By Antonio Bernal
Price under capitalism  is the expression in money terms of the value of goods and services.  Prices can rise or fall through the change in value. Price does not have to coincide with value, but depends on supply and demand. The sum total of the price of goods is equal to the sum total of the value of goods. Price  is another instrument  to exploit workers and underdeveloped countries with, through competition and the desire for higher profits. Capital goods are made up of variable capital, price and profit (surplus value), which comprise relations of exploitation.This expresses production relations between members of a class society. Societies based on capitalist wealth (profit) share three components; state property, social property and private property.
Value represents the measurable  investment of socially necessary work materialized in the time spent on making a product. Use value is created by concrete work. It is equivalent to all other values. All are the result of measurable abstract labor, that is, brain, nervous and muscular energy, and the time spent in production. Abstract work results in the value of goods. When price and value are the same, this guarantees a just and equal distribution of the national (or international) wealth.
Capitalism. Traditional education has always been based on metaphysics (in Asia) Monotheism (in the Middle East) and the Enlightenment of the burgeoisie (beginning with the Siècle des Lumières).  It is not a coincidence that in northern Europe and Britain the middle class was to become the principal bulwark of the Protestant opposition to Roman Catholicism. The traditional Roman Catholic prohibitionof any lending of money at interest as  usury, the monastic glorification of poverty as an ascetic ideal, and the Roman Catholic system of holidays as times when no work was to be done were all seen by the rising merchant class as obstacles to financial development  Catholics say salvation comes through good work and obedience Protestants  say salvation can come solely through Jesus by faith and scripture alone. This  makes the cult of the individual paramount.  If salvation comes through belief and faith alone, there is little basis for ethical behavior among men.  This sets the moral basis for cutthroat competition under capitalism, where the emphasis has always been on individual advancement.  If  individuals are simply the recipients of individual wealth, there is no social wealth. Capitalism takes profits (surplus value) and uses them to accumulate capital. This allows the capitalist to have control of the political system. The capitalist  dictates  the value of goods and services. Capitalism  integrates production, distribution and consumption, by means of cybernetic feedback. For the capitalist, price is the end all and be all, it is the cybernetic center of the national or global economy that directs the flow of merchandise, services and capital.  It is the main means of appropriation of the surplus product, of profits.
There are three ways of measuring the market flow of a company; price (money), value (time) and volume (tons, litres, etc.)  All these factors are controlled and at the service of the exploitative system. All market economies are gangster-driven, the larger they are, such as the transnationals of the bourgeois states, the more vicious they are.Under capitalism the owner may tell the worker; “youll have to make 100 pieces a day or you will not get paid.”  In spite  the modern changes and refinements brought about by capitalist planners, the development of many owners, the splitting into corporate managers, administrators, bosses of all kinds in a cualitative new way, (Adam Smith) and further industrial developments in mass production, the worker  retains his/her original status; an iron discipline tied to the rate of profit, following orders in work days which alienate him/her without the means of escape or relief.  The capitalist will pile on two and three times the amount of work with the same pay without considering if the worker can withstand that abuse physically and psychologically.
State property and socialism. The USSR was successful in that it had a market economy not based on personal profit. The state controlled most productive property, and the intention was to build socialism. This was a step forward, but historical socialism  failed because the top-down style of planning  remained, to one degree or another, and sooner or later  they fell into deregulation and privatization. The new human failed to materialize. An economy can call itself socialist, but if it does not reach the level of equivalencies, sooner or later it will revert to capitalism. If nationalization is done for other reasons (ie., ideological ones) and if it violates supply and demand, it generates a black market and corruption.When the USSR nationalized private property it also nationalized prices. While it succeeded in neutralizing surplus value and capitalist control over politics, it was unable to control the cybernetic use of value, that is, price based on supply and demand remained, but with a combination of administrative costs and world market prices that were unable to optimize the macroeconomic distribution of resources. The obstacles posed by capitalist competition, such as complex and simple work, the brain drain, the national and international division of labor, the privileges of white collar and intellectual workers over manual laborers, and the unequal terms of trade, worked to frustrate attempts at socialism. Worker’s democracy was not enough to influence price, quality of service or international quality control, for if another country could offer a better and cheaper product, democracy had little to do with its production and sale. In the same way, income distribution is necessary for social justice, but it does not, by itself, lead to socialism. Historically, the socialist countries achieved  some parity by taking away the means of production from the businessmen, with the state taking on the function of price-setting. This blocked the accumulation of capital in private hands, but failed in its cybernetic function, that is, in optimizng the economic flow. While the class nature of price was neutralized, its systemic function was not. What was lacking was a cualitatively different institution; an efficient, optimal economy, free of the exploitation of others. This institution is expressed as value. In the USSR the state  appeared as direct owner (or indirectly in the cooperatives) of productive property. This form of property did not resolve the problem of the worker’s efforts  in brain, nervous and muscular energy, because the intensity of labor was tied to the administrative monopoly that was now in state hands. Workers continued to obey manager’s orders, with unions that were not there to defend worker’s rights, but which were there rather as a means of transmission of the socialist will decided by the party in power. In contemporary systems there exist vertical lines  of command, with a director general giving the orders. There was no discussion, no democracy, nor citizen or worker’s participation, so there was no identification with or stake in the property. This was shown by the ease in which the USSR and the DDR fell, without the workers, who did not feel they had a stake in the system, lifting a finger to prevent it.
The new economy. How can this cycle of alienation be broken? How to achieve economic justice, without exploitation? Democracy is not only political, cultural and military; above all, it is economic The failure lay in historical socialism’s inability to develop 1.-participatory democracy (as opposed to top down management), 2.-the lack of technological development, 3.-the failure to base itself on  value instead of on price, (the economy of equivalencies), and 4.-the cybernetic mechanisms that could take over cost feedback. Scientific planning. Science  has now reached a stage where the economy can submit itself to scientifically formulated laws.  Julius von Mayer developed an exact measurement for heat. In physics there is a connection between mass and energy, in astronomy it is between mass and radiation, in economics it is the equivalency between the medium labor effort and its compensation. Similarly, in an equivalent economy, there is no difference between price and value, because price simply express the time input in the production of a product. Price disappears because it loses its function as the (illegitimate) appropriation of profit.  There already exist, developed by Carsten Stahmer, monetary measurements of production and profit (cost and price), the measurements of objective value (time inputs) and physical measurements (tons, litres, etc) that are equivalent among each other. Education. The first step in building the new man and woman can only be brought about through initial education. Educators must understand the dialectics of the cultural hardware and software of homo sapiens, in order to bring about a new education. The material basis of  humans must also be considered. The exchange of products is done on the basis of equal values. The accounting and operation of the new economy is decided on the basis of value (accumulated  time credits) and not on the market price. As long as  products have the characteristic of merchandise, that is, are made for sale and profit expropriated from the worker, and while price is determined by the market and its actors, there will exist the legalized exploitation of those who are least able to defend themselves The new economy  anchors social justice at the production level, and not in the area of distribution. One begins by establishing a parallel accounting of all  the internal and external transactions of value (time inputs or time credits), alongside the existing accounting of price.  Out of the old, comes the new. The cybernetic needs of the capitalist economy directly serve the logistical  needs of of the equivalent economy, and of participatory democracy. This will avoid unnecessary conflict with an existing private company. The next step lies in the gradual substitution of the market price system by the equivalent exchange of values. It is not a revolution with flags flying and drums beating, but instead the prosaic matching of (socialist) value with (capitalist) price. The new economy takes away the power of price. To reach this new level of socialism, the economy has to evaluate labor in terms of time credits.  Socialist practices are introduced in the daily life of the people, where merchandise is put on sale with all three measures on the label; price (money), value (time) and volume (tons, litres, etc.). A   litre of milk, for example, may cost two dollars, and have a value of ten minutes spent on its production. However, something else might have a value of ten minutes and cost twelve  dollars. People can see that the price is an exploitative one if the same effort and time was spent on both. There is no logical reason why one would be worth more than the other. At a local production  level it can be felt directly; for example, if there are three types of pants being sold, and “A” sells 20, “B” sells 3 and “C” sells none All this is registered instantly via computer and the supply is  rectified accordingly. This adjustment can be made by the workers in the factory, without any need of consultation with anyone. This relative decentralization coupled with the new technology does away with bureaucracy. Democratizing the point of production. On a local level (factory) the workers themselves  will decide the rate of surplus labor, and the rate of investment. In the new economy,  if the workers in a company or factory want to produce 80 pieces, and the manager wants them to produce 100, they will produce 80. This will establish real democracy in the economic sphere, because the enterprise will be in the hands of those who make the production, and it will allow the worker to be the subject of his own economic existence. If workers decide to produce less, because they want to spend more time with their families, to study, or for  recreation, their renumeration will be below the social  mean, but that will be their decision. The key is in the relation between socially necessary work and excess work. Those who traditionally have controlled the means of production have decided over both of the aspects, and consequently established economic dictatorships not much different from military organizations. With economic democracy the next step is taken where the decision-making power of the owners, managers, administrators political commissars and foremen become the jurisdiction of individual and collectives producers; the workers themselves.  Worker’s committees will hand out and establish the norms for social work, the number of hours, and its intensity, with an eye toward greater leisure, greater production and the liberation from work slavery. Economic democracy is the basis for political democracy. Only in the economy of equivalencies under democratic control can there be economic justice. This is concomitant with the political sphere of participatory democracy.  In the political sphere, the people, the workers,  will decide on municipal issues, and in their economic planning. All citizens have the right to make decisions in their community, on the participatory budget through the local councils, public policies, and community councils. Nationalization.   Once the economy is indeed nationalized,  the stage is set  for the nation to accelerate its  development on a greater scale. Nationalization allows the government to finance welfare and social programs. Nationalization is the most efficient form of national security. Even as fallow lands must be nationalized, corporations, banks, housing projects that lie “fallow”, that are undersued or non profitable, must be nationalized and given to the people. Corporations that violate laws or make illegal, unethical or immoral profits need to be nationalized. Nationalized large industry (petroleum companies, electricty, banks, communications, agriculture, etc.)  allows  for the practice of equivalencies to work. The formation of thousands of cooperatives will also speed the process for a post-capitalist economy. What is needed in those conditions is realism and flexibility to nurture the transition to socialism. A highly technified, nationalized  state enterprise can begin by evaluating the time-credit parameters, and thus the practice can be extended to other enterprises. Nationalized state property and social property (cooperatives) are key to further the process. The macroeconomy. Workers have the right to influence and make decisions in both the marco and micro economies. The mean of these commensurate productive inputs in time units, money and physical volume make the new economy possible not only nationally, but internationally.  The economic interests of the people in a macroeconomy are  taken into account, so that they interact with and have substantial influence over worldwide economic planning.  The people will make the macroeconomic decisions on the national budget, and additionally, cybernetics has made it possible to establish the new economy on a worldwide scale. There are many socialist countries in existence that would embrace such a practice, and would form the center of gravity of the economy in a phase of dying capitalism. . The new economy is inevitable. Work will become less intense and less stressful, a lower monetary profit will result in a better quality of life for the population, whether working, not yet working, or retired.  The rate of intensity of work will be decided directly by the workers, in conjunction with the institution, as being the only guarantor of their self-determination. This arrangement is comparable to the transition from feudalism to capitalism, with  the privatization of fedual lands by the peasants, where their fences and walls  guaranteed the consolidation  of individual private property in the bourgeois revolutions. Economic democracy at the level of production will likewise guarantee a bastion of the post-capitalist society, an institution and holding of socialized property that the workers will be bound to defend as their own. These subsystems of post-capitalism will grow bit by bit within the national economies until they become the dominant feature, and will bring the long and bloody thousand year old money cycle to and end.
Attacks on the economy of equivalencies. Capitalism has set up an ideological defense to prevent these new ideas from being known.  The first line of defense is to treat them as “inappropriate”,  a taboo, something that should not be talked about. Failing that, there are two opposing currents, something like bad cop-good cop; the fascist capitalist current and the liberal social-democratic one. They  lie about it to confuse people, distort and slander what it is.  The fascists attack these ideas as “the new communism”, and to them the cold war continues unabated. The liberals agree that capitalism must be reformed, and try to channel it in a social-democratic direction. These attitudes are simply class attitudes and no match for the desires and needs of the majority, who, when made conscious, will appropriate 100% of the value of work, minus investment and social program budgets, which will give them a high standard of living and do away with poverty forever in the world by exchanging equivalencies and by participatory democratic practices. This economy is not reformist- it is radical, it is not the traditional socialist economy which was still based on prices, and it is not a sectarian “left” proposal. These new sciences serve to dig the grave of capitalism. The new economy is the logical outgrowth of a thousand years of preparation, and a human teasure that no one will be able to detain. The struggle is between those who want to continue things as they are, or bring them back to a state of functionality, and those who want to break with those outmoded and broken practices and work toward a classless society.


Report: UN to demand Israel pay Lebanon $1 billion in reparations

Report: UN to demand Israel pay Lebanon $1 billion in reparations

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent

The United Nations will require Israel to pay Lebanon nearly $1 billion for environmental damages caused during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reported on Saturday.

The paper said that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will submit the motion to the Security Council later this month.

The indicated amount is based on a World Bank damage assessment. Among other issues, it included the cost of pumping oil from the Mediterranean coast after Israel bombed a large refinery, which was covered by UN agencies. The oil spill also inflicted extensive damage to local flora and fauna, which has yet to be fully repaired.



By: Peter Chamberlin

Cheney’s special brand of insanity seeks to return the world to 1991, where he left it, while serving under the first bloodthirsty Bush as Sec. Defense. He commissioned the new Defense Planning Guidance package from Wolfowitz when George Bush I refused to move on Saddam Hussein and to take military advantage of the broken Soviet empire. This is the moment he has been planning for since then, taking over the entire Middle Eastern region.

The criminal insanity of these continuous attempts to bring American dominance to the region by force should be apparent to anyone who cares to look. Americans, who call themselves patriots, should be outraged by these ongoing plans. If we do not rise-up en masse to oppose these retrograde policies to take our country back in time to a more dangerous age then we will prove to the world that they have all been right about us, that we will not get off our lazy fat asses for any reason. They are right to hate us because of what we have allowed to be done to our fellow man, while we watched tv in luxury, sated on the meager existence we managed to obtain, all financed with borrowed money.

We have a small window open before us, to use our Constitutional rights to block the American war upon the world from escalating to the next stage. If we cannot make an effort to create our own “revolution” named for some flower, then war and martial law will be our new reality, wherein only real revolution will stand a chance to stop the war machine.

We have the obvious timeframe of the national elections we have to work in, but we also have another equally important window open, to stop the passage of the “Iran War Resolution,” where 265 Congressmen and 49 Senators are co-sponsoring a bill which calls for a military blockade of Iran and a no-fly zone over Iran, both acts of war. Even though the Senate version now claims that “nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran,” it calls for actions that can only be taken by military force.

This disclaimer that Congress is calling for “non-violent” violence was added after the American people began to make Congressmen feel the heat for authorizing war against Iran. Congressmen began to waver once signs began to appear that the people might hold them accountable for their support of the AIPAC-written war bill. The bill was slowed-down from the fast track to passage it was on when the people reminded their Congressmen that legally, they were supposed to answer to us, not Israel. Now is the time to increase that heat, before it can be rushed through both houses.

Senate Resolution 580 is the refined version of the AIPAC-written war bill. I have attempted to dissect some of the greasier pieces of crap contained within it for you below. Following my criticism of the war bill is a list of all co-sponsors of both bills and the names of the people running against them on November 4, written in red. Every patriot should help those running against these traitors.

In addition, I refer to my “Protest Plan PDF Form” for contact information for the home offices of these Congressmen, as well as the Israeli embassies in the US and the world, for organizing protests against Israel’s war plan for America. If you can’t take to the streets, then send a letter or an email, or make a couple of phone calls to these jerks and tell them that you hold them responsible for all that Bush has done and is doing to protect Israel from the world it has angered. Let them know how you feel.

SRES 580 is the same B.S. written down in House Res. 362.

Whereas for nearly 20 years Iran had a covert nuclear program, until the program was revealed by an opposition group in Iran in 2002;

All available evidence on Iranian nuclear intentions is unreliable, as it comes directly from the Israeli Mossad, who pass it on to the Iranian terrorist organization MEK (Mujahedeen-e-Khalq), who then pass it on to Israel’s neocon friends in America. This terrorist organization (which the Iraqi government is expelling from its sanctuary) uses “intelligence” produced by an American-compromised puppet secret service to prove what Israel thinks that Iran thinks.

The next “evidence” cited by the Senate neocons to prove that the Iranians are working on a nuclear bomb is a list of components in any elemental atomic industry or research:

importation of uranium hexafluoride, the construction of a uranium enrichment facility, experimentation with plutonium, the importation of centrifuge technology and the construction of centrifuges

At the end of that list is a reference to a CIA-doctored bomb design which they introduced into the Middle East to discredit Islamic nations:

the importation of the design to convert highly enriched uranium gas into a metal and to shape it into the core of a nuclear weapon

SRES 580 claims that Iran cannot produce enough bomb-grade uranium before the end of 2009, yet this resolution seeks to authorize a military blockade, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran, among other measures. (Probably including the proposed no-fly zone over Iran called for in H. RES. 362), even though they added the disclaimer that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran (even though military force is the only possible way to embargo gasoline).

Whereas allowing the Government of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability would pose a grave threat to international peace and security. The fear is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its nuclear threat to intimidate its neighbors, much the same as nuclear-armed Israel does today.

Whereas allowing the Government of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability would fundamentally alter and destabilize the strategic balance of power in the Middle East. The Middle East is already destabilized by American and Israeli aggression in the region. The fear is that neither Israel nor the US would be able to continue their rape of weaker Middle Eastern nations.

Whereas allowing the Government of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability would severely undermine the global nuclear nonproliferation regime that, for more than 4 decades, has contained the spread of nuclear weapons. The United States and its allies are most responsible for the spread of nuclear technology throughout the world. The US gave Iran its first reactor. Nuclear weapons spread from the US to its most important allies. All nukes are based on American “know-how.”

Whereas the Government of Iran has repeatedly called for the elimination of our ally, Israel. Iran has never called for the elimination of Israel, even though many Israeli officials have openly called for the “Shoah” (destruction) of Iran.

Whereas the Government of Iran has advocated that the United States withdraw its presence from the Middle East. I also whole-heartedly endorse the idea of the United States withdrawing all of its forces from the Middle East.

SRES 580 Last Action:Jun 2, 2008: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Aug 30, 2008]

H. RES. 362 Last Action: May 22, 2008: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Aug 29, 2008]


“Protest Plan PDF Form”



THE FOLLOWING LIST GIVES THE NAMES OF THE CO-SPONSORS OF THE “IRAN WAR RESOLUTION” (BOTH THE HOUSE [362] AND SENATE [580] BILLS), INCLUDING THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES (IN RED) CHALLENGING THEM FOR OFFICE. All concerned Americans should do anything in their power to help those who are challenging these Congressional “trough-feeders.”

The following list of co-sponsors of the Iran War Resolution which includes their AIPAC donations (from a list compiled by Janet McMahon)


___________ 2007 donations

___________ 2008 donations

___________ Lifetime donations

Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] Jo Bonner (R)* Thomas E. Fuller (D)

Rep Davis, Artur [AL-7] 1,000 81,067

Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] 3,075 13,325 Joshua Steven Segall (D)


Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R-AL] Vivian Davis Figures (D)

Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] Joshua Drake (3)

Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] Abel Noah Tomlinson (3)

Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1]

Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] Bob Lord (D)

Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] John Thrasher (D)

Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] David Schweikert (R)

Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] Joe Cobb (L) Rebecca DeWitt (3) Don Karg (R)

Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1]

(Israeli Embassies in Los Angeles and San Francisco)

Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] 1,000 1,000

Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] Nicholas Alexander Leibham (D)

Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] Steve Young (D)

Rep Costa, Jim [CA-20] James Lopez (R)

Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] Russell Warner (D)

Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] 2,000 99,271

Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] Robert Hamilton (D)

Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] Edwin Chau (D)

Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] Lawrence Tufts Johnson (D)

Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19]

Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] Debbie Cook (D)

Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] Christina Avalos (D)

Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] 2,000 47,700 Rosie Avila (R)

Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] 6,000 54,917 Charles Jin Hahn (R)

Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] 1,000 54,930 Navraj Singh (R)

Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] Zane Starkewolf (R)

Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] 1,000 37,832

Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] Dan Litwin (L) David Lee Joy (R)

Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] Harold Wilford Bidlack (D)

Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] Betsy Markey (D)

Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6]


Rep Udall, Mark [CO-2] 2,500 13,750 Bob Schaffer (R)

Sen. Ken Salazar [D-CO]

Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] Jim Himes (D)

(Embassy In Miami)

Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] John Dicks (D)

Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] Mark Mulligan (R) Eddie Hendry (R) Robert Ortiz (R)

Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2]

Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] 2,500 21,000 Raul L. Martinez (D)

Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] 500 11,000 Joe Garcia (D)

Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] Suzanne Kosmas (D)

Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] 5,000 54,350 Marion Thorpe (R) Ray Torres Sanchez (D)

Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] 16,150 16,150 26,374

Rep Mahoney, Tim [FL-16] 4,000 6,000 Hal Valeche (R) Tom Rooney (R) Gayle B. Harrell (R)

Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] 500 16,500 Fernando Steven Neira (3)

Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] 1,000 7,500 Douglas David Tudor (D)

Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] 7,500 133,490 Annette Taddeo (D)

Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] 4,500 16,000 Marc Luzietti (3)

Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] 7,000 20,750 Ben Graber (D) Edward J. Lynch (R)

Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3]

Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] Jim King (R) Carol Castagnero (D)

Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11]

Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] Timothy M. Cunha (D)


Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL]

Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]

(Atlanta Embassy)

Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] 1,000 30,200

Rep Lewis, John [GA-5]

Rep Linder, John [GA-7] Douglas Scott Heckman (D)

Rep Marshall, Jim [GA-8] 500 20,650 Rick Goddard (R)

Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] William Michael Jones (D)

Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] Stephen Camp (D)

Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] 3,250 34,574 John Stone (R)

Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] Lee Ferrell (R)

Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] James Paul Mason (I)

Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] Bud Gammon (D)

Rep Scott, David [GA-13] Deborah Travis Honeycutt (R)


Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R-GA] James Francis Martin (D)

Sen. John Isakson [R-GA]

Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4]

Rep King, Steve [IA-5]

(Chicago Embassy)

Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] 13,000 23,500 Steve Cox (D)

Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] 27,000 27,000 156,882 Dan Seals (D)

Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] 2,000 4,750 Robert Abboud (D)

Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] Jill Morgenthaler (D)

Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] 1,000 22,250 Michael Benjamin Younan (R) Morris Shanfield (3)

Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] Rodger W. Jennings (3) Timmy Jay Richardson (R)

Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] Steve Miller (R)

Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] 3,500 22,500 Tom Hanson (R) Alan Augustson (3)

Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] 1,000 6,650

Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] Anthony W. Williams (R)

Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] Jerome Pohlen (3) Michael Hawkins (R)

Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] Daniel Paul Davis (D) Vic Roberts (3)

Rep Weller, Jerry [IL-11] 500 37,650

Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] 7,000 94,000 Mary Etta Ruley (D)

Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] 30,000 30,000 55,250 Barry Welsh (D)

Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] Michael Anthony Montagano (D)

Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] Mark J. Leyva (R)

SENATE Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN]

Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] James Bordonaro (D)


Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS]

Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS] Jim Slattery (D)

Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] Andrew Clack (R)

Rep Cazayoux, Donald J., Jr. [LA-6] Woody Jenkins (R) Laurinda L. Calongne (R) William Cassidy (R) Michael Jackson (D)

Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] James Kenneth Harlan (D) Gilda Reed (D)


Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA] Richard M. Fontanesi (L) Robert Stewart (I) J. Jacques Boudreaux (R) Jay Patel (I)

Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]

(Boston Embassy)

Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]

Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1]

Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] John Newton Frary (R)


Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]

Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME] Tom Allen (D)

Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] Christopher S. Sander (R)

Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] Robb E. Cunningham (L)

Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] Jacob Turk (R)

Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] Kay Barnes (D)

SENATE Sen. Christopher Bond [R-MO]

Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT] John Driscoll (D) Mike Fellows (L)

Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] Richard Pryce Matthews (R)

Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] Thomas E. Harris (R)

Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] Jennifer P. Dougherty (D)

Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] 32,500 32,500 171,775 Collins Bailey (R)


Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]

Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]

Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] 1,000 11,500 Theodore Camron McAvoy (I) Joseph Larkin (D)

Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] Robert Denison (D)

Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] Fred Johnson (D) Ronald E. Graeser (3)

Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] Bob Alexander (D)

Rep Knollenberg, Joe [MI-9] Gary Peters (D)


Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D-MI]

Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI] Jack Hoogendyk Jr (R)

Rep Kline, John [MN-2] Steve Sarvi (D)

Rep Ramstad, Jim [MN-3]


Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN] Al Franken (D)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]

Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] Max Yashirin (D)

(Consulate General In New York) THE MAIN VIPER’S NEST

Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY] Gonzalo Manalo Policarpio (R) Elizabeth Berney (R) Evergreen C. Chou (3)

Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] 2,150 8,150 Richard L. Hanna (R)

Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] Lee M. Zeldin (R)

Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] 15,745 15,745 91,902 William E. Britt (R)

Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17]

Rep Fossella, Vito [NY-13]

Rep Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY-20] 5,250 9,250 Sandy Treadwell (R) Richard C. Wager (R) Michael R. Rocque (R)

Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] Daniel J. Humiston (R)

Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2]

Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] Graham E. Long (D)

Rep Kuhl, John R. “Randy”, Jr. [NY-29] Eric Massa (D)

Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] 12,000 130,738

Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] Robert G. Heim (R)

Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] Jack M. Martins (R)

Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] Michael P. Oot (D)
Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21]

Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [NY-26]

Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] 3,000 68,503 Vincent Micco (R)

Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] Robert E. McLeod (R)

Rep Ferguson, Mike [NJ-7] 1,000 11,000

Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] Tom Wyka (D)

Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] Dennis G. Shulman (D)

Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] 4,000 15,250 David Carl Streich Kurkowski (D)

SENATE Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]

Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] 34,700 $34,700 283,405 Ken Wegner (R) Caren Alexander (3) Jim Duensing (L)

Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] 4,000 5,000 Dina Titus (D)

Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] Jill T. Derby (D)

Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] Teresa Sue Bratton (D)

Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] Roy Carter (D)

Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] Larry Kissell (D)

Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] 3,000 31,000 Daniel Johnson (D)

Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] William James Breazeale (R)

Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] Hugh Webster (R)

SENATE Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC] Kay R. Hagan (D)

Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] Steven Leo Driehaus (D)

Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11]
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] Mike Carroll (D)

Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] William M. O’Neill (D)

Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] Duane Virgil Grassell (R)

SENATE Sen. George Voinovich [R-OH]

Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] Raymond Wickson (R)

Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] Frankie Lee Robbins (D) Forrest Michael (I)

Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] Steven L. Perry (D)


Sen. Thomas Coburn [R-OK]

Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK] Andrew Rice (D)

(Philadelphia Embassy)

Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] 5,250 7,250 Melissa Hart (R)

Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] Mike Muhammad (R)

Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] Christopher Lawrence Hackett (R)

Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14]

Rep Fortuno, Luis G. [PR]

Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] Robert Roggio (D)

Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] Antoinette “Toni” M. Gilhooley (R)

Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] Stephen Paul Odonnell (D)

Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] Philip J. Avillo, Jr (D)

SENATE Sen. Robert Casey [D-PA]

Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] 3,000 20,000 Mark S. Zaccaria (R)

Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] Joe Zuccolo (R) Kenneth A. Capalbo (I)

Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] Paul H. Corden (D) Faye Walters (3)

Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] Jane Ballard Dyer (D)


Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC]

Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC] Robert M. Conley (D) Mark Strothers McBride (I)

(Houston Embassy)

Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] Ken Ashby (L) Michael Sprinkle (L)

Rep Lampson, Nick [TX-22] 1,000 35,506 Peter Graham Olson (R)

Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] Thomas Perry Love (D) David A. Casey (L)

Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] Larry Joe Doherty (D)

Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] Craig Wolfe (L)

Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] 2,000 6,000 Lyle Larson (R)

Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] Fred Anderson Wood (R) Jarrett Woods (L)
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] Thomas James Daley (D) Christopher J. Claytor (L)

Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1]
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] Michael Idrogo (L) Robert Litoff (R)
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6]
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] Tracey Smith (D) Shiloh Sidney Shambaugh (L)
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] David Elton Reed, Jr (R) Brad Walters (L)
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] Eric Story (R) Joel Grace (L)
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] Glenn Melancon (D) Fred Annett (L)

Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] 1,000 3,500

Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] Ken Leach (D) Stephanie B. Weiss (L)

Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] John R. Strohm (L)

Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] Michael Peter Skelly (D)


Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX] Rick Noriega (D)

Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX]

Rep Davis, David [TN-1]
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] Monty Joe Lankford (R) Kent Cameron Greenough (R)

Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] Thomas F. Leatherwood (R)
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9]

Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-5] John Gerard Donovan (R) John P. Miglietta (I)


Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]

Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN] Robert Dudley Tuke (D)

Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] Bill Dew (R)

Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] Morgan Bowen (D) Joseph Geddes Buchman (L) Kirk D. Pearson (3)

Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3]


Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]

Sen. Robert Bennett [R-UT]

Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] Tom Perriello (D)
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] Sam Rasoul (D)

Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] Glenn Nye (D)

Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] 25,500 25,500 156,730 Anita Ruth Hartke (D) Brian Taylor (3) William Griffith (I)

Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] 2,000 4,500 Darcy Burner (D)

Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] 1,000 27,850 Doug Cloud (R)


Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]

Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]

Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] 4,000 9,000 John Gard (R)

Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3] Paul Stark (R)

Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY]

Window on Eurasia: Moscow Wins a Major Victory on Pipelines

Window on Eurasia: Moscow Wins a Major Victory on Pipelines

Paul Goble

Vienna, September 5 – With Iran’s declaration that it opposes the construction of any undersea pipelines in the Caspian on “ecological grounds” and thus will block any delimitation of the seabed that allows for them and Baku’s decision not to back the West’s push NABUCCO project, Moscow can claim its first major political victory from its invasion of Georgia.

These actions mean that the Russian government will now have full and uncontested control over pipelines between the Caspian basin and the West which pass through Russian territory and will be able either directly or through its clients like the PKK to disrupt the only routes such as Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan that bypass the Russian Federation.

That does not mean, of course, that Moscow now has effectively reestablished its control over the states of this region – all of them have other interests besides oil and gas – but it does mean that Russia has won a major victory and the West, which all too often in recent years has focused on oil and gas alone, has suffered a major defeat.

Yesterday, Mehti Safari, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, told journalists that Tehran opposes the construction of any undersea pipelines in the Caspian because “this can bring harm to the ecology of the sea.” He noted that exporting countries can send their gas out via either the Russian Federation or Iran (

Given the existence of “such possibilities,” the Iranian diplomat said, “why harm” the delicate eco-system of the Caspian? But in making this statement, Tehran was underscoring its willingness to destroy any chance for the completion of the NABUCCO gas pipeline in the near term that the United States and some Western European countries have been pushing for.

And because Washington opposes the flow of hydrocarbons from the Caspian basin out through Iran, Tehran’s action in fact makes it likely that many of the oil and gas exporting countries in the region will now choose to send more or even all of their gas and oil through the Russian Federation, a longstanding geopolitical goal of Moscow’s.

The geo-economic and geo-political shifts in the Caucasus as a result of Russian actions in Georgia were even more in evidence during US Vice President Dick Cheney’s brief visit to the Azerbaijani capital. According to Russian media reports, it did not go well from either a protocol or a substantive perspective (

First, Cheney was not met at the airport by either President Ilham Aliyev or Prime Minister Artur Rasi-zade. Instead, he was met by the first vice premier and the foreign minister. After that, he was not immediately received by the president but rather had meetings with officials of the BP-Azerbaijan oil company and the American embassy.

Then, officials in the office of the Azerbaijani president told Moscow’s “Kommersant,” Cheney was sufficiently displeased with his conversation with President Aliyev that “as a result he even refused to visit the ceremonial dinner in his honor” that the Azerbaijan leader had organized.

On the one hand, Aliyev indicated that he was not prepared to talk about going ahead with NABUCCO until Baku completes its negotiations with Russia’s Gazprom or indeed do anything else to “support Washington and [thus] get into an argument with Moscow” given what has happened in Georgia.

And on the other, immediately after the Aliyev-Cheney meeting, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev telephoned the Azerbaijani president, an action which Kremlin sources told the Moscow paper provided Medvedev with the opportunity to explain Russia’s policies and to discuss the possibilities for the Russian and Azerbaijani presidents to meet “in the near future.

At one level, of course, all this reflects the continuation of President Aliyev’s commitment to what he and his government call “a balanced foreign policy,” one that seeks to navigate between Moscow and the West by avoiding offending either and seeking to develop strong ties with both.
But at another, the way in which the media have covered Vice President Cheney’s visit suggests that if Baku’s policy remains a balanced one, the balance is rather different than it was before Moscow demonstrated with its invasion of Georgia and its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia that the game has changed.

Indeed, in reporting this visit, one Baku newspaper used as its headline today words that show just how much has changed over the last month. “It is not accidental,” the paper pointed out that just after the American vice president left Aliyev’s office the Russian president called (
Posted by Paul Goble at 8:26 AM

Russia accuses West of provocation in Georgia

Russia accuses West of provocation in Georgia

By Oleg Shchedrov and Aidar Buribayev

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev accused the United States on Saturday of provoking Moscow by using warships to deliver relief aid to its ally Georgia, with which Russia fought a brief war last month.

“I wonder how they would feel if we now dispatched humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean, suffering from a hurricane, using our navy,” Medvedev said, adding that a whole U.S. fleet had been dispatched to deliver the aid.

Russia has also accused U.S. warships of rearming Tbilisi’s defeated army, a charge dismissed as “ridiculous” by Washington.

NATO in turn has rejected talk of a buildup of its warships in the Black Sea, saying their recent presence in the region was part of routine exercises.

Medvedev, speaking at a meeting of his advisory state council, said he had summoned the council to discuss changes in Russia’s foreign and security policy after the war.

The biggest U.S. ship to arrive so far, the USS Mount Whitney, dropped anchor on Friday off the Russian-patrolled Georgian port of Poti.

Tension between Moscow and the West eased on Saturday when the OSCE security body said Russia was allowing its observers to circulate freely throughout Georgia, but the breakaway Georgian region Abkhazia later said it was forging military cooperation with Moscow.

The OSCE report comes days before French President Nicolas Sarkozy travels to Moscow for talks with Medvedev to assess Russian compliance with a French-brokered peace plan.

“We’ve had very good access. I think we’re working at it and the Russians are, I’d argue, opening up,” said Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb in Avignon, chairman in office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

The European Union agreed on Saturday to send an “autonomous mission” to Georgia to monitor Russia’s withdrawal from occupied territory, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said, accusing Moscow of failing to respect several points in the peace plan.

Russia and Georgia fought a brief but intense war after Tbilisi sent in troops to try to seize back the rebel region of South Ossetia, provoking massive retaliation by Moscow.

The conflict has dented confidence in the Caucasus as an energy transit route — Georgia is at the heart of two crucial oil and gas pipelines which bring high-quality crude and gas from booming oil state Azerbaijan to Europe via Turkey.

Analysts have also questioned the feasibility of the ambitious Nabucco gas pipeline project, which would bring Caspian Sea gas to Europe via Georgia, reducing reliance on Russia.

Russian stocks and the rouble have been hurt as foreign investors pull money out because of increased political risk.


The West has stepped up its backing for Georgia to join NATO — a move Moscow opposes on the ground that Georgia is in its sphere of influence — since Russia recognized the Georgian breakaway rebel regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.

So far only Nicaragua has followed Russia’s lead in recognizing the two provinces as independent. In a setback for Russia, its ex-Soviet security allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization stopped short of doing so late last week.

Tbilisi and Western states have accused Russia of annexation, a claim Moscow sharply denies.

On Saturday self-styled Abkhaz president Sergei Bagapsh said he expected to reach agreement with Moscow soon on military cooperation.

“We’re insisting (on military cooperation) and we will ask the Russian Federation to leave Russian troops in Abkhazia,” Bagapsh told reporters in the Russian capital, adding that the agreement should be signed within the next few days in Moscow.

Bagapsh has asked that Russian vessels and troops remain on Abkhazia’s lush Black Sea coast and in the coastal cities of Guadata and Ochamchira.

“(The Russian military) will also probably be in front of the security zone,” he said, referring to a zone set up along the Abkhaz boundary in the early 1990s, when the province fought off Georgian rule. Russian peacekeepers have been based there since.

In late August the Kremlin said it was preparing to sign alliance agreements with both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but declined to say when it would do so.


Turkish President Abdullah Gul paid a landmark visit to neighboring long-time foe Armenia on Saturday to attend a soccer match he said could help end a century of mutual hostility and aid security in the broader Caucasus region.

“We saw a month ago how unresolved issues in the Caucasus threaten peace in the region,” Gul told a news conference. Making this trip at such a time makes it especially important,” said Gul, the first Turkish leader to visit Armenia.

The Georgia conflict has convinced many that it is time for Ankara and Yerevan to put their differences aside.

The Ghost in the Machine: The Forced Chemical Evolution of Man

The Ghost in the Machine:

The Forced Chemical Evolution of Man

Brent Jessop, Knowledge Driven Revolution
December 04, 2006

Below are a couple of passages quoted by Arthur Koestler in The Ghost in the Machine published in 1967:

“Here at our disposal, to be used wisely or unwisely, is an increasing array of agents that manipulate human beings… It is now possible to act directly on the individual to modify his behaviour instead of, as in the past, indirectly through modification of the environment.” — Dean Saunders, of the San Francisco Medical School, at the Control of the Mind symposium (1961).*

The next quote was preceded by a discussion about the potential use of tricyano-aminopropene to cause an “increased suggestibility in man”.

“The author is [referring] to any substance inducing changes of biologically important molecules in the neurons and the glia and affecting the mental state in a negative direction. It is not difficult to imagine the possible uses to which a government in a police-controlled state could put this substance. For a time they would subject the population to hard conditions. Suddenly the hardship would be removed, and at the same time, the substance would be added to the tap water and the mass-communications media turned on. This method would be much cheaper, and would create more intriguing possibilities then [voluntary introduction methods]” — Hyden at the Control of the Mind symposium (1961).**

Where did all of this come from and why was a celebrated (he was made a Commander in the Order of the British Empire in the 1970s) author, journalist and polymath like Arthur Koestler writing positively about such disturbing ideas?

The Ghost in the Machine is a discussion of Koestler’s theory that all of nature — from the genetic code to governmental structures – is composed of hierarchy based systems. The majority of the book is focused on disproving Pavlovian/Skinnerian behaviorism and Darwinian evolution (which is not too difficult to do) and to replace these ideas with his hierarchy based theory.

Every aspect of man and the society that he lives in are also hierarchy based according to Koestler. But man has been unable to act as an integrated part of a larger hierarchy and has only been able to identify with that hierarchy. To quote Koestler from page 246:

“the essential difference between primitive identification, resulting in a homogeneous flock, and mature forms of integration in a social hierarchy. In a well-balanced hierarchy, the individual retains his character as a social holon [self aware sub-assembly], a part-whole, who qua whole, enjoys autonomy within the limits of the restraints imposed by the interests of the community.” [emphasis in original]

This emotional identification with a social hierarchy caused the millions of Germans and Russians to help in the holocaust and Stalinist Purges. The emotional following of an ideal without the intellectual evaluation of the reality (which can be completely opposite to the original ideal) was caused by this identification with the social structure. He blames the quick evolutionary development of the upper cortex on top of the older primitive portions of the brain as the cause of this “schizophrenic” state of man. That is, a struggle between the emotional primitive sections of the brain and the newer intellectual portions. The only way to fix this perceived evolutionary error and restore the natural hierarchy within man and society leads us back to the original quotes.
google_ad_client = “pub-3923740223021058”;
google_alternate_ad_url = “;;
google_ad_width = 300;
google_ad_height = 250;
google_ad_format = “300x250_as”;
google_ad_type = “text_image”;
google_ad_channel =”7731124324″;
google_color_border = “FFFFFF”;
google_color_bg = “FFFFFF”;
google_color_link = “3d6299”;
google_color_url = “333333”;
google_color_text = “333333”;

According to Koestler and his ilk, the solution to this problem is to force the further evolution of man using chemicals to reduce the effects of the primitive or emotional portions of the brain. A kind of chemical lobotomy / fixer-upper. This, of course, would also have the added benefit of destroying the individuality of the people exposed to this “increased suggestibility”. To Koestler’s credit he does disagree with the implementation recommended in the quote by Hyden. He believes that it will be accepted with open arms by the public like “the pill”, anti-depressants and other such drugs.

Keep in mind this book was written in the 1960’s. What new chemicals have been discovered and tested since? What is stopping them from using similar chemicals today? Would we even notice?

Welcome to the world of the elitist “thinkers” and control freaks. We are their lab rats.