The Politics of Neuromania: Quality of Life‏‏‏

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

As a pre-pubescent girl I learned from my mother that the Church knows nothing about divinity. I compared myself to peers whose parents were enthralled to the Church or one of its subsidiary scions. I noticed that the quality of my life had a certain aspect that was missing from the lives of those peers. The teachers at the school I attended did not whack us with a ruler or force us to sit in a corner when we got caught in one of our sinister antics. My sisters and I were not forced to listen to dull sermons on Sundays instead of exploring the world around us in joy and adventure. We did not have to wear uncomfortable clothes whose cost meant the sacrifice of more precious goods and services. We were not coerced into peddling boxes of addictive sugar cookies on an annual basis.

My peers tried to use the terror of eternal torment to convert me to their own indoctrinated servility. My mother's observations on the ignorance of the Church echoed in my mind as I weighed the costs and benefits of taking my peers seriously. Their vicious and brutal punishment for ignoring the dictates of the Church comes straight from the organization that knows nothing about divinity. Why should I invest emotional energy into a deception? It would only degrade my quality of life to the level of my peers.

There is an inverse version of Pascal's Wager that I did not comprehend until later in life. If there is no after-death experience, or if the Church is otherwise wrong about an such experience, then listening to Church leaders will hinder a person from living life to its fullest. The experience of beatitude before death is not available to those enthralled to the deception of eternal torment. The only way to transcend suffering is to ignore the advise of those who are enslaved to suffering. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

How can this notion be applied to the secular domain of public policy? Consider the case of Iraq. A great deal of hay was made over how much the people of Iraq suffered under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. The people who raised such a fuss were apologetic about the suffering caused by their own "do good" efforts at regime change. Meet the new boss: far worse than the old boss. At least the neocon slaves of eternal damnation can see themselves as having earned their wings in the pit of Hell. We can extend this analysis to the Vietnam tragedy as well. The village must be obliterated in order to save it.

Does this give you any optimism over US intervention in Korea, Iran, or Syria? Do you suspect that the people enslaved to eternal damnation stuck their noses into the Iranian elections?

Links: Lis Gabriels on public safety in Bush's Iraq. Nature article on mass kidnapping in Baghdad. Press TV interview with Gordon Duff on interference in Iranian elections.

Just a few articles worth perusing:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

^What these articles show is that like Benghazi, the latest hullabaloo on the part of the Republicans is a manufactured scandal to convince those who already believe. What it is not is a principled defense of constitutional rights. Why? No less than three mainstream sources broke this story eight years ago. Two Presidential terms, I might add. In that span of time, both Democrats and Republicans had no shortage of opportunities to rein in the surveillance-industrial apparatus.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

^As this report from 2010 shows, the intelligence agencies have been some of the greatest beneficiaries of the current faux war on a method of warfare. In spite of pious words about shrinking government, this side of it has continued to grow. The watchmen on the walls are more numerous than ever, but efficiency at least appears to have undergone no real change. When the government has made no secret of this for years, and people suddenly discover outrage over what again was never a secret, one comes to an easy conclusion that spying is not the problem. Rather this outrage is yet another instance of someone noting the obvious and getting people mad that the obvious exists.

In a democracy, the answer to quis custodiet ipsos custodes is the masses, or it should be. When those same masses have been aware of something for years with not a murmur of protest, the question has a different answer. In the case of apathy and manufactured outrage, who will watch the watchmen? No-one. Because they've already said they're watching, and people simply don't care. The fault here is not George Bush's Administration itself, by this point. The fault is with the professional champions of partisan liberty who all oppose abuses of civil liberties unless they're the ones abusing them. After all, it has been eight years. One might be forgiven for assuming two Presidential terms should be time enough to get people to oppose this concept if the concept is really the problem.