis 1:8, seems to better convey the traditional Hebrew use of “heaven” to refer to the sky above and outer space beyond, not to God’s heaven, which is outside the rāqîa‘.
11. There are multiple solutions to the general relativity equations, and some such solutions imply the universe is bounded, though others suggest an unbounded universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hugh Henry received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Virginia in 1971, retired after 26 years at Varian Medical Systems, and currently serves as Lecturer in physics at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, KY.
Mr. Daniel J. Dyke received his Master of Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary 1981 and currently serves as professor of Old Testament at Cincinnati Christian University in Cincinnati, OH.
November 19, 2010
Reasons To Believe HERE...
Experimental physics has recently verified the prediction of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity that outer space has structure. Yet was this concept already described by Genesis 1 many centuries earlier? A comprehensive analysis of the complex Hebrew word rāqîa‘ seems to suggest that it was!
Rāqîa‘ appears seven times in Genesis 1. The King James Version (KJV) translates it as “firmament.” This curious word choice is carried over into the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the New King James Version (NKJV). Yet other modern English Bibles translate rāqîa‘ in a variety of different ways: “expanse,”1 “dome,”2 “vault,”3 “sky,”4 “space,”5 and even “horizon,”6 “air,”7 and “solid arch”.8 These various translations seem to convey contradictory concepts; which emphasizes the complex meaning of rāqîa‘. This complexity is reinforced by the fact that modern translations often use different, contradictory words for rāqîa‘ in different passages.9
According to Easton’s Bible Dictionary:
This word means simply “expansion.” It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered rāqîa‘ by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body....It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion” (emphasis added).
Genesis 1:8 says: “God called the expanse [rāqîa‘] ‘sky’”10 (NIV). Hence, based on Easton’s explanation, we might say the word rāqîa‘ could refer to “an expansive (or expanding) solid such as inner and outer space.” This seems nonsensical. Modern educated people know sky is not a solid and that outer space is a vacuum that we usually think of as nothingness.
The purpose of this paper is to propose a plausibility argument that the seemingly contradictory character of rāqîa‘ might be consistent with Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Although one must be careful not to read too much science into Genesis, the ancient Israelites seem to have understood the word rāqîa‘ as conveying a contradictory complexity that might have foreshadowed this revolutionary concept of twentieth century physics.
The Nature of Outer Space
According to general relativity, outer space is not nothingness. Space possesses a structure with real physical characteristics; it has a fabric that can be distorted by the presence of a massive object. General relativity suggests that gravity is a warping of the fabric of space in response to a massive object HERE... and HERE... for further descriptions of general relativity). This is a subtle but significant departure from Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity, which suggests an attractive force between any two bodies. Nevertheless, Newton’s and Einstein’s equations for gravity produce the same result almost all the time.
The idea of gravity as a warping of the fabric of space can be visualized by a marble and a bowling ball on a trampoline. If the trampoline is taut (and nothing else is on it), then a marble will stay wherever it is placed on the trampoline. However, if a bowling ball is placed on the trampoline, it sinks to the center, distorting the fabric of the trampoline. Now a marble rolls down toward the bowling ball with increasing velocity (just as Newton observed). An object thrown out of a window is like this marble. Newton says the Earth’s gravity pulls the object to the ground; Einstein says it slides down the fabric of space, which has been warped by presence of the Earth. But in either case, the object falls to the ground with increasing velocity.
General relativity was first demonstrated in 1919. Recently, NASA’s Gravity Probe B project proved there is indeed a fabric of space; the data also give strong indications that the fabric is substantive enough to be “dragged.” Superstring theory, another theory of modern physics, even predicts that the fabric of space can be torn and patched. Superstring theory is unproven, but if the fabric of space can be dragged, torn, and patched, then it takes on a very real, physical character, even though it seems to contain essentially no matter. Like a lattice, the structure exists as a framework for matter—with or without matter present (editor's emphasis throughout). Hence, the fabric of space is like an expansive (or expanding) solid—even though it is not a solid. It seems, then, that the fabric of space fits with the traditional definition of rāqîa‘ as “an expansive (or expanding) solid such as inner and outer space”!
According to ancient Hebrew tradition, God is beyond the rāqîa‘. This concept is also consistent with general relativity, which forms the basis for the big bang theory. This theory holds that the universe is expanding and may have a boundary.11 A creator-God must, by definition, be outside of that boundary. This is another startling biblical prediction foreshadowing twentieth century physics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to general relativity, outer space is not nothingness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctly Translating Rāqîa‘
Interpreting rāqîa‘ as “the fabric of space” seems to provide—perhaps for the first time—a translation of Genesis 1:20 consistent with the literal Hebrew, which says birds fly upon the paniym(the “face” or “surface”) of the rāqîa‘. English Bibles generally avoid a literal translation of paniym and use words like “in the open” rāqîa‘ (KJV, NASB) or “across” the rāqîa‘ (RSV, NIV, NRSV). Only the NKJV follows the Hebrew by rendering that passage as “across the face” of the rāqîa‘. Nevertheless, the literal Hebrew seems to make sense only within the model that the rāqîa‘ is the fabric of space, in which case Genesis 1:20 reads: “birds fly...on the surface [or across the face] of the fabric of space.” This interpretation fits with general relativity theory.
This fabric of spacemodel for rāqîa‘ easily explains all other uses of that word in Genesis. For example, Genesis 1:8 defines rāqîa‘ as “sky” (NIV), which restates the model. Genesis 1:6–7 says the rāqîa‘ divides the water on and in the earth from the water above. Indeed, the rāqîa‘ separates the water vapor from ground and surface waters; the water vapor is then collected in clouds and converted to rain according to the laws of physics.
Genesis 1:14–15, 17 says the Sun, Moon, and stars are all in the rāqîa‘—and indeed they are. Each of these heavenly bodies warps the rāqîa‘ according to its relative mass and also moves along the warped rāqîa‘ in a precise path as observed by astronomers for centuries. Furthermore, these verses falsify the suggestion that placing the heavenly bodies “in” the rāqîa‘ implies the ancient Hebrews believed the sky or space was a solid dome. Rather, the Bible makes clear that the ancient Hebrews knew that the heavenly bodies moved, beginning with Genesis 1:14 in which the heavenly bodies are described as “for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years” (NASB). Rāqîa‘ implies substance, not solidity.
In summary, interpreting rāqîa‘ as “the fabric of space” seems to match quite well with its seven uses in Genesis 1. However, before making a definitive conclusion, it is necessary to consider this model in the context of its other uses in the Old Testament. And in particular, in order to follow the scientific method in our analysis, it is necessary to attempt to falsify this model by considering problem passages.
Endnotes:
1. See the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), and TaNaKh (TNK, the Hebrew Bible).
2. See the New Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New American Bible (NAB), and the Contemporary English Version (CEV).
3. See the New English Bible (NEB), the Revised English Bible (REB), and the Today’s New International Version (TNIV).
4. See the Message (MSG).
5. See the New Living Translation (NLT).
6. See the GOD’S WORD Translation (GW).
7. See the New Century Version (NCV).
8. See the Bible in Basic English Bible (BBE).
9. This point becomes apparent by comparing rāqîa‘ translations in Genesis to those in Psalms and Daniel. Bible versions which translate rāqîa‘ as “firmament” usually do so consistently, but versions using another word for rāqîa‘ are not so consistent; cf. BBE, CSB, DBY, ESV, NET, NIB, NIV, and NLT translations of Genesis 1:6 and Psalm 150:1, for example.
10. The word translated “sky” here is shamayim, which is more typically translated “heaven” (NKJV, NASB ESV). However, the word “sky,” as used in Genesis 1:8, seems to better convey the traditional Hebrew use of “heaven” to refer to the sky above and outer space beyond, not to God’s heaven, which is outside the rāqîa‘.
11. There are multiple solutions to the general relativity equations, and some such solutions imply the universe is bounded, though others suggest an unbounded universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hugh Henry received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Virginia in 1971, retired after 26 years at Varian Medical Systems, and currently serves as Lecturer in physics at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, KY.
Mr. Daniel J. Dyke received his Master of Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary 1981 and currently serves as professor of Old Testament at Cincinnati Christian University in Cincinnati, OH.
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Big Picture: How did the USA Fall So Far?
In the wake of the CIA's creation after WWII (which rather than providing only an intelligence component, began a clandestine paramilitary program including a virtual secret army replete with an assassination capability) a "Shadow Government" gradually arose which was referred to [by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation] as the "military industrial complex" (MIC) He warned about its growing power and influence which was already considerable by the time Eisenhower left office.
When John F. Kennedy became President in January of 1961, the power of this Shadow Government led by the MIC had already grown to a dangerous level. Kennedy realized after the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco in which the CIA seriously misled him, that the renegade agency would have to be dealt with and summarily fired DCI director Allen Dulles, his deputy General Charles P. Cabell and Richard Bissel CIA director of plans otherwise known as head of "black-ops." President Kennedy placed his brother Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in a position to informally oversee the CIA and some researchers believe JFK planned to make RFK head of the CIA after his re-election in 1964. JFK famously said he wanted to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. The Agency senior members had no more regard for him than he did them.
Due to various policy prescriptions of the Kennedy administration including withdrawing from Viet Nam, decreasing or ending the oil depletion allowance, beginning a rapprochement with the Soviet Union, decreasing or ending the power of the Federal Reserve and possibly ending the embargo of Cuba, President Kennedy became increasingly despised by many factions of the power base which increasingly made up the Shadow Government. For an excellent treatment of the many reasons why President Kennedy was assassinated see James W. Douglass. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2008).
A cadre of these diverse elements had JFK murdered, effectively ending not only the Kennedy administration but its major policy initiatives. The new President Lyndon B. Johnson quickly canceled or reversed them all e.g. through NSAM #273 he began the progressive buildup of US combat troops in Vietnam desired by the joint chiefs of staff under Kennedy but to which he would not acquiesce. This represented a complete change from the withdrawal that JFK had put into place through NSAM #263 in which the US would be completely out of Viet Nam by 1965. Since then no President has dared oppose the US national security state for fear of being disposed of either through premature retirement or permanently.
Today the MIC has become the MIMIC (media/intelligence/military/industrial/complex) as a result of over 45 years of media, defense, investment banking and other key industries being brought into the sphere of the MIMIC all of which benefitted from deregulation and consolidation. This has made it much easier for the Shadow Government to control the American populace in a subtle/covert yet highly effective fashion. The "not so Shadow Government" is now a ruling Oligarchy which is rapidly approaching a Fascist state not fundamentally different from that of the Third Reich as difficult as that may seem to be. JFK Assassination researcher Jim Marrs has outlined the many ways in which the two compare in his book The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies that Threaten to Take over America, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2008).
Many of the original intelligence agents who built the CIA after its creation were former Nazi's or individuals with various key associations to American elites [including investment banking ties] and the Nazi regime. The now all-powerful intelligence/"defense" apparatus of the United States is replete with neo-Nazi's known today as Neoconservatives made up of members of both major political parties.
Neoconservatives are intellectual descendants of Leon Trotsky through Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago who have now adopted Nazi tactics both domestically and abroad. For more information on the political teachings of the Straussian trained Neoconservatives read the writings of Professor Francis A. Boyle e.g. Biowarfare and Terrorism (Atlanta, Ga.: Clarity Press Inc. 2005) who completed parts of his education at the University of Chicago and who is therefore very familiar with Strassian derived Neoconservative politics.
I encourage any interested readers to investigate this site and my knew one HERE..., return on a frequent basis and by all means inform anyone you think might be interested in understanding how we as a nation got to our current dangerous situation. Only if we admit the truth about what has transpired will it be possible to reverse our inexorable decline.
Please feel free to utilize the comment section after each post.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
When John F. Kennedy became President in January of 1961, the power of this Shadow Government led by the MIC had already grown to a dangerous level. Kennedy realized after the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco in which the CIA seriously misled him, that the renegade agency would have to be dealt with and summarily fired DCI director Allen Dulles, his deputy General Charles P. Cabell and Richard Bissel CIA director of plans otherwise known as head of "black-ops." President Kennedy placed his brother Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in a position to informally oversee the CIA and some researchers believe JFK planned to make RFK head of the CIA after his re-election in 1964. JFK famously said he wanted to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. The Agency senior members had no more regard for him than he did them.
Due to various policy prescriptions of the Kennedy administration including withdrawing from Viet Nam, decreasing or ending the oil depletion allowance, beginning a rapprochement with the Soviet Union, decreasing or ending the power of the Federal Reserve and possibly ending the embargo of Cuba, President Kennedy became increasingly despised by many factions of the power base which increasingly made up the Shadow Government. For an excellent treatment of the many reasons why President Kennedy was assassinated see James W. Douglass. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2008).
A cadre of these diverse elements had JFK murdered, effectively ending not only the Kennedy administration but its major policy initiatives. The new President Lyndon B. Johnson quickly canceled or reversed them all e.g. through NSAM #273 he began the progressive buildup of US combat troops in Vietnam desired by the joint chiefs of staff under Kennedy but to which he would not acquiesce. This represented a complete change from the withdrawal that JFK had put into place through NSAM #263 in which the US would be completely out of Viet Nam by 1965. Since then no President has dared oppose the US national security state for fear of being disposed of either through premature retirement or permanently.
Today the MIC has become the MIMIC (media/intelligence/military/industrial/complex) as a result of over 45 years of media, defense, investment banking and other key industries being brought into the sphere of the MIMIC all of which benefitted from deregulation and consolidation. This has made it much easier for the Shadow Government to control the American populace in a subtle/covert yet highly effective fashion. The "not so Shadow Government" is now a ruling Oligarchy which is rapidly approaching a Fascist state not fundamentally different from that of the Third Reich as difficult as that may seem to be. JFK Assassination researcher Jim Marrs has outlined the many ways in which the two compare in his book The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies that Threaten to Take over America, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2008).
Many of the original intelligence agents who built the CIA after its creation were former Nazi's or individuals with various key associations to American elites [including investment banking ties] and the Nazi regime. The now all-powerful intelligence/"defense" apparatus of the United States is replete with neo-Nazi's known today as Neoconservatives made up of members of both major political parties.
Neoconservatives are intellectual descendants of Leon Trotsky through Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago who have now adopted Nazi tactics both domestically and abroad. For more information on the political teachings of the Straussian trained Neoconservatives read the writings of Professor Francis A. Boyle e.g. Biowarfare and Terrorism (Atlanta, Ga.: Clarity Press Inc. 2005) who completed parts of his education at the University of Chicago and who is therefore very familiar with Strassian derived Neoconservative politics.
I encourage any interested readers to investigate this site and my knew one HERE..., return on a frequent basis and by all means inform anyone you think might be interested in understanding how we as a nation got to our current dangerous situation. Only if we admit the truth about what has transpired will it be possible to reverse our inexorable decline.
Please feel free to utilize the comment section after each post.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Poisoning the Gulf's residents
Dahr Jamail continues to document the wave of illnesses that Gulf residents claim are a result of the toxic stew of oil and dispersants sprayed by BP.
By:Dahr Jamail
November 19, 2010
Inter Press Service
ORANGE BEACH, Ala.--Increasing numbers of U.S. Gulf Coast residents attribute ongoing sicknesses to BP's oil disaster and use of toxic dispersants.
"Now I have a bruising rash all around my stomach," Denise Rednour of Long Beach, Miss., told IPS. "This looks like bleeding under the skin."
Rednour lives near the coast and has been walking on the beach nearly every day since a BP oil rig exploded on April 20. She has noticed a dramatically lower number of wildlife, and said that many days the smell of chemicals from what she believes are BP's toxic dispersants fill the air.
Yet her primary concern is that she and many people she knows in the area have gotten sick.
"I have pain in my stomach, stabbing pains, in isolated areas," Rednour added. "The sharp stabbing pain is all over my abdomen where this discoloration is, it's in my arm pits and around my breasts. I have this dry hacking cough, my sinuses are swelling up, and I have an insatiable thirst."
Rednour's recent problems are a continuation of others that have beset her for months, including headaches, respiratory problems, runny nose, nausea and bleeding from the ears.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN RESPONSE to the massive spill last summer that released at least 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, BP admitted to using at least 1.9 million gallons of Corexit dispersants--which have been banned in 19 countries--to sink the oil. The dispersants contain chemicals that many scientists and toxicologists have warned are dangerous to humans, marine life and wildlife.
A March 1987 report titled "Organic Solvent Neurotoxicity" by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), states: "The acute neurotoxic effects of organic solvent exposure in workers and laboratory animals are narcosis, anesthesia, central nervous system (CNS) depression, respiratory arrest, unconsciousness and death."
Several chemicals and chemical compounds listed in the NIOSH report, such as styrene, toluene and xylene, are now present in the Gulf of Mexico as the result of BP's dispersants mixing with BP's crude oil.
Captain Lori DeAngelis runs dolphin tours out of Orange Beach, Ala.
"All my muscles hurt," DeAngelis told IPS. "By the time I climb my stairs every muscle in my legs are in spasm. I'm coughing, I have a constant sore throat and hoarse voice."
In addition to these symptoms, her memory is fading. "I have totally blanked out on a lot of important stuff," she said. "I can hardly remember having talked to people who've interviewed me. That's how bad it is. I'm having to bring pen and paper with me and write down everything so I don't forget."
Last month, Dr. Wilma Subra, a chemist and Macarthur Fellow, conducted blood tests for volatile solvents on eight people who live and work along the coast.
"All eight individuals tested had Ethylbenzene and m,p-Xylene in their blood in excess of the NHANES 95th Percentile," according to Subra's report. "Ethylbenzene, m,p-Xylene and Hexane are volatile organic chemicals that are present in the BP Crude Oil. The blood of all three females and five males had chemicals that are found in the BP Crude Oil."
DeAngelis was one of the people tested.
The health problems she and Rednour are experiencing are now common along the Gulf Coast, from Louisiana all the way to Florida.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHUCK BARNES is director of the Alabama district of the Eastern Surfing Association, and is responsible for organizing surfing competitions.
"In early September our local government gave the all-clear so surfers started going back into the water," Barnes told IPS. "But we immediately had several surfers get sick with headaches, upper respiratory problems, and other things and that's when I decided we needed to test the water."
Barnes says that tests conducted in the Orange Beach area "all came up toxic".
"Now I'm worried about the fact that everybody is still giving the all clear signal, but nobody [government] is doing honest testing," he said. "We have fresh tar balls washing up right now. They just turned the Gulf into their huge science experiment, and we're just sitting here under the microscope waiting to see what happens to us."
Joe Overstreet, a merchant seaman, lives in Fairhope, Alabama, which is on the coast and Mobile Bay. He also had his blood tested by Dr. Subra.
"I have a new rash on my body now, on my chest, and this is after an older rash I've had that turned into blisters. I did the blood test in Pensacola, and when it was returned I tested positive for six of the nine chemicals in BP's dispersants," he said.
Overstreet worked as an oil disaster response worker for BP.
"I take Benadryl pretty much every night so I don't wake up with a headache," he told IPS. "I have pains on my right side recently, and unbelievable headaches. When they start happening I have to stop everything. I have them every day."
Overstreet, who has worked in the oil fields and is familiar with the dangers and chemicals used, said he and his neighbors "could smell the Benzene coming up into the bay. I was working on the beaches, and on low tides we can see the clams out there. They used to be white. Now they are all black. And nobody seems to pay any attention to this. I've lived here all my life and I know it's not right."
Like others, he is mystified by the lack of appropriate response by government authorities.
"I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Nobody seems to be doing anything or talking about it," he said.
DeAngelis is worried about the dolphins she has come to love and protect, as well as humans living along the coast.
"It's devastating," she said. "My identity is wrapped in being Captain Lori, but I don't know if I can go on my waters and watch out for my babies, and nobody will tell us what is happening. I can't come up with the right words. This is the meanest, most deceitful, most horrible thing the government could do to us."
By:Dahr Jamail
November 19, 2010
Inter Press Service
ORANGE BEACH, Ala.--Increasing numbers of U.S. Gulf Coast residents attribute ongoing sicknesses to BP's oil disaster and use of toxic dispersants.
"Now I have a bruising rash all around my stomach," Denise Rednour of Long Beach, Miss., told IPS. "This looks like bleeding under the skin."
Rednour lives near the coast and has been walking on the beach nearly every day since a BP oil rig exploded on April 20. She has noticed a dramatically lower number of wildlife, and said that many days the smell of chemicals from what she believes are BP's toxic dispersants fill the air.
Yet her primary concern is that she and many people she knows in the area have gotten sick.
"I have pain in my stomach, stabbing pains, in isolated areas," Rednour added. "The sharp stabbing pain is all over my abdomen where this discoloration is, it's in my arm pits and around my breasts. I have this dry hacking cough, my sinuses are swelling up, and I have an insatiable thirst."
Rednour's recent problems are a continuation of others that have beset her for months, including headaches, respiratory problems, runny nose, nausea and bleeding from the ears.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN RESPONSE to the massive spill last summer that released at least 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, BP admitted to using at least 1.9 million gallons of Corexit dispersants--which have been banned in 19 countries--to sink the oil. The dispersants contain chemicals that many scientists and toxicologists have warned are dangerous to humans, marine life and wildlife.
A March 1987 report titled "Organic Solvent Neurotoxicity" by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), states: "The acute neurotoxic effects of organic solvent exposure in workers and laboratory animals are narcosis, anesthesia, central nervous system (CNS) depression, respiratory arrest, unconsciousness and death."
Several chemicals and chemical compounds listed in the NIOSH report, such as styrene, toluene and xylene, are now present in the Gulf of Mexico as the result of BP's dispersants mixing with BP's crude oil.
Captain Lori DeAngelis runs dolphin tours out of Orange Beach, Ala.
"All my muscles hurt," DeAngelis told IPS. "By the time I climb my stairs every muscle in my legs are in spasm. I'm coughing, I have a constant sore throat and hoarse voice."
In addition to these symptoms, her memory is fading. "I have totally blanked out on a lot of important stuff," she said. "I can hardly remember having talked to people who've interviewed me. That's how bad it is. I'm having to bring pen and paper with me and write down everything so I don't forget."
Last month, Dr. Wilma Subra, a chemist and Macarthur Fellow, conducted blood tests for volatile solvents on eight people who live and work along the coast.
"All eight individuals tested had Ethylbenzene and m,p-Xylene in their blood in excess of the NHANES 95th Percentile," according to Subra's report. "Ethylbenzene, m,p-Xylene and Hexane are volatile organic chemicals that are present in the BP Crude Oil. The blood of all three females and five males had chemicals that are found in the BP Crude Oil."
DeAngelis was one of the people tested.
The health problems she and Rednour are experiencing are now common along the Gulf Coast, from Louisiana all the way to Florida.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHUCK BARNES is director of the Alabama district of the Eastern Surfing Association, and is responsible for organizing surfing competitions.
"In early September our local government gave the all-clear so surfers started going back into the water," Barnes told IPS. "But we immediately had several surfers get sick with headaches, upper respiratory problems, and other things and that's when I decided we needed to test the water."
Barnes says that tests conducted in the Orange Beach area "all came up toxic".
"Now I'm worried about the fact that everybody is still giving the all clear signal, but nobody [government] is doing honest testing," he said. "We have fresh tar balls washing up right now. They just turned the Gulf into their huge science experiment, and we're just sitting here under the microscope waiting to see what happens to us."
Joe Overstreet, a merchant seaman, lives in Fairhope, Alabama, which is on the coast and Mobile Bay. He also had his blood tested by Dr. Subra.
"I have a new rash on my body now, on my chest, and this is after an older rash I've had that turned into blisters. I did the blood test in Pensacola, and when it was returned I tested positive for six of the nine chemicals in BP's dispersants," he said.
Overstreet worked as an oil disaster response worker for BP.
"I take Benadryl pretty much every night so I don't wake up with a headache," he told IPS. "I have pains on my right side recently, and unbelievable headaches. When they start happening I have to stop everything. I have them every day."
Overstreet, who has worked in the oil fields and is familiar with the dangers and chemicals used, said he and his neighbors "could smell the Benzene coming up into the bay. I was working on the beaches, and on low tides we can see the clams out there. They used to be white. Now they are all black. And nobody seems to pay any attention to this. I've lived here all my life and I know it's not right."
Like others, he is mystified by the lack of appropriate response by government authorities.
"I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Nobody seems to be doing anything or talking about it," he said.
DeAngelis is worried about the dolphins she has come to love and protect, as well as humans living along the coast.
"It's devastating," she said. "My identity is wrapped in being Captain Lori, but I don't know if I can go on my waters and watch out for my babies, and nobody will tell us what is happening. I can't come up with the right words. This is the meanest, most deceitful, most horrible thing the government could do to us."
Destructive Neoliberal Austerity
Editor's NOTE:
The all too obvious way to markedly reduce federal government spending, the federal budget deficit and to begin seriously reducing the national debt is to slash the trillion dollar per year war budget and end the foreign wars/occupations.
Realistically, the United States should be spending no more than 250 billion dollars per annum on "defense" related outlays at a maximum, including the various "black-ops" budgets and National Security related "necessities."
It is now clear that US military/paramilitary presence abroad is contributing to the creation of insurgents and so-called terrorists who then through their desire to do us harm force us to further increase our footprint overseas in an attempt to neutralize them. This is an absolutely absurd situation which essentially amounts to a destructive kind of positive feedback loop (more foreign US military/paramilitary presence means more foreign terrorists which necessitate more US forces ad-naseum).
The elites currently in charge of the MIMIC clearly understand this all too well and it would appear have two basic reasons for failing to stop the madness:
1) Waging foreign wars is extermely lucrative for a powerful and wealthy minority.
2) The USA is so close to being actually bankrupt that those in control of the "not so shadow government" are afraid to slash the war making budget lest our creditors; China, Japan, Germany etc. recognize that the "emperor has no clothes" and simultaneously demand payment for our debt that they hold. Our nuclear stockpile and conventional/special force posture is such that these creditors currently fear making the kinds of demands that they would if we were to suddenly lose our war-making capability.
As long as the non-elites tolerate the status quo, there is no incentive for those in charge of the Regime to change it. Apparently an effective unemployment rate >20% and a record home foreclosure rate is not enough of an impetus for them to stop the wars and slash the "defense" budget. Until we do, no program of austerity aimed at non-defense descretionary/non-discretionary spending will dig us out of the hole we are in.
SOLUTION:
Stop the wars, slash military spending, end the empire, end unfair trade practices and re-build a credible manufacturing base!
No nation can long survive which cannot manufacture the products necessary to sustain everyday existence. At present, the USA is capable of manufacturing little else than advanced military weapons.
Where are the Historians who should be lecturing us on the fall of the Roman Empire? The comparisons to 21st century America are stark indeed.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Destructive Neoliberal Austerity
Stephen Lendman
Monday 2010-11-22
warisacrime.org
Instead of vitally needed stimulus, Washington and European governments dictate austerity. The pretext of deficit reduction is being used to transfer more wealth to those already with too much, plus the usual canard over the urgency to save national banking systems.
In other words, make ordinary people bear the burden of bailing out banking giants responsible for the severest economic crisis since the Great Depression. How? The usual IMF solution, involving preservation of capital at the expense of workers - a package including wage and benefit cuts, less social spending, privatization of state resources, mass layoffs, deregulation, lower "onerous" taxes, maintaining corporate debt service, and harsh crackdowns against resisters.
In the 1980s, it was called Reaganomics, trickle down, and Thatcherism. Today it's destructive "shock therapy" called austerity, the same scheme pitting capital against people - disposable workers tossed out for big money's gain.
It's how predatory capitalism works, destructively for so many to enrich an elite few - snake oil peddled as an economic elixir, corrupted politicians and central bankers forcing harmful policies that, in fact, don't work.
Three years of failure showed imposed measures have hurt, not helped, and the longer they continue, the more sickness will spread and deepen, causing imposed poverty. It's why independent experts see long-term depression, rising unemployment, human deprivation, and bigger than ever bonuses for bankers until the inevitable house of cards collapses. Welcome to the new world order, phase two.
In America, the Fed furiously monitized debt. First QE I, now II, likely III and IV coming that could have worked the first time if constructively, not destructively used. An earlier article explained, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/11/quantitative-easing-elixir-or-pois...
Swapping credit for toxic assets helps banks, not the economy. However, using it for productive investment works. In her September 8 Webofdebt.com article titled, "How to Reverse A Deflation: Helicopter Ben Needs to Drop Some Money on Main Street," Ellen Brown explained that:
"Running the government's printing presses to pay its bills has not seriously been tried since the Civil War, when President Lincoln saved the North from a crippling war debt at usurious interest rates by printing greenbacks (US notes, interest free). Other countries, however, have tested and proven this model more recently. They include Germany, which pulled itself out of a massive financial collapse in the early 1930s by printing a form of currency called "MEFO bills," and Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all of which successfully funded public works in the first half of the 20th century simply by advancing the credit of the nation. China, Malaysia, Guernsey, Jersey, India, Argentina, and other countries" also tried it successfully during hard times to revive their economies.
Why not ailing America and European ones today. Central bank money creation (credit) for public projects and other productive investments stimulates economic growth, creates jobs, and turns depression into prosperity - inflation free by keeping credit and productive investment in balance. Whenever and wherever it's been tried, it worked when done right.
Instead, sweeping austerity measures are dictated for America and Europe. Last spring, an EU summit announced a Greece bailout package, dependent on "budgetary discipline" and imposed poverty, the same IMF prescription for Latvia, Iceland, Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine. Now eurozone shock therapy, what economist Michael Hudson calls a:
"neoliberal experiment....to drastically change the laws and structure of how European society will function for the next generation. If (successful, they'll) break up Europe, destroy the internal market, and render that continent a backwater."
Calling it a "financial coup d'etat," he said "bankers are demanding (and getting governments to) rebuild their loan reserves at labor's expense," Washington using the same ugly scheme.
Throughout the West, neoliberals are empowered. "From Brussels to Latvia, (they) aim to shrink their economies (by) roll(ing) back wage levels by 30 percent or more - depression-style levels," making Europe and America banana republics.
In late September, EU countries, led by Germany, increased pressure on member states to cut deficits by lower public spending, Chancellor Angela Merkel, in fact, demanding sanctions on offenders and suspending their voting rights for continued policy breaches. At the same time, corporate taxes have been cut, continuing a burden shift to workers. Since 2000, 12 of the 27 EU countries raised VAT rates, Hungary, Denmark and Sweden now charging 25% for commodity purchases while wages and benefits are being slashed. Some new world.
Across the continent, painful worker hammering continues, Ireland the latest troubled country making headlines. On November 13, Wall Street Journal writers Neil Shah and Marcus Walker wrote: "Ireland Stirs Specter of EU Default," saying:
"Europe's debt crisis is still smoldering (months) after relative calm," showing it deceptively hid big trouble, awaiting its moment to surface. The challenges facing Ireland "show few signs of abating soon," a worrisome contagion affecting Europe's largest economies, leading analysts to wonder what shoe will drop next.
Workers, of course, are most affected, spending cuts and high unemployment taking a punishing toll. More are coming, assuring greater deprivation and added impetus for increased emigration. Monthly, 1,250 students leave Ireland as well as thousands of young workers, seeing no future at home. Those remaining face growing burdens, including homeowners to avoid forclosure. One in eight mortgages is underwater. The worst is yet to come, and similar trouble affects Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Britain, and elsewhere across the continent, yet policy fixes assure worse ahead, not better.
Also in America, planned austerity the wrong solution for a sick economy, yet bipartisan support and two deficit cutting commissions back it. An earlier article explained, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-teams-deficit-cutting-propos...
It covered Obama's proposed social spending cuts, while leaving defense, banker bailouts, and other corporate subsidies intact, a prescription from hell promising harder than ever hard times for millions. On November 10, Obama's deficit cutting commission outlined its plan. The above link discussed it, a thinly veiled scheme to serve capital, not people when they most need it.
The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) was also mentioned, a lesser known group for the same purpose, its proposal imminent at the time. Now it's out with draconian measures as destructive as Obama's commission - proposing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social benefit cuts, harming working households most, the way elitists always cheat ordinary people for themselves.
Co-chaired by former Senator Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, former director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, it's called "Restoring America's Future," saying:
America "fac(es) two huge challenges that can only be surmounted" by bipartisan support "to curb the mounting debt (to) reinforce recovery, not impede it."
Typical elitist boilerplate, then proposing punishing measures on working households for greater enrichment for themselves. They include:
-- indexing Social Security benefits to life expectancy to reduce benefits as longevity increases; in other words, "incentiviz(ing) people to work longer to compensate for lower benefits;
-- eliminating annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs), justified by claiming inflation is overstated when, in fact, it's higher, especially for retirees facing costly medical expenses;
-- over the next 38 years, "rais(ing) the amount of wages subject to payroll taxes (now capped at $106,800) to cover 90% of all wages" - suggesting bonuses, capital gains, dividends, and other executive compensation be exempt, for many, the lion's share of their earnings;
-- instituting a one-year payroll tax holiday for workers and employers, Social Security to get no funding for 12 months to save an estimated $650 billion; supposedly, future general revenue will replenish the shortfall;
-- cutting Medicare benefits, including by higher Part B premiums (from 25 to 35% of total program costs), co-pays, and fees for outpatients services; also establishing privately owned, lower-cost, health insurance exchanges to be given competitive cost advantages over Medicare - a de facto Trojan horse to replace it eventually, leaving recipients at the mercy of predatory insurers that profit by denying expensive care;
-- by 2018, cutting Medicaid by the amount it grows faster than GDP, providing less care to the indigent, perhaps eventually none;
-- shielding insurers and drug giants from malpractice lawsuits by making it harder to file them; then capping non-economic and punitive damage awards, suits to be adjudicated in "specialized malpractice courts," that may, in fact, be civilian equivalents of military commissions, used to deny so-called "terrorists" due process and judicial fairness;
-- instituting a 6.5% national sales tax (called a Debt Reduction Sales Tax - DRST); like European VATs (value added taxes), they'll hit ordinary people hardest and can be incrementally raised anytime to hit harder;
-- simplifying the tax code to two brackets (15 and 27%), favoring the rich; regressively cutting the top personal and corporate tax rate from 35% to 27%, claiming it "will make the tax system more progressive;"
-- eliminating home mortgage and most other deductions and credits;
-- taxing employer provided health insurance to encourage less comprehensive coverage and make healthcare cost more;
-- freezing non-defense discretionary spending for four years, then capping it according to GDP growth - a prescription to slash social benefits, perhaps eliminating them later;
-- freezing "discretionary" defense spending for five years, then capping it with GDP growth; doing it, among other ways, by "reforming military health care;" in other words, cutting veterans' (and perhaps active duty forces') health benefits; and
-- various other schemes hitting working households hardest.
BPC said "19 Americans (elitist ones) from across the country, with diverse backgrounds and views, examined a broad range of spending and revenue options for the federal government....We believe (their plan) provides a comprehensive, viable path to restore our economy and build a strong America for future generations and for those around the world who look to the United States for leadership and hope."
More boilerplate, disguising a scheme to enrich the few while denying equal opportunity to growing millions, especially the poor, disadvantaged, needy dependents, disabled and retirees, leaving them more than ever on their own and out of luck, the "future America" none of them want or deserve.
The all too obvious way to markedly reduce federal government spending, the federal budget deficit and to begin seriously reducing the national debt is to slash the trillion dollar per year war budget and end the foreign wars/occupations.
Realistically, the United States should be spending no more than 250 billion dollars per annum on "defense" related outlays at a maximum, including the various "black-ops" budgets and National Security related "necessities."
It is now clear that US military/paramilitary presence abroad is contributing to the creation of insurgents and so-called terrorists who then through their desire to do us harm force us to further increase our footprint overseas in an attempt to neutralize them. This is an absolutely absurd situation which essentially amounts to a destructive kind of positive feedback loop (more foreign US military/paramilitary presence means more foreign terrorists which necessitate more US forces ad-naseum).
The elites currently in charge of the MIMIC clearly understand this all too well and it would appear have two basic reasons for failing to stop the madness:
1) Waging foreign wars is extermely lucrative for a powerful and wealthy minority.
2) The USA is so close to being actually bankrupt that those in control of the "not so shadow government" are afraid to slash the war making budget lest our creditors; China, Japan, Germany etc. recognize that the "emperor has no clothes" and simultaneously demand payment for our debt that they hold. Our nuclear stockpile and conventional/special force posture is such that these creditors currently fear making the kinds of demands that they would if we were to suddenly lose our war-making capability.
As long as the non-elites tolerate the status quo, there is no incentive for those in charge of the Regime to change it. Apparently an effective unemployment rate >20% and a record home foreclosure rate is not enough of an impetus for them to stop the wars and slash the "defense" budget. Until we do, no program of austerity aimed at non-defense descretionary/non-discretionary spending will dig us out of the hole we are in.
SOLUTION:
Stop the wars, slash military spending, end the empire, end unfair trade practices and re-build a credible manufacturing base!
No nation can long survive which cannot manufacture the products necessary to sustain everyday existence. At present, the USA is capable of manufacturing little else than advanced military weapons.
Where are the Historians who should be lecturing us on the fall of the Roman Empire? The comparisons to 21st century America are stark indeed.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Destructive Neoliberal Austerity
Stephen Lendman
Monday 2010-11-22
warisacrime.org
Instead of vitally needed stimulus, Washington and European governments dictate austerity. The pretext of deficit reduction is being used to transfer more wealth to those already with too much, plus the usual canard over the urgency to save national banking systems.
In other words, make ordinary people bear the burden of bailing out banking giants responsible for the severest economic crisis since the Great Depression. How? The usual IMF solution, involving preservation of capital at the expense of workers - a package including wage and benefit cuts, less social spending, privatization of state resources, mass layoffs, deregulation, lower "onerous" taxes, maintaining corporate debt service, and harsh crackdowns against resisters.
In the 1980s, it was called Reaganomics, trickle down, and Thatcherism. Today it's destructive "shock therapy" called austerity, the same scheme pitting capital against people - disposable workers tossed out for big money's gain.
It's how predatory capitalism works, destructively for so many to enrich an elite few - snake oil peddled as an economic elixir, corrupted politicians and central bankers forcing harmful policies that, in fact, don't work.
Three years of failure showed imposed measures have hurt, not helped, and the longer they continue, the more sickness will spread and deepen, causing imposed poverty. It's why independent experts see long-term depression, rising unemployment, human deprivation, and bigger than ever bonuses for bankers until the inevitable house of cards collapses. Welcome to the new world order, phase two.
In America, the Fed furiously monitized debt. First QE I, now II, likely III and IV coming that could have worked the first time if constructively, not destructively used. An earlier article explained, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/11/quantitative-easing-elixir-or-pois...
Swapping credit for toxic assets helps banks, not the economy. However, using it for productive investment works. In her September 8 Webofdebt.com article titled, "How to Reverse A Deflation: Helicopter Ben Needs to Drop Some Money on Main Street," Ellen Brown explained that:
"Running the government's printing presses to pay its bills has not seriously been tried since the Civil War, when President Lincoln saved the North from a crippling war debt at usurious interest rates by printing greenbacks (US notes, interest free). Other countries, however, have tested and proven this model more recently. They include Germany, which pulled itself out of a massive financial collapse in the early 1930s by printing a form of currency called "MEFO bills," and Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all of which successfully funded public works in the first half of the 20th century simply by advancing the credit of the nation. China, Malaysia, Guernsey, Jersey, India, Argentina, and other countries" also tried it successfully during hard times to revive their economies.
Why not ailing America and European ones today. Central bank money creation (credit) for public projects and other productive investments stimulates economic growth, creates jobs, and turns depression into prosperity - inflation free by keeping credit and productive investment in balance. Whenever and wherever it's been tried, it worked when done right.
Instead, sweeping austerity measures are dictated for America and Europe. Last spring, an EU summit announced a Greece bailout package, dependent on "budgetary discipline" and imposed poverty, the same IMF prescription for Latvia, Iceland, Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine. Now eurozone shock therapy, what economist Michael Hudson calls a:
"neoliberal experiment....to drastically change the laws and structure of how European society will function for the next generation. If (successful, they'll) break up Europe, destroy the internal market, and render that continent a backwater."
Calling it a "financial coup d'etat," he said "bankers are demanding (and getting governments to) rebuild their loan reserves at labor's expense," Washington using the same ugly scheme.
Throughout the West, neoliberals are empowered. "From Brussels to Latvia, (they) aim to shrink their economies (by) roll(ing) back wage levels by 30 percent or more - depression-style levels," making Europe and America banana republics.
In late September, EU countries, led by Germany, increased pressure on member states to cut deficits by lower public spending, Chancellor Angela Merkel, in fact, demanding sanctions on offenders and suspending their voting rights for continued policy breaches. At the same time, corporate taxes have been cut, continuing a burden shift to workers. Since 2000, 12 of the 27 EU countries raised VAT rates, Hungary, Denmark and Sweden now charging 25% for commodity purchases while wages and benefits are being slashed. Some new world.
Across the continent, painful worker hammering continues, Ireland the latest troubled country making headlines. On November 13, Wall Street Journal writers Neil Shah and Marcus Walker wrote: "Ireland Stirs Specter of EU Default," saying:
"Europe's debt crisis is still smoldering (months) after relative calm," showing it deceptively hid big trouble, awaiting its moment to surface. The challenges facing Ireland "show few signs of abating soon," a worrisome contagion affecting Europe's largest economies, leading analysts to wonder what shoe will drop next.
Workers, of course, are most affected, spending cuts and high unemployment taking a punishing toll. More are coming, assuring greater deprivation and added impetus for increased emigration. Monthly, 1,250 students leave Ireland as well as thousands of young workers, seeing no future at home. Those remaining face growing burdens, including homeowners to avoid forclosure. One in eight mortgages is underwater. The worst is yet to come, and similar trouble affects Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Britain, and elsewhere across the continent, yet policy fixes assure worse ahead, not better.
Also in America, planned austerity the wrong solution for a sick economy, yet bipartisan support and two deficit cutting commissions back it. An earlier article explained, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-teams-deficit-cutting-propos...
It covered Obama's proposed social spending cuts, while leaving defense, banker bailouts, and other corporate subsidies intact, a prescription from hell promising harder than ever hard times for millions. On November 10, Obama's deficit cutting commission outlined its plan. The above link discussed it, a thinly veiled scheme to serve capital, not people when they most need it.
The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) was also mentioned, a lesser known group for the same purpose, its proposal imminent at the time. Now it's out with draconian measures as destructive as Obama's commission - proposing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social benefit cuts, harming working households most, the way elitists always cheat ordinary people for themselves.
Co-chaired by former Senator Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, former director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, it's called "Restoring America's Future," saying:
America "fac(es) two huge challenges that can only be surmounted" by bipartisan support "to curb the mounting debt (to) reinforce recovery, not impede it."
Typical elitist boilerplate, then proposing punishing measures on working households for greater enrichment for themselves. They include:
-- indexing Social Security benefits to life expectancy to reduce benefits as longevity increases; in other words, "incentiviz(ing) people to work longer to compensate for lower benefits;
-- eliminating annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs), justified by claiming inflation is overstated when, in fact, it's higher, especially for retirees facing costly medical expenses;
-- over the next 38 years, "rais(ing) the amount of wages subject to payroll taxes (now capped at $106,800) to cover 90% of all wages" - suggesting bonuses, capital gains, dividends, and other executive compensation be exempt, for many, the lion's share of their earnings;
-- instituting a one-year payroll tax holiday for workers and employers, Social Security to get no funding for 12 months to save an estimated $650 billion; supposedly, future general revenue will replenish the shortfall;
-- cutting Medicare benefits, including by higher Part B premiums (from 25 to 35% of total program costs), co-pays, and fees for outpatients services; also establishing privately owned, lower-cost, health insurance exchanges to be given competitive cost advantages over Medicare - a de facto Trojan horse to replace it eventually, leaving recipients at the mercy of predatory insurers that profit by denying expensive care;
-- by 2018, cutting Medicaid by the amount it grows faster than GDP, providing less care to the indigent, perhaps eventually none;
-- shielding insurers and drug giants from malpractice lawsuits by making it harder to file them; then capping non-economic and punitive damage awards, suits to be adjudicated in "specialized malpractice courts," that may, in fact, be civilian equivalents of military commissions, used to deny so-called "terrorists" due process and judicial fairness;
-- instituting a 6.5% national sales tax (called a Debt Reduction Sales Tax - DRST); like European VATs (value added taxes), they'll hit ordinary people hardest and can be incrementally raised anytime to hit harder;
-- simplifying the tax code to two brackets (15 and 27%), favoring the rich; regressively cutting the top personal and corporate tax rate from 35% to 27%, claiming it "will make the tax system more progressive;"
-- eliminating home mortgage and most other deductions and credits;
-- taxing employer provided health insurance to encourage less comprehensive coverage and make healthcare cost more;
-- freezing non-defense discretionary spending for four years, then capping it according to GDP growth - a prescription to slash social benefits, perhaps eliminating them later;
-- freezing "discretionary" defense spending for five years, then capping it with GDP growth; doing it, among other ways, by "reforming military health care;" in other words, cutting veterans' (and perhaps active duty forces') health benefits; and
-- various other schemes hitting working households hardest.
BPC said "19 Americans (elitist ones) from across the country, with diverse backgrounds and views, examined a broad range of spending and revenue options for the federal government....We believe (their plan) provides a comprehensive, viable path to restore our economy and build a strong America for future generations and for those around the world who look to the United States for leadership and hope."
More boilerplate, disguising a scheme to enrich the few while denying equal opportunity to growing millions, especially the poor, disadvantaged, needy dependents, disabled and retirees, leaving them more than ever on their own and out of luck, the "future America" none of them want or deserve.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Big "3" Philosophical Worldviews
Editor's NOTE:
I do not wish to enter into a discussion here of the many variations which exist regarding the so-called Big Bang Theory or the issue of whether a multiverse(s) scenario is compatible with the BBT in any of its forms and or whether such a possiblity is consistent with the metaphysical concept of Creation ex Nihilo. Suffice it to say that astrophysicist's Dr Jeff Zweerink and to a lesser extent Dr. Hugh Ross of RTB have addressed the latter question from primarily a scientific perspective.
I must stress however, from a metaphysical standpoint, it is impossible for "being" that is physical or spiritual existence to derive from non-being. Any "being", understood as material or spiritual existence, must be derivative and not original--C.S. Lewis recognized this and made the case effectively in his Mere Christianity. Only an entity whose very nature is being can adequately explain the existence of derivative being. This is apparent from a study of the Philosophy of Nature as outlined by Professor William Wallace in his excellent work The Modeling of Nature: Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, January 1997).
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By Kenneth Richard Samples
Resident Philosopher, RTB HERE...
Three Big-Picture Philosophical Perspectives on the Origin of the Cosmos
Over 300 years ago German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
(1646–1716)asked what may still be the ultimate metaphysical question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”1
Leibniz’ profound interrogative leads to other important metaphysical inquiries such as “How is the existence of the cosmos best explained?” and “Which philosophical worldview system seems to best comport with modern scientific cosmology?”
Three basic philosophical positions concerning the origin of the cosmos compete to
explain the reality of the universe. These three viewpoints are:
(1) creation ex materia;
(2) creation ex deo;
(3) creation ex nihilo.2
Philosophically, is one position to be favored over the others? And how does each match with modern scientific cosmology?
Creation ex materia
This view asserts that matter (and its constituent parts) is eternal in some form. Thus the universe has always existed in some manner. Accordingly, to the extent that the universe was actually created (or better yet “formed”) it came “out of preexisting materials.” Those who affirm God’s existence and those who deny
a divine reality have both adopted the creation ex materia position.
First, the ancient Greek and dualistic philosopher Plato (427–347 BC) proposed that a divine craftsman (the Demiurge) shaped an orderly cosmos into existence out of disorderly matter. This divine builder formed matter but did not originate it because matter is eternal. Thus, the divine craftsman simply gave shape to the eternal stuff of the universe. Interestingly enough, Plato, who some view as a proto-theist, saw value in the argument for God’s existence from design in the cosmos (the teleological argument).
Second, secular materialists, or naturalists, have held the creation ex materia position dating from ancient times to the present. Viewing the universe in materialistic and physicalistic terms was affirmed by, among others, the ancient Atomists, the contemporary Marxists, and other advocates of naturalism (the view that
the physical cosmos is the exclusive reality). Today’s advocates of creation ex materia believe that the material cosmos consists of a closed physical
system that somehow self-sustains and self-generates. These thoroughgoing naturalists believe that matter is either eternal in some form or that it emerged from nothing without a cause (with the latter idea being hard to square with the idea of the cosmos as a brute reality). Even advocates of the multiverse theory would
likely fit under the category of creation ex materia. Contemporary secular advocates of this position affirm the following philosophical tenets.
1. Matter is eternal in some form.
2. No supernatural creator exists.
3. Human beings are purely physical entities and,
thus, mortal.
4. Humans evolved by purely naturalistic means
from lower animals; thus, humans are different
only in degree (instead of kind) from the animals.
Creation ex deo
This metaphysical perspective reflects the worldview position of pantheistic monism (all reality is one and that single reality is God). Pantheistic monism takes two forms in attempting to explain the cosmos in relationship to the ultimate reality of God.
The first form of pantheistic monism is called absolute pantheism. It affirms that only mind or spirit exists; therefore, matter is an illusion (maya). Hindu philosopher Shankara (c. AD 788–821) proclaimed that ultimate reality is God and the physical cosmos is then an illusion. Consequently, one may think of the
illusory cosmos coming forth from God as analogous to a dream coming forth from a mind.
The second stripe of this Eastern mystical philosophy is called nonabsolute pantheism. It can be thought of as having a more flexible, or elastic, approach to ultimate reality. While holding that all is one in God, this perspective
accepts a form of multiplicity within the ultimate unity. Accordingly, this position views the cosmos as genuinely springing from the essence of God.
Pantheistic monism either asserts that the cosmos is an illusory entity or that it somehow emanates from the being of God. Either way, all is God and God is all.
Advocates of this mystical viewpoint hold to the following philosophical tenets.
1. All reality is one and that single reality is God.
2. There is no absolute distinction between creator
and creation; thus, creator and creation are one.
3. The cosmos is either an illusion from God or is
an emanation of God’s being.
4. The true human “self” (atman) is God (Brahman).
Creation ex nihilo
Historical theologian Richard Muller defines the Latin term ex nihilo as a reference “to the divine creation of the world not of preexistent, and therefore
eternal, materials, but out of nothing.”3 This biblical doctrine teaches that originally nothing existed but God (an infinite, eternal, and tri-personal Spirit). By means of his incalculable wisdom and infinite power, God alone brought the universe (all matter, energy, time, and space) into existence from nothing, not from
any preexistent physical reality such as matter and its connected realities.
To elucidate further, "nothing" should not be understood as being an actual something. In other words, nothing is not itself an entity; it is literally no-thing. Creation out of nothing means that God spoke or called all things (material and spiritual) into existence out of nonexistence.
The implication is that all of creation had a singular beginning and is completely dependent upon God for coming into being and for its continued existence. Since God is an eternal and necessary being, he brought all things into existence through his wisdom and power alone. However, the God of historic Christianity cannot create either ex materia or ex deo. Here’s why:
First, the God of historic Christian theism cannot create ex materia because if matter were eternal then it would compete with God’s sovereign ontological
status. In other words, God would have an eternal competitor.
Second, God cannot create ex deo for God is a simple being (without division or parts); he cannot take a part of himself and make the universe. The historic
Christian perspective of creation ex nihilo views God as a necessary reality (a being that cannot not exist) whereas the creation is a contingent reality that could
conceivably not exist.
Creation ex nihilo affirms the following philosophical
tenets.
1. God (as an eternal and necessary tri-personal
being) created all things out of nothing.
2. There is an ontological distinction between the
Creator (necessary being) and the creation (contingent
being).
3. The created order had a beginning and is completely
dependent upon God for its continuing
existence.
4. Humans were created in the image of God and
therefore have inherent dignity and moral worth.
Creation ex nihilo and modern scientific cosmology
In the second half of the twentieth century, a new cosmological theory called the “big bang” theory gained acceptance. This new theory has undergone extensive
testing and emerged among other cosmological views as the prevailing scientific model for the origin of the universe. According to the big bang theory, the universe (including all matter, energy, time, and space) came into being about 14 billion years ago. This amazing inception involved an actual singular beginning to all things. Furthermore, the big bang also postulates an expanding universe. The scientific conclusion, then, is that the universe is not eternal, nor is it static.
Thus, the standard big bang cosmological model has now replaced the steady-state (eternal universe) theory. And while the big bang is constantly being polished as
a scientific theory, most leading astrophysicists argue that it is definitely here to stay. Any expected changes to the model will likely be mere refinements, not revolutionary changes.
A universe with a singular beginning to all things from nothing also carries with it staggering religious implications. If the cosmos had an actual beginning, then inquiring about its cause seems appropriate, if not fundamentally necessary. Even secular scientists now\ talk casually about a “creation event” or “a moment of
creation.” But big bang cosmology’s resemblance to the biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo possesses a problem for the atheistic naturalist. Leibniz’ probative
question seems to echo through an endless canyon:
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Of the three big-picture philosophical perspectives on the origin of the cosmos, only the Bible’s doctrine of creation ex nihilo corresponds well with modern
scientific cosmology. That correspondence gives us confidence in the veracity of the Christian worldview.
Biblical Support for Creation ex Nihilo
Genesis 1:1 Romans 4:17
Psalm 33:6 Colossians 1:16
Proverbs 3:19 Hebrews 11:3
Jeremiah 32:17 Revelation 4:11
Three Competing Views on the
Origin of the Cosmos
Materialism’s ex materia (out of preexisting materials)
Panteism’s ex deo (out of God)
Theism’s ex nihilo (out of nothing)
ENDNOTES
1. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, The Principles of Nature and of Grace,
Based on Reason, in Philosophic Classics: Bacon to Kant, ed. Walter Kaufmann
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1961), sec. 7, 256.
2. For a discussion of these three views, see Norman L. Geisler, Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), s.v.
“creation, views of,” 172–77.
3. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms:
Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1985), s.v. “ex nihilo.”
Register
I do not wish to enter into a discussion here of the many variations which exist regarding the so-called Big Bang Theory or the issue of whether a multiverse(s) scenario is compatible with the BBT in any of its forms and or whether such a possiblity is consistent with the metaphysical concept of Creation ex Nihilo. Suffice it to say that astrophysicist's Dr Jeff Zweerink and to a lesser extent Dr. Hugh Ross of RTB have addressed the latter question from primarily a scientific perspective.
I must stress however, from a metaphysical standpoint, it is impossible for "being" that is physical or spiritual existence to derive from non-being. Any "being", understood as material or spiritual existence, must be derivative and not original--C.S. Lewis recognized this and made the case effectively in his Mere Christianity. Only an entity whose very nature is being can adequately explain the existence of derivative being. This is apparent from a study of the Philosophy of Nature as outlined by Professor William Wallace in his excellent work The Modeling of Nature: Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, January 1997).
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By Kenneth Richard Samples
Resident Philosopher, RTB HERE...
Three Big-Picture Philosophical Perspectives on the Origin of the Cosmos
Over 300 years ago German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
(1646–1716)asked what may still be the ultimate metaphysical question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”1
Leibniz’ profound interrogative leads to other important metaphysical inquiries such as “How is the existence of the cosmos best explained?” and “Which philosophical worldview system seems to best comport with modern scientific cosmology?”
Three basic philosophical positions concerning the origin of the cosmos compete to
explain the reality of the universe. These three viewpoints are:
(1) creation ex materia;
(2) creation ex deo;
(3) creation ex nihilo.2
Philosophically, is one position to be favored over the others? And how does each match with modern scientific cosmology?
Creation ex materia
This view asserts that matter (and its constituent parts) is eternal in some form. Thus the universe has always existed in some manner. Accordingly, to the extent that the universe was actually created (or better yet “formed”) it came “out of preexisting materials.” Those who affirm God’s existence and those who deny
a divine reality have both adopted the creation ex materia position.
First, the ancient Greek and dualistic philosopher Plato (427–347 BC) proposed that a divine craftsman (the Demiurge) shaped an orderly cosmos into existence out of disorderly matter. This divine builder formed matter but did not originate it because matter is eternal. Thus, the divine craftsman simply gave shape to the eternal stuff of the universe. Interestingly enough, Plato, who some view as a proto-theist, saw value in the argument for God’s existence from design in the cosmos (the teleological argument).
Second, secular materialists, or naturalists, have held the creation ex materia position dating from ancient times to the present. Viewing the universe in materialistic and physicalistic terms was affirmed by, among others, the ancient Atomists, the contemporary Marxists, and other advocates of naturalism (the view that
the physical cosmos is the exclusive reality). Today’s advocates of creation ex materia believe that the material cosmos consists of a closed physical
system that somehow self-sustains and self-generates. These thoroughgoing naturalists believe that matter is either eternal in some form or that it emerged from nothing without a cause (with the latter idea being hard to square with the idea of the cosmos as a brute reality). Even advocates of the multiverse theory would
likely fit under the category of creation ex materia. Contemporary secular advocates of this position affirm the following philosophical tenets.
1. Matter is eternal in some form.
2. No supernatural creator exists.
3. Human beings are purely physical entities and,
thus, mortal.
4. Humans evolved by purely naturalistic means
from lower animals; thus, humans are different
only in degree (instead of kind) from the animals.
Creation ex deo
This metaphysical perspective reflects the worldview position of pantheistic monism (all reality is one and that single reality is God). Pantheistic monism takes two forms in attempting to explain the cosmos in relationship to the ultimate reality of God.
The first form of pantheistic monism is called absolute pantheism. It affirms that only mind or spirit exists; therefore, matter is an illusion (maya). Hindu philosopher Shankara (c. AD 788–821) proclaimed that ultimate reality is God and the physical cosmos is then an illusion. Consequently, one may think of the
illusory cosmos coming forth from God as analogous to a dream coming forth from a mind.
The second stripe of this Eastern mystical philosophy is called nonabsolute pantheism. It can be thought of as having a more flexible, or elastic, approach to ultimate reality. While holding that all is one in God, this perspective
accepts a form of multiplicity within the ultimate unity. Accordingly, this position views the cosmos as genuinely springing from the essence of God.
Pantheistic monism either asserts that the cosmos is an illusory entity or that it somehow emanates from the being of God. Either way, all is God and God is all.
Advocates of this mystical viewpoint hold to the following philosophical tenets.
1. All reality is one and that single reality is God.
2. There is no absolute distinction between creator
and creation; thus, creator and creation are one.
3. The cosmos is either an illusion from God or is
an emanation of God’s being.
4. The true human “self” (atman) is God (Brahman).
Creation ex nihilo
Historical theologian Richard Muller defines the Latin term ex nihilo as a reference “to the divine creation of the world not of preexistent, and therefore
eternal, materials, but out of nothing.”3 This biblical doctrine teaches that originally nothing existed but God (an infinite, eternal, and tri-personal Spirit). By means of his incalculable wisdom and infinite power, God alone brought the universe (all matter, energy, time, and space) into existence from nothing, not from
any preexistent physical reality such as matter and its connected realities.
To elucidate further, "nothing" should not be understood as being an actual something. In other words, nothing is not itself an entity; it is literally no-thing. Creation out of nothing means that God spoke or called all things (material and spiritual) into existence out of nonexistence.
The implication is that all of creation had a singular beginning and is completely dependent upon God for coming into being and for its continued existence. Since God is an eternal and necessary being, he brought all things into existence through his wisdom and power alone. However, the God of historic Christianity cannot create either ex materia or ex deo. Here’s why:
First, the God of historic Christian theism cannot create ex materia because if matter were eternal then it would compete with God’s sovereign ontological
status. In other words, God would have an eternal competitor.
Second, God cannot create ex deo for God is a simple being (without division or parts); he cannot take a part of himself and make the universe. The historic
Christian perspective of creation ex nihilo views God as a necessary reality (a being that cannot not exist) whereas the creation is a contingent reality that could
conceivably not exist.
Creation ex nihilo affirms the following philosophical
tenets.
1. God (as an eternal and necessary tri-personal
being) created all things out of nothing.
2. There is an ontological distinction between the
Creator (necessary being) and the creation (contingent
being).
3. The created order had a beginning and is completely
dependent upon God for its continuing
existence.
4. Humans were created in the image of God and
therefore have inherent dignity and moral worth.
Creation ex nihilo and modern scientific cosmology
In the second half of the twentieth century, a new cosmological theory called the “big bang” theory gained acceptance. This new theory has undergone extensive
testing and emerged among other cosmological views as the prevailing scientific model for the origin of the universe. According to the big bang theory, the universe (including all matter, energy, time, and space) came into being about 14 billion years ago. This amazing inception involved an actual singular beginning to all things. Furthermore, the big bang also postulates an expanding universe. The scientific conclusion, then, is that the universe is not eternal, nor is it static.
Thus, the standard big bang cosmological model has now replaced the steady-state (eternal universe) theory. And while the big bang is constantly being polished as
a scientific theory, most leading astrophysicists argue that it is definitely here to stay. Any expected changes to the model will likely be mere refinements, not revolutionary changes.
A universe with a singular beginning to all things from nothing also carries with it staggering religious implications. If the cosmos had an actual beginning, then inquiring about its cause seems appropriate, if not fundamentally necessary. Even secular scientists now\ talk casually about a “creation event” or “a moment of
creation.” But big bang cosmology’s resemblance to the biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo possesses a problem for the atheistic naturalist. Leibniz’ probative
question seems to echo through an endless canyon:
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Of the three big-picture philosophical perspectives on the origin of the cosmos, only the Bible’s doctrine of creation ex nihilo corresponds well with modern
scientific cosmology. That correspondence gives us confidence in the veracity of the Christian worldview.
Biblical Support for Creation ex Nihilo
Genesis 1:1 Romans 4:17
Psalm 33:6 Colossians 1:16
Proverbs 3:19 Hebrews 11:3
Jeremiah 32:17 Revelation 4:11
Three Competing Views on the
Origin of the Cosmos
Materialism’s ex materia (out of preexisting materials)
Panteism’s ex deo (out of God)
Theism’s ex nihilo (out of nothing)
ENDNOTES
1. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, The Principles of Nature and of Grace,
Based on Reason, in Philosophic Classics: Bacon to Kant, ed. Walter Kaufmann
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1961), sec. 7, 256.
2. For a discussion of these three views, see Norman L. Geisler, Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), s.v.
“creation, views of,” 172–77.
3. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms:
Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1985), s.v. “ex nihilo.”
Register
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)