Grand Notions

The Matrix, Suburban Style! Part 1

2005-06-18T19:08:00.000-04:00

Part 1

Consider. In a bedroom community not far from here, a man named Jim Anderson is waking up from his six hours of sleep. He has a long commute ahead of him and he has to get up early to face rush-hour traffic. Watch as he gets ready, leaves his kids in the hands of his wife, and hops in his SUV. He has to fill up on gas before he can hit the highway. The price of gas makes Jim an unhappy man.

Jim hits the highway slowly, not reaching the speed limit for some time. Then, once he's merged with the vast morass of other vehicles, he accelerates to a rediculous speed and is immediately stopped short by the volume of vehicles on the road. Traffic makes Jim an unhappy man.

Jim sits at his desk, staring vapidly into his monitor, shrouded by his cublicle walls. Jim is mentally drained from even his half-assed attempt to focus on the road. In eight hours Jim has to repeat his commute. He will have to repeat it ad nauseum because he wanted a big house in the suburbs. Commuting makes Jim an unhappy man.

Jim dreaded his evening commute. But on this very day, Jim got a particularly strange message on his computer. It read 'follow the white rabbit'. "What the hell?" Jim says to himself.

Work ends for Jim and he climbs his mountain of an SUV and starts the engine. 1/2 of a fuel tank left. He exits the parking lot, and behold, ahead of him is a white Volkswagen Rabbit. Jim decides to follow the white rabbit. It leads him into an abandonded part of the city and parks. A black man in a black leather trenchcoat gets out and motions for Jim to come forth. Jim, having been bombarded with prejudiced media, assumes it's a trick and that he'll get robbed. Jim drives away and goes home.

The white rabbit message and car appears every day of the week, and on Friday Jim decides to satisfy his curiosity. He follows the white rabbit to the same part of town, and the same man gets out and motions to him. Jim gets out cautiously and appoaches. In a deep slow voice suspiciously like that of Lawrence Fishbourne, the stranger spoke.

"Jim. Do not be afraid. I am Urbanis." The man paused. "Do you want to know the truth?"

"About what?" asked Jim.

"About the world around you; about your commutes, your traffic, and your high gas prices."

"Ummm, yes."

"Good. Come with me."

"I can't. If I go any more than ten metres from an internal combustion engine, I might die."

"Open your mind, Jim."

"I can't!" whined Jim.

"Open your mind. You can do it."

Jim summoned all his courage, and stepped forth, to a distance of fifteen metres from his SUV.
"Whoa," he exclaimed.

"Come with me Jim, and I will show you the answers to all the questions you have been looking for."

Urbanis led him up to an old hotel room and sat him down in a large old burgundy chair.

"Let me explain something to you. You and everyone you know exists in a simulated world known as the Suburban Matrix. Your world isn't real."

"Like, physically not real?"

"No, it isn't a real community. It's fake."

"Whoa!"

"Before I tell you more, I have to ask you something. Are you willing to open your mind, give up everything you have ever known, and see the world in a way you have never seen it before? If you are ready, take the blue pill in my right hand. If not, take the red pill in my left hand. If you take the red pill, you'll wake up in your SUV and remember nothing. If you take the blue pill, your life will be forever altered."

Jim considered for a moment, particularly on the point of taking drugs from strangers. He really was not looking forward to a Friday commute, so he took the blue pill and swallowed.

"Lever! Load the Introduction Program," Urbanis said to a man quietly sitting at a computer, before now unseen.

"Here you go!" said Lever as he handed Urbanis a pamphlet.

"Good. Now relax. This may feel a little... weird."

Urbanis smaked Jim with the pamphlet, and proceeded to explain what the Suburban Matrix is.

"After the war, Humanity celebrated in it's most foolish achievement: the birth of mass suburbanization. Everyone fled the world's urban centres to escape noise, pollution, and other people. They created artifical communities where people lived, and well, couldn't do anything else. Governments supported the program. We don't know who wanted the freeways more, the people or them, but what matters is that this is what the world has been reduced to."

Urbanis opened a large road map criss-crossed by freeways and highways with very little space for anything else. The map was nearly black from all the road markers.

"Suburbia is a system of control which maintains and enforces complacence so that people live out their lives without questioning the world around them. This complacence was and is harvested by certain agents. People's minds are kept in slavery, all so that they can become THIS."

"No. It isn't true. I don't believe it!" Jim exclaimed as he wretched from the thought and the bile built up in his throat.

"He's gonna pop!" said Lever.

Jim vomited all over the floor, and passed out.

Jim awoke in a strange place. He stood up and scratched his neck. He reached into his pocked searching for his cell phone to call for help, but it was nowhere to be found. Urbanis walked in just then.

"Where's my phone?"

"It's gone. You've been unplugged. Come. Walk with me," said Urbanis.

Jim groaned and stood up, following Urbanis. After leaving the building and walking a few blocks with Urbanis and Lever, Jim whined "why do my legs hurt so much?"

Urbanis looked at him with pity. "You've never used them before."

"Whoa."

"This entire world is the real world. This city is alive and real. If you get out and walk around, you'll see a great many things. People, shopping, colour, architecture, harmony. Stop."

Urbanis extended his arm, stopping Jim from walking onto a street and saving him from certain death as an SUV rounded the corner sharply.

"Lever, load the Bike Program."

"Here you go." Lever handed Urbanis another pamphlet. Smack.

"Owww. Why do you keep doing that?"

"Behold." Urbanis motioned to a bicycle leaning against a shop.

"Do you think he'll make it? No one makes it on their first try. Everyone falls," said Lever.

"Get on it, push forward, and peddle," said Urbanis.

Jim hesitantly approached the thing, mounted it, and began waddling through an alley as he attempted to peddle. He was doing well, but nonetheless fell off it. Urbanis and Lever looked disappointed. "Keep trying," said Urbanis.

Jim kept at it for several hours, and after many scrapes and bruises he finally was able to ride the vehicle with stability.

"I know how to ride a bike," Jim said slowly.

"Show me!" said Urbanis, who then mounted a bike himself.

The two raced around the alleyways with Lever watching excitedly.

"Come on! You're faster than this," said Urbanis.

Jim stopped and said "I know what you're trying to do."

They raced again, and Jim performed rather well.

Right then, Lever called out to Urbanis. "I've got sentinels closing in!"

"Sentinels?" said Jim, puzzled.

"The automated enforcers of the Suburban Matrix. They have no personalities. They're all the same."

Two black SUVs skidded into the alleys. Lever hopped on a bike and the three sped away, the SUVs in hot pursuit. One of them bumped into Jim's bike and he rolled over the hood. The sentinels quickly stopped and seized Jim, throwing him in the back. Urbanis and Lever got away, however.

Jim found himself at a chair in a white room with only a desk and another chair, occupied by a man in a black suit.

"Well, Mr. Anderson. It seems you have discovered our little secret," said the suited man.

"Who are you?" asked Jim.

"Harper. Agent Harper."

"Why am I here."

"It seems you have been living a double life today. Let me assure you that one of these lives does not have a future. How about we make you a deal?"

"How about I give you the finger, and you give me my phone call."

"I think you will find it difficult to make a phone call if you cannot speak...."

At that point Agent Harper began stuffing Jim's mouth with subdivision developer's brochures and automobile lease contracts.

"Mmmmhhhmmmlllll!"

"That's right. You're afraid of gun crime, urban youth, immigrants, and cultural liberty. You want to stay in your fortress and keep the real world out. You want to breed more children to create an army of little tiny homeowners."

"Mmmmhhhmmmlllll!"

Agent Harper punched Jim, and he awoke in a new, bigger SUV full of gas in his work's parking garage. Jim drove home, distraught. He immediately went to bed, as it was late.

The weekend passed and Jim reflected on everything he had seen on Friday. He was driving his kids to one of their many practices when he saw a billboard with a picture of Agent Harper smiling, holding a bowl of cereal. In the caption read "an SUV in every driveway and a child in every womb."

Jim was returning from dropping off his son, alone, when the white rabbit swerved in front of him. He thrust his entire leg into the brake pedal and came to a stop. He tumbled out of his monstrosity and onto the pavement. Lever and Urbanis stepped out of their vehicle and seized Jim.

"Come along, Jim. We need you," proclaimed Urbanis as they dragged him to the rabbit.

"What the hell is going on here?" cried Jim.

"Jim, I wasn't sure until yesterday, but I am now. You are the chosen one."

"What?"

"Just come with us. Remember, there was no turning back from the blue pill."

Jim submitted and the three drove in silence until they arrived at the local Sprawlmart.

"We're taking you to see the Oracle," said Lever excitedly.

"The what?" said Jim, confused.

"The Oracle. She is both old and wise. She will tell you exactly what you need to hear."

"Look, Friday was fun, but I don't want to get caught up in some cult."

"Listen, Jim. This is important. This will change everything."

"Huh, why not. You guys are already messed up."

"Let me ask you something. Do you think that is air you are breathing?"

Jim paused for a moment, then said "Yes, silly."

"Nope. It's a vile mix of oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, amongst other pollutants. All from vehicles like your not-so-little SUV."

"Whoa."

"Now come with us."

With that Urbanis led Jim into the Sprawlmart, through the back, and to a stairwell. He motioned for Jim to ascend.

"Ooooow. Stair climbing wasn't part of the deal," whined Jim.

Jim stomped up the stairs to a door. He opened it and there was a living room with a few other children in it.

"Ah, you must be Jim. Urbanis told me all about you. Have a seat, here with the other potentials. I'll be with you in a moment," said a large black woman.

Jim looked to one of the kids, who was playing with a toy bus.

"What do you have there, son?"

"It's the bus that goes from Whitby to Ajax. Look, it's loading passengers." The child handed him the toy. "You try it."

Jim looked at the bus blankly. The child stared at him.

"Do not try to drive the bus. Only try to realize the truth."

"What?"

"There is no bus from Whitby to Ajax."

"Whoa."

"The Oracle will see you now," said an oriental man at the door.

Jim stepped forth into a kitchen where the Oracle stood holding a pan of good old-fashioned cookies.

"Would you like a cookie, Jim?" she asked.

"Ok." Jim took a cookie and bit into it. It was quite good.

"I have some advice for you Jim. Listen carefully. If you live an hour away from work, IT WILL TAKE YOU AN HOUR TO GET THERE. If you drive a large vehicle, IT WILL CONSUME MORE GAS. If you all keep using so much oil, YOU WILL RUN OUT. As oil runs out, ITS PRICE WILL RISE. But if everyone lives an hour away from work and they all need oil, THEY WILL ELECT MANIACS WHO PROMISE TO LET THEM KEEP THEIR SPRAWLED OUT HOUSES. It is just that simple."

"Whoa."

"Oil is subject to supply and demand. It is also a finite resource. If demand continuously increases, and supply continuously decreases, this limited resource will inevitably run out. Don't you see, Jim? The suburban way of life will soon come to an end. People won't be able to drive for an hour to and from work. The cost of running vehicles will only increase. It's not coming down. When commuting becomes economically impractical, suburbia will become a ghetto."

"How come no one else realizes this?" asked Jim.

"The Matrix keeps people in a state of blind ignorance. The agents, enforcers of vapidity, have been able to keep this knowledge from the people. One day they will wake up from all this, and wonder where all the oil went and why they can't breathe the air around them. They will disparage and seek a scapegoat, but it is not their right to place blame."

"But what can I do? I'm just one man."

"You will know when the time comes. Now off with you. You don't want to keep Urbanis waiting. Off you go!"

Jim staggered out of the kitchen and into the hall, confused. Urbanis was waiting there for him.

"What you have heard was for you and you alone. Now come. We have something to attend to," said Urbanis. The two stepped out of the building and back into the rabbit.

"Where are we going?" asked Jim.

"We have a plan, but we need your help."

"What about my kids?"

"They are the Matrix's kids now."

"Noooooooo!" Jim wailed as the rabbit sped onto the freeway towards the city.

As they made their way along the expressway, Jim watched out the window thinking of his children, coopted into the suburban matrix with little hope of breaking free. It was, afterall, everything they had known. They had grown up expecting things to always be this way. Then he understood completely Urbanis' last statement. He looked up, and saw a sprawl-mart beside the highway.

"Deja-vu," he said.

"What?" asked Lever.

"Deja-vu. I just saw that sprawl-mart. I swear."

"Hurry up, Lever," said Urbanis. "A deja-vu is a glitch in the Matrix just after they change something. Now that town's commercial centre will look the same as every other one in the country. The Matrix strives for consistancy and monotony in its architecture and places of business. We'll be safe once we get into the city."

"Where are we going?" asked Jim.

"We're going to see the Architect....."

Newsflash! Jesus Was Car-Free!

2005-04-06T23:09:00.000-04:00

Jesus Was Car-Free

Peter Willikin, Jerusalem
Incorporated Press
April 5, 2005

Yesterday the Society of Christian Archaeologists made a most astounding discovery. It turns out that back during the Roman occupation of Palestine, there were no cars, trucks, vans, or SUVs, and Jesus was not himself a driver of automobiles.

“That’s right,” said Jim Hamilton, director of the archaeological dig that made the discovery. “Jesus didn’t need a car to get around. He used a low-emissions camel.”

When asked what traffic was like in the time of Jesus, Hamilton replied that “well it seems that the only roads were narrow strips between buildings, or almost non-existent as they winded through the deserts. We deduced that a traffic jam at the time involved but two camels.”

If it really is ‘God’s green Earth,’ then surely we have betrayed His vision by paving over forests and replacing fields with parking garages. On the subject of parking, there were no fees for parking a camel in ancient Jerusalem, the archaeologists were shocked to learn.

“Jesus didn’t commute to work every day. He lived very close, and likely walked. On occasions where he needed to travel a bit farther, he had the camel option.”

So if Jesus got around without an SUV, surely we can do it too, right?

“Not so easy,” replied Hamiton. “We still haven’t figured out where to pump the gas into the camel.”

...................................................................................................................................................................

Ok I wrote this, but it's real funny isn't it? How can Christians live in suburbia driving their polluting vehicles to work, entertainment, and yes, even church?

Two birds with one stone! Oh yeah!

Urban Messiah

2005-03-20T23:46:00.000-05:00

Hello from the City!

Doom and gloom, and nothing nice to say about the suburbs and thier oil-dependant 'culture'. Today I give you the antithesis, the nemesis of sprawl. I believe that one day I will be the progenitor of this antithesis. I promote a renewed interest in the urban centre, in living in closer proximity to our fellows. Allow me to spawn an image for you. Close your eyes, and imagine the future, 2025......

You wake up in the morning to the soft buzzing of your alarm. It's 8:00 am. Your flat is calm and quiet. You get out of your bed and open the curtains to look out your large window. 4 floors down, you see people already out on the street enjoying the morning with coffee and breakfast on the patio of a nice cafe. The street, or rather promenade, is made of a nice granite-coloured cobble work. There are no vehicles, and the promenade is penetrated by many tall leafy trees. You shower, then eat some breakfast. You don't have to drive the kids to school, since it's only a block away. You leave your building at 8:45 and head for work.

Down the elevator and into the quiet lobby, out the door and across the promenade to the subway station. Subways and trains are the only means of transportaion these days, since the oil ran out ten years ago. You admire the way your life has simplified, quieted down, and gotten that much more enjoyable since then. Anything you want is no more than a 20 minute walk or a subway away. All the roads have been cobbled over, and the number of parks has increased in the past 10 years, replacing parking lots. You pass one of these parks on your way to the subway station. This one has a large bronze monument, an oil drum chained to an emaciated man. You enjoy the ironies of the past, and truly appreciate life now. The air is cleaner, the sun is brighter, and there are no steel monstrosities waiting to run you over at the next turn. You descend into the bright, colourfully painted station and board a north-bound subway. It's free, its uncrowded, and there are plenty of places to sit, even in the morning rush hour.

The man beside you, middle aged and in a suit, is reading a newspaper. The headline reads "Liberal Sponsorship Scandal Finally Concluded". He strikes up a conversation with you. He says "They've been working on this one since '04. It's such a shame that it took so long to clear up." You reply "Yes, it's just too bad that the malefactors who instigated the scandal are all deceased." You continue the discussion, and by the end of your short 5 minute commute you've made a new friend. After all, face to face communication is encouraged by the Social Committee. You wonder how those people 20 years ago ever survived without casual talks with other Human beings, and how they spent three hours a day in that ancient, outdated mode of transportation; the automobile.

You arrive at your stop and depart, wishing your new friend a good day. You ascend the steps and back onto another promenade. High above you are the towering heights of mixed-use buildings. Their architecture is imposing at first, but in a short time a stranger to them will become accustomed to their quirks and charms. You think to yourself; "every one of them a masterpeice of Human creation, a testament to what we can do when we work together. " All the buildings in this area are based on much older, Victorian designs with many frills and variations to keep them interesting. Many are brightly painted along their first few floors so as to be more friendly to those walking on street level. Each is engineered to be in a position to allow maximum sunlight to fall on the promenades, while blocking the wind-tunnel effect of older cities. One of the main designs is a north-south orientation to minimize the amount of sun they block. This design has various peaks, so that its shadow is not quite as tall as a building of its height might be. The base is masoned specifically to look like the old imposing structures of the 19th century, but around the 3rd floor this gives way to steel and glass. The rooves of these buildings are made from solar panels, as well as much of the siding, in order to capture light to provide 50% of the building's necessary power. These buildings are never dull; each was built as if in competition for beauty with other nearby buildings. The promenade around your building is full of people casually walking to work. Its about 8:53, and some people are finishing up their conversations before heading into the office.

Your building is one of those described above. You feel proud to work in a building of such magnificence. You've seen pictures of mid to late 20th century architecture. One failure after another, usually. You recall your impressions of what is now a wasteland, but once was called suburbia. "A poverty of soul; no community, no grandness, no practicality," you think to yourself. You arrive at your desk, greeted by your fellow workers as you sit down. You and your team sit at a table, whose shape you might call a half-swirl. There are no dividers in your office, nor in many others these days. The cubicle, as it happens, has been nearly extinct for some years now. The communitive ideas of the Social Comittees leeched into the workplace, which resulted in more team-based work, more job security, and more regular hours. This abolished the need for tiny individual work spaces.

Much of your work requires your computer, which is seamlessly integrated with non-digital media through a variety of imput devices. Paperwork was considered environmentally destructive, and so the Business Comittees recommended closer ties with digital documentation and media. Your work consists of providing management solutions to companies in the US, China, Brazil, India, and United Korea. You and your team daily speak to your equivalents in these companies.

The Committees were formed in 2009 when it was realized there was an energy crisis at hand. For the first time in 90 years, governments reacted quickly to impending disaster and the United Nations created these committees to oversee the world-wide powerdown. After careful management of the remaining fossil fuel stocks, society was able to collectively achieve a successful reduction in its energy use while simultaneously investing in renewable sources of energy. Meanwhile, the committees made recommendations to simplify life and increase sociability, so that the epidemics of anti-social behaviour, violence, stress, obesity, and heart disease would be eased. Although some tight restrictions on population, energy use, and goods consumption were passed, many had recently been removed as the supply and demand for resources reached equalibrium again. A few of the committees had been dissolved in the past six months, their purposes being fulfilled.

Your day is full of work, but each day is rewarding since your company offers a profit-sharing scheme as many others do. You know that the harder you and your team work, the higher your reward will be. Your workplace is great, and a lunch outdoors is always welcome and comfortable. You can sit in one of the many public tables in the plaza below, under an umbrella, enjoying your meal. Your team joins you and you have a hardy conversation about upcoming entertainments at the Arts Hall, which is about 16 minutes walk from your flat. A young member of your team wondered what such halls would have provided in the old suburbs, thinking to make a joke at the slovenly mannerisms reputed to be the lot of suburbanites. You reply that suburbia did not have arts venues, and that the people there were ignorant of finer things. Your collegue is shoked, unbelieving that such a staple of social life in all communities was at one time unheard of outside of the cities.

Your day complete, you return to your flat. It takes about 10 minutes. Your children arrive shortly after from the nearby elementary school. One of them asks if she might learn more about what cities were like when you were a child. You sit on your couch and begin to explain that cities in your youth were a place of only work, sometimes alternative entertainment, but rarely a place to live. "Why daddy?"

"Well, most of the people who worked in the cities preferred to live in suburbia and commute every day. They would all get into their cars at dawn and drive down the freeway, sometimes at a snail's pace, and park in giant cement catacombs known as parking garages."

"I don't understand. Why did these people want to live so far from where they worked? Didn't they like the cities?" asks your child, as she attempts to conjure in her small mind the rediculous image of hundreds of thousands of people simultaneously getting into those polluting machines and conveying themselves slowly to work so early in the morning.

"Partly because of the speculators. These awful men and women drove the price of land in cities to absurd levels, so that no one could afford to live there. So they all ran away to where houses were cheaper."

"What happened to the speculators, daddy?"

"Well when we had the energy crisis, we learned that we had to start living closer together. Once we did that, we realized how the speculators were increasing the price of property so that the poor couldn't live near the rest of the people. The poor people got stuck in bad places, and took out the vengeance of their lot upon all through voting, and sometimes violence. Once we lowered the price of living in the city, everyone came together, and there was no more violence. Since property had become so cheap, there was no need for speculators, because their cut would have been so small."

"Why did the energy crisis happen?"

"Because all through the 20th century we used oil for heat, fuel, power, and chemicals. Then in 2011 the oil finally ran out, but some of our leaders recognized the problem and acted quickly, so that the committees were formed to help smooth the transition. Those were troubling times, since society had become so dependant on cheap fuel. We often wondered daily if there was going to be heat, transport, light, and food the next day."

"Our teacher says that because of all the oil we burned, the air was bad and people had trouble breathing, and that the sunlight burned people very badly and made them sick."

"That's right. All the oil and coal we burned let carbon dioxide and monoxide into the air, which are very bad gasses. These gasses stayed in the air for many years and trapped the sunlight inside the earth's atmosphere, making it hotter while burning the ozone layer. Many died from the bad air, and others became permanantly sick. All around the world, many species of animals died too, because it was too hot and too polluted for them. The heat also caused the arctic and antarctic iceburgs to melt, making water levels rise, causing severe weather and storms all over the world."

"Did the animals get better, and did the ice stop melting?"

"Many of the animals didn't make it. That's why you can't go into the Deeper Greenbelt without a six-month training course. The Environment Committee says we have to let nature heal, and in the meantime stay in our cities. As for the ice, our scientists say that next year will be the last that the ice melts, because those bad gasses stay in the atmosphere for so long."

"Daddy, teacher says we should see the new Museum of Folley, and that I can get bonus points for writing a review of it."

"Well then, we shall go after dinner. It's not far, just a 10 minute subway ride."

You eat dinner with your children, and then take them to the new museum. It's architecture is innovative, and along the sides of the steps are friezes of some of the errors of the past, such as "The SUV", "The Gas Bar", and "Oil War". As one of the many state-sponsored museums in your city, it is free to enter. In fact, the purpose is to educate. The first exhibit contains a number of historic artefacts, including the "Hummer" and samples of asphalt roads, which of course are made from petrochemicals and produce runoff into the local environment. The next exhibit contains statistical data, such as the absurd price of owning a car. "That's more than what I pay for our home," you exclaim. The third exhibit is about Oil Warfare, and how the United States declined into a third-world country. You read the entry plaque to your children, who listen intently;

"The critical moment came in 2002, when Canada's leaders decided not to help Mr. Bush in invading Iraq, because they knew the war was about oil. Because of the monumental expense of percecuting those wars, and the economic and social upheaval at home, Mr. Bush's America was rapidly becoming poorer and poorer. It was not until 2013 that a UN force led by China, Canada, and Russia was able to remove Mr. Bush from his repressive and tyrannical theocracy. Once Mr. Bush was removed from his throne, democracy was resored to America and her colonies awarded sovereignty. Unfortunately, the American economy had become so dependant on oil, and Mr. Bush was unwilling to work with the UN committees by the time of the energy crisis. The economy collapsed and all the wealthy capitalists left the country. Some compare today's America with mid 20th century India or Pakistan."

You enter the exhibit and you see a man standing there, viewing the artefacts from the Iran War. He says to you;

"Interesting exhibit, no?"

"I haven't yet seen everything in this room," you reply.

"Have a look. You'll find that this place has more to offer to adults than children."

"Indeed? Wait, I've seen you in the papers and on the news. You're the planner."

"Yes, amongst other things. Permit me to introduce myself. Mr. Moore, MPL. I designed this city."

"I've always wanted to say that it is a joy to live in your city. I believe your designs have greatly helped the committees' progress. "

"Thank you. I only wish they had listened earlier."

"Nevertheless, you have created something that people can live and enjoy. Your ideas revolutionized city living."

"Part of the key was to accomodate for Human randomness. The order of the grid was simply unfreindly and created harsh environmental concequences such as wind tunnel and eternal shadows beneath buildings. I also believe colour is much more inviting than grey or black. That's why many things are painted brightly. The greatest trick was trying to convince the conservatives to return to dense cities."

"However did you achieve that, luring them out of their suburban fortresses?"

"In the end, it was simply a matter of resources. There was no way they could stay there and commute, when everything else was happening in the city."

"Mr. Planner, why did people want to stay so long in suburbia? Teacher told us that it created anti-social behaviour and saddness," your daughter asks.

"Well, child, some people get stuck in their ways, and think that thier ideas are the only correct ones. Then once it starts to look like they are wrong, they are afraid to admit it, so they hold on even harder. Do continue veiwing the exhibits here. The past has a nasty habit of repeating itself, so the best way to prevent this from happening is to know past mistakes."

"Thank you, and good day."

"Good day."

And so you continue through the exhibits with your children, ensuring that they know how to recognize past mistakes, and not repeat them.

Now open your eyes and consider the life I have put before you. Is it really all that far-fetched? The only predictable thing about the future is that it is imminant. It cannot be avoided. So start thinking of it now. What I have presented here shows that urban density is the alternative to and solution to suburan ills. In the scenario, cities become the centres of wealth, while the suburbs are left to waste, since they can no longer exist without oil. The greenbelt I described is a full-out nature preserve, in 2 layers. First is the layer where Humans are allowed to experience and interact with nature. This layer is close to the city rim and easily accessable. The second layer is off limits to all buy a few Humans, so that their impact is limited and that nature might, in course, regenerate itself.

The transportation, monuments, and institutions of culture and education are free and many in this society. Free transportation encourages people to use it, and use it often. This allowed the society to replace the automobile, since transit was far cheaper than the alternative. Long range travel is replaced with electric maglev trains, high tech solar, and even sail. Monuments serve as a constant reminder of the perils of the past and insurance against future excesses. Education, the arts, and museums are free for all too, so that they might foster knowledge, community, and self-cultivation.

The key to the existance of this society is low property rates. Speculators and realtors all overvalue property because they get a certain cut of that value when it is sold. This increases the price of all property, driving people away from denser areas where speculative demand is higher. Speculators are also underminded by public housing, which has a value far below profit margins for such a profession. With cheap living for all, this society saves a great deal of its income which, on top of not owning a car, allows them to accumulate a great deal of capital, thus making society much richer and investment much more ready. The housing market is heavily regulated, so that most areas are about equal in property value, so as to not create enclaves of the rich separate from enclaves of the poor. Everybody lives close together, whether high or low income, thus increasing social harmoney.

The purpose of the committees might seem a little like something out of a totalitarian regime. The difference here is that they are guiding bodies controlled by the United Nations, whose sole purpose is to make recommendations based on research and empirical data. They have expiry dates so that their power is limited. The recommendations of the committees are de facto laws that may be interpreted based on a sovereign nation's needs. Here, the UN has a great deal of control over international relations and overall world development.

The point is this: much of the future of city planning has to take into account the fact that oil will run out. Thus we need to plan working cities, not impractical suburbs. We need to come together and live closer to our entertainment, work, and friends. Part of this is learning to be social again, rather than existing in our isolated little fortresses, never speaking to anyone on the street, and never encountering people of other classes. This was the project of the Social Committee in the scenario above. People had to learn to converse and interact more.

The city-as-antithesis has to surpass or at least meet the desires of those who once lived in suburbia. Part of this will be dealt with by the convenience of living close to everything. Today, zoning requirements make it very difficult to build anything that is mixed-use or close to existing housing. The NIMBY (not in my back yard) problem is a great impediment to commercial structures and high-density housing, and a complete barrier to low-income and public housing. We have to punish such selfish people, or at least make them understand that the world doesn't revolve around them. Another underminer of the NIMBY clause is a cut in real estate prices. NIMBY usually results from fears of lost property value because of the proximity of new installments that might be considered to have an adverse impact on the neighbourhood. If property values were already low, NIMBY wouldn't be as much of an issue. By removing NIMBY and changing zoning laws, we could build dense cities again, teeming with life, culture, and a wide variety of commercial venues. This would make living conditions very acceptable, as more people could access the convenience of having everything so close.

The other deterrant to living in cities is the 'concrete jungle' image. This image is the product of cities transformed into parkways. Streets of cement and asphalt disect the city everywhere, while parking garages rise on every block. This can be solved by either the upcoming energy crisis, or focused planning. Either way, roads and parking lots can be removed once commuters and automobiles are out of the picture. Streets, with their speeding cars and careless drivers, can be replaced by cobbled promenades, rows of trees, gardens, shop-stalls, and patios. Parking lots and garages can be wiped out and replaced by parks and green spaces. This would make cities much more delightful.

A final problem that cities have today is noise and pollution. Well guess where those come from.... The automobile. Sit in a city and just listen. What is the biggest, most pervasive noise you can hear. That's right, all the cars and trucks driving by. No quiet, and the air is thick with exhaust fumes. Every day hundreds of thousands of people drive into the city to work, bringing with them their suburban monstrosities spewing carbon monoxide and dioxide into the city air. The concentration of vehicles during the hottest parts of the day cause the sun's heat to become trapped in the city, which interacts with the greenhouse gasses to produce smog. The solution? kick out the automobiles. Make the city a no-drive zone. I bet pedestrians would feel a lot more safe too. Without automobiles and with today's technology, we can eliminate noice so that cities can become very quiet. Besides, suburbia isn't all that quiet, and the air is just as bad if not worse.

So imagine my quiet, freindly, green, sustainable vision of the future. Enjoy it. It is the best alternative to today's hectic lifestyle, and tomorrow's uncertainty. It's funny how the solutions to many problems can be some of the most ancient practices in Human civilization.

Hooray for the city!

Unionize This!

2005-03-18T12:51:00.000-05:00

"Why should I work hard if some lazy bum gets the same wage as me for less work?"

Unions. Organized labour. Combinations of workers. Call them what you want, they're all 'lumbering dinosaurs'. They served their purpose, and now they are in sunset. I've worked for 2 unionized companies and 2 non-unionized companies, and I found the distribution of work more equal in the non-unionized companies than in those with unions. In the companies with unions, my coworkers were lazy, slow, and had poor work ethics. When it came to team work, I would rather someone working with me who is afraid to lose their job than someone who was secure and didn't care. So let us systematically prove that unions have no further use in much of today's economy.

1: Unions raise the wages of all, and especially of those who are in the union.
Untrue. The government sets minimum wage, which usually applies to crappy jobs for the unskilled anyways. The true high wages are given according to skill. Large business corporations never have unions because they pay well for good skills. In today's economy, if you don't learn a skill, you doom yourself to a minimum wage job. Everybody should know this by now. Also, why should those in a union be paid more than those who are not, for the same work? Unions also take dues, which you could otherwise use to buy things. They spend these dues on their corrupt administration, lobbying, and costly strikes. Finally, a raised wage is no good if the company cites rising labour costs and runs off to Mexico to produce their product cheaper.

2: Unions promote equality.
Untrue. Those who work hard will rarely be rewarded for it, while those who are lazy get the same pay for less work. This is not equality. Further, unions tend to be predominantly male and white, so that immigrants, new entrants, and women are often discriminated against. Unions are often clubbish and exclusive, and their benefits only apply to a core of full time employees. Unions often promote temporary and part-time work to prevent job loss for those who are already in the union, and these new positions are often not unionized and paid far less than a unionized employee for the same amount of work.

3: Unions represent the worker's interests.
Untrue. Unions are businesses in their own, and concerned with their own survival. They will often sell out their workers if it means staying in business. When it actually comes time to help out the workers, unions are often nowhere to be found, or in bed with management.

4: Unions protect jobs.
Untrue. The cost of running a factory with a union is larger than the cost of running a non-union factory. This causes companies to seek a better bottom line in new labour options. The unionized worker is then replaced by a machine, or the factory moves to another country.

5: Unions help democracy.
Untrue. Unions are interest groups that funnell workers' dues into their preferred political party. In some countries unions have the politicians in their pockets, and run the state. Unions have an interest in getting one party into power, and keeping them there. They do this regardless of their members' political leanings.

6: Unions increase productivity.
Untrue. Studies have been unable to show this connection. In some cases, the formation of a union results in the loss of productivity from time spent at meetings, more holidays, union demands, and increased worker indifference to management.

7: Unions encourage achievement.
Untrue. Unionization brings with it more generalized wages for all, so that there is no incentive to work harder and increase production. Everyone is paid the same regardless of how much work they do. Promotions are viewed by the union with suspicion, and the strife they cause with management results in worker-management antagonism, which in the end hampers the goals of both.

8: Unions fulfull a useful social justice role.
Untrue. The state plays a larger role in this. Unions are selfish exclusive. See 2.

9: Unions give their members a voice in the company.
Untrue. Suggestions from employees are veiwed with suspicion by management because of the antagonism created by the union. Often suggestions are never passed on to management, because the union deems them useless or even contrary to their cause. Further, there is no incentive to make suggestions because the union will claim the reward of such suggestions for itself.

10: Unions make the workplace safer.
Untrue. State laws and inspectors require companies to provide maximum safety for their employers. Failing this, workers can contact the worker's rights tribunals and inform on their company's lax practices.

There. Ahhhh, that feels good. The main thing that bugged me about unions is that whenever I worked really hard, I never got recognized. I also never got rewarded, and the lazy guy next to me who never did anything got the same wage as me. When I worked for non-unionized companies, I was rewarded and respected for my hard work. Now that's fairness!

I'm also a very strong capitalist, and believe that unions cost the economy a great deal through antagonisms, strike, extraction of fees and dues, and lazyness. They usually only protect those who do not have any skills, a condition which itself is the product of lazyness. Unions also drive up wages and reduce labour demand, resulting in less job creation. The threat of unionization causes businesses to shut down and move elsewhere.

So there you have it. Reasons not to join a union. Unfortunately, there's this law called the Rand Formula, that states that if you work permanantly for a unionized company, you must join the compan'y union and pay its dues. Yet another instance of inequality and lack of voice.

What's the point of unionizing a Sprawl-Mart anways? Employees last about 6 months there.

Confusion to the UFCW!

Intergenerational Inequality

2005-01-30T23:40:00.000-05:00

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

2005-01-25T21:44:00.000-05:00

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

2005-01-24T11:40:00.000-05:00

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

2005-01-02T22:36:00.000-05:00

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

2005-01-02T15:54:00.000-05:00

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.

The Horrors of Suburbia

2004-12-04T01:14:00.000-05:00

Здравствулте!
(Hello!)

My archnemisis is suburbia. It is the enemy to my genious, bane of my existence. I plan to dedicate my efforts to its destruction through prudent urban planning. Let us look at how this abomination of Human civilization came to be.

Suburbia began in the 1920's when the rich sought to leave cities that were packed with polluting industries and the poor they attracted. This flight was assisted with the automobile, which made it easy to travel back and forth between the city and its outlying areas. In the 1930's and 1940's programs like Fanny Mae in the US, copied in many other Western states, facilitated a similar move for the middle class. The cheap cost of realestate and the equally cheap cost of getting mortgage loans (since Fanny Mae insured banks against default for mortgages, making bank loans for this purpose virtually risk free) attracted the middle class. An element of class division in the city also helped drive the wealthy and middle class out since there were fears of violence, mobs, and social impurity inside city cores. Over the succeeding decades, highways were built, more automobiles were produced, and more houses were constructed to facilitate the move of wealth from cities to the outer rim, in areas we now call urban sprawl.

Meanwhile, the 'community' of suburbia broke from traditional Human modes of interaction and trade. Strip malls, big-box stores, and housing subdivisions succeeded in ensuring that fewer people interacted on a daily basis than ever before, despite being so close. The anti-social behaviour created by suburbia has contributed to many ills, particularly amongst suburban children.

The result of this great movement was countless subdivisions sprawling from major urban centres in all directions. It's like the middle class vomited all over the landscape. No two houses are all that different, and their attenuating strip malls and highways have only served to further uglify the scene. Suburbia destroys the very thing it sets out to create: a spacious community away from urban ills in a natural and rural setting. The space becomes roads, highways, and lanes. The community becomes a bunch of hermits who only see each other when they mow the lawn or shovel snow. The urban ills are intensified by the diversion of property taxes to newly developed subdivisions. Large areas of nature are destroyed through development, pollution, and intrusive suburbanites. Take for example a subdivision named 'Deer Creek'. You'll never see a deer in the area again, and the creek was diverted to manage stormwater while being polluted by runoff from lawn fertilizers and pesticides. Funny that.

Suburbia both is a product, and encourages the consumption, of the automobile. The physical isolation of suburban developments separates living spaces from jobs and services. This is called zoning law. As a result, to do anything, buy anything, or work anywhere, you have to be both able and willing to drive out of your neighborhood to the desired location. Walking there? Forget about it. There are so many lots between you and the mall you might as well gnaw your legs off. You could ride your bike, but well, that doesn't work well in the winter. It's just too damn easy to just drive somewhere. Why? It's designed to be that way. This physical isolation also separates people. Even if they are right next door, they aren't that close. More than likely you and your neighbor's have nothing in common, if they aren't jerks. All of your friends are in other suburbs, and your fellow workers scattered all along the major arteries towards the city where all the jobs are. The result is that you have to drive to your friend's place, which can become tiresome if it's even close enough to begin with.

You also have to be able to drive. That automatically excludes those under 17, who don't have their license. Suburbia is a little club, and you have to be able to drive to participate in its benefits. If you have a license, you need to pay for car, insurance, gas, and increasingly, maintenance. The price of each seems only to increase. It's expensive, and getting worse. And need we remember that the automobile is the largest source of air, water, and land pollution?

Suburbanites, on average, travel at least 30 minutes in their cars to their place of work, and an equal amount back. That's on a good day. Sometimes accidents, congestion, or weather can take up more time. Over a long period of time, the amount of time spent in a vehicle for suburbanite commuters is ridiculous. The great commute also gets people up nice and early, depriving them of sleep, just so they can make it to work on time from their distant home.

Admittedly certain conditions within the city have not helped these conditions. The absurd price of realestate in the inner city would drive away any middle class worker. The close proximity to impoverished areas simultaneously engineers fear in the mind of the middle class family. Ok the counter argument: Realestate prices are set by the bank at speculative values. The presence of some public housing would cut down the price as well as mixing social classes. Which brings us to the second point. Crime has always been higher in the cities because - get this - there are more people in a city at any given time than a rural area. People commit crime because they need resources, or because there are no government programs to help these people, or because there is no opportunity. THE ONLY TRUE POVERTY IS THE POVERTY OF OPPORTUNITY! Well when the affluent leave and take their tax dollars to suburbia, the city loses those dollars and is no longer able to support programs for the alleviation of poverty. Public housing and the return of the middle class would solve both of these problems.

There is also an ideological basis for suburbia. Think of the pretty picture from the 1950's of the white two-story home with the white picket fence, the dog, and the 2.5 children beside the giant Buick. What mother wouldn't want to raise their children within the protection of this little neighborhood of equally loving parents, and the privacy of a fenced backyard? In reality, this environment is a farce, a lie. And its effects should be a crime to children. Crime and creeps are equally likely to roam suburban streets as in the city. Subdivisions have no history, and so cannot have a community. By seeking privacy within a home, the suburbanite seeks to separate himself from the world, ignore it and its people, and fortify himself against a much wider array of Humans.

Sure, there is a buttressing effect to individualism in suburbia. Every man's home is his castle. Well, castles were designed to isolate, keep out, and entrench. By following individualism to this conclusion, the suburbanite individualizes himself outside of the community, a sort of self-ostracization. It's easy to be free when you're alone.

As for children, sure a fenced backyard seems like a good idea to protect them from the horrors of the outside world. It's good for pets too. But the kids develop social problems because they don't encounter very many other kids their age to interact with. They grow up bored, which results in destructive, introverted, and/or disrespectful behavior. The child becomes dependent on the home for entertainment, all other forms being so physically far away. This results in further introversion. Television, video games, and computers only assist this process. Without social opportunities and environments, parents have brought their children up in an environment that is detrimental to their integration into the real world once they leave their insulated subdivision.

Economically, suburbia is a wasteland. It does not create jobs within itself for the youth that are forced to endure it. Any jobs in the area are likely to be minimum wage service jobs which subject the youth to a servile position to their vacuous suburbanite neighbours. There are no jobs for adults. The resources wasted in creating, sustaining, and traveling to and from suburbia are incomprehensible. No wonder North American roads are in such terrible shape. There are just too damn many to maintain, and suburbanites would rather their little streets repaired over inner city thoroughfares. The cost of infrastructure to sprawling suburban areas has diverted tax dollars to otherwise important programs. The savings for all would be enormous if the middle class returned to concentrated urban areas.

Environmental destruction. More and more cars, which seem to be getting bigger and bigger, making more trips all over the place. Lots of pollution. Sprawling subdivisions eat up fields and forests, pollute waterways, and encourage the use of cars. Roadways, made from tar-based asphalt, spread in all directions to facilitate the further use of cars and the extension of the suburban sprawl, as well as contributing chemical runoff, cutting up areas and preventing walking. The ease of using cars has contributed to individual travel, which increases vehicle use and discourages public transit which would be far more environmentally sound and sustainable.

While living in suburbia, people become isolated from one another, and from other classes of people. Suburbanites will hardly ever come across poor people, so they never have to feel sympathy for them. Suburbanites don't care about poor people and vote accordingly. The suburban attitude is one of 'me'. These people vote to keep poor people away, to spend tax dollars on more roads to suburbia, and become only concerned with the problems facing their little communities. They don't see other class groups, so they don't have to worry about them. By increasing exposure to other classes, people would once again become concerned and charitable.

Suburbia is not quiet. The constant drone of cars on nearby roads can get pretty loud. On some nights the highway can be heard from great distances. The jerk next door, ignorant of the science of noise diffusion, will have talkative family gatherings through the night. Meanwhile, some bored suburban kid will race up and down the street in his hotrod (because mom and dad provide room and board, so he can spend his McDonalds money on a car) blaring jarring music from the open windows.

Suburbia is a form of segregation. Remember the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's? It's an expression of the white values that created racial segregation. Suburbia seeks to set up a little fiefdom separate from other social classes. The institutions within this fiefdom reflect only the interests of those within it. This is expressed in the quality of the schools within the district. Wealthier districts are separated from poorer ones, and wealthier districts have better schools. Since the poorer kids get lower quality schools, they can never hope to advance in life.

On the line of segregation, guess what? Suburbia seems to be primarily composed of white people. Surprise surprise. It's their little preserve. Little white kids in suburbia will probably never meet someone from a different ethnic background, and will most likely end up considering them 'foreign' or 'other' and grow up thinking that separation from 'other' is appropriate.

Still not convinced? Wait! There's more! Suburbia is so visually unappealing that it makes baby Jesus cry. These cookie-cutter houses with vinyl siding all look the same to me. The little streets and total lack of trees and other landscaping look desolate, and sometimes quite like the streets of some third world city. The architecture is less than inspired and the layout looks like it was created by a rubber stamp. The materials used in construction were cheap and so no neighbourhood has succeeded in creating the illusion of an old-style Victorian community. The overall effect is somewhat depressing, especially in the winter.

What was there before? Probably a scenic field, or a majestic forest full of life. Maybe a traditional farm? Then in come the bulldozers followed by the ugly uniformed houses, SUVs, Wal Mart, strip malls, and spoiled children.

Since it's easier to drive everywhere, the appreciation of nature is lost. From the garage, a person can get into a car, drive to another garage, and enter his place of work. All without leaving the comfort of the indoors. Without being outside, one loses the appreciation of the natural world. Also, this constant driving, as opposed to walking or cycling, results in obesity since suburbanites tend to eat poorly and avoid exercise.

Suburbia has the effect of impoverishing older working communities in towns and cities. Our old glorious cities and small towns have been destroyed by converting them into thoroughfares for suburban automobiles. Cars are parked everywhere and the streets are dangerous to cross. Cars have taken precidence over Human beings. Old structures are destroyed to make way for parking lots and roads. We are slaves to our automobiles, just as we are slaves to oil. The cities have become associated with pollution because of all the suburbanites driving to and from it every day. Mass transit sucks because even if suburbanites use it once they get into the city, the tax base is only on city constituents. Suburbia does not pay for inner city transit. Since cities have become places of work, they do not have as large a role in living and entertainment as they once did. The people who work in the city do not spend much money in the city, so the city collects less taxes and generates less revenue, creating financial difficulties.

So, environmental, financial, urban, and social destruction. The dream proved to be a lie, and it has cost us billions of dollars. As a social experiment, suburbia has created three generations of spoiled, bored, underemployed kids who grow up with the same attitudes as their parents. More than likely the trend will continue for another 50 years before people catch on.

Suburbia will be the slums of the future, as oil prices rise and the cost of living outside of the centre of production skyrockets. Perhaps then we can dismantle our folley and reuse the building materials to construct a better model of living.

The North American Lifestyle - And its Unsustainability

2004-12-03T17:12:00.000-05:00

問候!
(Greetings!)

Today we will have a special little talk about a special little corner of our world. In Canada and the United States, a common lifestyle has emerged for millions of people. Some lament it, others see it as a dream to achieve. Although this talk overlaps somewhat with my upcoming discussion of THE HORRORS OF SUBURBIA, I will attempt to fulfill each topic as best I can.

Let us create an example of the life of a typical North American family. Let's meet Janet. She's 43, married, and has 4 kids. She lives in a lovely suburban home with 2 floors and a nice big yard. In her driveway sits a Nissan Pathfinder and a Ford Escape. Hubby Jim is 44 and works for a software company in the city and communtes every day. He makes $70000 US a year and a nice Christmas bonus. Janet loves Jim, but since she doesn't work (due to taking care of 4 kids), she resents Jim's freedom and feels stressed over taking care of so many youngens. She relieves her stress by gazing longingly at the pool boy in the summer, and in the winter she takes to her soap operas on television.

Every day, Jim leaves home at 6:00 am to get to work on time (which starts at 9:00) because for some reason there's always traffic on the highway to the city. When he finally arrives at 8:30, he has to find a parking spot in one of the numerous, ugly multi-stack parking lots. He goes to his building, ascends in the elevator, and goes to his cubicle where he sits at a desk and stares at the screen as the computer boots up. He then goes to the lunch room for his fourth coffee (the third he got at a drive-through doughnut shop), which he seems to be addicted to. He stares at the screen for the next 8 hours, often wondering when all his 'horrible' work will end and he can retire to a life of luxury with full company pension. At 5 Jim shuts down his computer, happy that he has achieved a whole 15 minutes of real work between trips to the coffee maker and talking with Phil and Sally at the water cooler. He gets in his Nissan Pathfinder and tries to manoevre it out of the parking lot. It's a very big vehicle, and he has trouble with its dimensions. He backs into another car, an Olds Alero, and dents the rear fender. Luckily, his SUV doesn't have a scratch. He drives on, with few cares. He gets home at 7:00 after refilling the empty gas tank in his vehicle for another day. He is angry that over the past year the price of fuel has gone up 10%. He decides to vote for who ever offers to bring down the price. At home, he kisses Janet and eats a dinner prepared by her. The kids are loud and obtrusive, but Jim ignores them and scratches his balding head, then his growing belly. Afterwards, he goes to the 50" television, watches Fox news, then finishes his night with a good old network television sitcom. He goes to bed and waits for Janet to put the kids to sleep, who are full of energy of course. Janet returns, the kids still screaming for attention, and shuts the door. Jim tries to get some from Janet, but she's become a fridgid, rancid cunt from raising 4 kids and Jim's flabby stomach, hairless head, and on and off impotentcy.

Janet has also had a hard day. She got up at 5 with Jim. The kids woke up at 7 and immediately proceeded to be loud and uncontrollable. Janet wonders if some drugs might set them straight, since she's tired of trying. She lets them run wild around the house, unwilling to discipline them because she fears they may not like her for it, and that if she did, she would have to do it all day. Around lunch time, Janet realizes there is no bologny for the kid's sandwiches (they won't eat anything else) and has to go get some. She piles the kids into the Ford Escape and drives it to Wal-Mart, which has the lowest price for prepackaged processed bologny. It is about four blocks north, but there are 6 lights between her driveway and the store. She has to wait about 3 minutes at each of them. The kids are screaming in the back, but Janet just takes som advil and ignores them. She flips up the internal DVD system, and they all begin singing and swaying to the musical delights of Disney's Aladdin (which, by the way, is their 13th viewing of the film). Why bother paying attention to her kids when TV does it for her? Just outside the mammoth store parking lot there is a traffic jam. It seems that Wal Mart is a busy place today, and everyone is trying to get in and find a parking spot. The other vehicles, mostly SUVs and minivans, are difficult to see over and Janet has a hard time finding a parking spot. About 15 minutes later, she finds one and quickly siezes it, almost running over a pair of teenagers getting out of their car. She unloads the kids and herds them into the store, where they immediately run past the smiley greeter guy who gets paid $5 an hour to the toys section. Janet has to catch up to them, and when she tries to get them moving towards the bologny, they start screaming and crying for this or that toy. In a bid to get them to shut up, she lets them each buy a toy. They are a little expensive, but what does it matter. It's not like she's working for the money. She then gives up on the bologny since the kids are all riled up from their new toys, and takes them to McDonalds (which is conveniently placed inside the store). They each want a happy meal, and demand a specific toy. Of course, they get it even though Janet has to bitch at the teenager working behind the counter about how the customer is always right. As Janet consumes her big extra, she contemplates where that ring of chub around her waist came from and whether she should go to the gym. Instead she concludes in favour of this Atkins diet she's heard so much about, and orders an extra side of McNuggets in hopes that the protein she thinks she is getting out of them will build muscle and replace the fat. When the kids are done their meals - they too look like they need the Atkins diet - Janet herds them back into the Escape, which turns out to be quite the hike, because the mass of SUVs and minivans moving and parked obscure her vehicle. She blames the other shoppers for being so inconsiderate, and for corporate America for building six bigbox stores with only one communal parking lot. After finding her SUV, she navigates it out of the parking lot. In the lane exiting the lot, several other cars and SUVs are backed up waiting for the light to change so they can get on the road. She honks at them for being too slow, and knocks over her drink which she brought from McDonalds. She leans over to pick up the waxpaper cup. The light changes and everyone behind her is honking. She opens the window and yells at the people behind her to shut up. She then pulls out of the lane and onto the road, where she speeds past other drivers and cuts one off so she can make the turn into her subdivision. After she gets ahead of the other driver (without signalling) she slows down and crawls around the corner into her subdivision. Up one, left, and then right. Her street, and she parks in her driveway. Out the kids come with their new toys, and into the house. It's 1:30 now and she wants to relax after a stressful day at Wal Mart, and turns on the TV. The kids scream that they want to play video games on it, and she tells them to go play in the basement on the smaller TV. They disappear, and immediately two of them fight over the controller. On the couch beside Janet are the new toys she just bought for them, already discarded. She picks up a plastic car, and reads "made in China". The toy then breaks. When its owner comes upstars, he begins crying in lament for the broken toy. He demands another one, so it's off to Wal Mart. Packed back into the SUV with a new Disney DVD, the kids wait while Janet tries to start the engine. No luck. Several more times. No luck. One more time, and success. The fuel tank is dangerously low, so she decides to take the vehicle into the repair shop. The mechanic finds the problem to be some obscure part, and has to order it. The cost is $500. In the meantime, Janet has to rent a vehicle. Of course, she picks the Dodge Durango. The kids are packed into it and they go home, leaving one child sadly unsatisfied. Janet goes onto the computer and orders the toy online. She then finds her way onto other sites, where she buys a few more things. She starts cooking dinner around 6:30 and Jim returns just in time to eat a nice hot sloppy joe. Janet spends the rest of the night subduing the kids and wondering why Jim doesn't buy her a diamond neclace to show his appreciation. Just before going to bed, Jim and Janet talk about their finances. They have very little in savings, no investments save their home, and are heavily reliant on state and company pensions and health coverage. They conclude that they will find a way to pay for all of the kids' college expenses and that Jim will just retire later. Janet rejects Jim's conjugal advances and tries to fall asleep so she can face another day.

Consider this situation with a twist. Jim now makes $50000 a year, Janet is forced to get a job to pay the bills, and the kids are a little older. Janet now works for a phone company which is unionized. She was lucky to be hired, and she works inside the company's office. She enjoys working with other women and the conversations they have. She misses a few deadlines because of her talking, and the quality of her work is less because she's always worried about her kids. She often takes off half an our early, thinking the company doesn't notice. When her supervisor, another woman, asks her about this, she just says she is having a hard time at home and says she is working her hardest. Secretly she wishes her supervisor would get off her back and that she works hard enough already. She knows that even if she is an unproductive worker, the union will protect her. Jim has to put more time in at the office in the city to make some extra money. Meanwhile, the kids, in their early teens, do the usual rebellious teen things. Two of them already have jobs to support their lifestyles; jobs at the local Wal Mart and McDonalds. They've been looking for better jobs, but there seems to be nothing in town for them. One of them is applying to college. He can't afford to pay for it, and neither can mommy or daddy. He needs some financial assistance. But mommy and daddy just voted Republican so they can get a tax break and hopefully lower gas prices for their SUVs, so this situation is not likely to change.

If you can see ANY of the problems with this situation, you are a wise person. If you think this is the essence of the good life, try to think a little harder about what I have just exposed to you. My friends and I have all faced the above situations, having grown up in the epitome of Canadian suburbia. SUVs, cookie-cutter homes on big lots, and dependance on fuel and a total lack of savings are totally unsustainable. Environmentally, socially, and financially, all the situations faced by Jim and Janet, and thier four kids, cannot continue to exist in perpetuity. A stock market crash, depleting oil stocks, or a rise in interest rates would destroy this family. Their future looks bleak. More than likely Jim's company will reneg on his pension and benefits or they will turn out to be not enough. Janet will probably likely lose her sanity and end up addicted to something or other. They will become reliant on the state for a variety of programs - oh wait, they won't because conservative governments tend to cut programs and benefits. One thing is for sure, Jim and Janet's kids are screwed. If they don't end up undisciplined criminals, they will be unable to get a job because all through school they never had the application to get good grades, nor the money for college since the only jobs within a student's range are at Wal Mart and McDonalds.

The environment cannot sustain more suburbs or SUVs. Families cannot afford a heap of kids while balancing a house, college, retirement, and other debts. Companies cannot sustain pensions and benefits for lots of workers in perpetuity, especially if their workers turn out to be unproductive and unappreciative. Children need attention and discipline, so all parents out there, know that your presence and a firm hand cannot be replaced by toys and television. Without discipline, kids grow up disrespectful, spoiled brats. Keep in mind, these kids will have to fund the pensions and health care of their parents through their jobs. If the family produces unproductive brats, they won't get good jobs. Companies will move to areas of higher intellectual capital and thus impoverish society. If the kids do turn out ok, they will need help financially for higher education. Not all of us can work at daddy's firm for $20 an hour. By demanding products and services from absolute-bottom wage places like Wal Mart and McDonalds, we are ensuring that higher wage payers are being squeezed out and jobs will be reduced to the above locations for our children.

I encourage the old, the middle aged, and the young alike to visit an old city. Take in the sights, use mass transit, buy a nice meal from a non-chain restaurant (which may cost a little more but ultimately will be more fulfilling), and top it off by going to your bank and depositing your remaining money in a savings account for a rainy day. Society is driven by market forces. The more you demand of one product or service, the less is demanded of other or traditional equivalents. Cars and roads have taken money away from busses, trolleys, and trains. Wal Mart has taken money away from local grocery stores and farmer's markets, as well as small quaint shops. McDonalds has taken money away from creative and unique restaurants and even home cooking.

Start buying local goods, using local venues, and spending your money on public transit. Vote accordingly. If you have a little extra money, SAVE IT! You don't have to buy that extra chocolate bar. You may thank me one day when you have a financial emergency and there is that savings account, ready to help you. Savings are preferable to debt, no?

Walk, exercise, and appreciate nature. It may not be around much longer.

Humanity

2004-12-03T14:38:00.000-05:00

¡Hola!

Today I give you the main thrust of my Notions. HUMANITY is the one thing that unites us all. After you shed all constructed and imposed identities, you are left with the identity of being a Human being. I would like you to think of it now the other way around. You are a Human first and all other identites are built onto that framework, reliant and dependant on it. These identities do not exist without the framework of being Human. To put identites in priority:

1: You are a Human being.
2: You are a citizen of the world.
3: You are a citizen of your nation, province/state, region, and town/city.
4: You have a name.
5: You have certain beliefs.

Race is not an identity. In reality, we are all part of the same race. Race based on colour or ethnic background is a social construct and exists within the Human world only, outside of nature. Racial distinction itself is a form of segregation and admission of difference. Religion, or 'creed' is also a social construct. It falls under beliefs. So do political and economic affiliation, sexual orientation, and gender. Class is not truely an identity, but rather a form of economic and political affiliation which can alter or exist on two different levels during one's life.

As a Human, you will inevitably interact with other humans who share the first three identites with you. However, they only start to differ on identity #4, and at that, it is only a name. Where Humans truely begin to make the distinction between Humanity and the INDIVIDUAL is in beliefs. Sometimes we forget that 'beliefs' is #5, and seek to make it #1 above all else, even to the extent of killing other Human beings. This is called conflict. Conflict exists in nature, but in the state of nature conflict only occurs over resources, since animals are unable to formulate ideas. Groups of Humans, however, use conflict to assert their claims over certain resources, as well as to impose their beliefs on other groups or individuals.

Where two Humans interact, there is often the exchange of beliefs and ideas. How one party reacts to this exchange is a measure of a host of different indicators. Sometimes we call it civility, maturity, open mindedness, or comprehension. Civility is how far each party has advanced beyond animal instincts. Maturity is the degree of wisdom and temperence each party has achieved. Open mindedness is the willingness of each party to accept or appreciate each other's point of view. Comprehension is the ability of each party to understand where the other is coming from. Those who get angry when they hear opinions contrary to their own we ball base or savage. Those who would ignore or despise others for thinking differently we call childish. Those who are bigoted and subborn we call closed-minded. Those who are unwilling or unable to understand other points of veiw we call ignorant or foolish. You see how those that react negatively to different or opposing opinions are thus less advanced than those willing to listen or accept such ideas.

When a difference in beliefs cannot be resolved through wisdom, understanding, or acceptance, Humans have historically attempted to resolve them through brute force, an animal instinct. Over millenia brute force has taken the form of clubs, swords, muskets, rifles, nuclear bombs, and so on. The result is death and coercive pursuasion. Neither of these things we would call civil. When individuals charge groups with the burden of conflict, it becomes WAR. War is a human invention because unlike animal conflict, war endures and produces longstanding animosity. War also involves individuals that were not associated with the initial conflict of beliefs. This is how a debate between two Humans, who were not advanced enough to handle different opinions, can result in the death of millions of Humans who were previously uninvolved. These wars of ideas, products of immaturity, baseness, closed-mindedness, and ignorance, often do not resolve anything. Sometimes it takes several wars of ideas to decide a dominant system of belief (I mean that in a non-religious sense).

Power and authority are both resources and ideas. This is why power is cited as the source of a great many wars. When one system of belief seeks to dominate another, it is called hegemony. This can be expressed in a religion, a nation, or an economic system. The hegemonic system can exist by coersion, or by consent. Sometimes consent can be manufactured by coersion, but it is still coersion. So basically, existing systems of belief are around us today because we allow them or because someone has forced them upon us. Sometimes a system is unwelcome, and the only way to remove it is through action. Inaction is a form of consent. Action usually begins with thought, then organization, then activity. The key to changing hegemonies is THOUGHT.

Conflict is such a huge part of the Human race. At any given time there are numerous wars being fought all over the world. I can think of eight right now off the top of my head. Conflict is the result of differences of belief in all but one of them, that instigated by the United States in 2003. Why is there so much conflict in an age of 'reason' when world leaders are supposed to be mature, open minded, intelligent, and civilized? It is because leaders are not these things. Nor are the majority of the Human race. Many have one or more defect in their ability to recognize the great many different ideas out there. Humans are flawed. If we look to our past, we will see that our civilization has evolved over time. In comparing the development of our civilization to the lifespan of a single Human being, our early 21st century civilization has achieved the maturity of a 10-year old child. Petty squabbles, bullying, and the extensive application of force attest to this. In fact, one of the few things that keep us in relative peace is the stability of the extensive capitalist order. Without the need to produce food and goods to survive, our race would tumble into chaos over disagreements.

Despite the pitfalls of our race, we are also the paragon of all animals. Accidents in nature and fate have supplied humans with the unique ability to adapt to and alter the environments they encounter. Through this process Humans have employed labour saving tools, agriculture, trade, society, and civilization. By developing these ideas, Humans were able to scatter to different environments and conquer each and every one on earth. No other species is so adaptable. With different social groups organizing in different climactic areas, they found a desire to traffic their surplus goods to areas where such goods were unavailable in exchange for goods unavailable in other areas. This concept of trade is also unknown in the animal world. Trade is produced and affects travel, which brought different Human groups into contact with each other. This resulted in the exchange of ideas as well as resources. Sometimes these interactions were beneficial, sometimes they resulted in conflict. From these very simple concepts arose Human language, commerce, invention, and construction. This is how we distinguish ourselves from other life forms on our planet.

Humans have succeeded in mastering nature. The conditions for agriculture, motion, electricity, and radio communications existed before Humans harnessed them. By manipulating what nature gives us, we have imagined and created things that rival the spectacle of nature itself. I am writing on a computer that was forged from resources that originated from all over the globe, on an international network built by Human imagination, through a complex system of code, wires, silicon, and plastic. All of this is the child of Human ingenuity. Never doubt what we can do.

Humans are capable of vision, imagination, and creativity. These are our greatest gifts. In using them, we have the ability to do anything, and we have used them to reach where we are today. Our race has the potential to create and solve problems of massive proportions. We owe it to ourselves that we seek to achieve our own greatness, to strive to maximize our potential. But first, we have to rise above petty conflict. We have to become citizens of the world, and realize that our Humanity needs be the only factor of unification, for after all, it is the greatest thing that we all have in common. THOUGHT, UNITY, and IMAGINATION are the key to a strong, limitless future for our race.

Do not fear anything. You are a Human, and you can achieve anything you can imagine. It just starts with THOUGHT.

Appendix to History Lessons

2004-12-03T11:07:00.000-05:00

This appendix will include things that I had forgotten when I wrote my History Lessons.

I: The Ancient Era

II: The Medieval Era

III: The Pre-Modern Era

-The invention of the printing press supplied more and more people with literature. Since copying no longer had to be done by numerous monks who sometimes made mistakes or themselves could not read, it was so much easier to mass produce and distribute books, pamphlets, and newspapers. With more exposure to the written word, people began to learn how to read. Literacy shot up between 1450 and 1650, especially in Protestant countries which encouraged the self-interpretation of the bibile, the most printed book in history. When more people read more often, they began to think about what they were reading and were able to build and establish interpretive frameworks. The asked questions. They thought.

-The funny thing about the French Revolution is that it was a revolution in the old sense of the word. Like a circle, it ran around its course and ended up at the same point it started. In the modern definition of the word, it began as a model revolution and ended as a complete failure. In 1789 the need for change was obvious. By 1793 so many different factions were fighting for ownership of the spirit of the revolution. It was decided that the revolution belonged to a certain sect of white Cathlolic men and all other interpretations were barred by 1795. This sect was not quite sure what it meant to themselves and could not agree on any particular model. This opened legislation to other sects of white Cathloic men. The Terror of 1793 was a result of this indecision.

Napoleon Bonaparte was born a Corsican. Corsica was an Italian island captured earlier in the eighteenth century by France. Napoleon went to military schools in France and began his career of fame with the'whiff of grapeshot', basically firing a cannon full of musket balls at a group of food rioters. He rose through the military ranks and was appointed to run the campaign to spread the revolution to Italy, which he successfully concluded. Then, he went after Egypt to cut off Britain from India (Britain had declared war in 1793 when the French king Louis XVI was executed for trying to bring an Autrian army into France to restpre the monarchy). The Egyptian campaign was hampered by Admiral Horatio Nelson's destruction of the French fleet at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 and by Captain Sir Syndey Smith, who broke the siege of Acre. Napoleon fled back to France, leaving his army to the mercy of the Turks. Without a doubt, sea power had won the campaign for Britain.

Napoleon was not to be outdone. He continued to rise in France to the position of Dictator and in 1804 Emperor. Emperor Bonaparte quickly overturned much of the revolutionary legislation of the 1790's and returned France to a conservative regime. He was a backlash against radicalism and the answer to France's stability woes and foreign enemies (for revolution had created many). Napoleon renewed his threat against Britain in 1803 by constructing an invasion fleet. Admiral Nelson would have nothing to do with this, so on October 21, 1805 he led 28 British ships against 33 French and Spanish ships and defeated them soundly without a single loss of a ship. This was TRAFALGAR, the greatest and most important naval battle in history. Without warships, Napoleon's invasion fleet would be subject to the countless British ships patrolling the English channel. There was to be no invasion. So Napoleon's greatest adversary survived to finally defeat him in 1814 and 1815, through a superior economic system and a superior navy to protect it.

In 1815 Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo and was summarily deported to the tiny Atlantic island of St. Helena, off the coast of south west Africa. A monarch was reinstalled in France and in all the countries France had conquered. Everything went back to normal. Except, of course, Britain's increased maritime and commercial might.

In 1848 France endured a new revolution, restoring some of the idealogical victories of the late 18th century. Since 1789 France has constructed 5 republics. They called themselves a bastion of democracy. Yet France was the second last nation to enfranchise women, ahead of Switzerland, in 1945.

IV: The Modern Era

-Stalin and Hitler were mass murderers. Hitler is responsible for the death of over 6 million Jews. Stalin is believed to have engineered the death of 20 million people inside the USSR. These deaths were the result of deaths from WWII as well as millions who died from starvation and displacement due to his 5-year state resturcturing program. 3 million alone died in Ukraine when they were forced off their farming land so a consolidated state farm could be built.

-Another reason for the plight of the working class is their own prolific breeding. The Baby Boom, in its capacity to create infinite problems to throw the world out of equilibrium, has managed to glut the labour market and render their services in oversupply, thus decreasing their value. With Generation X and the children of the Baby Boomers entering the labour market, the supply of labour further increases, contributing to lower wages. After WWII, there was an acute shortage of labour, which contributed to the high wages and increadible power of unions until the early 1980's.

History Lesson IV: The Modern Era

2004-11-29T22:01:00.000-05:00

Salutations!

The Modern Era. We call it that because we know it very well. It is recent and all of us have lived during it. 200 years from now, it will be called something else. It will be the future of history. Historians will look back and ponder upon how we lived, what we did to occupy ourselves, and how we ever lived without the technology they will possess. History is a living concept. It has no fixed end or completion. It is constantly building and growing.

What will future historians say about the era 1918 to 2004? Will they see it as the evolution of a certain pattern that cumulates in an event yet unforseen? Will they call it a time of transition or even backwardness? Our lives are merely a drop in the ocean of the historic continuum. Be humbled, for our lives will most likely be forgotten when the history of our time is written in textbooks. We all have the opportunity, however, to help shape what will be written in those textbooks.

By the end of the Great War, our history had diverged from its path which was 3000 years in the making. No longer were we dependant on agriculture for subsistance. We were freed from the yoke of the soil. We had access to a world of resources and ideas due to the expansion of international intercourse. The old ideas of Empire were not seen as the objective and glory of a nation any longer, since the violence of the First World War ensured that empire created war, and war created misery and suffering. WWI was the first major TOTAL WAR, a type of conflict unique to human beings alone. Total war involved every element of a society, and put strenuous demands on labour and the civillian populous. It also disregarded the distinction between non-combatant and soldier. The death toll was catastrophic. It was not sweet and glorious to die for one's country. It was bitter, muddy, and painful. This reality was recognized during WWI more than any other war. It seems, too, that human life became cheaper, less regarded.

In the post-war years, things seemed to return to normal. The populations of the Western world wrestled social concessions from their governments, including the expansion of the franchise. With more people voting, politicians found new constituencies to manipulate in order to retain political power. This would have later implications. Meanwhile, in the East, Japan had conquered Korea, Manchuria (part of China), and a variety of islands in the Pacific.

The unjust provisions listed in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) ensured that Germany was ruined. The aim of Britain and France after WWI was to completly hinder Germany from ever becoming an economic or military power again. The destitution of Germany in the 1920's was paralleled only by the destruction wrought by the Great Depression. Like most problems, Germany's economic crisis was solved by effective leadership. Unfortunately, that came in the form of a FASCIST regime. Such regimes we call tyrranies because they deprive some or all of peoples' natural liberties. Spain and Italy also established fascist states. Russia, having resolved her revolution, was ruled by Stalin by 1929 with the death of Lenin. Although Russia's revolution had given birth to a communist state, it was in fact what we now call a STALINIST state, after Joseph Stalin. Stalinism and Fascism are the very same thing. Regargless of political spectrum, a dictatorial regime is a dictatorial regime. Both require concentrated control of every aspect of life from a single, non-elected official. Both tend to be militaristic, and both seek to limit or dismantle liberty to ensure the perpetuation of the totalitarian state. Any dissent was strictly untolerated, and non-conformists were often dissuaded by torture or death. Both were tyrranies.

America, at the same time, claimed to be 'isolationist'. The theme of isolationism in American history is nothing but an outright lie. I will expose the HYPOCRACY of the AMERICAN EMPIRE in another discussion. Woodrow Wilson, at the Paris Conference in 1919, had promulgated the LEAGUE OF NATIONS. Although the United States did not join, most other nations did. That, of course, meant states that were not colonies of others. The League of Nations was an utter failure. Like the UNTIED NATIONS, it did not have the strength, leadership, or resources to deter aggressors, topple tyrranies, or prevent war. Furthermore, it was just an aggrandizing club for the victors of WWI. When Germany and Japan decided to take unilateral military actions to further their own interests, the League did nothing. When Japan formally annexed most of China, the League actually sought justification for the attack by labelling it a 'stabilizing influence'. When Germany invaded Austria and Czechslovakia (itself a product of the 1919 treaty), the League's leaders sought 'peace in our time' by giving over these countries.

Naturally, Adolph Hitler and the Japanese parliament found these decisions encouraging. In 1939, Hitler tried to test the League again by invading Poland. By then, Britain and France had had enough. War was declared and France, as always, was instantly invaded. Japan struck Indonesia and Hong Kong. Only 21 years, and another major war had begun.

Three side notes.

Adolph Hitler wanted to be a painter. As an Austrian in Vienna, he pursued his goal. He never won acceptance for his art, so instead became an agitator against the government and condition of Germany. While in prison for his escapades, he wrote a book called Mein Kempf (My Journey) which amounted to a collection of insane ramblings.

Joseph Stalin originally wanted to be a preist. He was kicked out of his seminary (religious school) and began to publish subversive communist leadership. He took on the name Stalin (Man of Steel) as a pseudonym. Through clever tricks and outright murder, he made his way to the top of the Communist Party and succeeded Lenin.

That just goes to show you that you should always let people follow their dreams. Failing that, watch out for insane ramblings.

Finally, the Great Depression. In the 1920's capital was abundant in the form of easy credit. The amount of credit in the world's economies was rediculous. Governments then had no notion of FISCAL POLICY. The result was the inevitable slump of the business cycle. The Great Depression of 1929-1933 was particularly harsh because of this abundant credit. All of a sudden debts were increasing exponentially while jobs were disappearing. Standard economic practice at the time was to 'tighten the waistband' in hard times, and that meant shedding jobs and cutting wages. Inflation increased the value of money, and all of a sudden stocks were worthless. Depressions had occured in the 1870's and 1890's along the same lines and near to the same degree, except that an agricultural drought occured in Canada and the US at the same time as the stock market crash, and that the world economy had become more closely integrated and led by the US by 1929. The destitution caused by the Great Depression made many countries desperate for solutions. This explains why Germans, Russians, Italians, Spaniards, and Japanese were willing to appoint or support tyrants to their governments.

The approach to the depression in the US and Canada followed the teachings of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes suggested that government spending, financed by deficits, could encourage the movement of capital and consumer spending, and thus reinvigorate the economy. Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented this in his New Deal of 1933. It introduced programs to get the unemployed working on state infrastructure projects. Canada quickly followed suit, and deficit spending was discovered and implemented simultaneously in Sweden. Although the New Deal and its cousins would help, they did not solve the depression. One effective result, however, was to strengthen the US federal government.

The fascist approach was actually the exact same. Fascist governments sponsored massive military projects and infrastructure, and imposed tariffs to eliminate foreign competition and dependance on imports. This also got people working and spending, and in the case of all but Russia, kept Communists away from agitating the poor.

So arms build-ups, fascist governments, and a weak League of Nations all combined to create World War II. Although the Seven Year's War (1754-63) and the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815) were the first world wars, WWII was the first to involve non-Western nations directly, and the first such to be a total war. In this first truely global war, the ideaological battle between tyrrany and liberty was fought. It was not an imperial war, nor one exclusively for resources. Power and political-economic systems were at stake. In the end, the economic power of free capitalism, expressed in the industrial powerhouse of the United States, was the victor. State controlled capitalism was the victim. Oddly enough, victory was achieved with the assistance of Stalinist Russia.

Like Napoleon Bonaparte in 1812, Hitler made the mistake in 1941 of starting a war with Russia while at war with Britain. Russia employed the muskovite pattern as it had in 1812, which exchanged territory for time, time for the Russian winter to set in. A war on two fronts distracted resources and efforts and led to the defeat of Germany. Also like Napoleon, Hitler maintained a grand fleet of warships whose sole contribution to the war effort amounted to being sunk by the British.

The Japanese and German inititives were genious, and well executed in the beginning, but in the end it was a war of time. The increadible power of Britiain, Canada, and America to hold out and rapidly put out military machinery from their industrial complexes would in the end outpace Germany and Japan. The morale of Allied forces, who were raised voluntarily instead of conscripted, was matched only by the Japanese and their extraordinary devotion to the Imperial state. The naval might of the Anglo-American allaince ensured a steady flow of capital, men, munitions, and machines to the front lines of battle. Canadian warships were heavily employed in the escourt of massive convoys of supply ships to Europe. With the resources of the Americas, Australasia, and Russia, the tiny states of Germany and Japan could simply not produce enough instruments of war to compete.

A contributing factor to Germany's defeat is it's expenditure of resources on exterminating Jews. Had Hitler not spent so much time and military force to murder 6 million people, he might have been more successful. The Nazi Holocaust occured because Hitler was eager for a scapegoat during the Great Depression. In his book, mentioned earlier, he blamed Jews for Germany's economic and political woes. He sought to isolate them from the rest of the population and enclose them in walled ghettos. After the war, those that survived moved to Palestine to form Israel. Today the Jews in Israel are building a 'security perimeter' around Muslim Palestinian towns. How quaintly this wall resembles those built by Hitler.

In 1945 there was a new world order. The nuclear bomb was the final word in weapons that could destroy the world. And Europeans thought the crossbow would mean the death of all. For the first time in history, humanity had the technology to obliterate itself. Survivors wouldn't last long, because nuclear warfare would ensure that the planet was uninhabitable. Nuclear technology proliferated to Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. Despite the expense of these weapons, there are currently enough world-wide to destroy earth several time over. Oh, and there are millions starving to death. Nuclear weapons, it was supposed, would act as a deterrant to major conflict.

The United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, is pretty much the same thing. It is still a club for the victors of WWII, expressed in the 'Security Council.' The Security Council is made up of Britain, France, the US, Russia, and China as permanant members. This is not an effective reflection of world power. The UN is still a weak organization dependant on resources from the major powers. Its leadership is ineffective. Its drive for human rights is powered by the HR Commission, which itself is riddled with member states who are the world's worst human rights offenders. UN Peacekeepers are simply the soldiers of poor states that are interested in loaning them for the money and weapons provided. The United States, the world's only superpower at the moment, hasn't paid its UN dues for years. President George W. Bush has exposed the weakness of the UN and exploited it. Is there really peace in our time?

Despite the deterrants of nuclear arms and multi-lateralism, war has continued to be part of our lives. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo, and Iraq II have been wars in our time. We just experience them in ABSTRACTION. Those of us far from the battlefield, often ignorant of the spelling of these very locations, only see these wars as filtered through our televisions. Westerners do not know the true suffering of war-ravaged nations. People die. In abstraction, they become statistics. In reality, that person was someone's lover, someone's parent, someone's child. Could you easily cope with the loss of such a person? Modern warfare has been sanitized for our viewing. Flashy words and fancy technology have removed the human element from war, or at least for rich countries.

The Cold War after 1945 was not at all as cold as it seemed. Korea, Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Afghanistan, and countless other minor conflicts were fought. The only difference between this war and others was that it was fought by PROXY. Various groups within most nations had either Soviet or American support and these groups fought each other for the causes of Communism and Capitalism. Almost always, the outcome was fascism or Stalinism. American or Soviet support became so integrated, and the factions so hardlined, that the defeat of the other faction superseded all other objectives, including human liberties. The Americans and Russians were more than happy to support their allied dictators and disregard offences and crimes in order to render the competing ideology in that region or country. These proxy wars were the most suitable outlet for agression between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States. Both of these powers recognized that a war between them directly would result in a nuclear holocaust.

These proxy wars caused the installation of numerous tyrants, often over legitimately elected governments. They also caused millions of deaths, imprisonments, or missing persons. South and Central America are perfect examples of entire regions that suffered as a result of these proxy wars. Funnily enough, many dictators and tyrants that were installed by America would later have to be removed by them.

Between 1945 and 1975 a massive demographic event occurred. The return of soldiers and the prosperity generated by the industrial boom of the war period seemed to congeal to form an environment conducive to massive human reproduction. More families were having more children in rapid succession. My parents came from families of 4 and 5 children. This was the BABY BOOM. Interestingly, of these 9 relatives, only 4 sets of two children have been realized.

The generation born between 1945 and 1970 is the greatest single demographic spike in history, both absolutely and in real terms. It has been described as a pig travelling through the snake of time. This massive generation of people have shared common experiences and thus interests, and vote accordingly. They are largely responsible for the development of the comprehensive welfare state that covers the span of life 'from erection to resurrection.' I will cover more on the Baby Boom in a discussion called INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUALITY.

After 1945 an era of unprecidented economic boom occured. Normally after wars, depression sets in as manufacturing demands slow down. In the post WWII era, economic strength was perpetuated by government infrastructure programs, expansion of the public sector, and the continuance of military spending to 'fight' the Cold War. Prosperity made mass reproduction possible and sustainable. This 'golden age' lasted until the 1970's when the dream came crashing down. In response to US assistance to Israel during one of its wars with its Muslim neighbours, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC, largely made up of Muslim nations) cut down their exports of oil. Immediately oil prices skyrocketed, and the price of everything else followed suit. Humanity had become dependant on oil for everything. We were, and are, SLAVES TO OIL. I will write on that subject later.

With increased prices comes an increased cost of living. With an increased cost of living came a demand for increased wages to counter it. Increasing prices and costs (inflation) immediately ate up higher wages, while economic stagnation had set in. This was earth's first experience with STAGFLATION, or stagnant growth with inflation. Of course, the governments of the world were big spenders in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, and 70's and had accumulated massive debts. Governments had few options in dealing with the crisis. After 1979 recession and it's corresponding economic effects set in.

Unions and the working class believed that salvation would be found in higher wages and increased government spending. Unfortunately both of these increased the amount of money flowing in the market, which made currencies cheaper. So dollars, yens, pounds, francs, and marks bought less and less. With an increase in money supply, money became cheaper. Governments around the world took three options:

1: The US way: Reagan (US), Thatcher (UK), and Mulrooney (Canada) broke stagflation on the backs of the poor. They recklessly slashed government spending, eliminated programs, forced pay cuts, and resisted strikes relentlessly. The result was that working class people's real wages had decreased for the first time in a century, and government programs for them had disappeared. Meanwhile, corporations somehow emerged wealthier and more powerful.

2: The Continental way: France, Spain, Germany, and Italy all thought they could spend their way through these troubled times. They increased programs and spending, and allowed the working class to extract massive concessions from employers. As a result, these countries now have among the highest labour costs in terms of wages and benefits, and massive debts that still exist today. These countries are not investor friendly and jobs have been disappearing. The government response to this: squeeze companies that still remain so that their employees can get higher wages and securities. Work in these countries is great, if you can get it.

3: The Scandinavian way: Sweden, Denmark, and Finalnd sought to solve the problem through solidarity. All aspects of society had to work together to end the recession. This meant wage cuts for all. Denmark imposed a 9% paycut across the board. Some programs were cut, but alternative programs such as reeducation and job placement were enhanced to help those displaced reintegrate into more adaptable industries. The collective experience strengthened these nations and today they are amongst the most efficient producers in terms of productivity and labour value.

By 1990 the recession was long gone, but how each country dealt with it would have far reaching effects. One thing remained in common: all nations were still dependant on Middle-East oil.

Sometime between 1989 and 1993 the world underwent a technical revolution. Computers and microchips were not new at the time, but somewhere between these dates personal computers became accessable, affordable, and simplefied. The average human could afford to buy a computer and did not have to learn much to use it. Workplaces began to implement the PC, increasing exposure. The internet appeared and connected people around the world. Through the 90's businesses and people became dependant on computers. New ways to create, store, and transfer information on computers developed. The DIGITAL or INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION had begun. This revolution may have the same long term effecrts as did the Industrial Revolution.

Meanwhile, in the 1980's and 1990's, the Pacific Rim was well on its way to development. Japan was rebuilt as was Europe after the war with US money. The Korean War helped Japan by acting as an industrial and military base for the US, as did South Korea in the Vietnam War. Now countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, the Phillipines, Indonesia, and India are all major manufacturing nations. They are also competitors on the world stage for manufacturing jobs. Asian competition has caused worry for Western workers, who fear that jobs will go to these lower-wage Pacific nations. This is part of the process of GLOBALIZATION, which I will discuss later.

Asian nations seem to be developing and industrializing along the same lines as Europe, Japan, and North America did in the 19th century. Cheap labour attracts capital investment to mass produce goods at a low price to sell to domestic and foreign markets. Human rights are at first dismal, but gradually grow better with wealth and the collectivization of society. South Korea is a perfect example. A colony in 1944 of Japan, and in 2004 an industrial giant and among the top 15 richest countries in the world. It has had its share of brutal dictators, along with a constant antagonism with its northern counterpart. South Koreans now benefit from a stable democracy. Taiwan is another example. In 1949 when Mao Zedong's Communist Party drove out the Republican Party, Chiang Kai-shek settled on the small Chinese island of Taiwan. Since then the island has developed into a strong democracy with an industrial-capitalist tradition. China still disputes that it owns the island, but its inhabitants are uninterested in unifying with the mainland under the current circumstances.

China is one of the world's largest manufacturers. Everything seems to be made in China these days. High-tech industries have moved there, producing a wide variety of electronics. Shoes, clothes, furniture, toys, and even food are exported from China en mass. China also has a very poor human rights record as of 2004, but that looks to be changing slowly. The country is shaping up to be a strong contender on the global stage. China in the future may be the world's foremost economic and military power, replacing the United States.

With competition from the Pacific Rim taking its toll, European and North American manufacturing began experiencing hardships in the 80's and 90's. The process of outsourcing became very contentious and very real to the industrial sector. Western economies have changed as a result. Their primary focus has moved from manufacturing to services, finance, and information techonolgy (IT). This diversification of the economy has further displaced manufacturing jobs which in the 1960's and 70's looked very secure. The current plight of the working class can be summed up thus:

1: Asian compeition. Lower wages in these countries and increaing free trade have allowed Asian nations to make and export products to the developed world for prices lower than if they were manufactured within the developed world. This also has the benefit of assisting in the development of Asian economics, but results in jobs moving 'offshore'. As long as Asian products are cheaper and of relatively equal quality, consumers in the West will continue to assist in this process.

2: Labour Unions. Unions since the 50's have sought to raise wages and comitting companies to long term pension and health benefits. The long term costs of these commitments, and wages that are not globally competitive, have resulted in a loss of interest in manufacturing in North America and Europe. Investors and capitalists would rather produce in competitive or low wage countries in order to deliver a product at a lower price to the end consumer, which results in attracting a larger market share and simultaneously maximizes profits (which happens to be the goal of capitalists). As the baby boomers start to retire between 2005 and 2035, they will collect these pension and health benefits, which will become a drain on corporate finances. Some companies in the airline industry have already begun to reneg on these promises in order to remain competitive. By demanding high wages and long term benefits, unions hurt their companies financially which makes them less nimble and adaptable. Many corporate pension programs are underfunded (which is the fault of management) and may result in less payouts than promised. Even though unions have their good and useful aspects, they lack moderation.

3: Technological Change. With computers, robots, and machines advancing at their current pace, very few jobs will require hands-on work in the future, particularly in manufacturing. Unions and the working class resist technological change, which in the long run increases input costs and decreases efficiency. Their rationale is that a job should not be replaced by a machine. If a company finds it cannot remain competitive using its current labour input, it will downsize or go overseas, resulting in the loss of all jobs.

4: Aging Society. The baby boom is a numerous generation and it's getting older. As this massive demographic blip gets older, it becomes interested in two things: pensions and health care. These are the two things that will perpetuate the generation and give them a longer than usual lifespan. As they get older, they need more healthcare, which helps them survive to collect more pensions, which helps them live in comfort until the next medical operation. Pensions and healthcare are expensive, and companies that want to be competitive cannot afford to pay thousands of pensions for 20 years or more while simultaneously paying for the healthcare of the same group that is collecting pensions.

5: Taxes. When companies cannot pay pensions or healthcare, they look to offload the responsibility onto the state. Workers are more than happy to extract their benefits from the nation. To pay for these programs, the state has to raise taxes. A high tax environment may influence investors or current companies to leave one state for another of lower taxes.

6: Economic Change. Western economies have shed many of their manufacturing jobs in favour of exploring new sectors, mainly IT, finance, and services. It seems to be part of the natural evolution of economic systems. As the world economy moved from agriculture to manufacturing in the 19th century, so will it move from manufacturing to IT, finance, and services in the 21st.

Your average capitalst (although we are all capitalists in some way or another) is a biological, predictable being. They will seek for themselves the greatest gain possible from their current stock of capital (be it monetary, intellectual, or physical). Capitalists are not to blame for the erosion of working class jobs. They are just doing what they do. If you think an alternative economic system is in order, I will defray your beliefs in a later discussion called CAPITALISM AND ITS ALTERNATIVES. So who is to blame for the 'destruction' of the working class? Changing economic nature, international development, and unions. Like the rural farmer, the manufacturer will have to give way to a new economic order.

The effects of the 1990's and early 2000's are difficult to interpret. We are still living them out. We won't know their full outcome for some years. I will offer a few observations that may have future significance.

1: The Digital Revolution: We have discussed this already, but it bears note that the current rate of technological change has begun to accellerate exponentially, as opposed to geometrically, in the last 50 years. How far this revolution can go is literally bound only by our imaginations.

2: Democracy?: With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, a whole bundle of states will experience nationhood as they never have before. Two political models have emerged amongst these states: democracy and Stalinism. As Ukraine's election is currently being debated, we shall see in the next few years how these models work themselves out in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In Asia itself, strong democratic states like India, Korea, and Taiwan are becoming the norm, which funnily enough have been strengthening with the increase of wealth that development has brought to them. Democratic processes have returned to South and Central America after decades of brutal dictatorships. South East Asia is coming online with democratic struggles. So that leaves the Middle East and Africa as two very large areas of relatively weak democratic traditions. There are exceptions in each, however. Finally, the American (thinly veild imperialist) drive for exporting 'democracy' began to take violent steps in 2001. There are precidents prior to this, but the result has largely been to establish single party 'democracies' or mere puppet states. If this trend continues in Afghanistan and Iraq, then the true spirit of democracy will be defeated. Democracy has to be discovered locally, not imposed from afar. It must be born from struggle and will, not by conquering. Which countries will develop democracies? Which will endure tyrrany? Can America truely be called a democracy anymore in the face of a stolen 2000 election and extremely polarized constituents? Watch these areas closely.

3: The Baby Boomers: This generation will most likely impoverish rich countries. It has succeeded in polluting the earth, raping the world of natural resources, and creating the farce we now know as SUBURBIA (which I will discuss in another chapter). It will also most likely succeed in extracting such high pension and healthcare benefits so as to make paupers out of the young and fit, just to squeeze another wretched year of life out of a frail and aging body. We may very well become indentured servents to pay for their retirements.

4: Oil: We are entirely dependant on oil. Not only is it a fuel, it also makes plastic, fertilizers, pesticides, industrial lubricants, preservatives, ink, wax, rubber, film, cosmetics, vitamins, and detergents. Petrochemicals are used in almost every daily activity you experience. What happens when oil becomes scarce, and eventually runs out? Oil production will peak between 2000 and 2010. After that, production will slow down and decrease as less oil is available. The laws of diminishing returns stipulates that as a resource becomes harder to find, it also becomes more expensive and as a result costs more and more to extract, until it becomes physically or financially impossible to gather more. At the current rate of consumption of oil, and given that consumption rises by a certain percentage each year, demand will soon outstrip supply. This will result in higher and higher oil prices, which in turn makes everything more expensive (as we saw in the 1979 recession). Between 2003 and 2004 we saw the first stage of this process. As more countries, particularly China, continue to develop, they too will require more oil, increasing world demand exponentially. Reserves are dwindling.

5: War: Remember how I said "wars are fought for two reasons: ideas and resources"? Yah, items 2 and 4 above. The instigators of future wars will likely be the United States, China, and Russia. They are the largest economies by far and demand the most resources. Meanwhile, wars of ideas will rage in the Middle East and Africa.

6: Space: Space has scientific, economic, and military value. The use of space for scientific and economic ventures is productive and I strongly advocate it. However, the use of space as the 4th battleground (after land, sea, and air) is controversial and technically illegal under various agreements between the USSR and the US signed in the 1970's. Reagan's "Star Wars" project, revived under Bush Jr., seems likely to go ahead as long as Republican administrations control Congress. Star Wars seeks to put satellites in space for intelligence and missle defence, but those applications can easily be turned to spying (both domestic and international) and missle offence. American docrine seems to be geared towards a US monopoly of space. The uses and ownership of space in the future will have profound concequences.

7: The World Economy: Free trade and globalization, enemies to socialists of the Naomi Klein sort, are progressing whether we like it or not. Globlal free trade was first tried in the 19th century. Britain's maritime and economic supremacy allowed it to influence many nations into free trade agreements which actually benefitted both sides. Britain got resources and markets, while other nations received British capital and expertise to help them develop. It forced industry on both sides to be very competitive and efficient. The globalization and free trade we think of today are tinged by the writings of left wing agitators and those displaced by one or several of the conditions I mentioned in my discussion of the plight of the working class. Globalization and free trade are not inherently evil. Unfortunately they come in part of a package which also includes American cultural, moral, and social imperialism while further aggrivating a few working class plight conditons. More on globalization and free trade in CAPITALISM AND ITS ALTERNATIVES. The response to and effectiveness of globalization and free trade will have a profound effect on the constitution of a world economy.

8: The Junior Complex: George Bush Junior, or 'dubyah' as he is sometimes called, represents a new challenge to the future. Depending on the years 2004-2008, Bush just might be the ruin of us all. Worst case scenario: expect a return of church-state alliances (read: moral tyrrany and the stuff of the middle ages), aggressive oil - sorry, democracy and freedom - wars, a weakened US economy (and its resulting world-wide effects) and increased unilateralism on the part of the US. The divide between the world and America will worsen as a result. Watch for wars in Iran (oil) and North Korea (strategic base against China), as well as a proliferation of America's already extensive military base system which stands at between 300-400 worldwide as of 2004. The US example of tyrrany might influence other countries, and harden extremists and even moderates in the Middle East. The US might move to one of those confounded one party democracies through electoral fraud and reform, resulting in the disappearance of civil liberties. This program has begun with the Patriot Act, passed after the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre by Islamic extremists. The response to terrorism has been somewhat childish, and has resulted in a constant state of FEAR of a perceived terrorist threat, real or imagined. Like Rome, the US may transform from republic to empire.

For more on the future, watch for my upcoming chapter on MODELS OF THE FUTURE.

So we have gone from 10,000 BCE to November 2004. Although there is much more to tell, this should give you an adequate framework to understand what I will reveal to you. I have mentioned future topics that will arise sooner or later in their own chapters. I will include a HISTORICAL APPENDIX to add anything that I might have missed in these history lessons. I hope I have raised some questions about history, politics, economics, and society that will make you think and criticize traditional interpretations.

For now, I wish you all fair winds and following seas.

History Lesson III: The Pre-Modern Era

2004-11-08T13:40:00.000-05:00

Greetings!

I have hopefully adequately explained how our society had developed from before history to about 1450 CE. Please feel free to ask me to clarify anything. Otherwise, we may move along. I will now introduce you to the pre-modern world, from which we can directly derive our current state. I have been spending a great deal of my letters on the Western world. This is because there is no doubt that Western thinking is the most pervasive set of constructs in our world in 2004. Not a single nation on earth today can deny that they have been effected by what is known as the West. Once the United States and Canada had shown themselves 'worthy' of being included in the same social category as Europe, Europeans could no longer call themselves the centre of all things. They had to create a term that included themselves and North America, while excluding all others, which collectively asserted their common social and economic values. That these values are considered the path to development today is largely due to 19th century conceptions of 'development' and cultural superiority.

Oddly enough, in 1400 Europe did not have much going for it. China was centuries ahead in technology and commerce. India was the candidate for an industrial revolution along the lines of textile manufactures. Korea and Japan were both great cultural centres that were quick to contend with Chinese dominance. Muslims in their vast and expansive empires were ludicrously wealthy and very competant merchants and seafarers. MesoAmerica had built massive empires in Mexico and Peru which rivalled the tiny, enclosed towns of Europe. In 1400, the Chinese would have considered Europe a third world region. Even the west coast of Africa had centuries of experience trading with India and China, and were very wealthy. What changed?

In the 1410's and 20's, Ming China launched seven extraordinary fleets of wooden sailing ships under Admiral Zheng He, a Muslim eunuch and favorite of the Emperor Zhu Di. These fleets numbered in the hundreds of ships, some 400 ft long and 50 ft wide. The pinnacle of European naval architecture at the same time reached a whopping 150 ft or so. Even in the early 19th century, ships did not exceed 300 ft. On these Chinese fleets, tens of thousands of sailors, soldiers, diplomats, scribes, artists, and tradespeople lived and worked. The aim of these fleets was to display the opulence and power of the Chinese to foreign lands, and to bring ambassadors to the court in Beijing to recieve gifts and become integrated into an already expansive Chinese trading network. The effect was surely dramatic.

Gavin Menzies, a retired Royal Navy submarine captain, suggested in his book "1421, the Year China Discovered the World" that the last of these fleets managed to explore a good portion of the world before returning to China. We do know that earlier fleets had reached West Africa. Perhaps they reached the Americas, Australia, Greenland, and New Zealand too. They certainly had the capability.

Unfortunately, before the last fleet reached home, lightning struck the Imperial Palace in Beijing, and Zhu Di went mad. His successor agreed with his Confucian advisors that China did not need the outside world, and banished further operations. He also forbid the building of ships greater than 3 masts and commanded that none travel outside his boarders. China became inward-looking and very traditionalist. The great imperial expansion that wasn't, was Chinese.

India was renouned for its textiles and jewels, and surely would achieve industrialization by 1550, if it were not for a unique set of problems. An industrial revolution would have required capital, which India did have, but also a large consolidated state, which it did not. No ruler had a very large territory, and like feudal Europe India was highly partitioned. Indians were not mechanically inclined and suffered from shortages of fuel to run machines. Like China, India was reliant on massive irrigation agriculture, which resulted in massive labour needs and state bureacracy. These institutional and cultural barriers help explain why India did not win the race for development in the Pre-Modern Era.

The great Muslim empires were made of very adept merchant capitalists, they were expert traders and travellers, and very scientific. However, they lacked important resource bases and were not effective manufacturers. Their wealth was largely derived from selling goods obtained in India and China to Europeans, as well as the trade of such goods itself. In 1498, Islam lost the bid for development to Europe through its overreliance on mercantilism. But they didn't know it yet.

Portugal in the 15th century was one of the most remote nations in Europe. It had no land links to the great courts of Paris, Rome, or Vienna. It was not a rich country either. Its produce still consists of cork and olives, then the staple trades. It was not a manufacturing nation, nor a great trader nation like Venice. It had one thing: an adventurous spirit. King Henry ("The Navigator") founded a maritime college at Sagres and encouraged sailors and mathematicians to attend. Here, he trained a series of men who would become explorers. These men were not so much interested in finding new lands as they were finding an alternate route to the riches and goods of the East. Tired of sending all thier gold and silver through Venice to Arabia to get Indian and Chinese goods, and alarmed in 1453 when the Turks cut off the western terminus of the eastern trade in Constantinople, Europeans desperately sought another solution to satisfy their addiction to eastern goods.

Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama had similar intentions when they set out in the 1490's. They were seeking another route to the east. Perhaps both had maps showing them where to go, if Gavin Menzies is right. The outcomes of these adventurers' voyages would be completely different and have massive historical effects:

1: Columbus found two new continents to exploit, which happened to be full of bullion (gold and silver). He did not know he had discovered new lands, but his findings changed the economic relation between Europe and the east.

2: da Gama had survived rounding the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa. He had breached the barrier between east and west, and opened the Orient to the desires and scruples of Europe. He had cut out the Muslim middle-man and mapped a direct route to the riches of the East. Venice, Constantinople, and the Islamic empires slowly declined as Europeans used his route to buy the goods they wanted and ship them directly home with significantly less cost than buying them from the network of merchants on the overland Silk Road, which each took their cut.

We see directly the shift in economic power from those states who derived their money from the overland route, and those who shipped the goods themselves. The Atlantic states (Portugal, Spain, Holland, England and France, in that order) were the greatest shippers of Oriental goods. The first four of these states assumed the empires established by their listed predecessors over the centuries. France was not a large player in the East, especially after 1763. Today, no one thinks of Venice or Genoa as economic and military powers.

In 1503 da Gama went back to India, this time with more ships and more guns. On the Malabar coast, his 6 carracks, 5 caravels, and 4 naos, defeated 80 Muslim ships packed with soldiers. How? The Portugese had employed their cannons effectively and sunk the Muslim ships before they could get close enough to board. da Gama won the day and had set a precedent. Europeans would from then on monopolize the seas, since they monopolized VIOLENCE AT SEA. No other state could build a force large enough and well-equipped enough to resist European maritime intrusion. The application of heavy guns on manoevreable and capable sailing ships was unique to Europe and China, and as we have seen China surrendered their bid for maritime dominance in the early 15th century, well before the Europeans arrived. As Europeans charged eastward in the succeeding centuries, their naval technology and might increased so that when they did come to confront the Chinese navy in 1839, the contest had been decided a century before. Europeans could mount and utilize maritime violence as no other civilization ever could. Their techniques, discipline, and technology by 1839 were far superior to anything the seas had ever seen, save the massive treasure junks of Zheng He.

With almost unrestrained power at sea, European imperialism advanced unchecked. Wherever they could move a ship, their presence was felt. Soon they began to dominate the shipping of most Oriental states. Europe for the first time in its history was a net importer of bullion. Previously it had to export its bullion east, as it was the only commodity available to them that Muslim merchants would accept. Now with mining in the New World, and the extraction by forced trade of precious metals and stones in India, Persia, China, and Indonesia, Europe flooded with gold. The increase became problematic to Spain, who's massive importation led to a reduction in the price of bullion and caused bankruptcy and inflation.

Portugal had led the way. Their experience with maritime commerce with the Mediterranean had given them the human capital needed to expand their horizons. Not to be outdone by its neighbour, newly reconquered Spain followed quickly. Portugal, with few natural resources and weak domestic industry, was ousted by Spain by 1550. Spain, wracked by debt, European war, inflation, and overburdening colonial commitments, was largely removed from the east by the superior arms of Holland in the 17th century. England, which became Britain in 1707, was left with scraps by the time it had reached a state of imperialist expansion after its Civil War (1641-49). Rather than direct resource extraction, Britain used its colonies in the Caribbean, America, and India, to develop a strong network of trade. Britain was the paragon of the Merchant Capital Social Formation. Its primary mode of income production was the act of acquiring goods at a low price and shipping them to a place of high price. The surplus in this transaction became the wealth of Britain. British merchant ships assumed a massive proportion of the world's shipping. In 1400 England was one of the smallest countries in the world. By 1875 it controlled one quarter of the earth, and all its seas. It had consumed the empire of the Dutch and consistantly defeated the arms of France and Spain combined. It controlled India, directed China's customs and trade, and it was responsible for settling and developing large land masses such as North America and Australia.

So why did former British colonies succeed in development, and former Spanish and French colonies as yet have not? Part of the story has to do with British capital and capitalist systems. Another part is climate. The moderate climate of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand eliminate natural disasters such as hurricanes and tidal waves, while their location render them relatively immune to earthquakes. The temperature of these areas is not irritatingly hot, and they do not possess great deals of bullion or lands suitable for spices or other rare flora. Like Britain, these lands were suitable for cereal crops and sheep, and they resembled home for colonists. They are all easily accessable by sea. Thus the very important questions of infrastructure and local society were answered in favour of stable, orderly production with an eye to future development. Areas which offered more exotic crops or mines were developed to extract those resources and give little in return. Once those resources diminished, or Europeans found a substitute/way to generate them on their own, the area lost its value and the infrastructre could serve no other purpose than the extraction of a non-extant resource.

The other answer is capital. By dominating maritime trade links, Europeans gained all the capital that the Merchant Capital Social Formation could offer. Atlantic capitals swelled with wealth. Local investments disappeared due to the law of diminishing returns, and so European, mainly British, capital sought new outlets for returns. By investing, the wealthy class could expect that their wealth would generate more wealth if the project was successful. Well, by the time projects in Britain dried up (about 1860), that capital began to flow to other parts of the Empire. Canada, Australia, India, and the United States got shiney new factories (except India, which was kept in dependant status) and railroads from British wealth generated by merchant capitalism.

What caused the Industrial Revolution in Britain? No other country was quite as technically adept as Britain, from years of tinkering with naval architecture since the navy was the lifeblood and saviour of the island nation. Dockyards were the first industrial complexes, and they were very advanced in Britain. From 1744 to 1815 Britain was at almost constant war with France, Spain, the Baltic states, and the United States. Britain was encouraged to generate as many ships as possible to keep trade flowing and to protect it with naval might. Mass production was required to build the hundreds of small ships needed to patrol the waters of the Empire, while more creative means were required to churn out dozens of much larger ships, some of which exceeded 110 heavy cannons. A certain amount of technical expertise was acquired to construct these complex vessels, and so I argue that industrial processes were born in the shipyards of southern England, simultaneously with similar situations in textiles and ironworks, which also had military applications. It was Britain that developed the steam engine, and had the capital and fuel (coal) to develop, build, and power it. Economic conditions had created a mobile labour force and the already massive mercantilist system provided markets and raw resources.

European nations consolidated into larger states. Take for example England, which congealed with Wales (1530's), Scotland (1603), and Ireland (a colony since 1174 but ruled from Westminster from 1801) to create Great Britain. France and Spain also experienced similar acquisitions. Their wealth became greater and internal barriers to movement and trade decreased. Capital accumulation became easier, commerce was nurtured, and financial institutions developed and strengthened. The easy flow of money helped mercantile capitalism and eventually industrial capitalism. Credit was relatively secure and easily available. This unique situation helps explain why the Industrial Revolution occured first in the Western world.

In the last 200 years we have had the benefit of studying the process of industrialization in retrospect. It seems that all industrializing nations experience some similar traits.

1: That their population swells, and that excess population emigrates to less populated areas. There, expatriates acquire wealth and return it through family links and investment to their home nation. Later in life they may return and lend their industry and experience to the development of their nation.

2: That all developing states experience a surge in yearly economic growth rates, then peak and level off.

3: That each nation achieves a certain position in the scale of manufactures before labour becomes too expensive and lower-wage industries must move to lower-wage countries.

4: That each nation experiences a labour movement which results in greater civil rights but causes #3.

5: That France is the exception to all of the above.

Karl Marx suggested that imperialism was an inseperable partner to industrialization. This is infact not the case. East Asian development has been highly successful and completely devoid of an imperialist tinge (save Japan). Imperialism was the partner of merchant capital and its drive for monopoly. Therefore it was a leftover from that system rather than the product of industrial capitalism. Marx's stages of capitalism were accurate in a historical sense, since he had the benefit of hindsight. However, his prediction that a world-wide proletarian revoluton would establish communism was incorrect. He did not count on industrial societies eventually legislating in favour of the workers, which created our modern social states. Further, communism is impossible because pure equality is impossible. No two humans are EXACTLY THE SAME. Each is endowed with his or her own GIFTS and these cannot be equated with the gifts of other human beings. While a society may be economically and politically equal in theory, the people will always have an advantage or another over their peers. Some are intelligent, some are technically inclined, some are athletic. None are the pinnacle of human design and so they cannot be equal. My thoughts on this will be posed in a later chapter.

1914-1918 was the last old-world imperial war. It was cumulation of a century of rivalries between alliances, and Britain's percieved dominance. The Great War achieved several things:

1: It ensured that Europeans no longer had the resources to be strong imperial powers.

2: That the United States was a superpower.

3: That Japan had free reign in the Pacific.

4: That the losers were utterly ruined.

5: That Communism became a viable option for workers.

Wars are fought for only two things: RESOURCES and IDEAS. The First World War was fought over resources in respect to colonies and markets. Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy wanted more, and Britain and France had many. Russia was a massive expanse as well. Since the members of the Triple Alliance were relatively newcomers to the imperial game, they sought to pick up the scraps of Africa and Asia but were hindered, threatened, and foiled by those powers who already had strong interests in the area. They tried to muscle their European competators out with arms races, which meant that any simple thing could ignite conflict.

With Germany economically crushed, Austria-Hungary dismantled, and Italy on their side by 1915, the Atlantic powers effected victory. They tried to make Germany literally pay for its own defeat. Russia had embarked in 1917 on the path to Communism. By 1921 Russia had ushered in a Communist government under Vladimir Lenin. European nations found money scarce and could no longer afford the imperial adventure. Their colonies began to slip away. War became the object of scorn rather than the call of nationalism. Domestic industrialization took over from reliance on colonial markets. Our modern political and economic relationships were born of the sarcrifice of Empire on the alter of the Great War.

And thus concludes the Pre-Modern Era. In the 90 years from the beginning of WWI, we have seen the rise of only two more empires, and the fall of one (Japan). Imperialism took another form after WWI, and that was American economic imperialism. In the next chapter we will see how our modern era gave birth to the American Empire and we will try to draw some lessons from the Athenian, Roman, and British Empires.

Excel and prosper.

History Lesson II: The Medieval Era

2004-11-07T15:00:00.000-05:00

Good day all.

Today I will show you how the medieval era was one of cultural destitution for the Western world. I say Western world because Asia was doing comparatively better at the same time. Compared to Europe, China, India, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Arabia, and east Africa were much better off. At the time, none of these nations could imagine Europe achieving anything. It was the backwater of the civilized world. Even the Incas and Aztecs were more advanced in some respects. So how did the West, after the fall of the Roman Empire, manage to return itself to something closer to what we think of it now?

One of the problems of Europe was the sheer number of states. Each one was small and ruled in a tributary manner, so that capital accumulation, the key to development, was almost impossible. Without money to develop lands and commerce, these states were dependant on every last morsel of grain they could extract from their crops. States were run in a feudal manner, so that intense hierarchical divisions enforced the non-economic means by which any surplus in foodstuffs was extracted from the producing class. This is known as the Tributary Social Formation.

In exchange for handing over a crop's surplus, the peasant was given protection from barbarians, justice, and other rudimentary social services. They were bound to their land and the extractions associated with it. What the lord did not take, the Church did. A tithe was levied which could amount to 10% of a farmer's yeild. All these taxes and levies ensured that the producing class was very poor, and this system was enforced by rigid customs and military force.
The ABJECT DEPENDANCE on the Roman Church was largely maintained through fear. Pay up or Satan (or his forces, be it Huns, Barbarians, Mongols, Turks, Saracens....) will get you. Meanwhile the Church was the wealthiest institution in Europe, pulling in far more than any state until the 1400's. Thus the Church and its corresponding beliefs became a crutch to assist an ignorant and fearful people through a difficult time. It gained in wealth and temporal power at the expense of the liberty of others. It served no real economic function and coerced the population into obeying the strict feudal law. Worst of all, the Medieval Church was intolerant. Jews, Muslims, and eventually in 1054 Byzantines (Orthodox Christians) were excluded and even harassed. The Church and its monastic institutions enforced illiteracy by carefully editing or completely banishing non-sacred texts, and even religious texts were only written in Latin which was unknown to the vast majority of people. Thus the Church reinforced ignorance and fear in order to continue its economic parasitic nature while becoming a fortress of conservative notions that non-representative leaders used to bolster their tyranny. The Church was one of the greatest contributors to the slow development of the West.

With small states and with capital accumulation being very difficult, consumerism became the domain of the lay and religious elite. They extracted any surplus there might be and spent it on luxuries and their own gluttony. Their intolerance and greed led to what we call the CRUSADES. The Crusades were adventures in looting and hate thinly veiled as faith-based inititives. By the 11th century contact between states was sufficiently reestablished so that the wealth of the Byzantine Empire was renouned. It became clear that this wealth was the result of COMMERCE with the Middle East and Islam. That Jerusalem was there was only a minor convenience. In fact, Muslims at the time were very advanced and increadibly tolerant. They allowed Christian pilgrims to visit Jerusalem and other holy sites at leisure. The Muslims were great mathematicians, navigators, merchants, and philosophers. They worked with Christian and Jewish scholars on common projects, especially in Cordova (Cordoba, Spain). Further, they were the middlemen in the trade with China and India, whose products were in great demand since the resources and manufactures of Europe were of very poor quality. So in 1098 the First Crusade was assembled and launched.

The results of the Crusades were bloody and ultimately futile. The Holy Land was only held briefly, and at that by despotic warrior-kings who despised their more liberal Muslim subjects. They did manage to extract a great deal of wealth, knowledge, and technology however. This generated a voracious taste for eastern goods within Europe's markets. The exchange between these Crusader kingdoms and Europe was facilitated by Italian city-states such as Venice and Genoa. Their rise was directly the result of this trade. In the 13th century Venice, with other allies, invaded Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey), capital of Byzantium in order to fully control this trade. The Italian city-states would provide the model for the Merchant Capital Social Formation, which we shall see in part III.

Byzantium was the remnants of the former Eastern Roman Empire. It was the only great state in Medieval Europe. Byzantium was plagued by two great drains on its wealth: the Church, and warfare. The Church, which became an independant institution from Rome in 1054, was closely tied to the state and its massive bureaucracy and its opulence was the cause of a great extraction of capital. Warfare was also costly, and constant. Like the Western Roman Empire, Byzantium was constantly under seige from tribes and peoples displaced by Mongolian movements. It also had to contend with rising Russian and Bulgarian states nearby. The greatest threat of all was Islam, a very large neighbour that had consumed half of Byzantium's territory by the 9th century. Christianity owes its preservation to the defensive wars fought by and around Constantinople. Despite constant warfare, a very advanced diplomatic system was established between the Islamic empires and Byzantium so that in times of peace they became most fruitful merchants with each other.

In 632 a man named Mohammed, prophet of Allah died. In the wake of his death, his prophecy spread through Arabia, the Middle East, Africa, India, and Indonesia. Muslims were also common in China and had conquered all of Spain. France was next, if it were not for the Battle of Poitiers in 732. Islam continued to be a strong force into the 18th century, and besieged Vienna in Austria in the 17th century. That Europe was not wholly consumed by Islam is due to luck alone. Near 40% of the civilized world was in their hands by 1450. Islam gave Europe many great inventions, such as the quadrant, the compass, advanced mathematics, and other inventions and ideas all the way from China. Possibly the greatest favour they performed for Europe was to capture Constantinope and dismantle the Byzantine state in 1453. With the fall of that great centre of trade, the Turks closed the western terminus of the Silk Road and goods from China and India, coveted by Europe's elite, became very difficult and costly to obtain.

By 1450, Europe was very little different than it had been after the fall of the Roman Empire had set in. Only a few minor changes came into play to make something of Eurasia's backwater. In the mid 15th century two things occured which would revolutionize the European world: one of them was Gotenburg's Printing Press; the other was occuring on the remote tip of the Iberian Penninsula in a nation called Portugal.

In the next installment we will explore the Merchant Capital Social Formation, its effects on European society, and Europe's monopoly of VIOLENCE AT SEA.

Fare well for now.

History Lesson I: The Ancient Era

2004-11-06T16:30:00.000-05:00

Good day my compatriots.

HISTORY is the most fundamental basis for understanding our world today. How did it come about? I will explain to you why we live in the world we do today. This is for your own good. History tends to repeat itself, and inadequate knowledge of this fact and the basic chronology of our world is the cause of that repitition. By understanding history, we can begin to understand ALL THINGS.

The beginnings of human civilization have been traced to about 10000 before common era (BCE). This is when humans first realized they could plant and harvest crops to create an increased and steady yeild of foodstuffs. This occured world-wide silultaneously. The mastery of agriculture made humans sedentary, and always being in the same spot, forced them to get along with their neighbours. Thus they began to formulate complex social arrangements which we call today politics. When groups of individuals became too large to effectively govern themselves in a communal environment, they began to choose or were imposed upon by 'representatives'. A representative, who would make decisions for a group of individuals on their behalf, derived his or her authority from those that they were representing. By consent from the group, a representative could exercise their given authority to act upon events and circumstances for the betterment of the society. The first grand civilizations, assembled on the Nile (Egypt), Yangtze (China) and Euphrates (Iraq) Rivers, were represented by officials who held their power through coercive action. They were not elected and only represented the interests of the social group that controlled the means of production. This continued to be the case through the ancient era.

This may seem like a Marxist-democratic interpretation, but it helps explain where we are going. I am not a Marxist, Communist, or a champion of the proletarian. I am simply trying to explain the development of human society in the most abstract and general terms possible.

The ancient era in the west continued along similar patterns. Around 500 BCE we can start drawing parallels between our modern society and that of the ancients. The Greeks, who were called Hellens, formed a series of city-states along the coast of Greece. Two major, although not the only, centres of thought developed at Sparta and Athens. Sparta was an austere state of militants who abhorred money and commerce. Athens was the first known democratic state, and embraced commerce. In 490 King Darius of the Persian Empire (most of the middle east) launched an assault on the Hellens for their assistance in the Ionian Revolt. At Marathon, the Persians were defeated by Athens. A tiny city state had resisted the might of a massive empire. Xerxes, son of Darius, attempted a second invasion in 480. This invasion was crushed at Salamis, an island near Athens, by an Athenian naval force. The war continued until 448 but the Greeks had recovered Thrace (northern Greece), Ionia (Asia Minor) and the Aegean Sea from the Persians. The collaboration of the Greek city states triumphed over the massive will of a great invader. This war was the beginning of the east-west divide that we see today.

Athens benefited most from the war. Their naval power helped them consolidate an alliance with other states called the Delian League. As the century passed, Athens turned this alliance into an empire, using the allied states as tributary nations to help aggrandize itself. Sparta was displeased with this arrangement and went to war with Athens. The Peloponnesian War ruined Greek power and heavily damaged their social structure. There was no real winner, even though Sparta effectively rendered Athens itself.

During this age, we see the development of our modern ways of thinking. Philosophy, medicine, state institutions, and military thought appeared. Greek thought ceased to be the common preserve of humanity, and became the property of western civilization. The divide was partly the result of the Persian Wars, but also due to the westward expansion of Greek colonization. One of these colonies was Sicily.

In 264 BCE, Carthage sought to control the straits between Sicily and the toe of Italy. Carthage was a strong maritime and commercial empire, and Rome was expanding slowly south on the penninsula. These two interests met at Messana in Sicily and the result was three bloody wars which made Rome the great power it would become. By 146 Rome was master of Italy, Spain, North Africa, and all islands inbetween.

What relevance does Rome have today? The Renaissance and Enlightenment were both influenced by the rediscovery of classical (i.e. Roman and Greek ways). Both of these movements helped transfer the ancient era to the modern era. I will explain how this worked in lessons II and III.

With Rome at its height between 14 and 200 Common Era (CE), their institutions, law, customs, language, and architecture flourished across Europe. All of these things are still visible today. The Roman Empire streched from England to Egypt, Bulgaria to Portugal. Rome was the last classical and ancient state and arguably the most prolific and studied. It assembled and assumed the characteristics of all the nations it conquered. By 200 CE the empire had become dependant on the military. The army was the greatest non-agricultural employer, and the only thing keeping the boarders steady. Despite early persecution, many government offices were filled with Christians who had a tendancy to be good administrators. They were a minority, and had something to prove.

Forces in the far east were the result of the fall of the Roman Empire. In the steppes of Mongolia, something effected a massive boom in the population of the Huns and advancements in social structure and military technology helped this population expand in all directions. The movement of the Huns displaced various groups in Russia and eastern Europe. With nowhere to go, these groups pushed upon other groups, which in turn pushed on others. The result was a domino effect on the cultures of eastern and northern Europe and finally it reached the boarders of Rome. Centuries of decadence, social disruption, and overexpansion made the tribes of eastern Europe see Roman territory as the answer to their troubles. A string of diplomatic arrangements and eventually full invasions led to the reduction of the Roman Empire. A split occured in the early 4th century and created the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. The Western Empire, based in Rome, fell to germanic tribes in 476, while the Eastern Empire (later Byzantine Empire) lasted until 1453 when it fell to the Turks (themselves invaders of Persia from the east). Around the reign of Justinian (527-565), The Eastern Empire became Byzantium and assumed what would become its medieval nature.

Thus ended the Ancient or Classical Era. Civilization became more local, closed, religious, and fearful. Some historians call it the collapse of civilization at the hands of barbarians. It was more a transition between two different socio-political formations. The main loss here was the connection to Chinese goods via the Silk Road through Asia (due to the intense expansion of Islam and destruction of old Roman commercial links), and an idea of a wider world. Travel and trade became very dangerous and so ideas, culture, and items ceased to flow as generously as they did under the united Roman Empire.

In the Medieval Era, we will see the abject state of Western civilization and how pitiful their lot was 1000 years ago. In installment III, the Early Modern Era, we shall explore the development of Europe and the Americas and why Eurasia's weakest nations rose to prominance throughout the world. In the final installment, I will expose the intricate machinations of our development from 1918 to today and suggest how it all came to be.

For now, best wishes.

The Day of the Sandwich

2004-11-06T15:00:00.000-05:00

Hello my fellows.

One must not begin a grand collection of his ideas without first examining who he his and where he comes from. I will now explain exactly where these future GRAND NOTIONS will derive from.

My name is irrelevant. I am a student at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario Canada. For those of you who can't seem to locate my country, just point to the United States and real subtle-like move your finger up. That's it. Canada. The second largest country on earth. Canada has a wonderful advantage over every other: it is a mixture of North American and European social and economic models. Our 10 provinces and 3 territories have relative autonomy from the federal government and so are able to experiment and adapt the best practices. Sometimes, however, they do not.

So I have introduced myself in relation to my title and nationality. I am a Canadian, but before all I am a human being, like the rest of us. If all of us put our HUMANITY before our other relations, then perhaps we might be able to achieve greater things. But that is the subject of a later post.

What do I want? You will see, in future posts. What do I fear? Tyrrany. Tyrrany comes in many forms. It is the opposite of liberty. George W. Bush is a tyrant. Yes, I said it. Have you read the Patriot Act? Oh, and look up in your history books LEAGUE OF NATIONS and consider the links between that and the UN today. "We will have peace in our time!" Religion is also a form of tyrrany. A Church/Synagogue/Mosque can tell you what to do and enforce its will through sin/morality/heaven/hell. This is not freedom. Relgion constrains liberty through a series of ancient, non-applicable moral laws that do not align with modern realities. Freedom and liberty allow an individual or group to pursue thier happiness as long as their actions do not impinge on the liberty and happiness of others. Those who seek to bring/impopse religion unto others are tyrants for obstructing libery. George Bush seeks to do this, amongst his other vile plans.

Visit http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/67084 for more on liberty.

What is my aim? Publicly, to expose tyrrany and those who oppose liberty through provoking others to THINK. I am not always correct in my assumptions (nobody is perfect) and I am very often biased. I seek to show my fellow humans their potential and their future based on the choices they make. I encourage all to THINK, very critically, about the world shaping around them. Things always change, but individual and group actions can alter the way that the world changes. I challenge all to change the future for the better. Privately, my will is to improve our world and integrate all nations to a common goal: Unity. Not like the United Nations, which as we have seen is a failure along the lines of the League of Nations. I mean a single administrative body for all, with each jurasdiction represented in a GRAND PARLIAMENT. United, our race's potential is unlimited. We could focus our resources to solve world problems and begin to reach beyond our petty planet.

Change is the result of action. Each individual action alters the choices available to their fellow humans. Never feel insignificant, but always be humbled by the complexity of our pluralist race. Vote, if you can. If you cannot, seek to change things so that you can. All human beings aged 17 and older, all around the earth, deserve a say in how their fellows are governed. I say 17 because memories of the immaturity of my collegues before that age are still fresh in my mind, even though highschool was now five years ago. A certain gestation period is required so that our citizens can make informed decisions. Change the world if you don't like it. Complaining does very little. One individual CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

There. You have a framework for understanding my Grand Notions. Liberty, action, and the future are my concerns. These ideas will be further elucidated through lessons in history, economics, and practical philosophy. Ultimately the future is up to you, my fellow human beings. We are all actors and destiny is our director. I wish you luck in your endeavours.

Initiation

2004-11-06T14:00:00.000-05:00

Greetings fellow Humans.

Today I begin to write for you. I write for the entire Human race. I bequeathe these GRAND NOTIONS unto you for your aggrandizement. The subjects of my notions will include practical philosophy, modern politics, history, reactions, and postulations and projections for the future. The future is yours, and you must make the decisions that will shape it. All I can do is offer advice to assist. This is not a forum to debate morals or politics, so please refrain from bringing emotion to the table. Just try to THINK.....