Get your ass home.

And bring the rest of us with you.

Thought of you. I don't want to waste a man such as you, in a place such as that.

When you come home, bring your warrior spirit.

(do not smoke opium: buy a crutch and hobble around for the rest of you life instead: weed is okay--might wake you up)

And fight for us, and with us.

Cheers.

>> ^RhesusMonk:
Someday I'm going to write a long treatise here about why this song and this story have very little to do with god's grace and being connected through JC. This is about awe and gratitude. Christians believe there is some force that is doling out goodwill and that we are unwitting and undeserving of this goodwill, unless we respond in a Christian way.

I read a great quote recently: "Christian is a wonderful noun, but a terrible adjective." I have to agree. I think the feeling you're describing, the feeling hinted at by Phipps, is transcendental. As Newton emerged from his cabin that day, and heard the dirge rising up from the hold, something in his brain clicked. No doubt, "Unknown" was sold into bondage exactly on schedule, and so the song did not save him in a meaningful way, but unbeknownst to him, that song did have an effect. Newton began to reconsider his role in things, and left the slave trade. He was a vocal proponent of abolition in England. It would be many, many years before he would put pen to paper and write out Amazing Grace (he experienced his conversion moment in 1748, and composed AG between 1760 and 1770) but nevertheless, the wordless song never truly left him. He chose to share its melody with those who'd never set foot on a slave ship, and found that, somehow, the effect was sustained.

Now everything I've just mentioned can be looked at in a non-Christian context, and it would remain true. It should be said, though, that the presence of Christianity and its memes made it easier for Newton to become aware of just how far he'd strayed in his life. Given the number of unrepentant slave captains who called themselves Christians, it does not necessarily follow that Newton's salvation was due to his turn to Christianity, but it certainly helped. And it also helped all the slaves who would have found passage in the hold of his ship, but did not, thanks to his conversion. Again, Christianity didn't do it, but it was a 'hook' upon which Newton could hang this unsettling feeling in his belly.

Kurt Vonnegut notes much the same in a speech he gave at Clowes Hall in 2007. He starts by pointing out that, while Marx said that 'religion was the opium of the lower classes', he should have been taken literally. Opiates were a wonderful class of drug that numbed the pain, and who knew pain better than the working classes? He continues, "The most spiritually splendid phenomenon of my lifetime is how African-American citizens have maintained their dignity and self-respect, despite their having been treated by white Americans, both in and out of government, and simply because of their skin color, as though they were contemptible and loathsome, and even diseased. Their churches have surely helped them to do that. So there's Karl Marx again. There's Jesus again."

I guess the question is, could John Newton have composed Amazing Grace without believing in the Magic Man Who Lives in the Sky? Maybe. Probably. But it certainly helped.

No kidding... what do they think we are? stupid? "Lets have a war on drugs but not if it's hard"??? When has that been a reason to stop.

Now weed.... Weed is legitimately difficult to destroy, physically, logistically. Because we're not supposed to hurt the weed....The Weed be lettin you know... evil lurks...

so....How about turning that eye to YOUR OWN COUNTRY's POLICIES, you god damn idiot liars and sneaky shit heads.



smoking opium is pretty great though.. never tried IV drugs or processed heroin.. but... i cant get it so i dont care if you cant either at least im honest

Apparently it was a well known secret that he had a decade-long opium addiction and that was probably the main contributing factor to the decline of his health and finally his death.

I know it's a childish notion, but he always seemed to represent immortality. The thought of Michael Jackson being dead never crossed my mind. If anyone, I thought he'd be the first to live on forever as a head in a jar.

you dont even want to know what they're REALLY doing.

Use your imagination. It's been done. Yes, even that. And that. Oh you can bet we did that. Ewwww. yea that too. Still not convinced?

The CIA is one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world, by almost any definition. Our tax dollars. Their secret war.

Benazir Bhutto was killed because she was complacent with CIA activities in pakistan decades ago and then ran for head offices -- not because she was Pro-Democracy... but pro-CIA

Read Mr. Nice Guy by Howard Marks... has nothing to do with her... but, he explains his encounters with the politics in pakistan in the 80's, and how Bhutto played ball with the CIA and worked to crack down on his weed trafficking... (kinda assuming the old tale that the CIA was trying to maintain control of opium/etc production, but they do other stuff anyway that it could have included!)

Weeee!!! Then, she might have decided to be her own person..get elected, etc... and *pop pop* bye bye... only it was her husband's bodyguards who killed her... because she was pro-CIA... craziness! You can see the videos on youtube.

Also...Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are the ones causing most of the trouble lately in the middle east... and who are our allies... fuck afghanistan/iran/iraq/north korea... those guys just want to be bullies on THEIR block.

heh... i woke up and had to edit because i realized i wanted to say something more specific... 2:07am good nite

The main cause of all cancers caused by smoke, whether it be tobacco or opium, is not some secret chemical contained only in mass in a single species (like nicotine for tobacco, morphine for opium, and thc for MJ) but rather it is the main body of smoke. This may come from ANY species in the plantea kingodom.

The burning of any kind of cellulose (the material that makes up the cell wall of almost every cell in every plant ever) creates a tremendous amount of tar and other carcinogeons which will inhabit the smoke of ANY plant you ever try to roll up (like maple leaf or lawn grass). Everything said by the expert is totally accurate and everything said by MSNBullshitBC as fake as the last girl I fucked. Peace

The Bloom, the Swoon, the Sugars on your block
The Planets land in flesh in the corners of New York
The ghetto, the meadow, the Mr. Butter flew
The Honeybugs dug and licked the honey dew
The sun, the kiss, the funk for a bliss
The lips with the soul and some jazz for ya hips
The puff, the buzz, the lids be heavy slick
The Mecca get a rush when the beats be very thick
The hands, the feet, the brown baby treat
The femmes fumble loose and drink the doodlejuice
The steps, the flams, the Planets goddamn
The peoples get a grip with a tape from a jam

The big, the fat, the cool cool cats
The psychedelic soul puts the Planets on the map
The chic, the love, the far out name
The lack of the funk's the main why we came
The boogie gets done, the colors won't run
The funk hits the square, the kids gotta come
The pizza with the pop, the west 4th stop
The crew after crew that do the grasshop
The true cool is black, the new school is fat
The beats by the ounce, the funk by the pack
The hanging off the butts with the fat sole kicks

The wide, the hip, dig it it's the trip
The loops, the scene and the funkifying it
The sounds, the pounds, the stacks, the flair
The baggy baggy jeans, the notty notty hair
The twinkle in the eye, the kids that livin' fly
The crew from the sky, the stuff that gets you high
The action, the work from the rhyme
We goes the whole nine
The papers won't rot, the vapors get got
The streets give the buzz the funk up your block
The opium groove, the smacked out soul
The kickin' it live the fat gotta roll

>> ^Doc_M:
OK, I will grant that some psychedelics have a tendency to "open minds" but the fact is that they biologically work by damaging the brain's cognitive functions. They take one the single most amazing machine in the known universe and put holes in it like swiss cheese. This is not a good thing, but no one can deny that those holes have a way of letting unique thoughts in. I've experienced it and I'll admit it.
>> ^EndAll:
"Drugs have their advantages, but understanding reality is not one of them."
I didn't watch the video but I wanted to respond to this ^
I actually think certain drugs are very instrumental in helping to understand the true nature of reality. Many, many people have had mind opening experiences on certain psychedelic drugs that have changed their lives completely. I think some drugs can take us beyond the five-sense reality into what lies behind it. Reality is subjective. My reality is mine, yours is yours - what's true for me might not be true for you. But I have found certain drugs to make me much more in tune to what's going on around me; my reality.


The cool thing about psychedelics, Doc_M is they don't require a lot of use to get what you need out of them. Furthermore, I'd like to see some documentation backing up the claim of natural psychedelics' damaging effects on the human brain. That's mushrooms, Ibogaine, salvia, opium, peyote, marijuana, hell throw in LSD for good measure. And I'm not talking short term, I'm talking permanent damage to the brain's cognitive functions.

you satan worshiping whores!

Even the arch-atheist Marx knew very well that religion was the opium of the masses, the HEART OF A HEARTLESS WORLD - as most people fail to mention the first part of the quote.

What he precisely meant was that it's not illusion that defines religion, as most of your anglosaxon rationalist philosophy would have it, but that its healing power and ability to alleviate suffering is the problem.
It's not a distortion of knowledge as such, the cold knowledge of empirical facts, but, the dehumanizing aspect of a substitute for meaning.

In your endless idiotic, moronic, cretenophile attacks on religion, you fail to percieve a core of human truth in the bowels of religion, and thus reveal yourself as utter slaves before the system of oppression which created you.

I am posting the preface in its entirety, as I think it touches on most socialistic arguments put forth here. If this preface intrigues you, by all means...read on.

"It is a matter of dispute whether, prior to the middle of the nineteenth 15 century, there existed any clear conception of the socialist idea—by which is understood the socialization of the means of production with its corollary, the centralized control of the whole of production by one social or, more accurately, state organ. The answer depends primarily upon whether we regard the demand for a centralized administration of the means of production throughout the world as an essential feature in a considered socialist plan. The older socialists looked upon the autarky of small territories as 'natural' and on any exchange of goods beyond their frontiers as at once 'artificial' and harmful. Only after the English Free-Traders had proved the advantages of an international division of labour, and popularized their views through the Cobden movement, did the socialists begin to expand the ideas of village and district Socialism into a national and, eventually, a world Socialism. Apart from this one point, however, the basic conception of Socialism had been quite clearly worked out in the course of the second quarter of the nineteenth century by those writers designated by Marxism as "Utopian Socialists." Schemes for a socialist order of society were extensively discussed at that time, but the discussion did not go in their favour. The Utopians had not succeeded in planning social structures that would withstand the criticisms of economists and sociologists. It was easy to pick holes in their schemes; to prove that a society constructed on such principles must lack efficiency and vitality, and that it certainly would not come up to expectations. Thus, about the middle of the nineteenth century, it seemed that the ideal of Socialism had been disposed of. Science had demonstrated its worthlessness by means of strict logic and its supporters were unable to produce a single effective counter-argument.

It was at this moment that Marx appeared. Adept as he was in Hegelian dialectic—a system easy of abuse by those who seek to dominate thought by arbitrary flights of fancy and metaphysical verbosity—he was not slow in finding a way out of the dilemma in which socialists found themselves. Since Science and Logic had argued against Socialism, it was imperative to devise a system which could be relied on to defend it against such unpalatable criticism. This was the task which Marxism undertook to perform. It had three lines of procedure. First, it denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an "ideological superstructure" of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was "revealed" as "bourgeois" reasoning, an apology for Capitalism. Secondly, it laid it down that the dialectical development led of necessity to Socialism; that the aim and end of all history was the socialization of the means of production by the expropriation of the expropriators—the negation of negation. Finally, it was ruled that no one should be allowed to put forward, as the Utopians had done, any definite proposals for the construction of the Socialist Promised Land. Since the coming of Socialism was inevitable, Science would best renounce all attempt to determine its nature.

At no point in history has a doctrine found such immediate and complete acceptance as that contained in these three principles of Marxism. The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels as interpreted by their respective sects and to regard such doctrines as the unshakable foundation and ultimate source of all that is known about Society and as constituting the highest standard in political dealings. But if we include under the term "Marxist" all who have accepted the basic Marxian principles—that class conditions thought, that Socialism is inevitable, and that research into the being and working of the socialist community is unscientific—we shall find very few non-Marxists in Europe east of the Rhine, and even in Western Europe and the United States many more supporters than opponents of Marxism. Professed Christians attack the materialism of Marxists, monarchists their republicanism, nationalists their internationalism; yet they themselves, each in turn, wish to be known as Christian Socialists, State Socialists, National Socialists. They assert that their particular brand of Socialism is the only true one—that which "shall" come, bringing with it happiness and contentment. The Socialism of others, they say, has not the genuine class origin of their own. At the same time they scrupulously respect Marx's prohibition of any inquiry into the institutions of the socialist economy of the future, and try to interpret the working of the present economic system as a development leading to Socialism in accordance with the inexorable demand of the historical process. Of course, not Marxists alone, but most of those who emphatically declare themselves anti-Marxists, think entirely on Marxist lines and have adopted Marx's arbitrary, unconfirmed and easily refutable dogmas. If and when they come into power, they govern and work entirely in the socialist spirit.

The incomparable success of Marxism is due to the prospect it offers of fulfilling those dream-aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply embedded in the human soul from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Heart's Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and—sweeter still to the losers in life's game—humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude. Logic and reasoning, which might show the absurdity of such dreams of bliss and revenge, are to be thrust aside. Marxism is thus the most radical of all reactions against the reign of scientific thought over life and action, established by Rationalism. It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself—its outstanding principle is the prohibition of thought and inquiry, especially as applied to the institutions and workings of a socialist economy. It is characteristic that it should adopt the name "Scientific Socialism" and thus gain the prestige acquired by Science, through the indisputable success of its rule over life and action, for use in its own battle against any scientific contribution to the construction of the socialist economy. The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it.

In this new edition of my book, which has been considerably revised, I have ventured to defy the almost universally respected Marxian prohibition by examining the problems of the socialist construction of society on scientific lines, i.e., by the aid of sociological and economic theory. While gratefully recalling the men whose research has opened the way for all work, my own included, in this field, it is still a source of gratification to me to be in a position to claim to have broken the ban placed by Marxism on the scientific treatment of these problems. Since the first publication of this book, problems previously ignored have come into the foreground of scientific interest; the discussion of Socialism and Capitalism has been placed on a new footing. Those who were formerly content to make a few vague remarks about the blessings which Socialism would bring are now obliged to study the nature of the socialist society. The problems have been defined and can no longer be ignored.

As might be expected, socialists of every sort and description, from the most radical Soviet Bolshevists to the "Edelsozialisten" of western civilization, have attempted to refute my reasonings and conclusions. But they have not succeeded, they have not even managed to bring forward any argument that I had not already discussed and disproved. At the present time, scientific discussion of the basic problems of Socialism follows the line of the investigation of this book.

The arguments by which I demonstrated that, in a socialist community, economic calculation would not be possible have attracted especially wide notice. Two years before the appearance of the first edition of my book I published this section of my investigations in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft (Vol. XLVII, No. I), where it is worded almost exactly as in both editions of the present work. The problem, which had scarcely been touched before, at once roused lively discussion in German-speaking countries and abroad. It may truly be said that the discussion is now closed; there is today hardly any opposition to my contention.

Shortly after the first edition appeared, Heinrich Herkner, chief of the Socialists of the Chair ("Kathedersozialisten") in succession to Gustav Schmoller, published an essay which in all essentials supported my criticism of Socialism.[1] His remarks raised quite a storm amongst German socialists and their literary followings. Thus there arose, in the midst of the catastrophic struggle in the Ruhr and the hyper-inflation, a controversy which speedily became known as the crisis of the "Social Reform Policy." The result of the controversy was indeed meagre. The "sterility" of socialist thought, to which an ardent socialist had drawn attention, was especially apparent on this occasion.[2] Of the good results that can be obtained by an unprejudiced scientific study of the problems of Socialism there is proof in the admirable works of Pohle, Adolf Weber, Röpke, Halm, Sulzbach, Brutzkus, Robbins, Hutt, Withers, Benn, and others.

But scientific inquiry into the problems of Socialism is not enough. We must also break down the wall of prejudice which at present blocks the way to an unbiased scrutiny of these problems. Any advocate of socialistic measures is looked upon as the friend of the Good, the Noble, and the Moral, as a disinterested pioneer of necessary reforms, in short, as a man who unselfishly serves his own people and all humanity, and above all as a zealous and courageous seeker after truth. But let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotistical interests of a class, a menace to the welfare of the community, an ignoramus outside the pale. For the most curious thing about this way of thinking is that it regards the question, whether Socialism or Capitalism will better serve the public welfare, as settled in advance—to the effect, naturally, that Socialism is considered as good and Capitalism as evil—whereas in fact of course only by a scientific inquiry could the matter be decided. The results of economic investigations are met, not with arguments, but with that "moral pathos," which we find in the invitation to the Eisenach Congress in 1872 and on which Socialists and Etatists always fall back, because they can find no answer to the criticism to which science subjects their doctrines.

The older Liberalism, based on the classical political economy, maintained that the material position of the whole of the wage-earning classes could only be permanently raised by an increase of capital, and this none but capitalist society based on private ownership of the means of production can guarantee to find. Modern subjective economics has strengthened and confirmed the basis of the view by its theory of wages. Here modern Liberalism agrees entirely with the older school. Socialism, however, believes that the socialization of the means of production is a system which would bring wealth to all. These conflicting views must be examined in the light of sober science: righteous indignation and jeremiads take us nowhere.

It is true that Socialism is today an article of faith for many, perhaps for most of its adherents. But scientific criticism has no nobler task than to shatter false beliefs.

To protect the socialist ideal from the crushing effects of such criticism, attempts have recently been made to improve upon the accepted definition of the concept "Socialism." My own definition of Socialism, as a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, is in agreement with all that scientists have written on the subject. I submit that one must be historically blind not to see that this and nothing else is what has stood for Socialism for the past hundred years, and that it is in this sense that the great socialist movement was and is socialistic. But why quarrel over the wording of it! If anyone likes to call a social ideal which retains private ownership in the means of production socialistic, why, let him! A man may call a cat a dog and the sun the moon if it pleases him. But such a reversal of the usual terminology, which everyone understands, does no good and only creates misunderstandings. The problem which here confronts us is the socialization of ownership in the means of production, i.e. the very problem over which a worldwide and bitter struggle has been waged now for a century, the problem (above all others) of our epoch.

One cannot evade this defining of Socialism by asserting that the concept Socialism includes other things besides the socialization of the means of production: by saying, for example, that we are actuated by certain special motives when we are socialists, or that there is a second aim—perhaps a purely religious concept bound up with it. Supporters of Socialism hold that the only brand worthy the name is that which desires socialization of the means of production for "noble" motives. Others, who pass for opponents of Socialism, will have it that nationalization of the means of production desired from "ignoble" motives only, has to be styled Socialism also. Religious socialists say that genuine Socialism is bound up with religion; the atheistical socialist insists on abolishing God along with private property. But the problem of how a socialistic society could function is quite separate from the question of whether its adherents propose to worship God or not and whether or not they are guided by motives which Mr. X from his private point of view would call noble or ignoble. Each group of the great socialist movement claims its own as the only true brand and regards the others as heretical; and naturally tries to stress the difference between its own particular ideal and those of other parties. I venture to claim that in the course of my researches I have brought forward all that need be said about these claims.

In this emphasizing of the peculiarities of particular socialist tendencies, the bearing which they may have on the aims of democracy and dictatorship obviously plays a significant part. Here, too, I have nothing to add to what I have said on the subject in various parts of this book (Chapter 3, Chapter 15, and Chapter 31). It suffices here to say that the planned economy which the advocates of dictatorship wish to set up is precisely as socialistic as the Socialism propagated by the self-styled Social Democrats.

Capitalist society is the realization of what we should call economic democracy, had not the term—according I believe, to the terminology of Lord Passfield and Mrs. Webb—come into use and been applied exclusively to a system in which the workers, as producers, and not the consumers themselves, would decide what was to be produced and how. This state of affairs would be as little democratic as, say, a political constitution under which the government officials and not the whole people decided how the state was to be governed—surely the opposite of what we are accustomed to call democracy. When we call a capitalist society a consumers' democracy we mean that the power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, can only be acquired by means of the consumers' ballot, held daily in the market-place. Every child who prefers one toy to another puts its voting paper in the ballot-box, which eventually decides who shall be elected captain of industry. True, there is no equality of vote in this democracy; some have plural votes. But the greater voting power which the disposal of a greater income implies can only be acquired and maintained by the test of election. That the consumption of the rich weighs more heavily in the balance than the consumption of the poor—though there is a strong tendency to overestimate considerably the amount consumed by the well-to-do classes in proportion to the consumption of the masses—is in itself an 'election result', since in a capitalist society wealth can be acquired and maintained only by a response corresponding to the consumers' requirements. Thus the wealth of successful business men is always the result of a consumers' plebiscite, and, once acquired, this wealth can be retained only if it is employed in the way regarded by consumers as most beneficial to them. The average man is both better informed and less corruptible in the decisions he makes as a consumer than as a voter at political elections. There are said to be voters who, faced with a decision between Free Trade and Protection, the Gold Standard and Inflation, are unable to keep in view all that their decision implies. The buyer who has to choose between different sorts of beer or makes of chocolate has certainly an easier job of it.

The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism." It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. The criticisms in this book are aimed impartially at all the conceivable forms of the socialistic community.

Only Syndicalism, which differs fundamentally from Socialism, calls for special treatment (Chapter 16, Section 4).

I hope that these remarks will convince even the cursory and superficial reader that my investigation and criticisms do not apply solely to Marxian Socialism. As, however, all socialistic movements have been strongly stimulated by Marxism I devote more space to Marxian views than to those of other varieties of Socialism. I think I have passed in review everything bearing essentially on these problems and made an exhausting criticism of the characteristic features of non-Marxist programmes too.

My book is a scientific inquiry, not a political polemic. I have analysed the basic problems and passed over, as far as possible, all the economic and political struggles of the day and the political adjustments of governments and parties. And this will, I believe, prove the best way of preparing the foundation of an understanding of the politics of the last few decades and years: above all, of the politics of tomorrow. Only a complete critical study of the ideas of Socialism will enable us to understand what is happening around us.

The habit of talking and writing about economic affairs without having probed relentlessly to the bottom of their problems has taken the zest out of public discussions on questions vital to human society and diverted politics into paths that lead directly to the destruction of all civilization. The proscription of economic theory, which began with the German historical school, and today finds expression notably in American Institutionalism, has demolished the authority of qualified thought on these matters. Our contemporaries consider that anything which comes under the heading of Economics and Sociology is fair game to the unqualified critic. It is assumed that the trade union official and the entrepreneur are qualified by virtue of their office alone to decide questions of political economy. "Practical men" of this order, even those whose activities have, notoriously, often led to failure and bankruptcy, enjoy a spurious prestige as economists which should at all costs be destroyed. On no account must a disposition to avoid sharp words be permitted to lead to a compromise. It is time these amateurs were unmasked.

The solution of every one of the many economic questions of the day requires a process of thought, of which only those who comprehend the general interconnection of economic phenomena are capable. Only theoretical inquiries which get to the bottom of things have any real practical value. Dissertations on current questions which lose themselves in detail are useless, for they are too much absorbed in the particular and the accidental to have eyes for the general and the essential.

It is often said that all scientific inquiry concerning Socialism is useless, because none but the comparatively small number of people who are able to follow scientific trains of thought can understand it. For the masses, it is said, they will always remain incomprehensible. To the masses the catchwords of Socialism sound enticing and the people impetuously desire Socialism because in their infatuation they expect it to bring full salvation and satisfy their longing for revenge. And so they will continue to work for Socialism, helping thereby to bring about the inevitable decline of the civilization which the nations of the West have taken thousands of years to build up. And so we must inevitably drift on to chaos and misery, the darkness of barbarism and annihilation.

I do not share this gloomy view. It may happen thus, but it need not happen thus. It is true that the majority of mankind are not able to follow difficult trains of thought, and that no schooling will help those who can hardly grasp the most simple proposition to understand complicated ones. But just because they cannot think for themselves the masses follow the lead of the people we call educated. Once convince these, and the game is won. But I do not want to repeat here what I have already said in the first edition of this book, at the end of the last chapter.

I know only too well how hopeless it seems to convince impassioned supporters of the Socialist Idea by logical demonstration that their views are preposterous and absurd. I know too well that they do not want to hear, to see, or above all to think, and that they are open to no argument. But new generations grow up with clear eyes and open minds. And they will approach things from a disinterested, unprejudiced standpoint, they will weigh and examine, will think and act with forethought. It is for them that this book is written.

Several generations of economic policy which was nearly liberal have enormously increased the wealth of the world. Capitalism has raised the standard of life among the masses to a level which our ancestors could not have imagined. Interventionism and efforts to introduce Socialism have been working now for some decades to shatter the foundations of the world economic system. We stand on the brink of a precipice which threatens to engulf our civilization. Whether civilized humanity will perish forever or whether the catastrophe will be averted at the eleventh hour and the only possible way of salvation retraced—by which we mean the rebuilding of a society based on the unreserved recognition of private property in the means of production—is a question which concerns the generation destined to act in the coming decades, for it is the ideas behind their actions that will decide it.

Vienna, January 1932"

"The pro-Taliban group — known as the Tehrik Nifaz-e-Shariat Mohammedi, or the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law — is led by Sufi Muhammad, who Pakistan freed from custody last year after he renounced violence.

Muhammad is the father-in-law of Maulana Fazlullah, the leader of the Swat Taliban. Muhammad, who has long agitated for Islamic law in the region, said that after the formal announcement he will go to Swat and ask Fazlullah and his men to lay down their arms."

Swat Taliban has said that they would lay down their arms if Islamic law is implemented in their regions. They would respect government control in the region as well. This is politicking to try and defuse the situation instead of continuous warfare. However I don't think its sustainable because it shows appeasement and not all forces would be willing to abide to this. At least not as far as I believe.

----------
I wouldn't necessarily blame this squarely on Bush, the Great Game in Afghanistan has been waged ever since the collapse of the Afghan government and the incursion of Soviet forces. The parties involved ranged from the CIA, the ISI, the Saudi Wahhabists, Iran and individual non allied forces from within Afghanistan and the surrounding Central Asian States.

The CIA pulled out once the Soviet forces collapsed, they had no end game for Afghanistan and thus stopped their activities there. However the CIA had used the ISI's extensive network in Afghanistan to achieve their aims of supporting the Mujaheddin. Once the nation splintered and several forces started fighting for control, the Taliban emerged and started a successful campaign against other forces, they were sponsored by the ISI and Saudi Wahhabists, many fighters came from the border region madrases that advocated religious war to implement extremist Islam in Afghanistan.

The ISI basically wanted to create a Pushtun government in Afghanistan that they would influence. However the Taliban didn't basically roll over and abide for anyone. Instead they started to charge the ISI large fees for transportation to Central Asian States, remember this is a valuable trade route it lies at the center between South East Asia and Central Asian States, war over the years meant the routes were unsafe.

The Taliban always wanted to be considered a legitimate government but were only ever recognized fully by Pakistan, their stringent rule, public executions and support and keeping of Osama Bin Laden was contrary to Western wishes. They went on to also destroy the large drug trade in Afghanistan, opium, heroine and hashish crops were wiped out.

Then 9/11 occurred and we all know what happened then.

However I believe in the ensuing war Taliban forces started to seep back into Pakistan and start to take over large swathes of land knowing that the sophisticated NATO and American forces have no legitimate power to confront them there. Creating a base from which to launch more attacks into Afghanistan and solidifying their own control in the FATA and influencing NWFT forces.

It's a classic case of blow back.

The U.S. judicial system is broken. The U.S.A. incarcerates more people than any nation per capita, surpassing China and The Soviet Union. The onset of all anti-drug laws in this country stem from racism and profit; i.e opium in California and marijuana in the deep South.
Nixon made drugs Public Enemy #1 in an effort to hoodwink the population from focusing on Vietnam. The 80s saw a drastic increase in resources to combat a ghost problem. Minimum mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws ushered in the prison-industrial complex nation we live in today. Fortunately, minimum mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws are unraveling.
The waste of money to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders is staggering and shameful. Something must be done hastily.

>> ^Irishman:
Well it makes a change from the CIA flying cocaine out of Afghanistan.


I believe it's Opium they produce in Afghanistan

I wouldn't mind if a quarter of the male population of China were addicted to opium like they were in the early 20th century. Then maybe they would be too stoned to remember that we owe them $321 billion.

>> ^rottenseed:
does anybody know if we use actual opium for opiate synthesis like in Oxycontin, Hydrocodone or Morphine?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphine
"the vast majority of morphine is derived from the opium poppy by either the traditional method of gathering latex from the scored unripe pods of the poppy, or processes using poppy straw, the dried pods and stems of the plant"