As I've just been reading all of the great political novels of the 19th and 20th centuries, I can see what begins to rile all of those political science majors into their frenzies, or even more so, those on the fringe of the political science classes, who hear bits and pieces but don't really understand, who read the great novels but do not have them interpreted to death by "the experts" and are thus left to come up with their own conclusions. I think they do what they were written to do, they frighten us, they rile us up, they make us begin to think that now, the time in which we live, is the important time, the vital time, the time that will make a difference between the "perfect" world of Edward Bellamy and the horrible disaster that is 1984. But if that were the case than the vital time would have been back in the 1950s, when 1984 was written. It wouldn't have been back in 1888, because Bellamy presupposed that his utopia would be simply a natural progression of society, without some great interference or revolution by thinking man. It is then somewhat of a great irony that Bellamy's book, (one of the most popular of its time) managed to feed and precipitate a direct and sometimes quite violent realization of his Socialist ideals... which history saw fail miserably as the 20th century unfolded. Time and again I have to liken studies untaken of the human condition and psyche to be much like the study of quantum particles. Once you look at it, by the mere action of looking at it, you change it. You can't just observe it. That is, by writing a book talking about how humans are just now acting, you set in motion a series of events which will eventually make your carefully thought out predictions wrong. Man will read your book or pamphlet, and he will change in some unforeseen manner, and you will have to begin again your predictions of the future from square one. In fact the depth of your insight, translated into its increased relevance to current society, will determine the popularity of your manuscript. And the more popular your manuscript, the more people shall read it, and thus the more profound the resulting shift in attitude will be, and thus the more erroneous and out-dated your manuscript will become.

Today we must be careful when we make statements about man with reference to the animals. "Animals are people too," they are far more complex and sophisticated than we ever imagined, from the ant which has recently been shown to be agrarian as well as highly social in nature to the advanced nature of communication shown in the marine mammals... . However, lost in these discoveries and the will of the biologists and environmentalists to turn Man into the ultimate evil force, the destructive brute in a world of delicate, pristine, beautiful and innocent natural creatures is the fact that Man still remains the most complex, maddening, fascinating, advanced, and impressive creature we have ever encountered. Man is Nature's greatest mystery. Man is God's best and greatest creation. The environmentalists their kin wish to take God away from Man. But to take Man away from Man as well? What will we have left? No Promise Land, no Heaven, and now no Renaissance. Man is blocked at every pass from making his progresses by his own kind, telling him that every step that he makes towards progress is paid for in blood by the only thing that really matters- the Earth, which is a separate inviolate sphere of goodness, the Virign Earth, as it were, Man being separate and diametrically opposed to it, a parasite upon it, a plague.

I guess that brings me in a roundabout way back to the seeming incompatibility between being for the Earth and against war. If the Earth would be, as all environmentalists seem to agree, better off without Mankind, and war is one of the best ways to go about killing large populations of Man, than how can it be that war is anything but good, as long as they refrain from using environmentally-unfriendly toxins or bombs along the way?

I'd better stop before someone disagrees with my capitalization of the word Mankind- or better yet my use of the word Mankind at all, without reference to its better (more than equal! Better!) half. This is a question of semantics. In its dictionary sense, Mankind includes men and women alike, and those who would pick it apart are the very forces who divide Mankind itself, tearing away all of its jargon of solidarity and breaking it into every imaginable special interest group, which must then bind tightly to its own members, cast out all imposters, and begin protecting itself from the discrimination it now feels which it never did when it was wholly integrated into Mankind.
Sorry, that was a complete train of thought entry. That's what a journal is really for, to spit out everything in your mind before you go to sleep so that you can dream of whatever you'd like.

Merry Christmas!*


*Why I am obsessed with this phrase right now, in the middle of August, will have to be made clear in a future post.

Cool!
» Dad (71.229.168.255) on 2006-08-21 12:25:13

merry christmas? I liked this entry alot.
» Dilated on 2006-08-23 01:28:12

» ajay (207.255.219.116) on 2006-09-10 08:37:58

Name.

URL.

[to enter your email, use "mailto:[email protected]"]
Subject.

Comment.

Word verification.

Copy the first 4 characters only.

If you are a member, try logging in again or accessing this page here.