reply to post by xuenchen
NOW WHAT ??
Games like this always have an end-game. It appears that the desired outcome for the military industrial complex is that this exponentially steady
march towards tyranny is expedited by an armed revolt by the American people. It really wouldn't take that large of a percentage of the population
to rise up and then quickly put down to show the threat the federal government has been pointing to all along was always very real, and to also
display the awesome force and speed by which they stomped upon this revolution.
Those American's who rise up in armed revolt will be those who have their heads lopped off and stuck on a pike first. It will be, if tyranny is to
be defeated this time, those who quietly refuse to acquiesce to all of this boogeyman mysticism being presented by government. It is sometimes
shocking, even for one who claims he saw this all coming a billion miles away, to realize just how sick with infestation this whole "terrorist vs
good old American government" is.
I recently saw Soderberg's movie Contagion with Matt Damon, Lawrence Fishburn, Kate Winslett, and Jude Law. I had always seen - probably because
media convinced me to agree with this - Soderberg as a sort of a renegade filmmaker who would occasionally do a slick studio film, presumably to
maintain his freedom to remain a renegade. If contagion was one of those slick studio films intended to maintain a renegade status, it is only the
status that remains, and whatever renegade Soderberg may have, or never been, his fawning portrayal of all things government was astoundingly stupid
Worse still, while the bad guy in a film about an epidemic virus that is decimating the worlds population would presumably be the virus, Soderberg
instead decides the bad guy should be an internet blogger and "guerrilla journalist"...all other media can, and of course, should be trusted, but
that seedy little internet blogger is - according to Soderberg's world view in Contagion - the obvious villain amidst this tragic state of affairs.
I make this point because of this. Between April and August of 1869 Sergey Nechayev wrote The Catechisms for a Revolutionary. Here is just one
passage from that disturbing doctrine:
The revolutionary despises all doctrines and refuses to accept the mundane sciences, leaving them for future generations. He knows only one
science: the science of destruction. For this reason, but only for this reason, he will study mechanics, physics, chemistry, and perhaps medicine. But
all day and all night he studies the vital science of human beings, their characteristics and circumstances, and all the phenomena of the present
social order. The object is perpetually the same: the surest and quickest way of destroying the whole filthy order.
The first time I ever read that I was stunned by the realization that one could almost reverse this doctrine for the artist.
The artist despises all doctrines and refuses to accept the mundane sciences, leaving them for future generations. He knows only one science: the
science of creation
. For this reason, but only for this reason, he will study mechanics, physics, chemistry, and perhaps medicine. But all day
and all night he studies the vital science of human beings, their characteristics and circumstances, and all the phenomena of the present social
order. The object is perpetually the same: The surest and quickest way of creating a better world order.
Every revolution begins with its artists. What now? Create! Refuse to acquiesce to tyranny as quietly as possible and create a better tomorrow.