(04/08/03 12:00pm)
This is about morality and its pervasive, erroneous influence on the current world situation. I come to you as an individual. I speak out against both warmongers and peace activists alike, for their continual deception and misleading of the public with their wretched points of view, all under the guise of so-called morality and virtues.
I do not align myself with any group, either for or against war. Morality is a sickness and a severe weakness to all those who accept its principles as true. The moral lifestyles of the overwhelming majority of humankind have effectively stupefied us to the point of near insurmountable ignorance.
One thing is for certain: evil, badness and sin are all necessary elements to each and every political system in existence today. All moral concepts are designed to prevent humanity from evolving, growing and thinking. This is to prevent us from questioning the very political institutions that govern our lives.
Without evil, without badness, without morality, why else is there a need for any political system, and those in positions of authority within those systems? Moral concepts such as evil and badness are perceived as absolutes, as great constants of life and human nature - very much out of our control, but somehow within the control of the "high priests" of our political systems.
As the insightful philosopher Nietzsche puts it, man "must suffer . and he must suffer so much that he is always in need of the priest."
Our leaders create systems of suffering and stress to cloud our minds and shield us from truth and knowledge. To aspire to be a "good" individual, and to live life according to some prescribed, absolute moral system, is degenerate to your own happiness and the evolution of humankind. Quite simply, life is about power, control and nothing else.
Politicians will have us believe that life is about good and evil, right and wrong, while the whole time reveling in the complacence of nine-tenths of humanity. Every single one of us, myself included, is an idiot . we are too stupid, too insipid, too ignorant, too pathetic and much too weak-willed to stand up for ourselves.
We cannot stand up against the self-gratifying games that politicians play, these ruthless dictators that rule the world, from Bush, to Hussein, to bin Laden, to Blair, to Jong-Il.
Peace activists protest war in the name of love, peace, happiness and stability. These are the very same moral fantasies that politicians campaign for. Both sides point the finger at each other, ignorant of their shared sickly moral principles.
I desire truth, not convention. I have cheated, I have stolen and I have lied. I have purposely inflicted pain on others and used them to my own advantage, while the whole time taking great pleasure in doing so. I am extremely prone to error, mostly by actions manifested through my petty, animalistic passions and desires.
Most importantly, I am selfish and totally self-absorbed. But I am human above all, and I am no different in nature than any one of you. The only difference between you and I is that I am willing to see what most of you are unwilling to see: your own self.
Life is constantly changing and we must constantly struggle with life and with others in order to evolve, to learn and to grow. Most individuals today desire stability, happiness vvcccc and stagnation.
To believe that any one of us will ever attain a higher state of moral harmony, peace or happiness is mental suicide.
Life is struggle, life is random and life is chaos.
(03/04/03 12:00pm)
The current political, social, cultural and international environment is one of such complexity, such importance, that it is deserving of every individual's undivided attention.
The events of Sept. 11 have had a profound effect on American diplomacy, specifically in two areas. There seems to be greater emphasis on unilateral methods in the conduct of American foreign policy, as well as a new strategic doctrine of preventive war.
Both give an imperial dimension to American policy unmatched in prior experience. With this in mind, it seems that war is inevitable. So, in response to this inevitability, I would just like to go over the many reasons and arguments against this pointless endeavor our nation might embark on.
First, the Iraqi regime and its leader Saddam Hussein must be addressed. President Bush has long promised that Hussein is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and is willing to use those weapons on the American people. Yet lengthy weapons inspections, led by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, have not revealed conclusive evidence of Iraqi biological, chemical or nuclear weapons programs.
The only conclusive Iraqi breach of U.N. resolutions concerns its Al-Samoud two missiles, which fly farther than the 93-mile limit. However, these missiles are hardly weapons of mass destruction, and we are left to wonder exactly what weapons of mass destruction President Bush is speaking of.
Even if Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction, and is willing to use them on the American people as Bush says, then how is fighting a war with Iraq the best solution? Would not an attack on Iraq immediately provoke Hussein to use his weapons of mass destruction on the American people? Are we even willing to take the chance that he may use those weapons if provoked?
The logic of the Bush administration's argument for war seems to be very flawed. We can only conclude that Iraq does have these weapons and President Bush simply does not care what Hussein will do with them once war begins or that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction at all.
While lengthy U.N. weapons inspections have yet to prove Iraqi dissonance, North Korea and leader Kim Jong-Il have openly stated to the international community that they intend to continue with their nuclear power program. In fact, North Korea backed out of a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and removed U.N. nuclear monitors from the country. Kim Jong-Il also threatens to back out of the armistice that ended the Korean War with the United States.
North Korea has recently reactivated its nuclear power program involving enriched uranium. Not only this, but North Korea's Taepo Dong 2 missile is reportedly capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast of the continental United States.
North Korea is definitely in breach of U.N. resolutions, but Kim Jong-Il has warned the U.N. that his country will treat any economic sanctions as a declaration of war. Quite obviously, North Korea has the means to provoke the United States into a conflict, and seems to pose a more serious threat than Iraq.
Yet, the Bush administration has hardly even taken diplomatic measures to settle this conflict with North Korea, let alone military measures, as they have taken with Iraq.
Again, it seems that the logic of the Bush administration's argument for war is very flawed.
If Bush wants to fight a war with Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction and will use those weapons against the American people, then what about North Korea? Isn't Kim Jong-Il as much as a threat as Saddam Hussein, if not more so?
Has everyone forgotten about Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the terrorist organization al Qaeda? Why hasn't the Bush administration caught him yet? Why should we start a war with Iraq if bin Laden has yet to be captured?
Wouldn't a war with Iraq provoke more terrorist attacks against Americans? Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are an indisputable threat to the U.S., more so than Iraq or North Korea. The events of Sept. 11 prove this. It seems that the priorities of the Bush administration do not concern the safety of the American people. Osama bin Laden has killed more Americans than either Hussein or Kim Jong-Il.
The U.S. is also extremely susceptible to attacks from bin Laden and al Qaeda, more so than from Iraq or North Korea. Why doesn't the Bush administration devote more resources towards bin Laden and al Qaeda? American policy nowadays is all backwards. It's as if the only reason our arguments are right anymore is because we say so.