Intergenerational Inequality

Affectations!

Our society claims to be the most equal we have ever known. It is supposed that the evil and ancient monsters of racism, class barriers, and sexism have been subdued. Everyone has equal entitlements and rights protected by law, and all individuals have the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. During the great social upheaval after WWII, some of this became true. Unfortunately, bigotry exists in many places and in many ways. That, however, is the subject of another discussion (SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION). Today I will reveal to you a new evil that has appeared since WWII, one that was literally born of its veterans.

Some countries require a minimum term of military service from their youth, usually two years beginning at age 18. Like these countries, North America increasingly requires its youth to engage in a term of indentured servitude in the form of service industry jobs. It is no longer possible to succeed in life in North America without starting work at age 14 or 15. Money is a necessity to our material culture, and also to advance our social standing through education. After all, not all of us have our lives paid for by mommy and daddy. The expenses of being a teenager and 20 something in North America are ever increasing, and parents are less and less willing and able to provide them. Two major expenses are vehicular transportation (as mandated by the layout of suburbia) and tuition for post-secondary education.

So when all these teens go out looking for jobs, they often find that the market is limited. Most begin at the fast food level. If they're lucky, in a few years, they can move on to some other service, like golf courses, clothing, or groceries. Many will spend 5 years or more in the service industry, attending to the needs of more fortunate generations.

As the young progress to college/university, they must continue working, often at two or three jobs in order to finance growing tuitions. Full-time jobs are scarce, as are moderate wages. The inititive and intelligence of our society's youth are wasting away in kitchens and stock rooms, serving the middle aged and their families.

Meanwhile, between 1945 and 1960 our planet experienced an explosion of population growth known as the baby boom. In 2005 these baby boomers will turn into their 60's . Throughout their lives they have had everything handed to them. The 1950's and 60's were times of unprecidented prosperity, and the middle class knew it. They demanded a slice of that prosperity for themselves and their children. A democratic mandate like this could not be ignored and political parties jumped on the chance to cater to their demands. Baby bonuses, health care, pensions, and suburban infrastructure were recklessly implemented. As the baby boomers grew up, they learned from their parents how to demand things from the government. Since they got everything they wanted, they became accustomed to these institutions and their ways. If things didn't please them, they complained and the powerful democratic process responded. By always getting their way, the baby boomers developed a CULTURE OF ENTITLEMENT. They believe they have a right to services from the government and from society no matter what the cost.

It's funny how things worked out. The baby boom is often described as a pig travelling through the snake of demographic time. Sometimes it's the pig eating the snake. In either way, they represent a massive flux in the delicate balace of Human existance. Anyways, as they grew up, social services adapted to their needs. In the 50's elementary schools were improved and became mandatory. In the 60's, highschools experienced the same legislations and funding. In the 60's universities and colleges recieved attention as well to accomodate this growing population. In the 70's jobs were readily available for the baby boomers when they got out of their nearly tuition-free post secondary, and if not there was always unemployment insurance. Of course, the baby boomers and their parents had to extend their political power to the workplace. Unions grew, entrenched, and developed interests. The funny part? Now in 2005, the baby boomers aren't in university, and don't need good entry-level jobs. They've been around the block, and they now hold all the good, high-paying jobs as well as investing their voting practices with pensions and healthcare concerns (which are the primary political motive of an aging population). So come time for their children and grandchildren to get education and a good job, well, too bad.

The aging baby boomers will demand higher pensions from the state and from corporations. Many are unfunded and in the case of the state, retroactive. This means that when this gigantic demographic collectively retires between 2010 and 2025, they will overdraw on the pension account. There simply isn't enough money to pay for them. Since healthcare is free, why not live for another 20 years, to the age of 85. So 20 years retired on the golf course, getting free hip replacements once and a while, tends to add up in social and economic costs. No state, under its current economic practices, can sustain such a massive withdrawl over such a long period of time. Companies will go bankrupt paying their retirees' pensions and health benefits as they just keep on living and withdrawing. The state will experience similar defeat, except it has two advantages over companies. It can create debt, and tax the young.

My generation and its successors will be paying for the baby boomer's excesses all our lives. Pensions often operate on a pay-as-you-go scheme, so that the currently retired are supplied from the labour of those who are currently working through taxation. Since the state pension system was implemented to immediately effect those already retired (who hadn't paid a cent into it), the program in all states has contributed to massive debt. Debt is the miracle solution to any state's problems. Simply spend the money now, and let the next generation worry about paying it off.

Then we have mediflation (the inflating costs of supplying medicare). Medicare has been getting increasingly expensive through the centuries. When professional associations for medical personnel were established in the 19th century, they acted no different than old guilds. They sought to limit the labour supply by requiring membership, enforcing strict rules regarding education, and forming alliances with government. Of course this has only caused the increase in price for medical attention. Technology has also contributed to rising costs. New machines cost money to develop and to buy. Similar to all things, as soon as a beneficial device is invented the baby boomers have demanded that they have a right to it. Our hospitals are required to own and operate all the latest expensive machinery because a large voting block says they have a right to it. More people getting older, more demand for devices and doctors, more people live longer, those people get older, repeat ad nauseum. Now the baby boomers are demanding that they have the right to free pharmaceutical drugs. Guess who's going to pay for that? No wonder doctors have become pill-pushers. With such an ignorant, hypocondriac population to deal with, I'd stop caring too.

The counterpart to mediflation is pensioneering. This is a political tool used especially before the 80's, where parties promised increased pensions to all if they were elected. Who could refuse a free ride after 65? So off to the polling stations (especially the elderly, who have nothing to do and so vote in record numbers). And that's how pensions increase. No politician will ever campaign for fiscal resonsibility regarding pensions and healthcare. That's political suicice, because the body of middle class, middle age voters (who are by far the majority) have a special interest in these two issues: they are getting older.

The baby boomers have had everything handed to them. From the womb to the tomb the state has financed their development and lifestyle. No government in history has ever given so much as modern western states do. That is because prior to 1945, debt was considered anathema and any state deficits were immediately remedied by slashing social programs and increasing taxation. A debtor nation was an outcast from the international community, and internally investors were uninterested in a state that couldn't balance its budget. With the wonderful invention of debt, modern states have been able to buy programs and infrastructure without remorse. After all, it's not the taxes of the baby boomers that will pay off our countries' debts.

Meanwhile in 2005, there's no free ride from the state for today's young. Baby bonuses have disappeared, public schools are underfunded, and tuition rates soar. Child poverty has increased in the developed world to a rediculous level. Teens and 20 somethings have to work 2 jobs or more to make ends meet and put themselves through school. They cannot look forward to a permanant, lifetime job either (which means no long-lasting pension and health benefits). There won't be any high-wage jobs for them until they themselves are 40 years old. The jobs they work now have universal commonality, a cultural reference like rock and roll or bell bottoms for the older generation. We all did it, we all put in time in the service industry. We all stood behind a counter in an ill-fitting uniform asking our parents if they want fries with that. We all have our burns and scrapes from preparing the food. We all hate the customer, who is very often not right. We all worked harder than most baby boomers ever have for minimum wage.

Then we take our miniscule savings and spend them on schooling and transportation, and that first apartment. Four years later and we have a useless peice of paper that won't get a job unless you know someone. Two more years again, another peice of paper, and maybe a decent job. Then we began our lives.

In the meantime, the fruits of our labour are extracted in regressive taxes which loosely translate into transfer payments from the young to the old. Governments take from students to finance healthcare and pensions, while taking from the middle aged to finance more healthcare and pensions. Then the near-retiring masses complain that healthcare is underfunded, but they don't want to pay for it with increased taxes.

Well here's that catch. You cannot have more and better social programs without cutting existing programs or increasing taxes. Since tax increases are anathema, governments are forced to choose which programs to cut in order to fulfill their campaign promises. Tuition funding is often one of the first to be assaulted. Clearly Human capital improvement isn't on the agenda. Nothing matters as long as health and pensions are left alone, or even increased.

This is a critical error, because the youth are the future. At the very least, the baby boomers must realize that it is today's students that will be paying for their social services. Would it not be better to have highly skilled, well-paid workers to get more tax money from? Instead, the baby boomers would prefer low-skill, low-wage workers. But how can any state support healthcare and pensions on such a weak tax base? By inhibiting higher education and good job placements, the baby boomers are only hurting themselves.

This culture of entitlement is the result of high expectations. Of course, it wasn't always this way. For those born before 1920, life was difficult (not to say those who lived through the 30's didn't have it hard). Before the 1920's you worked 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. You lived in a small apartment, you didn't own a car, and you never retired. You worked until you physically and mentally could not, and then your children would support you. You had to work hard, or you would be fired. Today, things are different. The baby boomers have lived a life of luxury compared to their grandparents. They work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. They often own 1-2 cars and a suburban home that would be the equivalent to a 19th century estate. They don't work very hard to earn any of this. They have been freed of the responsibility for their elderly at the expense of the state, and they look to retirement as a cultural right at the age of 65. Regardless of how long they live after that, they can expect to collect a monthly paycheck without working for it. Despite having contributed to the pension system since the 60's, most baby boomers will end up collecting much more than they ever put in. This will result in further debt which will become the responsibility of their children.

So back to the beginning. Age discrimination is a real issue, but it's not the elderly who are being descriminated against. It's those who were never asked what they wanted because they were too young to speak up for themselves. After all, in most countries you have to be 18 to vote. Even then, the elderly and the middle-aged vastly outnumber the youth. These two groups are universally two-issue voters: health care and pensions, the two things that perpetuate their existance.

The whole point of the social safety net is to reduce the risks of life. The risk of incurring large unexpected medical expenses, the risk of taking care of the elderly, the risk of not working very hard, and so on. Unfortunately, expensive social programs have exposed us to new risks. Massive debts and yearly deficits have to be paid off sooner or later (likely later), while the increased lifespan and hefty pensions multiply each other to create a generation of people likely to extract money from states for decades before they die. All other programs will have to be sacrificed to pay for these two, since increased taxes and spending cuts are suicice for politicians. No one will ever campaign for fiscal responsibility.

See my upcoming STATISTICS chapter for some interesting details.

The future looks bleak for today's youth. Our only hope is that the excesses of the baby boomer diet catch up with them. All those cheeseburgers and sodas might save us all. Otherwise, it's McDonalds, Walmart, and golf courses for our youth, and a waste of such great energy and potential.

Abschied.

Special Feature I: A Funky Letter

Here's something a friend of mine wrote to someone concerning the ignorance of faith. I decided to present it as a special feature for all to enjoy. I need not comment on it since the letter reflects my ideas exactly. Funny that. So.... enjoy!

------,

Though while the prospect of a better afterlife may be immensely appealing does that make it sensible? Though I consider myself “an open minded atheist” I question the validity of basing our emotional stability on the prospect that “we are well looked after”. I simply see too many contradictions with religion as a whole to accept the concept of an afterlife though I have no right or intention to convince anyone that there is not. I simply would recommend that people question why it is they believe what they do, as a false sense of security that does nothing in the long-run, save perhaps encourage ignorance. Finally I come down to a perspective that I share and I’m sure my friend feels the same: due to our mortality and nature we want answers, and since we have no immediately “confirmed” arbiter that provides relief or security we develop or accept existing beliefs. This is fine but to the issue of “great life after death,” if it truly is a basis of personal security then it becomes probable that a great majority of individuals are embracing Pascal’s Wager. Now I do not have the time or patience to attempt to explain the theory in full (please look it up if you require more clarity, sometimes its good to do non-compulsory research). The theory essentially describes the potential wagers surrounding god and religion, expressing it much as a gamble or “wager”. Roughly, the 4 wagers are: 1) God exists and you believe in him and you win the jackpot, heaven is your playground. 2) God exists and you do not believe in him, so apparently you go to hell (I’m not even going to get started on that today). 3) God does not exist and you don’t believe in him, you loose nothing but gain nothing, best to have lived an exciting life. 4) God does not exist and you believe in him, you gain nothing except a false sense of security until the point of your demise, and loose nothing (unless you wasted your life adhering to a certain restrictive moral/ethical code at which point you wasted your one chance to truly live your life). Personally I understand the rationality of the wager and many people directly or indirectly take the wager whether they realize it or not. The largest problem with the wager however is one of faith, for if I were a religious man and only so on account of outcome 1 of the wager, then my faith would not be of my own free will but directly influenced by fear of my own mortality. This could imply that since my faith is fear induced I not only plead ignorance but I have also chosen my faith due to physical external factors which could imply that I would be unworthy of heaven, as my faith is not “true” as per say one who embraces religion out of free choice, not out of fear. Therefore based on my personal understanding of the world and the weighing of the evidence I would be embracing wager 3.
I’m not suggesting that I am correct on any of this (I keep in mind that I only have little “t” (Human) knowledge) but I do feel it is imperative that everyone questions their position on religion (from atheists to fanatics) and that they try not to isolate their scope by blocking out all forms or reason, because lets face it folks; though none of us want to admit that we’re wrong, at the same time we can’t all be right.

Just some thoughts to digest…

Cal Funk

Slavery to Oil

Greetings!

Ok I know some of my discussions have been a little dark lately. Well, it might not get any better with this one. The future, if we continue our current path, looks bleak. I won't hide it from you. There are many problems in the world and they require serious, immediate attention. I am sure that the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean will expose some of those problems, but there are others, deeply rooted and hidden that are very close to the North American home. By solving certain problems in North America and Europe, we might alleviate or even completely abolish developing world issues. One of those problems is conflict over resources. The most contentious resource today is not the gold of the Spanish Main, nor the silks and spices of Cathay. It is oil. Something considered centuries ago a nuisance and an obstruction to agriculture is today coveted as if it were a sacred relic. Yet we then proceed to burn it at ever increasing levels, releasing harmful emissions that have already begun to effect the quality of the lives of all Humans. Something that so ensnares us, something we so rely upon, can only make one thing out of us: slaves.

Oil controls our will. What oil commands, we must obey, simply because we have develped such a massive, unnatural dependancy upon it. If oil were to run out tomorrow, the economy would collapse. Goods could no longer be moved, power would no longer be supplied, we could no longer produce a wide array of items, and of course, the suburbanites would not be able to get to work. We would have to rearrange our entire lives to live an existance without cheap, abundant, liquid energy. We would have to change agricultural methods, modes and means of production, the very products we consume. Naturally, when a resource becomes scarce, there will be conflicts, wars, and massive price inflations.

The truth is, oil is becoming scarce. It is running out. With Asian countries like China, India, and Indonesia jumping onto the development wagon, demand for oil will ever increase. As the popuation of the world grows, and demands more oil-dependant goods, the supply of oil will be rapidly depleted. Some day, oil will become extinct. It is a finite resource, one that can only diminish in time. Given the laws of supply and demand, the price will indefinately increase until it no longer becomes an affordable energy option. This will occur long before it runs out. The law of diminishing returns will take effect in two ways: 1, that the cost of extracting oil will soon outstrip the profits of extraction as wells become harder and harder to find and drill; and 2, the price of oil will be too high for it to be a useful, cost-efficient fuel.

Almost every action we take today has some dependancy on oil. On the surface, this may not be obvious. But, like the relation between worker and the value they add to materials from nature, oil is responsible for a great deal of hidden interaction with our world. Most importantly, a vast majority of our food is the product of growth and/or transportation assisted by oil. Very little of our food is produced locally (partly because subdivisions consume all arable land outside cities). Without oil, there would be no oranges from Florida, no lettuice from California, and no beef from Alberta. These items would be so difficult and expensive to transport, that the added cost of transportation would make purchasing these products unfeasable. Many of our edible goods are shipped by truck from all over the continent, and sometimes from outside it. Very few are produced locally, especially those found in today's supermarkets. This problem is particularly acute in cold climates, because come winter, no goods can be produced locally and supply is dependant on shipments from elsewhere. Further, many of our fertilizers and pesticides, upon which modern agriculture is so dependant, are based on petroleum.

I beleive I have mentioned at great length other products made from oil. Plastics, the miracle material of the 20th century, are derived from oil. How much of your household goods are composed, even in part, of plastic? We have become reliant on plastic bottles, ceran wrap, garbage bags, and electronics which are all largely made from plastic. See HISTORY LESSON IV, near the bottom for more detail.

Of course, many goods in general follow the same path as our food. It is produced in location A, stored in location B, shipped to location C, and arrives at your home (D). The total distance that that item travelled, multiplied by the milage of the shipping method divided by the total number of units shipped in that method will give you a good idea of exactly how much oil was required to move that item from A to D. Now follow this calculation for everything you buy, multiplied by the number of people buying things, and that will tell you how much oil goes into getting things from factories to markets. Nothing is produced locally. We are dependant on a huge network of world-wide shipping, which in turn is dependant on cheap, abundant fuel. If oil ran out tomorrow, that massive world-wide supply network would shut down because the added value of moving goods would inflate the price rediculously.

It is generally believed that the automobile has given the Human race increadible freedom. Alas, the automobile is the ultimate symbol of our slavery to oil. Every day, hundreds of millions of people all over the world hop into their cars, trucks, vans, and SUVs and drive everywhere. Walking has almost been forgotten. Our communities have beed designed and subjected to accomodate the automobile. It is now nearly impossible to travel anywhere without a vehicle, unless you live in the central core of a town and work/study in that area. Everything, from business to shopping, residences to schools, are designed to be widely spaced from other facilities. The very existance of today's streets, which offer so many barriers and vast distances to other forms of transportation, is to accomodate the auto. Foot travellers and cyclists are made to wait at intersections while cars pass by (this is particularly irritating when it's cold and you're a pedestrian). The automobile had a hand in the destruction of the city and the development of suburbia. Driving everywhere allowed the upper and middle class to live far from where they worked, and they chose to initiate their idea of order in the suburbs. Meanwhile cities were made into thoroughfares and parking lots to accomodate the 9-5 visit of suburbanites. Sidewalks and pedestrian footpaths were replaced by dangerous roads, while green spaces were eliminated for the sake of parking. The insensitive steamrolling of the car driver has fractured the communities of our world.

On an individual level, automobiles have made slaves of their owners. Aside from constantly feeding it gasoline at gas stations (which, of course, you have to drive to), the extortion of insurance, and the cost of purchasing a vehicle in the first place are contributing factors to the rising debt of the middle class. On the periphery, vehicles require constant repair and expensive replacement parts, fancy and practical accessories, and regular maintenance to keep running. Further, when it snows, tax dollars are spent to make roads usable for vehicles via the plough (which for roads is often on the scene way before those for sidewalks) AND many people have to shovel their driveways to get the car out in the first place. This is done in two ways: backbreaking manual labour, or the lazy solution, a snow blower. Here's a kicker: snowblowers require oil too! So do ploughs for that matter. So the next time you go out at 6 am to remove the snow from your driveway so you can drive to work, ask yourself if the automobile has really granted you freedom. Or rather, has it enslaved your labour and your wallet?

The grotesque cost of owning a car, from license fees to traffic violation tickets, will only increase. Let's try to make some estimates based on a young driver in Canadian dollars.

Buying a decent car: $22,000
Driving tests: $70 x3 (more if you fail, which is likely)
Insurance: $3000 a year
License renewal for 5 years: $75
Gas: $21-$25 a week x52 weeks
Repairs/maintenance: approx $250-500 a year
Accessories (snow scraper, snow blower, fluids, oils, tires, cleaning, parking): $150-$1000
Plus tax.

Total maximum cost from start to finish for a new driver for one year: approx $27970.60
Total maximum yearly cost: $5685.60
Total maximum yearly cost with tax (Ontario): $6538.44
(assuming a weekly gas cost of $22.80)

Hmmmm. What could $6538.44 a year buy you? Better yet, what could $27970.60 and $6538.44 a year buy you? Given the lifespan of today's cars (approx 8 years), that totalls approximately $73739.68 (and that doesn't account for rises in gas prices or insurance). Once the car kicks the bucket (for cars are build cheap these days, and the cost of repair is rediculous), you gotta dump another $22000. Some people spend twice this amount on a new car! Imagine a new SUV with all the fixin's, combined with it's maintenance, gas, and insurance prices. Perhaps there's something better we could be spending our money on. Oh wait, we NEED a car to get from point A to point B, because all those years we were driving we demanded that everything be so far apart!

Ok, thousands of dollars later we have the vehicle. Drive, park it somewhere, drive some more. Clean it, park it, fill it with gas. Is it a rewarding, self-fulfilling exercise? Does it grant or ensure any real liberty? By the way, while you were doing all that driving, you were contributing tonnes of greenhouse gasses to the environment, adding to ozone deficiency.

The great commute. Traffic jams, the idiot in front of you, even the occasional deadly crash. Mental stress and anguish, lateness, early risings. Is this freedom?

Ever notice that two of the world's biggest industries are cars and oil? There's a lot of money and jobs tied into these sectors. Without them, our economy would be very different. Yet the automobile is the ultimate exponent of oil's enslavement of the Human race. Through our own stupidity, it has transformed our way of living into one that is unsustainable, stressful, and entirely dependant.

Last year the government of Ontario announced that it will pay the Ford Motor Company $100 million to keep its plant in Sarnia. I believe Ontario now produces more vehicles than anywhere else in the world. But what could that $100 million of taxpayer money have been spent on otherwise?

-Paying off the province's debt, which Premier Mcguinty has lamented since taking office.

-The total payment of all student loans and debts in Ontario.

-Funding a healthcare system that is reportedly in very bad shape.

-Tax refunds for all.

-Improving underfunded public transit in all cities.

-Preparing for the Kyoto Protocol.

Nope, it goes to Ford's executives, almost like a bribe, to keep producing in Ontario. I don't think the 3900 auto worker jobs could ever generate $100 million in tax revenue.

So we spend absurd amounts on our vehicles. We depend on food and goods shipped from far away lands. We rely heavily on petrochemical products. Our tax dollars are spent on supporting and enforcing this matrix. Is this really freedom?

Where will you be when the oil runs out?

Think about it.

The Meaning of Whitby

Welcome to Whitby, Durham's Business Centre.
Population: 110000

-Road signs upon entering the town

"You'll be Surprised! Just thirty minutes east of Toronto, Whitby is the Heart of the Region of Durham and the centre of your leisure time enjoyment. Whether you're planning a trip or staying longer there is something for all ages. Experience the many attractions, festivals and year round events."

-http://www.town.whitby.on.ca/tourism/index.html

To bastardize a quote from Lord Durham, for whom Durham Region is named, suburbanites "are a people of no history or culture; they are doomed to extinction." I have already torn away at the horrors of suburbia, but the meaning of Whitby ties closely into how suburbia was first engineered.

Lord Durham was in Canada for all of five months, after which he issued a statement on the 1837 Rebellions about how to resolve differences in Upper and Lower Canada. In the quote above he was referring to the French in Lower Canada, but it applies quite fittingly to suburbanites. Durham's report resulted in the unification of the two colonies of Upper and Lower Canada into one legislature, which did not really solve the problem of irresponsible colonial administration in the face of a rising middle class.

Like the Durham Report, suburbia has not solved the problems of the middle class. It has made them ignorant, dispersed, and self-centred. But we have already discussed that. Whitby, Ontario, is the epitome of suburban thinking. It is the very lie, almost intangible but very real, of a middle class utopia. From the first houses, to the streets, to the shopping centres, each square centimetre of Whitby was planned around the suburban ideal. Let's take a tour!

Downtown: Downtown Whitby is an oxymoron. It is composed of two blocks containing everything from a strip club to medical offices. Don't blink, you might miss it. Admittedly there are some older buildings, relics from an earlier age. But maybe that would bring downtown Whitby to a grand total of 6 blocks, including housing.

The Old Commercial District: Along Highway 2 (Dundas St.) from Downtown, you come across what might constitute a commercial disctrict. Tall signs with lights tower over the road, telling you to eat at Subway, Pizza Hut, and Licks. If you're not in the mood for fattening fast food, try the other mainstay of Whitby: car dealerships. There are at least 3 on this strip alone. From here we can go south along Thickson past where Wal Mart used to be. There's the Whitby Mall. Yah, it's dead inside since Wal Mart left. But the non-Wal Mart McDonalds is still there! To the right is one of our many strip malls. Like most other strip malls in Whitby, there's a grocery store. This on is called A&P.

The 401: Thickson Road will take you to Highway 401, Canada's biggest, baddest, busiest highway. Built in the 1950's and 1960's, the 401 has become the suburban superhighway to Toronto. All towns that annex it have easy driving access to the Big City. Thus they don't have to live near where they work. They can just drive for an hour west. Don't bother with the 401 early in the morning, or in the late afternoon however, there's too much traffic. Try Highway 2. Nope, that's backed up too. It seems all east-west roadways are blocked up at these times. Pubic Transit? What's that?

The New Commercial Districts: At the bottom of Thickson Road is one of the monster store complexies. Future Shop, Best Buy, Sears, and some other stores. They are all bigger than any other commercial building in Whitby, save Wal Mart. That includes the Whitby Mall. In fact, its probably better you don't see these buildings, they block out the sun and the parking lot is just hectic. Back up Thickson, north-like, and there's more to be seen! Houses, more houses, some houses, a gas station, and look! More houses. Isn't it nice that all those houses look the same so you don't have to stop and admire the architecture? I mean, uninspired, cookie-cutter design is what you people like, right? Ok turn left (west) on Taunton. Well, there's a new subdivision going up. And to your right is another subdivision, recently built. Past the mammoth school known as Sinclair SS used to warehouse suburban children, and there we are. A giant Canadian Tire, followed by Wal Mart. Isn't that just exciting. There are some other stores in this complex too, just as big as the buildings down on Victoria St. The Wal Mart is a mammoth of 'architecture', encompassing a box-like space capable of holding a football feild, RMS Titanic, and Rita McNeill all under one roof! The parking lot can accomodate (pi x the melting point of boron + Q) vehicles, and no public transit or compact cars will get in your way! Yet still, finding a parking spot is near impossible.

Brooklin: Let's go up Garden St. from Wal Mart, north again. Past the farms and into the tiny hamlet that thinks its separate from Whitby, which would actually make it a better place to live. About 10 years ago yet another subdivision went in, claiming some architectual relation to a Victorian community. I don't think vinyl siding was available to original Victorian communities. Yet here it is, the entire subdivision, that looks exactly like every other sibdivision, with vinyl siding. You might say Whitby went on a binge and vomited all over the poor old hamlet of Brooklin. Since then, Whitby has had a series of stomach parasites, tapeworm, and a good old glass of metamucil (keeps you regular!); the aftermaths of each can be found in Brooklin.

Back south to Whitby proper. Were we not just here? We're going in circles. Everything looks the same, with no distinguishing landmarks. No, sorry there are not any cultural institutions. No, we don't have any entertainment. Nightlife? Nope, the town shuts down at 8 pm.

Ok, so that's the tour. Were you surprised? I doubt it. Why does Whitby have a tourism board, or even a tourism website? Perhaps it's an inside joke. I have lived in Whitby from age 13 to 17, and since then coming back periodically to see the family and find work (university towns are terrible job markets for students). Having lived in the City of Kingston from age 4 to 13 and then 17 to 21, I have found, in my most hallowed, educated, scientific opinion, that cities are infinitely better than suburbia. I had the chance to get out, experience alternative ways of living. I'll never go back.

So what does Whitby mean? Whitby is the product of Highway 401, which is a product of the middle class desire to suburbanize; or both. But without the 401, all of a sudden Whitby has nothing to offer. There isn't really any reason at all for tourists to visit. It would not be easy either, with a joke of a train station and no port on the lake. I'd rather go to Ajax (next door, to the west) which at least has Camp X. Without the 401 commuting to Toronto loses its appeal entirely, and people would move to somewhere closer to the jobs. The meaning of Whitby is that it is the expression of late 20th century middle class hopes and dreams for a safe, quiet place to raise a family. The reality of Whitby is that it is a hideous wasteland of big box stores, broad roads, and mass produced houses. If you have read my discussions on THE HORRORS OF SUBURBIA and THE NORTH AMERICAN LIFESTYLE, you will find that Whitby is the epitome of all the vices, evils, and ills I have listed.

Whitby is populated by the standard suburbanite lot, doomed to sloth and ignorance. They are largely jerks, uneducated, unkempt, and do not see past their own noses. This is partially because Whitby is predominantly middle age, middle class, and white. It's funny, because the name "Whitby" originates from a Danish word meaning "white town". Sure, Whitby is not known for crime. That's because everyone in it is a spoiled brat. As for business centre of Durham, well, I guess that means Whitby is the centre for minimum wage service jobs. Is it a nice place to live? No, it's a desolate wasteland of houses, houses, and more houses. And a few strip malls, complimented by the ultimate expression of suburban consumerism, the big box store. Whitby offers nothing for intellectual or visual stimulation. It may appear alive on the outside, but inside there is no community, no integration. It is nothing but an empty shell of dismay. By persuing the middle class dream of home ownership, distinct property lots, and quiet neighbourhoods to raise children, suburbanites have isolated themselves and created artificial communities that are neither living nor breathing.

Whitby is that hope which turned into a false dream, a dead end. Whitby has no history and no culture, and it is doomed to extinction.

What does Whitby mean to the young generation who were and are imprisoned there? I will sum it up with our beloved nickname for the town: SHITBY.

Slavery to False Gods

Bonjour!
(Hello!)

Part I: Slavery

In this little talk I will show you that religion is slavery. Let us make an important distinction here. A SYSTEM OF SPIRITUAL BELIEFS is an individual's pursuit of answers to abstract ideas and problems, usually involving good, evil, life, and death. RELIGION is an organized, codefied, collective system of spiritual values that discourages individual interpretation to maintain orthodoxy and also engages in acts of proselytization and fiscal extraction. As soon as a system of belief becomes a religion, it becomes a form of slavery and a source of conflict.

All religions and systems of belief have very basic rules and ethics that form the basis of society. These rules are now codefied in state criminal law. Since most of these rules and ethics are common world wide, we can say that no particular religion is based on any better grounds than another, or any better than state laws. Since modern states create and enforce the basic laws of civilization, they have underwrote the need for religion to maintain social order, and made its political value obsolete.

In the past, religions have been employed by the state to enforce their will on numerous and distant inhabitants that they would otherwise have difficulty communicating to. By using the common ground of religion, which often is a pre-existing institution, states have manipulated their subjects into obeying their laws and their orders. Religion has been used as a pretext for difference between Humans, and thus a petty excuse for conflict. 'Religious' wars are often a cover for other state objectives, such as gold or oil. Religion is a form of state control.

Conversely, religion has been used to control the state. A clerical elite may rise and influence politicians. Their wealth, often generated through non-economic means of extraction from an ignorant public convinced, or coerced, into supporting an organized system of belief. Religious taxes go to support a parasitic class of clerics who benefit from the wealth generated while contributing nothing to the economy. They use their wealth and spiritual influence amongst citizens to control government affairs and introduce political practices that benefit the established spiritual organization.

In both of these cases, we call a religiously influenced state a theocracy. Theocracies are bad because they divert economic resources to the goals of an organized religion. Those resources might otherwise be spent on social programs, debt relief, or tax breaks. In our modern world, there is no room for theocracy because it becomes a drain on all classes economically, and on the country physically. In the Medieval Age, relgions became the basis of social welfare programs. Today that role has been appropriated by the state. Without this social role, and without the requirement to promulgate codes of law and ethics, organized religions have been reduced to their spiritual role alone. So why are there still organized religions if their social purpose has been acquired by the state?

Money.

Non-mainstream religions that require money and other sacrifices of its members we call CULTS. The only difference between a cult an a religion are a longstanding history of orthodoxy, and community enforcement of that orthodoxy.

Mainstream religions still collect money to build expensive holy buildings and maintain the clerical heirarchy in luxury. They still attempt to involve themselves in social programs, but those programs often have a proselytizing dimension to them. In the Medieval Age, religious organizations were often the largest landholders in most states. Since the 18th century much of that has been swept away, but religions still seek new sources of revenue to maintain their opulence.

Often religions are hypocritical. This is the fault of the Human desire for accumulation. Humans are economic beings, and will seek that which improves their standard of living by a variety of methods. The end result is that money collected by organized religions often ends up in the hands of their clerical staff. Most religions are supposed to abhor money and embrace poverty or at least frugal living. Very few clerics are so observant. By their example, congregations of members of religious orders often follow similar patterns of accumulation.

Most religions demand peace and good will towards others. This is rarely practiced, and in the past religions have justified conflict against other religions so that they might relish in the spoils of war. Along the same lines, religion can be used as a vehicle for difference from other Humans, and even a percieved superiority. No religion makes any person better than another. No religion itself is better than any Human, group of Humans, or another system of belief or religion. In fact, most religions are equally guilty of intellectual, physical, or moral slavery.

By enforcing a system of beliefs with the threat of hell, the devil, or other assorted evils in the afterlife, a religion can coerce its members into obeying its will and paying into its coffers. By maintaining a monopoly over the interpretation of a system of belief, a religion is in fact practicing dominance and thus slavery over its members. Without the right to exercise thought about spiritual subjects, Humans are being deprived of their liberty. By existing in a state of fear over the concequences of their actions in the afterlife, Humans are unable to exercise liberty in their physical lives. By forcing a religion or spiritual belief upon another Human, a religion or community is taking away the liberty of other Humans to self-determine their own spiritual beliefs.

Religion supports ignorance. By preventing the average subscriber from interpreting the basis of a religion, and enforcing orthodoxy within that religion, it is in fact denying the Human right to explore individual knowledge. Take for example the Catholic Church, which used illiteracy first, and then Latin, to prevent subscribers from reading, understanding, interpreting, and questioning the Bible and thus the basis of that religion.

Relgions thus are a form of mental slavery. They do not allow an individual to interpret their own spiritual world. Religions extend their slavery by capturing communities, societies, and governments. They force others to conform, or at least, constrain the will of others through orthodox community enforcement. Religion has been the basis of some of the world's most terrible and gruesome wars. Religions are among the richest non-political institutions (although sometimes they can be closely tied to governments). In most cases, religions are not democratically representative, and heirarchies are imposed from above by appointment.

Part II: False Gods

Most systems of belief and most religions contain some sort of supreme being or beings. We call these gods, spirits, or deities. Traditionally, systems of belief were created to explain occurances that were otherwise unexplainable to primitive Humans. They were used to define the causes of good and evil, unfairness, strange events, and the inconsistancy of nature. They also helped form community links and became the basis of common culture, strengthening multi-lateral action that is essential to civilization. Over time these beliefs evolved into strong systems and religions that continued into this traditional role. In the 21st century, Human knowledge has expanded greatly and many previously unexplainable circumstances are now well known to us through the application of science.

Many things that were incomprehensible to our ancestors are now understood and mastered by Human ingenuity and technology. Further, science has exposed the supernatural as merely natural occurances that we now have the tools to grasp. Education and the stability that our civilization has offered in the past century has contributed to the Human capability for individual thought and comprehension. We now have the tools in our minds to understand the world around us. Many have realized that the world can function without ancient systems of belief, and have abandoned these now archaic forms of thought. Through simple understanding and thought, Humans are able to discount old myths and beliefs and substitute them with common sense.

For those who still believe in a spiritual world external to our own, take a moment and question why you would like to possess that belief. I will now allay such reasoning.

1: You do not need to fear the unknown or respite. Fear is a tool used by organized religions to support their slavery. The unknown is simply that which you do not already possess knowledge of. If something is not yet understood by Human thought, it may well soon be.

2: There does not have to be a greater being out there. That is a leftover from previous centuries and old mental institutions. You are free to explore your own system of beliefs, and are not constrained by the potential presence of an almighty.

3: You do not need religion in hard times. Religion does not provide real comfort. That comfort is actually derived from within the Human self, not some external force.

The fundamental fault in spiritual belief is that any belief removes the power of the self. By believing in something else and seeking assistance from the spiritual plain, you are denying belief in yourself. If people believed in themselves as much as they do in religion, they would be stronger and better off. Entrust your spirit/soul to yourself, not to some intangible force. By relying on religion, you are in fact supported by a crutch, much like a baby's security blanket. That crutch prevents you from believing in yourself. The Human self is where you will find all the spiritual strength you require. When you do not believe in yourself as a strong, powerful force as well as a physical entity, you are consenting to your own subordination beneath the beliefs of another.

Still not convinced? In the world there are countless religions and systems of spiritual beliefs. By accepting one, you are claiming that all others are wrong. At most, one religion can command a billion members (Christianity, Islam). There are over 700 million Hindus (which actually is composed of countless different systems in itself), and over a billion Chinese who follow a vague set of semi-spiritual codes. Within each religion are various sects and degrees of belief, and there are also degrees of observance within each. Can you really say that one takes precedence over another? If there is a god, which religion accurately portrays it? Are you willing to risk your existance on the premises of one religion? What if your assumptions are wrong?

But wait! There's more! It is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of a superior being. We can thus say that the idea of the divine is incomprehensible because Human thought is based on proof. If the divine does interfere with daily life, its effects are intangible. We cannot discount the divine on that basis. However, we can discount it on the fact that there is no evidence. Every other theory in Human history has required some form of evidence to convince others of the validity of that theory. Somehow, systems of beleif have managed to defy that causality. Since this theory (that's what it is, a Human theory) has no evidence, we must therefore assume that it is invalid until otherwise proven. It is better to not believe in the wrong god, and thus avoid punishment. Better still is to avoid the pitfalls of spiritual belief and rationalize the world around you.

Systems of belief are Human constructs; made by Humans, for Humans. Animals in nature do not have spiritual beliefs. They don't get down on their knees and prey. Therefore we can assume that only Humans possess the necessary framework for creating spiritual beliefs. Since animals also do not provide tangible evidence or knowledge for spirits or a divine being, we can assume that the idea of a divine world exists only to Humans. If Humans are the only species capable of engineering systems of belief, and they did so in great variety, we can suppose that Humans at one time had creative control over the formation of spiritual ideology. If belief is only a Human construct, created for reasons listed at the beginning of this section, then we can assume that we also have the power to dismantle these beliefs. Historical evidence has also shown that Humans are capable of complimenting and/or subustituting one belief with another, making systems of belief interchangeable and not hermetically sealed.

As Humanity began to encounter new systems of belief and new religions, it realized that an exclusive, homogeneous religion was impossible given the increasing plurality of our nations. Different ideas cause people to think. In highly diverse areas, religious observance tends to be lower than in homogenious communities. This is because there exists an alternative way of being and doing that influences others and opens the Human consciousness to a whole array of different systems. A growing trend in diverse communities is aetheism. This is the inevitable result of open mindedness, progress, and individual thought. The abandonment of beleif, in all its forms, represents the individual's desire for freedom and self realization. By hanging on to archaic dependancies, Humans have limited their self development and hampered liberty.

So why are all religions false? Because to accept one is to deny all others, and in any event conversion and aetheism seems to have no evidence of ramifications. To believe in an afterlife is to enslave your temporal life to it. In most views of the afterlife, there are some pretty rigorous standards to reach the positive or 'good' afterlife. These standards tend to limit an individual's freedoms and liberty to pursue their own self-styled goals.

To sum up, by subscribing to any religion or system of belief, a Human enslaves themself to a belief that exists only because others believe in it. All gods are false because any form of subservience to a non-existant entity usurps the strength of the Human self, and thus is slavery.

Part III: Hypocracy

Here's where we have a little fun. In a political cartoon pokeing fun at the 2004 US election, we see the United States geographically divided into two sections; those resolved to install a Democratic candidate, and those that constitute 'Jesus Land'. No other religion has produced more hypocracy and tyrrany than Christianity. If there was one religion I could use as a perfect example of slavery to false gods, it would be this one.

Christian hypocracy began with the Crusades. In 1098 the Pope endorsed a project for the Christian annexation of the Holy Land (currently Israel). The project was the brainchild of Italian merchants. The city states of Genoa, Pisa, Florence, and especially Venice had grown rich and powerful from the Levant trade. They composed Europe's first merchant capital society. These cities were not known for their agriculture, so their wealth came from the exchange of goods. The Holy Land, as the western terminus of the Silk Road, was the source of the goods Italian merchants sought. Like all merchant capitalists, they wanted control over the source of the goods, but did not want to pay for it. They used their capital and influence to convince the Pope that a project for annexation would be beneficial for all (economically of course). Failing that, their proximity to Rome was always a threat. So the Pope issued the call to arms, which was disguised as a holy expedition to expel the Muslim 'infidel' and recaputre the Holy Land for Christendom, as well as to help the Greeks (Byzantines). It was to be an expression of Christian unity and strength.

In reality, 'Christendom' was the backwater of the world in 1098. It was in no way unified. Dozens of tiny states, subdivided into feifdoms run by despotic warrior-lords, were in no position to work together and rivalries amongst themselves infected every pluralist effort. Unity along religious lines was also impossible. Heresies such as Bogomilism, Palagianism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, and Catharism plagued the Roman Church. Relations between Rome and Constantinople (capital of Byzantium) had been cold at best since the 1054 Schism. Meanwhile, the 'infidel' was Islam, at the time the most tolerant society in the world and by far one of the most advanced. Some like to see the Crusades, all nine of them lasting until 1291, as an expression of Christian hate and intolerance. I guess the Children's Crusade of 1212 is ample example of how committed Christianity was to the cause of pious annexation. The children were either sold into slavery or left to die as the captains that promised to ferry them saw other opportunities. The Crusades themselves were a big business deal for the Italian city states. They hoped that by capturing the Holy Land, they could control the supply of Silk Road goods and reap a profit by selling them to the very states that sent the troops to conquer it in the first place. These soldiers were far from the holy paladans we read about. They were a mixed bag of peasants, opportunists, profiteers, and zealots.

Examples of the business of being Christian abound. Why, that most hypocritical of holidays just passed! Christmas is supposed to be about the celebration of the birth of their holy being, which may or may not be a part of a trilogy of beings, depending on what's orthodox in your area. Baby Jesus is the centre-peice of manger scenes in front of suburban houses, overshadowed by the bright lights and decorations of the 'Christmas' spirit. Christmas is another example of Christianity selling out, becoming a big business deal. Capitalism has coopted the celebration to encourage buying and selling, thus increasing markets and profits. Capitalism is not to blame however. That's just what capitalism does. It is Christian consent to this (recent) orthodoxy that makes Christianity hypocritial. Few Christians would abandon the flashy lights and family traditions for the somber, reserved mass in a cathedral.

Jesus Land, or Republican America, is probably the most sickening example of the usurpation of Christianity to political-capitalist ends. Under George Bush Jr., the southern and central states have become a hotbed of religious conservatism. This may be the result of economic backwardness, biased media, and Republican doctrine. These states are generally based on agriculture and the primary sector, and are generally isolated from the rest of the world physically and through uninformative media networks like Fox. Like in suburbia, without encountering unorthodox cultures and ideas, the community has stagnated socially and is composed only of white people, who systematically keep down black people. There has been a growing trend towards faith-based community inititives and born-again ideology in these states. This has led to conservatism on things like same-sex marriages, gender roles, and social relations. Funny that the one important teaching of Jesus, love thy fellow man, never comes through in US Christian inititives. Jesus Land is willing to and does use its electoral voice to influence government to its ends. This undermines the fundamental church-state division necessary in the democratic process. This is why, amongst many other reasons, America is no longer a beacon for democracy.

In Canada we have this guy named Stephen Harper. He's the leader of the Canadian Alliance Party. He and Bush would be best buddies, if only Harper could get 5 minutes of airtime on a US channel. Harper is allied with Premier Ralph Klein of Alberta. These guys are conservatives. In a liberal country like Canada, they look like right-wing dictators. Their archaic ideologies have no place in our country. They seek to abrigate the rights of homosexuals, bring the Church back into politics (which was removed in the 19th century), and make life easier for the rich at the expense of the poor. Their idea of a functioning society might have its origins in the archaic laws of Dracon of Athens. Their Church-business elite alliance, like that of Republican America, is the last vestage of the ancien regime. They are a backlash against the unstoppable juggernaut of progress. DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!

That political parties can support religious organizations, or that religious organizations can support political parties, is a testament to the enduring strength of the idea of theocracy. Theocracies exist outside of the Christian sphere, but it is Christianity that has used its influence most on governments through history. How does a church-state alliance grow? Remember those economic extractions I spoke of earlier? The church uses that money to gain special favour with a political group, which returns the favour by giving the church special favour in government. The church uses that favour to legislate against progressive social bills, economic change, public education, and general progress. Organized religions are afraid of changes in the status quo, because they know their position is tenuous. If people stopped believing in false gods, religions would lose their money, their power, and their influence. Thus religious heirarchies have an interest in maintaining the status quo. The Christian Church has had particular success with this in America. Theocracy is tantamount to tyrrany, because theocracy enforces a moral orthodoxy on individuals through community, government, and legislative coersion. Theocracy curtails the free will to exercise individual exploration of the spiritual, or to exercise aetheism.

In Canada, Christians have somehow achieved the label of hypocrits. This is not always true, but the title must have been earned somehow. Perhaps us progressives are simply attempting to enforce our orthodoxy against a dying/resurging doctrine through the process of namecalling. Generally the theory goes that Christians are backwards thinking, unwilling to help their fellow Humans, and are more greedy and self-centred than the rest of us. They are in constant conflict between their established moral code and their actions. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. Humans make mistakes, and Humans don't like that which is different.

Meet Chad. He's a good friend, a good gamer, and a Christian. He is not a hypocrit, he is not backward, and he is certainly not interested in converting his friends who are mostly avid aetheists. He is capable of independant thought and exercises free will once in a while. If all Christians were like him, perhaps that religion would not have such a bad name. There are infinite degrees of religious interpretation, observance, and action.

Belief can be an exercise in free thought. There is a choice, whether to believe in something or not. However, it should be an individual's choice, not a group decision, and how that belief is observed should be engineered by the individual. In no way should an individual or group force thier beleif or system of observance upon another. That is an act which curtails the free will of an individual. Since Christianity has and does have a habit of violating that principle, among many of its own statutes, it is to be considered hypocritical. This does not make individual believers hypocrites, but their actions may implicate them into that hypocracy. The individual has the choice to defy hypocritical actions and systems of observance if they conflict with the philosophy of liberty.

Part IV: Conclusion

I realize that religion is a very contentious issue. It is, in some cases, the life and mind of some people. Their entire mental framework is organized along religious precepts. In challenging the legitimacy and validity of those precepts, I hope to open minds and raise more questions. I hope to free the individual from religious orthodoxy. How readers choose to interpret and act upon my words is their choice, and refects how strong a Human Being they really are.

I wish you all the very best in the pursuit of your liberties.