The Juicy Bits

"Juicy Bits" have 2 purposes. For new readers, the extracted passages are a quick way to assess the content. If you haven't found one that piques your curiousity in the first 5 or 10 examples, then thanks for your time, but don't waste any more of it on this chapter. It aint for you.

For returning readers or students, its a quick way to find a passage you're looking for or to remind yourself of the main flow of the arguments and to dive in at a particular point.

The extracts will give a flavour of the conclusions but not the underlying logic. For that, I'm afraid there is no quick way other than to read the damn thing in the order it was written.

Click on the "(Go)" link to the right of each extract to step into the text at that point. You can then browse up, down or sideways to explore the sample in its context.

Broadly speaking, this chapter gets to the meat of what Philosophy ought to be about - the application of rational analysis to real world problems. It is intended to illustrate how Philosophy can be (and, in my view, has to be) applied to the intensely practical problem of human conflict. Go
My main targets in this section are, however, the religious rather than secular fundamentalists and that is for the simple reason that the dangers I am about to discuss are almost exclusively concerned with the so called "War on Terror" which which, if it isn't already, is in danger of becoming a battle between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists - with the rest of us as the meat in the sandwich. Go
Either we will destroy ourselves and the human race will end, with no winners; or we will grow up and learn to deal with conflict resolution intelligently Go
I'm talking about the War that has been going on for at least five thousand years, more probably fifty thousand. The war between controllers and autonomists; between master and slave, lord and serf, king and subject, priest and penitent, Commissar and comrade. Parliament and People. Go
Yes of course Parliament is better than Kings. But it is not better than "the People". It just acts that way. Go
Given this angle on the nature of human conflict, you may begin to understand why I see Neocons, the Religious Right and Militant Islam as being on the same side Go
That makes (governments) all our enemies. Indeed, it is only because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that we tolerate any of them. Go

When the world is full of bullies looking for opportunities to target you, it pays to ally yourself with the biggest bully in the playground, and governments, generally, are the biggest bullies in the playground.

...there is no fundamental reason why - other than to prevent harm to a 3rd party - any human being should control or restrict the behaviour of any other human being; not - at least - without their full, free, informed and reviewable consent. Go
These newly awakened politically aware individuals have yet to coalesce around a political consensus on what to do about the mess we're in and haven't yet got the confidence to believe that they could run things any better, but they're beginning to understand that it would be quite difficult to do any worse. Go
This will obviously place me firmly in the growing camp of critics of the American hegemony and, don't get me wrong, I don't object to being there. But I also have major criticisms of the other critics. In short, I don't believe that they have fully grasped the scale of the problem.

The net result in this particular instance is that - although it would a somewhat slower process than nuclear armageddon - the human race is probably at greater risk of self-destruction over, say, the next 50 years, than it has ever been; Go

The essence of both is that the American response to 9-11 is motivated by considerations other than the attack itself; that the response has been massively disproportionate and that the politicians are taking the opportunity to promote a climate of exaggerated fear in order to provide justification for a sinister totalitarian agenda. None of which, broadly speaking, I disagree with. How can anyone argue? The Americans lost 3,000 lives on 9-11. They've so far claimed well over 100,000 in retaliation and aren't showing any signs of reigning in their warhorses. And every day they increasingly confirm their status as a fully fledged Police State.

The problem is that while being justifiably critical of what has been done since 9-11, neither address the issue of what should have been done and what still needs to be done in order to address the very real issues which arose from that attack and the events since. Adam Curtis in particular appears to argue that there is really nothing to worry about! Go
I see no distinction whatsoever between our own fight to avoid tyranny imposed on us and our practical support for the majority Moslem community which, itself, clearly rejects such totalitarianism. This is the core of Curtis' error. His argument essentially boils down to the – probably correct – contention that the real MIFT ambition is restricted to controlling their own societies, not ours, and that, therefore, there is no real basis for us to be at war against them. I reject this utterly Go
...we are now aware of precisely how militant Islam wants to control society and we are equally aware of how little support exists for this vision among normal Moslems. Go
Thus, the question of our involvement is no more than a global scale instance of the same argument we discussed earlier in respect of Female Circumcision. Go
We should have been fighting the Taliban well before 9-11 Go
The fact that American motives are impure, confused, self serving and imperialist does nothing to undermine the validity of opposing, by all means possible, Islamic Totalitarianism. Go
...recognition of American stupidity or duplicity (either of which is appropriately named “counterintelligence”) does nothing to counter the reality of the MIFT threat. Go

How on earth was this assessment hidden from the decision makers? That was the purpose of the Office of Special Plans. To filter out the opposition, the caveats and the caution. True, Cheyney and Rumsfeld didn't personally withhold that assessment from the President, they just chose a team they could rely on to do the job for them.

What MIFT tactics illustrate is that they do not share this paradigm. Like the Hutus in Rwanda, or the Nazis in respect of the Jews (and other human flotsam they disapproved of) they are happy with the concept of a “war of extermination”. Go
Presumably, in their particular Islamic mindset, they can't lose. Either they achieve the Caliphate or they die trying. Either way, they will be rewarded by Allah for their efforts. They recognise no endpoint short of total victory for their side of the argument. THAT is what makes them dangerous, NOT the prospect of a hierarchical well organised network. Go
Indeed, we can make a strong case that the absence of an organisation actually makes the problem WORSE! Go

Before the American response to 9-11, we probably had cause to be concerned about the activities of a few hundred seriously committed Islamic terrorists. We now have the problem of keeping track of ten or twenty thousand individual potential suicide terrorists widely dispersed around the planet. This is a security problem beyond the scale of any we have tackled to date.

Iraq is transforming the Neocon fantasy into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Go
I might, one day, be persuaded that the Americans have deliberately engineered the escalation to prop up the military industrial complex and the global financial hierarchy. But right now it really doesn't matter how the threat came about. We still have to confront it. Go
This is the nub of the real problem. Locking people up just because they're dark skinned, Islamic and know how to spell jihad, reveals the chimpanzee-level imagination of the Neocons and their hangers on. Go

The hidden danger in Curtis analysis is that he implies that the authoritarian response is wrong only because there is no real threat. Hence, - if we could ever convince him that there was a real threat (as I try to argue) - he would, presumably, have to concede that the repressive measures were justified. But there are much deeper objections to those measures than merely determining whether or not the threat they are supposed to counter is real or imaginary.

...the problem we need to address is the same WHATEVER THE SOURCE OF THE THREAT. Go

He cannot possibly be describing America as a “society that believes in nothing”. A major part of the problem is precisely how much America does “believe”, how many of its people are also "fundamentalists or fanatics" with beliefs just as deeply felt and irrational as the beliefs held by their enemies; and how many of those are in positions of authority or influence.

The truth is much more likely to be that, by 2010, we'll have suffered at least one or two more attacks on the scale of 9-11 or greater and that the sub-bestial behaviour of Beslan will have become the norm. Go
...we were among the first to get tickets for “Fahrenheit 911”. If anyone could get the message across, surely it would be Michael Moore. It took me weeks to admit my disappointment. Go
He implies that this (Bush's inaction on first hearing about the WTC) is some kind of failure on the part of the President.
“Seven minutes passed, with nobody doing anything”
I cringed as soon as I heard that line. I knew we were in trouble.

One of (Moore's) oddest failures was that he didn't even mention the “Project for the New American Century”; the Neocon manifesto that essentially spelt out – at least as far back as 1996 – exactly what their aims and ambitions were. Iraq was in their sights well before 9-11 and it would have been useful to have that avenue given his special treatment.


All I will say about conspiracy theories in this context is that if any of them are true then they certainly don't provide grounds for downgrading the threat. If, for example, the real culprits responsible for 9-11 are not MIFT but either Zionists or Neocons, then this is not any kind of reassuring conclusion! The threat posed by either of those groups is considerably greater than anything MIFT could throw at us.

No one should be under any illusion, however, that, should the opportunity arise to launch a vastly more devastating attack than any we've so far seen - such as the use of a tactical nuclear device if they ever get their hands on one - MIFT will not hesitate to attempt the attack. Whether they succeed is likely - at this stage - to be governed more by luck than judgement. Go
Once you have a significant number of human beings prepared to die while launching any scale of attack against any target, the global security situation is fundamentally changed and challenged. Most security prior to 9-11 was predicated on the assumption that the attackers would not want to die themselves. Go
One of the achievements of the 9-11 hijackers is to make it much less likely, in future, that non suicidal hijackers will take the risk of hijacking a plane Go
The days of thinking we're protecting ourselves just by making sure that all luggage was accompanied by its owner are gone. The suicide attacker is a far more dangerous enemy than one who wishes to survive the attack. Go
A self guided missile that can select its own target and time of detonation is, potentially, one of the most dangerous weapons we have invented. Go
It is not a new weapon. The word "Assassin" comes from the Arab name for an elite sect (local) of hand picked soldiers whose job it was to infiltrate an enemy stronghold and target specific individuals - typically the leaders. While they were entitled to try to survive after delivering the attack, the assumption and usual result was that they did not. Go

Today's suicide attacker has raised the stakes considerably. Those original assassins were almost always targeting a single individual. Today's suicide bomber is aiming to take with him or her as many victims as they possibly can. The more victims, the greater the value of the martyrdom. It is the decision to waive all distinction between combatant and non combatant which has changed the scale of the threat.

Giant Petrol Bombs
How many fuel tankers are on the road at any time? How many of them have an armed police or military escort? In the absence of such escorts, how difficult would it be for an armed terrorist gang to hijack a tanker, place suitable explosive charges around it and crash their way into a densely crowded space
An organised deliberate attempt to infect the population this way would be extremely difficult either to identify or prevent before it was too late. Within weeks, upwards of a hundred million humans will have been infected and between 10 and 25% of them will die Go
We could have walked into the terminal building wheeling a few hundredweight of high explosive wrapped in ball bearings and made to look like standard baggage. We could have joined any queue of our choice in the most crowded zone and picked our time to detonate. Go
As well as targeting millions or billions, at the other end of the scale, genetic weapons could become the perfect individual assassination tools. Go
The real threat, however, is not from a runaway accident, but from someone motivated to bypass all such controls and develop a version of the nanobots which are deliberately designed to create just such havoc, perhaps against a narrowly defined target, perhaps, if they've decided Armageddon is overdue, globally. Go

as well as posing the greatest potential threat - nanotechnology also offers the greatest potential protections and other rewards. It will, if developed competently, eventually be capable of protecting us, internally and externally, from all possible sources of harm, whether biological, chemical, human, or even astronomical. In fact, I conjecture that the survival of the human species will depend on whether we perfect nanoshield technology before the opponents of human evolution perfect nanopoison technology.

Today MIFT can kill dozens or hundreds with their low tech attacks. Occasionally they can launch a 9-11 scale attack and kill a few thousand. In 20 years time, for approximately the same level of commitment and resources, they - or their successors - will be able to kill millions. Go
MIFT have done us all a big favour. By unleashing their fanaticism at this point in our history, they have woken us up and given us precious time. Time to develop the defences we need, not so much against a specific bunch of terrorists, but against anyone similarly inclined to try to destroy their fellow humans. Even if MIFT didn't exist, it would be prudent to assume that from time to time, one or more individuals may well be motivated to carry out various levels of homicide up to and including genocide and that they, too, will have MIFT level committment and access to the same forthcoming techniques and technology. Go
We need to begin to prepare those defences today. Go
However concerned you may be about terrorism - either as a result of my efforts or through general awareness of the situation - part of my mission is to make sure you don't leave this chapter without being even more frightened by the actions and motives of those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility for directing the response to terrorism on our behalf. Go
The brief version: They are dangerously incompetent, hypocritical, narrow minded lying control freaks whose behaviour is a much more serious threat to the survival of our species than any other, including well financed fanatical fundamentalist terrorism. Go
By far the most effective critics of the American administration are themselves American. Go
My criticism is essentially that their response has been unintelligent and, as a result, has made the problem much worse than it already was. Their behaviour is entirely consistent with the analysis of the conspiracy theorists who argue that they have deliberately engineered the escalation of the threat. Go
My question is: Are they Lying, Stupid or Blind? Go
they routinely replace, bypass and ignore experts who present conclusions they don't want to hear. Is actively running from the truth any less culpable than misrepresenting it? Go
They have to pay lip service to the scientific method. So they commission research. If they don't like the results, they simply ignore or bury them and commission new research from people they trust to provide conclusions which support their initial prejudice. Go
We see precisely the same inability to fully understand the evidence and its implications when we listen to so called "Creation Scientists" trying to attack Evolutionary theory or modern Cosmology and validate their own bible based hypotheses. Go
The fact, however, that orthodox scientists have been forced to spend so much time and effort fending off the creationist arguments from Behe, Dembski et al, is, in itself, a massive propaganda victory for the creationists. Go
The fact that creationist arguments do not even attempt to conform to the rules of empiricism (by, for example, proposing ways in which their hypotheses could be either verified or falsified) and thus have little or no scientific merit, is invisible or incomprehensible to the watching public. Go
Dave Gorman is a stand up comedian. He'll probably as surprised as you were to learn that he's just appeared, without warning, on this page but there are two good reasons... Go
I genuinely cannot decide whether Gish is lying or stupid. I'm even uncomfortable with "stupid". "Ignorant" is less derogatory. You see, if you believe he was lying, then you have to believe that he knows that what he was saying wasn't true (kinda goes with the territory of "lying"). Yet he believes that he can persuade us that it is true. So you also have to assume that he think's we're stupid. Go

For whatever reason, Gish, and presumably those who think like him, despite having the intellect required to obtain a PhD in a scientific discipline, are apparently genuinely unable to grasp the significance of the "closed system" in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I've come across this problem in many many theists. There are certain concepts that they seem quite unable to grasp. Probability, the predictable consequences of pure randomness and the sheer scale of the Cosmos are right in the centre of their blind spot. Go
In particular they seem constitutionally unable to grasp the significance of tiny steps in the right direction. They don't understand how the laws of physics make the interactions between particles both possible and inevitable; how the scale and random distribution of those particles in turn make chemistry both possible and inevitable and how large scale chemistry makes biological precursors possible and inevitable and so on. They seem to think that the only relevant engine is blind chance. Go
I have to conclude that Duane Gish and other Creationists are indeed only guilty of "bad science" not "immoral pseudoscience". They're not evil. They're ignorant Go
They appear to be literally unable to see the logical and usually obvious validity of a number of core concepts. There's probably a PhD in psychology for anyone who can explain how otherwise intelligent educated people can fail to grasp fundamental and relatively simple concepts like the difference between open and closed systems. Go
Nixon wasn't stupid. But when the Presidential Commission he set up specifically to examine Marijuana (and which he packed with hand picked opponents of drug use) recommended decriminalisation (local - 517k zip) he went apeshit and refused even to read the report. Instead his anti-semitic and homophobic prejudices (local) kicked off the current round of the intensified "War on Drugs". Today's rulers are no more rational than that. About Climate Change, about Fair Trade, about providing access to cheap medicine for the 3rd World, about going to War on a pretext when Oil is involved, about not going to War to prevent genocide anywhere Oil isn't involved; about ANYTHING. Go
If they believe we're too powerless, they can only sustain that belief because they have sufficient control over society, particularly through their connections with the Military, Media and Money, to be confident that they can stifle dissent or at least control the extent to which it spreads. Go

It's like playing chess with someone who can be consistently beaten with a 4 move checkmate. They're clearly more advanced than chimpanzees. But, in some respects at least, not by much.

Social Psychosis
Psychologically, people who form firm beliefs in the absence of such validated evidence are, essentially both irrational and gullible... If they continue to hold such beliefs when the relevant hypotheses have been falsified, then, I would argue, they are showing the early signs of psychosis. When groups of like minded people share the challenged beliefs, it becomes a social psychosis in which members turn to each other for mutual validation of their shared and increasingly distorted world view.

Much the same violent reaction and repression is true of all totalitarian societies, when their social experiments fail, science reveals an error in their analysis or the real world simply refuses to conform to the party line.

It is my conviction that this is, far and away, humanity's biggest problem. This shared delusional state I am calling "Social Psychosis" is the biggest obstacle to intelligent management of all our other problems. Go

Most political leaders among us (whether at gang or national level), however, reach their positions because they are driven by a deeper form of the psychosis, which seeks to act on their beliefs and which is reinforced by their success in achieving positions of leadership. This is the basis on which "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Achieving power validates the aspirant's belief structures even more strongly than mere membership of the group and the longer they retain power, the more justified they feel in eliminating any remaining doubts they may have held.

...the problem is that, despite appearances, I would prefer Chomsky to be right rather than me. His analysis leads, in my view, to a more optimistic prognosis than my own. Lying might be more evil, but it is less dangerous than Stupid. Go
Ignorant Believers, conversely, pose a much more serious problem. Intellectual argument is completely wasted on them, (as you will see if you visit creationist or southern baptist web sites). This is true whether the ignorant believers you are trying to negotiate with are American Conservative Christians and Neocons or Islamic Fundamentalists. Go

American Fundamentalist Christians, like their Islamic counterparts, believe that all behavioural questions can be dealt with entirely by reference to their dogma but don't dare argue that strongly for the control of society itself, at least not in public; but any objective examination of their declarations, behaviour and attitudes clearly reveals that this is their wider agenda. The Islamic Fundamentalists are more honest in this respect than their Christian counterparts. They openly oppose democracy and advocate religious rule for precisely these reasons. The masses need to be taught how to behave and led by wiser leaders in full accord with the divine word. They cannot be permitted the freedom to decide for themselves.

Why does Evolution matter so much to the Fundamentalists?
To begin with, as many other monotheists have been content to note, the Theory of Evolution does nothing to rule out the existence of their God. Such theists simply argue that Evolution is the mechanism He employed. Not so with fundamentalists. Their resistance suggests that even if an indisputable god showed up and appeared, personally, to every person on the planet in whatever form they could cope with; announced his godliness, perhaps apologised for any confusion he may have been responsible for and promptly declared the implementation of personalised paradise and omortality (that's "optional mortality" - you can live as long as you still think its a good idea) for all...
...then, unless he performed precisely as the fundamentalists prescribe, I am sure that at least half of them would promptly denounce him (and it had better be a "him" or else) as a blasphemer and charlatan. Go
...unless that god confirms, without exception, that the description of how he created the universe as laid down in the bible is accurate, then though they'd win on the existence of god, they'd lose on the validity of the bible; and the validity of the bible has become a far more important issue to them than the exact nature of any prospective deity. Go

Because what they are primarily concerned with is controlling social behaviour in strict accordance with their biblically derived prejudices. Undermine the authority of that source, by showing that its description of creation and evolution is, at best, a naive attempt by a prescientific society to explain mysteries beyond their comprehension - but no longer beyond ours - and you remove all basis for taking seriously many of the behavioural guides contained therein. And with that goes all basis for religious control of society. That is what is at stake. That is why they fight so hard to challenge science with their own naive attempts at subversion.


Given the obvious irrationality of that position, it is not easy to see on what basis we can negotiate or reason with the people who share this mindset. This is the fundamental basis of the global problem we are now in the midst of. We're dealing with seriously psychotic people.


Of course, religious fundamentalists aren't the only ones who regard Society as being in desperate need of their supervision, protection and guidance. It is a common feature of secular tyrannies too. The only advantage of dealing with a secular control freak is that, ultimately, they are slightly more amenable to reason.

Religious bigots, on the other hand, have literally had millennia rather than mere decades of conditioning and meme reinforcement. As a result they are peculiarly immune to logic and evidence which challenges or refutes their beliefs. What takes the secular psychotic 60 years to face up to, requires centuries for the religious mindset to adapt to. Go
Today, controllers come in two main flavours. Those who tolerate public dissent and those who do not. Go

The significance of that distinction is that we can't even begin to address the populations controlled by those who don't tolerate dissent - their controllers block access to our ideas. Obviously that means we can't do much to influence the Chinese, for example


Those who do still tolerate dissent are further split between those who argue that they are qualified to control us by virtue of being elected to govern ...and those who accept that they are, in fact, no more qualified than anyone else to make judgements about my own life, but argue that they are acting on/with the authority of a supreme being who is solely capable of making such judgements.


I can't immediately think of one of Jesus' major "rules" which I would take serious issue with. His promise of heavenly reward for those who followed his guidance is a trifle optimistic and his conviction that he was the direct descendant of the supreme being was a little more psychotic than most of us seem to be, but it never caused him to harm others, so we needn't be too concerned about it. What matters, surely, is what he had to say about the 3rd Question. And, regardless of who he was, and whether or not he performed any verifiable "miracles", and whether or not he was resurrected 3 days after being ritually murdered by the State, what he has to say about how to behave is pretty reasonable.


Fundamentalists seem to have a problem with the acceptability of his message if it isn't backed up by divinity; as though they would no longer agree that "turning the other cheek" or "Loving thy neighbour" was such a good idea if it hadn't been said by a representative of the supreme being.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" an easy edict to defend. Pain avoidance to the max.

Surprisingly (or perhaps not), biblical literalists seem not to have noticed that it's a bit sweeping. The injunction is not limited. It doesn't, for example, say simply "don't kill each other" or "don't kill other human beings". Unless its been badly translated from the original hebrew, it is crystal clear, unequivocal and absolute. "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Which clearly means we are instructed not to kill anything at all. Which would make life itself rather difficult. Even vegans kill most of what they eat.

There is in fact only one lifestyle fully compatible with "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It is not vegan or vegetarianism (vegetables are alive too - before we eat them). It is to become a pure carrion eater and only to eat that which has, regrettably, already been killed by other agencies before we get to it. So rotting meat, fruit and veg are clearly what the deity had in mind for us when he issued that edict. Go
I find it impossible to justify my own behaviour ethically. I can explain it but that in no way justifies it. Go

Ultimately I have reverted to meat for pleasure. I do it fully conscious of the pain and suffering that entails. I have hunted, killed, dressed and eaten my own meat. I have attended abbatoirs and watched the cattle and sheep having their throats slit after being stunned and hung upside down. I have watched their hides being expertly stripped from them before the last twitches of their lives have ended. I have watched and listened to the pigs screaming in terror because, unlike the sheep and cattle, they are intelligent enough to figure out what is about to happen to them.

As soon as someone can give me a non animal based steak which I can't tell from the real thing and which does no nutritional harm, I'll switch. Until then I'll remain a hypocritical meat eater. Go
Killing animals for clothing is even less defensible. Go
One of the most difficult ethical issues of all is the question of killing animals in pursuit of medical research designed to benefit human beings. Go

When animals are killed for food, the death is usually quick and relatively painless. In contrast, many research animals are deliberately exposed to treatment or pathogens which give them a lingering death in captivity. It doesn't matter whether that lingering death takes minutes or months, it is different, in degree, from the efficient despatch carried out by an abbatoir. It fails the "minimise pain" test.

Having once developed a relationship with the kids' pet rat (sadly now deceased) I am well aware that even this relatively lowly mammal has an active intelligence. Go
In my experience, most pet-owners would react like me. If I found someone causing deliberate harm to one of my own dogs or cats, I would do whatever it took to stop them, up to and including killing them. Go

Why, therefore, should I be at all tolerant of labs routinely performing experiments on thousands of cats or dogs? And given that attitude, why am I not campaigning alongside the ALF and petrol bombing research labs?

I'm not about to let myself get distracted into a single issue campaign. In the scheme of things, stopping MIFT and preventing the growth and spread of the Police State are far more important issues than preventing unnecessary cruelty to cats and dogs, regrettable though that is. Go
When it comes to primates, therefore, particularly the higher primates, I find it very difficult to argue against the militant action of the Animal Liberation Front. The evidence strongly suggests that chimp and orang intelligence is approximately at the level of a 3-4 year old human. Would we permit experimentation on 3-4 year old children? I think not. Go

...the higher the mental abilities, the more likely it is that the captive animal will suffer in the same way I would in their situation. As we approach that point, and the animals intelligence gets closer to my own, I feel increasingly constrained by the "golden rule" (reciprocity - "do as you would be done by")

Go of the fundamental misconceptions the theist holds in regard to atheism is that we atheists are somehow not capable of moral judgement because we don't believe in a deity. Go requires a deeply tortured logic - fully consistent with clinical psychosis - to reconcile "Thou Shalt Not Kill" with flying loaded passenger planes into heavily occupied tall buildings. And no less tortured is the logic which has been deployed since to justify the military carnage euphemistally minimised as "collateral damage" but which has efficiently killed somewhere between 10 and 40 times as many innocent non combatants as were killed by the airplane hijackers. Go
My tentative conclusion is that they're not lying. Neither are they stupid. They are "philosophically challenged". Go

...if arguing with prejudiced ignorant believers is a waste of time, does that imply that those sites and scientists which go to extraordinary lengths to counter the creationists naive nonsense are also wasting their time? Absolutely not. It may be a waste of time trying to educate someone like Duane Gish, but there are millions - potentially billions - of newly forming minds who are confused by the evolutionary debate and it is desperately important that they have access to authoritative peer reviewed intelligent rebuttals of the masses of "bad science" out there.

...the conclusion that the leadership of the world's remaining superpower consists of either liars or ignorant believers presents a dramatically more dangerous problem than anything MIFT represents Go
Prohibition of Alcohol in the 20s was the first large scale example of their fundamentalist lunacy. The "War on Drugs" - which has mirrored, with stunning precision, all the mistakes, lies, corruption, exacerbation and complete failure of Alcohol prohibition - remains far and away the major example of intransigence, combined with intolerance and zero intelligence Go

The American body politic and many of its supporters, to put it mildly, lack subtlety! The common thread to these policies is the complete absence of "common sense".


Now lets put that into perspective. That 15 year total of 7,812 (People killed by terrorists since 1990) is about as many people as were killed by Aspirin type drugs (NSAIDs) in the United States in the year 2000. It's roughly two thirds of the number of Americans killed by other Americans using guns in the year 2002. It's about as many people as are killed in road traffic accidents, in the United States, every 10 or 11 weeks.


I challenge the reader to find ANY national budget dedicated to reducing death by Aspirin, firearms or road traffic. Against that, the so called War on Terror has so far (June 2005) consumed a budget in excess of $300 Billion dollars.


What makes the US government willing to increase military spending to approximately $25 million dollars per death caused by terrorism while maintaining or reducing budgets aimed at reducing deaths from other causes?

...the War on Terrorism is just another American over-reaction. The grandmother and grandfather of all panic measures. And, like most over-reactions, it has exacerbated rather than ameliorated the problem. Again, it doesn't matter whether that was conspiracy or cockup. The consequences for the world are the same. Go
In the UK, as of July 7 2005, we now have to confront the reality of home grown suicide bombers... Although the death toll was mercifully trivial by comparison with either 9-11 or 3-11, the implications are profound. Go
It is rarely this easy to prove that politicians are Lying Go
Muslims Deny that (the London bombings) have anything to do with their Religion Go
Religion is certainly not the cause of these attacks. The causes are all political. Religion merely provides the moral underpinning for the attackers. In exactly the same way as it has always done for our own warriors whether launching their Crusades, or fighting the Third Reich, or dropping Atom Bombs on Japan, or Daisycutters on Afghanistan. You will even find some Religious commentators prepared to provide religious backing for the obscenities in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.The religious connection is not unique to Islam. Go

The legitimate requirement for increased security, albeit generated by their own possibly illegitimate action, has in turn provided the spurious basis for the most intense and sophisticated attack on liberty and privacy seen since the Stalinist purges in the 1950s or the Maoist "Cultural Revolution" in the 60s.


I don't live in America. Why should I give a damn? Or, more precisely, why should I give more of a damn about the American Police State than either the Russian or Chinese ones? After all, however much I may criticise the US, the ex communist Russians and the still communist Chinese are both still in a different league of totalitarianism compared to the Americans.

The answer to that is simple. There is no chance whatsoever of a European government trying to emulate either Russia or China. But there is a considerable danger that many of them will think its a good idea to emulate America. Go
Many of us now perceive you - the American Regime currently led by Neocons and supported by the Religious Right - as the single greatest threat to global Security and Liberty on the planet. You have demonstrably killed vastly more people around the world than your MIFT enemies and you have imposed repressive and intrusive restrictions on your own population and potential visitors which are probably fully in line with what MIFT would like to achieve but way beyond their capabilities. You have already succeeded in persuading other governments around the world to begin following your perverse and dangerous lead. We hate MIFT and what they represent too. But the threat they pose to us is tiny compared to the threat you have become. That is why we now fear and oppose you even more than we fear and oppose them. Go
The American regime is as close to clinical insanity as any regime in recent history. As the sole surviving superpower, they wield vastly more influence on what goes on around the world than any other nation. It is, at bottom, in all our self interests to join the battle against them. Hopefully, this is a battle we can fight with intelligent activism and the few democratic levers available to us rather than suicide bombers and all out warfare, but it is a real battle. If there are casualties, I would expect them to be on our side rather than theirs. Taking on a psychotic superpower is not a trivial enterprise, but someone's got to do it! Go line with Clinton's soundbite, my closing message for Part 2 is, that despite the plentiful reasons to be fearful, which we have explored in some detail, there are also tentative reasons for optimism. If we can use our collective intelligence to reach a consensus, there are practical steps we can take to avert this belated stampede into "1984". If we can indeed "think" rationally, then there is definitely "hope". Part 3 explores our options.