PRAXIS AND THEORY AND EMANCIPATION
No.
1126
BIENVENIDOS!!
WELCOME!! WILLKOMMEN!!
¿Qué Hacer?
Leer y estudiar nuestra "Misión Marx y Engels":
VERSIÓN HTML:
http://www.franz-lee.org/files/titulo.html
FRANZ J. T. LEE, MISIÓN MARX Y ENGELS:
GUERRA DE GUERRILLA CONTRA LA
VIOLENCIA IMPERIALISTA.
VERSIÓN OCUMENTO
MICROSOFT WORD, 1,7 MB
AQUÍ!
http://www.franz-lee.org/files/mxenvol12.doc
|
“Necesitamos
revolucionarios informados y que entiendan lo que dicen”
Respuesta al artículo de opinión “Necesitamos una mejor contraloría social” Por: AIPO
Publicado el Sábado, 23/07/05 10:38am |
|
||||||||
 |
|||||||||
By
Siegfried Tischler
“The most consequential
labeling fraud
perpetrated by religions is their cal-ling the soul something of high
moral/
ethical worth”. (The author in
a lecture)
Regardless of what religion or science say Homo sapiens is, the species name was a bad choice- after all, what is so smart about us humans? We are the only animal that kills without need, destroys not only its own (creations) but also its environs and despite its much vaunted “intelligence” is capable of the most stupid acts. What really separates humans from animals is the perversion of the herd-instinct. While in animals it exists to assure a betterment of the individual and herd, in humans it serves to benefit the leaders. Human hubris denigrated “in-stinct” to something that motivates (moves) only animals and arrogated for itself the most elusive of all concepts: “free will”. Maybe that was a bad move, as:
·
The
earliest kleptocratic profession emerged from the structuring of
mythical beliefs into religions, and the creators/ administrators of
religious
dogma (a.k.a. priests) turned innate spirituality (instincts?)
into a
control mechanism. When-ever their imagination could not come up with
“explanations”, they invoked the workings of what they called “God”.
When priests
by way of contemplation found out more and more about the ways in which
nature
and people “work” it hap-pened, that dogma increasingly was
contradicted by
reality.
·
This
then led to the emergence of other classes of kleptocrats– they
were called scientist and philosophers. Whenever they could not
explain
what they observed, they called the reason for it a “Natural Law”; the God-Creator was relegated to the
auxiliary “job” as God-of-the-Gap (cf. footnote# 68).
· Lao Tse is credited with having said that “knowledge is power” some 2,500 years ago. From this the ultimate kleptocrats– we call them politicians– arose. They simply made bigger promises to priests, scientists and philosophers in order to be able to make (and ostensibly keep) smaller promises to the hoi polloi.
The
rest is
“history”!
Even the Talmud, the arguably most soulless writing ever, in the Book of Yohas-sin (the pre-eminent historiographic Jewish book) notes, that "previous genera-tions of our forefathers in the darkness of the Diaspora read this book to enliven their souls". Despite the reassessment of modernity, the Book of Yohassin re-mains the important step on the road from the mist of tales and legends to the light of scientific exploration [http://www.israelshamir.net/talmud/introduction.shtml]. Virtually all religious texts let the “soul” concept appear as a haughty, exclusively “good” dimension of humanness.
Friedrich Nietzsche, however, lets his <Zarathustra> speak: “But this soul was slender, awful and starved: and cruelty was the lust of this soul”. Later then he asks: “Is not your soul poverty and filth and a whimsical [good] feeling?” When he then extolls that “the one I love whose soul is brimming over, who forgets himself and all things within himself: this is how all things [sic] become his undoing” he gets close to diagnosing the Mammonism of present times. A century ago, Nietzsche summed up the spiritual condition of Faustian man: “By my honour, friend, answered Zarathustra, all what you speak of does not exist: there is no devil and no hell. Your soul will be dead sooner than your body: do not fear anything anymore”. [pdf; find at http:www//gutenberg.net]. Priests, philo-sophers (with the foremost exception of Friedrich Nietzsche), scientists and politicians shamelessly perpetrate labeling fraud by appealing to the soul of their believers in order to hide their own immorality and unethical designs and ac-tions. Without the human capacity to “believe”, all these charlatans were power-less. They use the word god (when speaking of “their” religiousness) with the same disrespect as is apparent from their manipulation of our souls.
We, “the people” (as in the man on the street) of the “Western World” are being told that we are the “sovereign” and that representative democracy enables us to govern ourselves. By the same token we ostensibly enjoy the freedom to prosper in the free market economy. Academia prides itself of doing research that is not governed by (special) interests and promotes scientism as a replacement for spirituality. Religion (as in structured spirituality) is being progressively sidelined so as to enable “man” to act as a parasite on himself and his environment.
There can be little doubt that in the present time there is a huge divergence of the aims of policies proclaimed by politicians and actual “developments” and that the economic goals projected for all only ever are reached by a tiny minority. Even after the ravages of Hiroshima, Contergan, computers and AIDS[2] -science wants to be taken serious when it proclaims to be successfully working towards the “betterment of the human condition”. Religions have become a “growth indus-try” and few believers have noted, that the single God they gave themselves (were given by priests) has surreptitiously (been) transformed into <Mammon>, the ultimate moloch.
The manifest divergence of reality and proclaimed ideals- on all levels- begs for the question- how can it be, that people still elect treacherous governments, permit predatory capitalism and eagerly fund genocidal science? The Roman Catholic Church has been smart– in order to make up for lost believers, Pope John Paul II. created a huge number of saints. Catholics call on their saints to “pray for them”; in a time where stoves cook for us, washing machines wash our clothes and video recorders watch TV for us, saints “come in handy”[3].
When we briefly survey the last 75 or so years of “history”, we will stumble across innumerous cases of this divergence. Historical Revisionism, which in accord-ance with the (Baconian) Scientific Method is the only way in which historians should be permitted to operate, is deemed a “politically incorrect” activity[4]. For this simple reason we will simply never know, whether the history (as written by the winners) is real or manufactured. Some examples of alternate views have “made it” into the book-stores and as long as they are permitted to “live” there, it is legitimate (as in “legal”) to cite them here:
·
After
Winston Churchill had undemocratically[5]
become the leader of the crumbling
British Empire during WW II., he
promised “his” people blood and toil in order to overcome a ficticious
“enemy
to the freedoms” of the subjects of the Empire. An
objective look at “what really happened” will show, that the 3rd
Reich acted as the avenger of the invidious Versailles “treaty” that
had been
foisted on the losers of WW I. until 1941.
When
it became obvious, that Stalin was about to act out the doctrine of a
global
conquest inherent in communist dogma[6], Operation “Barbarossa” (a classi-cal
knee-jerk reaction) unleashed the double whammy of the “just war”.
·
The
agreement between Stalin and Roosevelt/
Churchill was that Russia would move its troops to East Asia after the
end of
hostilities of WW II. in Europe and fight the Japanese army in
Manchuria (cf.
footnote# 1). After the bombs of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
had demonstrated to the Japanese that continued figthing was pointless,
the
Pacific War ended surreptitiously.
Russian soldiers did not have to fight a war in Manchuria, but
simply
disarmed a beaten enemy. The Russian
dream of a Pacific warm-water port was dashed. This- a la
longue- (also) led to the Korean War!
The possibly biggest arms cache of all times, that had been prepositioned on Okinawa island for Allied troops to undertake the invasion of Japan was sold to Ho Chi Minh[7], a- then still- obscure agent of the OSS (Office of Special Services, the forerunner of the CIA) for one ceremonial dollar, to enable him to fight the French colonial masters in Vietnam. This- a la longue- led to the Vietnam War!
· In 1946, there were two huge armies, the Soviet and American. If they had joined up, no other force could have resisted them. Such a proposal for World Go-vernment[8] was to be read in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1946. In his book <Has Man a Future?>, Bertrand Russell- an advocate of world government- describes how it developed, first as a proposal assembled by David Lilienthal, then in a form developed by Bernard Baruch. This "Baruch Plan" was canvassed in the BAS issues of 1946 and put to Stalin. By the end of that year, Stalin had rejected it, on the grounds that it required submission to Washington, and the Cold War had begun (see [http://users.cyberone.com.au/ myers/baruch-plan.html].)
It looks very much like the „Cold War“ was not the ideological struggle that it was „sold as“ by the dumbing machine (a.k.a the Media), but rather the aversion of the USSR against a „One World government“ controlled by international finance.
· In 1948 the state of Israel was proclaimed and with that the unending fighting in the Middle-East was started.
We see, that
virtually all the “politically” motivated conflicts (to fight the
advance of
Communism…) of the last century were simply the effect of the
perfidiousness of
the winners of the two World Wars. The
Korean War had little of any ideolo-gical background, but was in
reality a
release valve for the grossly over-dimensioned American war economy[9]. The Vietnam War
served the same purpose and also ensured control over the hydrocarbon
reserves
of the South China Sea. The creation of
Israel was little more than a thorn in the side of the Islamic World so
as to
ensure that the Ummah could not devote the entirety of its energies to
the
betterment of the “human condition”[10].
We note a vast divergence of
“history” as it is written in the history text-books and as it is
portayed in
newer books that keep appearing. Was Napoleon correct when he
postulated, that history gets written by the winner?
If that were the only reason, then there
should be no such dichotomy as regards history, where there was no
(apparent/
immediate) “winner”, when the human condition went through changes. It is difficult to select the most
instructive examples[11]
that
show, that this is manifestly not the case:
· When we hear of the “discovery” of the Americas (which by the way stresses the fact that the peoples already living there then were– and still are- considered as little else but a nuissance), the name Christopher Columbus takes center stage. Gavin Menzies[12] describes in <1421> how the Chinese “Treasure Fleets” discovered the entirety of the world as geography knows it today. Columbus was navigating with maps that had been produced during these epic voyages. The hard evidence which Menzies presents destroys the reputation and machinations of generations of historians. We now know, that America had been „discovered“ by the Chinese from the East, and the West[13] a century earlier. Menzies suggests on p. 339: „Maybe New England should now be renamed New China“.
Even that was a re-discovery: Since 1920 cultural historians point out the parallels in architecture and ornaments of Mesoamerica- and China (Shang- 1570-1045 B.C.E.[14] und Zhou- 1045-221 B.C.E. Dynasty). Professor Mike Xu, of the Dept. of Foreign Languages, University of Central Oklahoma shows, that the settlements of the Olmec point towards 8°West of North, those of the Shang Dynasty in China but 5° East of North. This only becomes of importance when one appreciates, that they all point towards true North! Prof. Xu postulates, that some people eluded the collapse of the Shang Dynasty by using bamboo-rafts to escape into the Pacific Ocean. There was already extensive coastal shipping at that time and suitable vessels would have been carried by the Kuroshio current to middle America. (US NEWS and WORLD REPORT, November 2002)
· What we have come to know as the “Dark Ages”- the half Millennium following the demise of the Roman Empire is commonly believed to be the result of the destruction of “antique/ classical” culture[15] . David Keyes describes that around the globe great empires saw their demise at the same time and he holds an eruption of Krakatoa (between Java and Sumatra) in 555/556 C.E. responsible for that[16]. German historians have suggested that nearly 300 years of “history” have been “created” in order to adjust mistakes that have occurred during the change-over from the Julian to the Gregorian Calender in 1582[17]. This faking, Keyes argues, was only possible because of the devastation wrought by the climatric catastrophe caused by the eruption of Krakatau.
·
Steve Bloomfield reports
for THE
INDEPENDENT on
26 June
2005, that a series of astonishing
archaeological
findings of Roman military equipment prove that the Romans had already
arrived
decades before the invasion under Emperor Claudius in 43 C.E. which is
given in
every historical text-book. The
discovery of swords, helmets and armour
in Chichester, Sussex, dates back to a
period between the late first century B.C.E. and the early first
century C.E.
almost 50 years before the invasion which is taken as the "beginning"
of the Roman history of the British isles.
Even that
is just a refinement of bending history: every student
of Latin has to
translate the writings of Caesar, who reports on his disastrous
crossing of the
British Channell, his fight against Cassivellaunus in what is now
Hertfordshire
in 54/55 B.C.E. and his retreat to Gaul to put down a rebellion that
was
brewing there.
·
Iconoclastic writer
Immanuel
Velikowsky argued, that hundreds of years of Egyptian history have been
created
by historians[18] to patch over ignorance.
The confusion had arisen when historians had begun to
“synchronize” the
historical “truths” from different regions only to find that there were
tremendous discrepancies.
·
Lorraine Evans rewrites
“Bronze-Age”
history with her report on Meritaten, daughter of Egyptian pharao
Amenhotep
IV. In the 13th century
B.C.E. he purged all gods from the
Egyptian pantheon but the Sun-God Ra and henceforth called himself
Akhenaton. When soon later the
Mediterranean
volcano Santorin erupted and caused a (?) localised climatic
catastrophe, the
people (surely incited by the disen-franchised old priesthood) revolted
against
the pharao and his daughter Meritaten took flight on a fleet of ships.
Evans
traces[19] her journey through the Mediterranean, into the
Altlantic and
finally to the British Isles. This
“expedition” brought “Bronze-Age” technology to the British Isles and
she may
have lent her other name “Scota” to the
people who now go by it! The British tin-deposits are the closest such
occurrences to the European Bronze Age culture apart from tin from
Afghanistan,
which had been transported over land on the back of camels. While the initial technology arguably has
arisen in Egypt, the real blossoming of the Bronze Age may only have
happened after Scota’s epic flight. Paradigmatic
history puts Scota’s journey right into the middle
of the Bronze Age; the logistics of tin production however were only
given
after it. History is clearly
in need of revision!
·
The BBC
ScienceNews website reports on 05 July 2005, that
Dr. Silvia Gonzalez of Liverpool's John Moores University and her
colleagues
found footprints of humans in a quarry, some 130km south-east of Mexico
City,
in 2003. The footprints were preserved as trace fossils in volcanic ash
along
what was the shoreline of an ancient volcanic lake. They were soon
covered in
more ash and lake sediments and, when water levels rose,
became as solid as concrete. Different
materials from this horizont, as well as from below and above yield
consistent
age-dates by several methods and the sediment containing the footprints
is
assured to be around 38,000 years old[20]. This proves that there were humans living in the
Americas tens of
thousands of years before the "Clovis-paradigm" of text-book history
dates the settlement of the Americas. When will institutional historians abandon
to rattle the Clovis-mantra?
The above examples for the more recent history being quite possibly distorted beyond recognition can be “put down” to demands for political correctness, which we will deal with below; unshakeable textbook-wisom of earlier history is surely attributable to the unwillingness of academia to admit that they have been wrong in the past.
If
they did not act like that – who knows what other aspects of our
“knowledge”
would start to be questioned?
At this
stage, we look at the present time to be able to see how much (if any!)
“truth”
there is to what we “know” about the goings
ons of “real time” – our present lives:
·
Like
proselytising missionaries representatives of
the United States preach an un-changing mantra everywhere: that world
trade is
a moral imperative and that trade promotes democracy, political freedom
and
respect for human rights in participating nations. The mammonist
dogma stands opposed by the reality of income and wealth
inequality which the trade practised by the USA and its globalist
accomplices
generates. As Henry CK Liu, chairman of the New York-based Liu
Investments
Group exhorts: if trade
promotes such [..] conditions, the practice of linking trade
to freedom is tantamount to denying medicine to the sick. [http://www.atimes.
com/atimes/Global_Economy/GF16Dj01.html]. Apart
from the obvious fact that this mantra is a string of lies, the US
practice of
trade embargo against countries Wash-ington deems undemocratic, lacking
in
political freedom and deficient in respect for human rights, contradicts all this verbiage.
l
When the
“American Destruct Machine”, assisted by a
string of wannabe military somebody’s [21]
invaded Iraq in 2003, this followed months of incessant bombardment of
the
public conscious with “reports” on Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass
Destruc-tion, being in association with Al-Qaeda and having been
complicipt in
the events of 9-11. At the same time
“no-fly” zones were enforced and
untold amounts of useless industrial production (a.k.a. bombs) dropped
on
hapless people. At the price of at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths, several
thousand
American (and allied) dead, uncountable multitudes of people having
received
doses of Alpha-radiation (from the used Depleted Uranium munitions
which render
them walking dead and their children grotesquely
malformed mutants[22])
and the most progressive Arab (Muslim) nation on earth in total
shatters, Bush,
Blair, Howard and countless other complicit politicians have been
exposed as
shameless liers and rabid war-criminals! All
of them got “re-elected” after this debacle:
È
the
Australian election was preceded by (yet
another[23])
convenient bombing attack in
Indonesia outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta and
È
the
American election was most obviously a sham[24].
È
the
British people may have been of the opinion
that one Disraeli was plenty!
l
The “War
on Terror”, which was ab initio in reality a war of
terror on the Islamic World (Ummah) is keeping the American economy
on a
war footing. After the demise of the “Evil Empire” (in the dictum
of Ronald Reagan) the beacon of freedom and democracy was on
the look-out for a replacement monster[25].
With the events of 9-11 a concerted effort of elitist interests
succeded in
styling the Ummah into “the (new universal) adversary”.
È
Prof.
Michael Chossudovsky, with <Emergency
Preparedness against the "Uni-versal Adversary"> [http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HSC505A.html]
on 05 June 2005
presented another part of the puzzle that humanity must assemble (and
act upon)
with great haste in order to stave off <Orwellian Scenarios>. A recent Report of the Homeland Security
Council entitled "Planning Scenarios" describes in minute detail, the
Bush administration's preparations in the case of a terrorist attack by
an
enemy called the Universal Adversary
(UA). Law enforcement officials would
no longer be instructed to uphold the Rule of Law. In fact quite the
opposite. Arrests would be conducted on
behalf of officials in high office, who have broken the law, and who
are known
to have committed extensive war crimes. In the "reality model" script,
the US State, its military-intelligence apparatus and war planning
machine
become the guardians of the peace. The
State is [to be] above the law.
This
list could be extended ad infinitum-
hence ad absurdum! Historical
research will get more and more difficult with the passage of time and
even 20th
century history will soon have to do without any actual witnesses; this may well be the end of 20th
century history as we have come to “know” it, as facts do not lie!
The
“knowledge” on the present[26]
is little else but a collection of “truths” that have been installed in
the
public by special interests.
When we
try to shed light on how it can come to be that people “believe”
mani-fest
nonsense, we inevitably will start to question religious
dogma. But we do
not have to “go” that far. When
millennia ago “science” became a discipline of religious enterprise (as
many of
the riddles of nature became explicable and reli-gious dogma found
itself
“defrocked”), the search for truth
became as important to humans as the “afterlife”.
·
Aristotle
(384-322 B.C.E.) with his <Organon>
wrote a “manual” for philosophical thinking that is based on reality
·
Sir
Francis Bacon (1561-1626 C.E.) with <New
Organon> laid down the rules for scientific work
·
Thomas
Samuel Kuhn[27]
nearly half a century ago installed the term “Paradigm”[28]
within academia and by doing so undid all the good that Aristotle and
Bacon had
done.
Paradigmatic
science is based on the consensus of the “Elders” of each scientific
discipline
and academia has been effectively hobbled, condemned to run in ever
tighter
circles without a chance to transcend the status
quo. Kuhn (in effect) has turned
modern academia into a “throwback” to the times of the Han-Dynasty (205
B.C.E.
to 220 C.E.) during which no learned person was permitted to transcend
the
limits set by his teacher[29]. Some see in this a reason for the fact that
China for nearly 2 millennia has not ventured beyond its borders for
military
conquest in pursuit of imperial gradeur.
Why then
is the present time one of renewed “imperial” extension?
Dipl.-Ing.
Ekkehard Friebe,
a retired
senior official of the German Patent Office in Munich, has put onto his
website
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de
a summary of the effects of “paradigmatics” for the field of physics: he demonstrates that
· Newton’s Theory of Gravitation
· Thermodynamics
· Maxwell’s Electrodynamics
· Electron Theory
· Relativity Theory
·
Quantum Theory
are all
fundamentally flawed, as they are inherently contradictory. The reason
for this
undelectable situation is that the commonly accepted exact
“Mathematical Method”
demands that all conclusions follow from logical
steps. If there is
close to- or at the beginning of a scientific development an illogical,
non-sensical or wrong statement which is taken to be “proven fact” (a
so called
Natural Law), then this mistake
propagates or is dragged into the infinite. Hence these theories cannot
be
regarded as “truth” despite their practical “use” (as in technical
applicability); but this opens another “can of worms”.
Physicist Fritjof Capra[30] has brilliantly
phrased this conundrum with this delightful parsimony:
“science deals with
approximations of truth”[31].
Friebe (op. cit.)
develops five fundamental dogmas governing present science:
1.
Belief
in the infallability of mathematics. Scientists
fall into two groups:
i)
those
who really believe in this dogma; they are easily manipulated by the
members of
the second group
ii)
who
shamelessly take advantage of the gullability of the first group in
order to
get to and remain at the apex of the academic hierarchy
2.
Belief
in the infallability of experiments.
Experiments in most cases are simula-tions of actual situations and
with that
the above quoted statement of Capra becomes of ultimate importance.
This is
where <Ethics of Science> becomes of overriding importance
3.
Belief
in the infallibility of authority. Rarely ever do scientist who are caught in
this belief recognize the circularity of the arguments they support
4.
Belief
in the sincerety/ honesty of scientist.
Scientific fraud has been a mainstay of the scientific enterprise[32]
and the ever more stringent control of economic interests on scientific
research leads to an entirely hopeless situation. Brian Martinson, in a study on the (work) ethics of American
scientists that has been published in NATURE
on 09 June 2005
states that "our findings sug-gest
that U.S. scientists engage in a range of behaviors extending far
beyond
falsification, fabrication and plagiarism that can damage the integrity
of
science". A surprising 33 percent of the 3,200 scientists from
across
America (in terms of geography and disciplines) confessed to all kinds
of
misconduct- such as claiming credit for someone else's work, or
changing
results because of pressure from a study's sponsor. Martinson cautions,
that
the survey probably underestimates the misconduct, because some
scientists may
have feared discovery if they admitted their actions.
5.
Belief
in the obsoleteness of philosophy. This sorry aspect has been lamented by
Harvard entomolologist E.O. Wilson who argues that science is not based
anymore
on philosophy and philosophy seems to be able to work without a
scientific
base. This is why Wilson strives for
what he calls “Consilience”[33]
.
We
have seen that mankind looks at its fate through eyglasses that have
either
been borrowed from or supplied by somebody else. Too
bad, that what is hailed as an appliance that cuts down the
“glare” to an acceptable level is really a device to distort the view.
Ever
since factual knowledge on the “way that nature works” has painted
religions
into ever diminishing[34]
corners of our ignorance, the “priests” of religious cults that call
themselves
“scientists” have been gallopping roughshod over the conscious of
mankind as
regards the descriptive tools of mathematics and physics.
Since Medieval times they are in the habit
of calling approximate descriptions “explanations” and in this way try
to
explain the “Ghost in the Machine”[35]
with Nominalism (as if “naming”
something would give any reason for its being).
This had thinkers come up with ways
to explain the origin of “existence” in a multitude of ways. While initially priests called the causative
agent “God”, scientists were at a loss to supplant the “reason” with
anything
that did not involve teleology until the observation of the ways nature
works
suggested a “development” of everything towards the “better”. This was very much in accord with Platonic
thinking and as such nothing new, hence could overcome the resistance
of
religious dogmatism. Russel Alfred
Wallace and Charles Darwin in 1859 proposed to the Linnean Society in
London
their concepts of “Evolution”. That
Darwin called his “best-seller” the <Origin of the Species> is a
clear
indica-tion that he (himself!) was the originator of the greatest fraud
perpetrated– until then– by a scientist:
even though he could not explain how “novelty” appeared into
existence,
he made it appear, as if “his” theory
(it was really thought of by R.A. Wallace[36])
could do so by invoking serendipity.
This was the first (?) instance of God the
Creator being diminished to the “God of the Gap”[37]
(closing the chasm between human hubris and ignorance).
Viewing
this “theory” (evolution is little else but a hypothesis,
as there is no proof, no way to test it by experiment
and it has absolutely no predictive value!) as a vehicle to break out
from the
mental cage that religions had built around the spiritual existance of
humanity, the “Evolutionary Principle” took the world by storm. Friebe (op.cit.) shows
how science utilizes the “God of the Gap” by postulating “Natural Laws”
whenever the abyss of ignorance has to be bridged.
Paleontology refutes Darwinism with
cold hard fact. Both the “Edicara Fauna”[38]
and the “Cambrian Explosion”[39]
were momentous events in the history of life on Earth; evidently life
did not
emerge after humble beginnings but
burst into being like a Verdi opera- with exquisite grandeur and
intricate
“instrument-ation”. Not just once – but
twice! Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionist
extraordinaire, had to admit[40]
that “life has actually de-volved since
the Cambrian!”. Molecular biologist Michael Behe[41]
has parsimonially encapsulated the inconsistencies that surround
Darwinism in
what he calls “Darwin’s Black Box”.
In
the land of fundamentalist Judeo-Christian bigotry (a.k.a. USA) there
rages a
ferocious conflict between those who misinterpret
the conceptual base of Darwinism to suggest that it could ever “create”
anything (especially novelty!) and
the deist[42]
Creationists who mistake with their
postulates that the “God of the Gap” (which they manifestly believe in)
would
“rapture[43]”
them into to heaven after the “stage had been set” for the destruction
of the
world. Having (had) their spiritually
replaced by dogmatic postulates that lastly derive from Genesis:
12 (according to which the Earth was “made for” and
“given to” mankind, for it to do with it as it pleases, both groups are
working
steadfastly towards the destruction of Gaia (the living Earth[44]).
The
“Evolutionary Principle”, an inverted pyramid of conceptual make-belief
that is
based on contrived “Natural Laws” of the survival
of the fittest, its derivative, the
right of the strongest and
intellectual sibling more is better,
has entered surreptitiously practically all aspects of the “human
condition”:
·
Social
Darwinism,
a most ingenious way of explaining away elitist scheming, has by way of
“mission creep” subverted conceptual thinking on human co-existence.
Max Weber,
the eminent sociologist has put it into clear language[45]:
Fascism [the prevalent idiology in the
“Western World” of the early Third Millennium; N.B.: in the dictum
of Benito Mussolini: Corporatism] was not
a serendipitous consequence of the development of
monopoly-capitalism, but the effect of the
irreducible irratio-nality of capitalistic economic arrangements and an
aspect
of the self-destructive tendencies of instrumental rationality.
·
The drive
of everything towards the better let qualitative
“changes” appear to be
commensurate with quantitative
“more”- that is to say- “bigger became better”. The
dire consequences of that are apparent in all aspects of the
human condition where technology has
become the basis of human existence:
È
Warfare:
ever since the recipient of a Nobel Peace-Price (1906)
Bertha v. Suttner, had
spoken the
prescient words of “total war”,
technology permits the genocidal practices of the “powerful”.
Automated
weapons “revolutionised” warfare in the 19th century, while
the
claim to fame of the 20th century are Weapons of Mass
Destruction
(which curiously only one nation seems to be permitted to manufacture
and use,
even though it exports them vigorously the world over).
È
Economy:
it has always been like that, but never so unescapable as in the
present:
poverty is an input into economy[46].
Darwinian thinking lets it appear as if capitalism were “better” than
any other
–ism simply because it “survived” the epic struggle with all other
forms of
human co-existence.
È
Politics:
the 20th century first saw centripetal motions, when the
peripheries
of colonial empires became (politically) independent. This motion
reverted
to-wards the end of the century, when the empire (the earstwhile
multiplicity
had been reduced by “bigger is better” into just one center of “dum possum volo” – I can, therefore I
want; see footnote#
70 for
the psychological explanation for this phenomenon) began to apply brute
force
to prop up “Globalism”, the economic rationale of which became apparent
as the
elitist sham it always was.
È
Science: Particle Physics has been chasing for most
of the 20th century ever new sub-atomic particles. As Nobelist Leon Ledermann admits[47],
every new discovery enlarged the quantitative knowledge but asked far
more
qualitative questions than it was able to answer[48].
Computer
Science has passed in the mid-1980s a threshold that has not been noted
for
what it really was: initially a
blinking cursor (the insertion point) on the screen had stood for “wait
a
moment - I am thinking” …. since then it curses
the computer user and in effect says “get on with it – I am waiting”!
The
awesome computing power of machines is is beginning to re-verse the
master ó slave
relation.
Is that kind of “more” really “better”?
Molecular
Biology is now “creating” bio-bots[49]
hybrids of organisms and machines;
while this may be good fun for the involved scientists (who think they are playing God), they
are oblivious of history– every technological advance has been
“weaponized”. Several categories of
Nobel Prizes should be rolled into one: the invention of new Weapons of
Mass
Destruction.
As with the previous section, the given list could be extended greatly – but the point has surely been made already: mankind is beginning to realize, that J. W. von Goethe was very prescient when he wrote his poem <The Sorcerer’s Apprent-ice>. In all aspects of the human condition the ingenuety of man has come up with “ghosts” (spirits) that it cannot get rid of anymore without having to forego (some of) the utility with which human “creations” have changed the human con-dition.
The aforementioned examples clearly
demonstrate, that the usefulness, profitability or beneficiality of the “creations” of man (for which
maximization was sought in any situation) is not involving choices
anymore. With that, man becomes an
extension of the machines he had “created” to be his slaves!
Maybe
thinkers like Goethe and activists like the Luddites, who were opposing
machinization in early 19th
century England were right after all?
Nearly two centuries later thinkers and activists are proven
right:
Homo
technologicus
is not working for the common good
but is effect-ing the elitist better!
At this point we have to retrace our steps and ask, how it had been possible that the efforts of the brightest had not resulted in the betterment of the human con-dition of all of mankind, but rather had “created” heaven for some and at the same time hell for most.
Any such review has to be cognizant of the existential fault-line that sepa-rates the “Developed” and “Underdeveloped” Word. While the former emerged from the former colonial empires and its allies, the latter is the miserable ”resi-due” that colonial plunder of natural- and human resources has left after the political disintegration of the empires. Thomas E. Weisskopf[50] describes how it came, that the former colonies were never able to establish a viable political and economical system for themselves. While the imperial nations had all emerged from political revolutions and were governed democratically by a (revolutionary) bourgeoisie, a Middle Class was never really permitted to emerge in the colonies. There was no industrial development in the colonies, rather the raw materials were stripped and shipped to permit the development of the center. The peri-pheries also were never permitted to educate their people. The brightest were shipped off to the educational institutions in the center only to return as “mis-sionaries” for the Church of Mammon. When the de-colonialization began to “happen” between the World-Wars, this was signified by the replacement of soldiers/ political administrators with economic managers. The former colo-nies now are politically free, but find themselves economically enslaved by their former masters; the human condition of the people has (if anything) worsened. De-colonization was a sequitur of the recognition of the empires, that political control is not necessarily a precondition for economic plunder. While the empires had a moral responsibility to provide services to the colonies, the “free” new nations were easily controlled economically without any of the costs to the beneficiaries that the maintenance of colonies had entailed.
The “free” nations of the capitalist center were erecting trade barriers around themselves to protect their own economies from competition arising from the developing economies in the capitalist periphery by way of tariffs; Mahbub ul Haq demonstrated that during the 1970s final consumers paid an estimated US $ 200 billion for the major exports of the developing world for which they themselves only earned something like US $ 30 billion. This “poverty curtain” of tariffs and protective regulations replaced the former chasm of technological and civilizational differential[51].
With the benefit of hindsight, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc (“Evil Empire”) be-gins to look very much like a historical fractal[52]: for several decades the commu-nist economic order was the anti-thesis of a colonial empire in that the industrial production of the center was not sold to the periphery, but was used to barter for its resources.
While during the “Cold War” there was only limited economic interaction between the “empires” initially, increasingly involvement of capitalist “money creation” (i.e. by
