BACK ISSUES OF PRIDGER'S COMMENTARY
by John Q. Pridger, C.P.
[Return to PRIDGER's PI Index]
THE BIRTH DEARTH
Apparently the dreaded population explosion won't devastate the planet after all. Statistics, (according to a recent Nightline program) indicate that the global birth rate is approaching, or already under, two offspring per "couple." The depopulation of the earth is even now essentially underway everywhere but India and Africa! (But coming soon to those backward areas—as soon as they are sufficiently "modernized" by the global corporate juggernaut.) Apparently, we didn't even need AIDS, genocide, or nuclear war to turn the tide. The decline in the birthrate comes naturally, as more and more women opt out of their traditional roles as mother and home-maker. Even future mass warfare has become unnecessary to human survival. (In effect, what we are seeing is exactly what Friedrich Nietzsche predicted democracy would produce—a society where women become man-like, and men become woman-like. [unfortunately, he also predicted that such a society will inevitably fall to a more virile, and war-like society])
Of course, all this ought to be good news. It is, from strictly an environmental—even a survival—point of view. But it posses serious problems to a global economic system predicated strictly upon the eternal expansion of corporate capitalist enterprise. Capital, it has long been established, must forever expand or die. (Without eternal expansion, debt service and "bull markets" become impossible.) The success of the new economic order depends on increased global exploitation, expanding international trade, expanding markets, and ever-increasing global consumption. None of this can continue as planned with a declining global consumer base. This is a problem the global plutocrats are not currently well prepared to deal with. It seems, as in the case of the Y2K computer problem, somebody overlooked something rather important
There is little danger that the birth dearth will threaten human survival. Long before we return to the Adam and Eve stage of global population, some couples will rediscover God's "be fruitful and multiply" idea. Of course, cloning may also provide an answer—perhaps even the necessary "corporate" solution.
ENTERTAINMENT
Pridger got his first glimpse of the infamous Jerry Springer show the other day. It featured a "love triangle" in which a woman clad only in panties repeatedly attacked, both verbally and physically, another who was decently clad. Between them sat a so-called man on display. He made up the third leg of the pathetic "love" triangle. Great "adult" (sick) entertainment. Very entertaining, indeed—but hardly appropriate for network TV. Nudity makes a sneaky debut on network TV in a somewhat degraded context—the tiger-seductress, unleashed before the TV camera. (The bare breasts were slightly blurred by the camera and the expletives were bleeped out, in a very thin gesture toward public decency.) The program ends with the exhibitionist, tiger-seductress, apparently winning the prize—the so-called man. Little wonder that children are growing up to be... well spoiled (sick) brats. No wonder president Clinton can maintain his role as number one role model. And this is just beginning. What will the next degeneration of TV addicts produce? Are we inching toward acceptance of X-rated network TV? X-rated presidents and Congresses? More school-yard massacres?
The first generation of TV addicts grew up under the "Broadcasters' Voluntary Code of Good Broadcasting Practices" (or something of that nature). We never had a perfect society, but we did have a more orderly society. At least it didn't produce many school-yard massacres.
There is a place and context for almost everything. Properly adjusted adults can expose themselves to many sorts of perversions on a more or less regular basis and still function as decent citizens. The whorehouse on Friday night and church on Sunday has been the norm in many societies, (including ours) throughout history. We've always had this two-tier system of morality. Yes, it is a double standard, but at least it insisted on putting public decency and civility up front. Sleaze always existed, but was never put up front.
When perversions become accepted main-line family entertainment, under which children are raised and schooled, society begins to break down under the strain and civility wanes. Today the whore-house is illegal, and "johns" can go to jail with the hapless girls whose favors they seek. But we have "cleaned up our act," by bringing the sleaze up front. Effectively we make every house a potential whore-house, and every woman a harlot. No man is a "John" unless he honestly pays for sex in cash. Honest Johns are now as against the law as the oldest, (most time-honored) profession in most places. But have we upgraded, or degenerated as a result? Forget about going to church on Sunday. Go to the gambling boat instead.
The power of television should never be under-estimated. It literally molds public opinion and establishes the accepted moral standards of the masses. There is an axiom that must not be forgotten: "whatever television dwells upon, increases." That isn't to say that a TV advertising campaign against drugs and smoking will decrease the problem. Quite the opposite. It will increase the problem! Violent programming doesn't necessarily increase social violence. Context and message are all-important in creative drama. If violence is portrayed in the context of good prevailing over evil, and evil inevitably being punished, the effect may be beneficial. If the good guy is clearly good, and is forced to overcome evil by minimally violent means, the message is a constructive one. But if the hero is portrayed as just another violent rascal who happens to be fighting on the "side of the law," the message is quite the opposite. "Realism," as currently portrayed by the media, often is a lesson in how things should not be. Youth copies "bad-mouthed" violent "heroes."
In abandoning the Broadcasters' Voluntary Code of Good Broadcasting Practices, (When? Late 60s, early 70s?) the networks also abandoned their primary civic responsibility. They are, after all, the prime educators of our children for better or worse. Adult programming is viewed by children as "the adult world they should aspire to." And they do view it. So adult programming should be constructed to serve a positive role in shaping the minds of children and their view of the adult world. Adults should make other arrangements to satisfy their more base entertainment tastes. Network programming "standards" must be set at the programming source, on the basis of some broadly accepted moral authority, rather than by alleged public viewing tastes. In claiming to be giving the public what it wants, networks invariably cater to the lowest common denominator, and unfortunately it is always a progressively descending one. Additionally, the artists, writers, and producers who create the programs have a natural tendency to "push the envelope" of public propriety because they know that shock value and outrage sell. They also know that within every individual, no matter how outwardly moral, dwells a secret little devil always eager for a glimpse of the macabre and base.
Pridger's Religious Faith
April 21, 1998: Okay, let's not call it faith. Call it an uneasy feeling that GOD IS GOING TO RATTLE OUR CAGE SOON. Why mention it now? Just a reminder that one should be prepared for the potential fallout from "millennium madness." Mass anxiety may exacerbate all other problems, real and imagined, nationally and globally. The anxiety may spill over into hysteria in some cases. Many "systems" are grossly out of balance. The millennium may trigger massive "corrections" and "over-reactions." Nobody can accurately predict just what will happen. The trigger may be squeezed, and things start "popping," months before the January 1, 2000 discharge date. How to deal with it? Two approaches: (1) Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may be forced onto a crash diet, and (2) Play your cards close to the chest and acquire survival skills. A spiritual renewal might also be in order.
Pridger has faith in the government's ability and capability to deal with the potential millennium threat. Orwell's 1984 may arrive sixteen years late, but it will arrive. Our "democracy" has passed the two century mark.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury — with the result that democracy collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship." (Alexander Tytler, British historian—two hundred years ago)
The dictatorship ascending to power, of course, is both global and corporate in nature. Congress has already become a corporate body which represents Wall Street corporate interests. Our prison system is being expanded and corporatized. The monetary system was formally corporatized in 1913. The International Monetary Fund is now consolidating its power over Asia.
THE WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON MEMORIAL
It appears that the Clinton presidency will not only survive, but Clinton may also go down in history as our greatest president. Pridger can image the shape of the future Clinton Memorial when it is erected. It'll be a lot like the Washington Memorial, but shaped a little different, and admission will be to adult, non-smokers, only, (or maybe PG-13). It may provide the basis for a new national spiritual awakening. (But who would believe Phallic worship would replace Christianity as the nation's predominant faith?)
This may seem like a "cheap shot" at our affable president — our nation's foremost male role model (and perhaps it is, and Pridger apologizes) — but he wishes to make a serious observation with regard to the current state of our national moral standards and global standing. Pridger feels there is something seriously amiss when it is considered we are the world's only "super-power," acknowledged global "leader" and international role-model. The picture is quite disturbing. What are our children to think?
Multilateral Agreement on Investment
APRIL 9, 1998: Talk about having our souls sold to Mammon! Where did representative government go, anyway? If the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, (MAI) is approved this year as scheduled, global corporate Utopia will have arrived. That is, Utopia for corporations—not people. MAI is a global investment scheme based on the the same provisions enjoyed by American, Canadian, and Mexican corporations under the current NAFTA agreement. These agreements tend to give corporations Carte Blanche to ravish the world regardless of local laws, governments, or peoples. It all goes back to the issue of money and the question of the hegemony of international banking. As Thomas Jefferson said, "If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied."
Of course, that, being well underway in the United States and other developed countries, is now happening globally. Under the current New World Order strategy, the corporation is being empowered at the expense of the people. For the doubting Thomases, and left-leaning progressives, it's time to re-read Karl Marx, and notice the few places where he hit the nail right on the head. It's time to re-discover that God-given rights belong to the people, (not corporations) and that free-enterprise is first and foremost the prerogative of people, (individuals and partnerships) acting responsibly on their own behalf, rather that the unaccountable collectives known as limited liability corporations.
Those who guffaw at the idea of an International Banker conspiracy would do well to ponder just what takes place when the International Monetary Fund bails out a troubled nation economy. When a nation is bailed out, it effectively comes under the direct control of International Bankers. Of course, the IMF and World Bank are International Bankers "corporately personified." The bankers are literally deemed to have "saved" the nation or economy, and henceforth wield on-going influence in national economic affairs at great cost to the sovereignty of the effected government and its peoples. In order to be "saved," nations, and peoples, first have to fall into a carefully laid trap wherein they are led down the primrose path of "free trade" and internationalism until the trap is sprung.
CLINTON'S ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
APRIL 7, 1998: The fact that the children who did the killing in the latest kiddy massacre used hunting rifles didn't detour the anti-gunners from zeroing in once again on "assault weapons." It is easier at present to sell the idea that military-style weapons are somehow worse than sport-style weapons. They are designed specifically to kill people rather than rabbits and deer. If the ban sticks, almost nothing changes. The fact that military style weapons are actually seldom used in fire-arms crimes makes little difference. Sooner or later, the anti-gunners will be forced to admit that all fire-arms can be used as "assault weapons" and thus must be banned. (Even a single-shot bolt-action rifle can be fired once per second, with no limit to the number of rounds save for the carrying capacity of the shooter. This goes for muzzle-loaders and bows and arrows, too, of course—all will be targeted by the anti-gunners in due time.)
If the rationale for the Second Amendment was to provide for a well armed peoples' militia for the protection of freedom and liberty, (and it was and is) then military weapons would naturally be the militia weapons of choice. When sawed-off shotguns were first banned, the Supreme Court used the rationale that they had no military application, and were thus not protected by the Second Amendment. That rationale is currently being reversed. Now "sporting" weapons are supposedly protected, and military weapons supposedly not protected. (Fully automatic fire-arms, [machine guns, and late model military rifles] have been outlawed since the Prohibition era.) This new twist, of course, has its purpose. The fact is, there is an on-going attack not only upon Second Amendment rights, but on the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. The global plutocrats have decreed than the day of government of, by, and for, self-governing people is over. It shall perish from this earth, if the Clintons and anti-gunners have their way.
It is said that military style weapons have no conceivable "sporting" purpose. That's simply hyperbolic mish-mash. Target practice is the exclusive shooting sport enjoyed by many. (Some gun enthusiasts don't enjoy hunting, but do enjoy target and competitive shooting.) One can target practice with any fire-arm. Getting a hundred rounds into the target in a matter of minutes is every bit as challenging as getting a dozen rounds into the bull's eye in a matter of minutes. Of course, assault weapons aren't normally recommended for hunting purposes, (nor are hand guns) but they certainly "can" be used, and sometimes are. Self defense? An assault weapon would be the self-defense weapon of choice against a squad of armed men.
Finally, what is an assault weapon? Really? It is a weapon, any weapon, used in an assault. A battle axe is an assault weapon. Any kitchen cutlery can be used as an assault weapon. What is a sporting weapon? Any weapon used for sporting purposes.
CRIMINAL GUNS
Guns don't make criminals, but they admittedly do make killing easier. Our real problem, however, seems to be that we are manufacturing criminals and psychopaths in record numbers. The answer has been to make the use of fire-arms in the commission of a crime more criminal than say using a fire-axe. Is murder by gun really worse than murder by machete, cyanide, or anthrax? Hardly. But try to tell that to an anti-gun do-gooder.
THE TROUBLE WITH HATE CRIME LEGISLATION
The very rationale that the motive of "hate" somehow makes any crime worse is dangerous. Hate crime laws probably won't decrease the number of hate crimes, but they do send the message that random acts of senseless killing and violence are less serious, and thus more acceptable, than those motivated by hate. Is killing for fun worse than killing out of enmity? Is killing a person of the same race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, because you hate them, also a hate crime? Apparently not, under our perverse and increasingly twisted judicial reasoning. And who determines the slippery and shifting divide between mere distaste and loathing or hate? In the final analysis, hate crime laws make no sense. They purport to punish "motive" rather than the crime. This is a dangerous trend which could lead to punishment for "thought crimes." Who among us has not been guilty of a thought crime? Already thought crimes are punishable when a discussion about them has been deemed to have taken place. "Conspiracy" and "sedition" are examples, and the government is increasingly resorting to prosecution on those grounds. There is only a very superficial leap in logic between punishing serious "conspiracy to commit a crime," and mere conspiratorial fantasy. The lines between thought and actual intent and action are increasingly being blurred.
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
Our legal system is in serious decay. It's only real purpose, in addition to "protecting society," is supposed to be "justice"—more importantly, justice with a measure of Christian charity mixed in. That's the difference between true justice and judicial tyranny, and we're losing the concept and the distinction in our "get tough on crime" binge. The entire nation is becoming a Soviet-style Gulag. (And the people seem to rejoice at it!) Juries no longer know that their duty is to see that justice is done. They are admonished only to convict or acquit in accordance with the "law" as explained by the judge, even if the law itself is a bad one. Mandatory minimum sentences, sometimes without the possibility of parole, increasingly result in either "cruel and unusual punishment" or acquittal of the obviously guilty. What is happening to our system? The problem stems from a breakdown in both our national standards of morality and our basic educational system. In short, our nation is losing its moral compass.
Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" ought to apply to felons too. Those criminals who are executed are released from a life not even fit for a wild animal. All others should have the hope of parole, no matter their crime. Yet we find our prisons full to overflowing with petty criminals and drug addicts who should be forced, or at least given the chance, to earn their own living. In all cases, the punishment should fit the crime. Yet victimless crime is often punished as ruthlessly under our system as heinous crime—often more so. Petty assault, especially of a sexual variety, sometimes commands more prison time than capital murder. We are particularly going overboard in the realms of drug and child abuse. This is demonstrated in the fact that an eighteen year old youth can be convicted of child abuse and rape, and sent to prison for a matter of decades, for having a consentual carnal affair with a fourteen year old heart-throb. The crime is considered a violent one, even though the young lady may have been the prime mover in the affair. Equal injustices increasingly occur in the cases where older men "molest" young children. "Molesting" in some cases merely means a sinful indiscretion with a related child that the person may actually love, and would never have intentionally "harmed" under any circumstances. The crime may be serious, but would hardly seem to warrant the prison time ordinarily accorded capital murders and serial killers. Yet our prisons host many such relatively harmless "criminals." Last year a man was threatened with a serious child pornography charge, (and decades in prison) for selling photographs of high school cheerleaders' legs and (covered) bottoms. Where will this kind of perversity end?
PAULA JONES CASE THROWN OUT
Clinton might have been sent away for years, (or at least sent away) if it weren't for the soft place he occupies in the hearts and minds of the same people who would have written the book and thrown it at any other ordinary man in similar circumstances. Clinton, of course, can do no wrong in their eyes.
Pridger is certainly not a Clinton fan or admirer, but he feels the judge did the right thing in throwing the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit out of court. She treated a petty affair as a petty affair, not worthy of serious consideration. How it managed to occupy the national attention for so long is a testament to how degraded we have become as a society. The media, of course, is a large part of the problem. It got Clinton elected, and re-elected, when he should have been immediately rejected as presidential material simply on the basis of his known moral shortcomings
Is Clinton doing a good job as President?
THE RETURN OF THE HOURLY ACCESS CHARGE
APRIL FOOLS!"(1 April 1998) "If something seems too good to be true, it probably is." This cheap unlimited access was just a big fat carrot. Now comes the stick. AT&T plans to slap an additional $.99 cent hourly charge to their users. If that doesn't scare too many off, they'll raise the ante. Expect other ISP's to follow suite in due course. Pridger saw it coming. The cost of Internet access had been coming down—but only in order to hook a critical mass of people. Expect government to add a tax. It's inevitable—the bureaucrats simply can't resist it for long. But they may wait until more people have become Internet junkies. Millions are clambering to get on-line. Chat seems to draw quite a few to the "Information Super-highway" as does pornography. A lot of bureau people spend a lot of time and public money surfing the Internet—searching for pedophiles, terrorists, hate groups, etc. They try to lure them in with kiddy-porn and whatever they can think of to "get the goods" on them. This, of course, costs money. On line "Free Speech" will have its inevitable costs.
THE MILLENNIUM BUG
If you tend to take the Y2K threat with a grain of salt, you aren't alone. Most people have a great deal of faith in the "experts." They'll fix it. Pridger isn't losing any sleep over it, but he's putting in a good garden anyway. Others see the millennium bug as unmitigated catastrophe in the making. To really get a handle on the doomsday scenario, visit Y2K alarmist Gary North's web site at http://www.garynorth.com. Beware! It may alarm you. Gary is more than just a Y2K alarmist. He's a world renowned author and historian—the author of many books. He is staking his career and reputation on his Y2K warnings.
ANOTHER SCHOOL KID MASSACRE
30 Mar. 1998: Not even the experts seem to have an explanation for the late rash of kids gunning down kids at school. Oh, you do hear some "level heads" crying out for gun control. Years ago, kids were disciplined from cradle to their majority, by parents and teachers. Today ruler and cane are considered child abuse. Kids don't seem to get as good of an education as they used to, but never mind, some are well beyond their years in crime.
Pridger wasn't all that good a student, and he always packed a pocket knife. He wouldn't be caught without it—and still wouldn't. At 14 he made his own .22 derringer and packed it to school at least once or twice—but he would never have thought of shooting someone with it—not even the school bully. But kids were much less mature at that age back then, and we hadn't been subjected to any sensitivity training. We grew up in the "shoot-em-up cowboy" culture of the 50's where the dream of possessing a shootin' iron was close to the heart of every half-way normal man-child. (Man, what a heady feeling to know that I was the only kid in school "armed" with a derringer. Had word got out, I'd have been unceremoniously dis-armed, spanked with ye olde oaken paddle, and sent home to face some very unhappy parents. I'll tell you, that gun was the safest gun in the world. I even had the forethought to leave the bullets at home, "just in case.")
What's different now? Our heroes never did any wrong, and everybody knew right from wrong. "Situational ethics" weren't an option. Even sports stars were invariably well-behaved. (They called it sportsmanship.) Our movie heroes only shot at really bad men, and preferably only winged them in the gun-hand with a silver bullet. They never used off-color language, or acted "tough" no matter how many bad guys they could beat up with one hand tied behind their back. In school, all bad words or deeds had painful consequences that were reinforced when we got home. Now parents complain indignantly, or even sue, if a teacher dare put a hand on their child. During my high school years gangs of city kids had "rumbles" with chains and sometimes knives. Us backward country kids seldom fought at all—but if we did, it was generally a one on one scuffle. We didn't know what drugs were, but smoking cigarettes held great appeal to many. White lightnin', (or a bottle of Thunderbird wine) was the biggest thing in town for the "really big" kids. Today kids are taught about drugs beginning in the first grade. Their curiosity is whetted—the forbidden fruit identified and introduced (sometimes by a police officer! How romantic!). Cigarettes are really bad now—best to just do drugs now and then. The culture has changed, (actually gone head over-heels) and now we have child massacres.
WHY DID THEY CHOOSE CLINTON?
Franklin D. Roosevelt once said that nothing in politics happens by accident. If it happens, he said, you can bet it was planned that way. When the international plutocrats anointed Clinton for the American presidency, they could not have been unaware of his embarrassment potential to the nation. If one of their goals is to further debase national moral standards, and undermine family values, (as has frequently been written) their choice was a good one.
"Can't we all just get along?" pined Rodney King after the riots. Peoples who speak the same language tend to get along better than those with marked cultural differences. We've come a long way, (they say) in race relations since the nation adopted gutter language standards back in the Civil Rights era. The races now almost speak the same language. In Pridger's view, it would have been better to grade up than down, but never mind. Today, kids won't go see a movie that isn't "R" rated. To be "R" rated, the "F" word has to be inserted into the script at least once—no matter how unnecessary or inappropriate. Of course, "MF's" are preferred. Real "adult" movies are, of course, pornographic movies. It's been official for years. All kids aspire to adult things.
What's this have to do with Clinton? I've been wondering myself. Kids are still taught to aspire to be president. It would be nice to know that the standards don't preclude normal adult activities and alternate life-styles.
WAR ON THE ENVIRONMENT
20 Mar. 1998: If our government was really concerned about environmental issues, it would have taxed "planned obsolescence" and all manner of "disposable" products out of existence decades ago. Modern technology is perfectly capable of producing truly durable and up-gradable consumer goods. The "economics" of waste is literal war on the environment. We must discover this before the landfill spreads to our neighborhood.
THE ECONOMIES OF SCALE
The economy of scale is a false god, born of corporate greed. Its success is measured in GDP figures rather than the overall well-being of the working classes. Balance, and full employment, (at decent living wages) should be the goal of national economic policy. We have no national economic policy aside from allowing bottom-line corporate economics free reign.
THE LAST PRESIDENT
It has been said that John F. Kennedy was the last president to seriously challenge corporate hegemony over national economic policy. Lincoln had tried the same thing. Lincoln survived the war, but not the peace. Andrew Jackson battled the same forces. How Jackson survived is still a mystery—perhaps his Indian policy saved him.
MONETARY REFORM
We hear a great deal today about tax reform and the need for a balanced budget, but nothing of monetary reform. The key to economic freedom and justice can be found only in fundamental monetary reform. Meaningful monetary reform would mean the advent of "honest money" as a circulating currency—a mute point, (even heresy) in schools of modern economics. Honest money is a currency which does not incur interest, (and thus the perpetual compounding of debt) in order to be issued and exist. We hear, instead, of monetary union and an emerging cash-less society. Nothing so threatens freedom than these twin evils. But they do have the allure of the "seamless solution."
THE SEAMLESS SOLUTION
Nothing is any more appealing to any public than the idea of the "seamless solution." Microsoft is near to providing the seamless solution for the PC world. Take a careful second look at it before you side with Bill Gates. He has a good product, and a lot of good ideas, but there is a serious downside to anything approaching monopoly. Monetary union, and the concept of the cash-less society are other seamless solutions, as is the allure of a One World Order. Beware!
WAR ON TOBACCO
If Congress were really serious about saving Social Security, it would be encouraging more people to smoke rather than trying to stop it. Various reasons. Some not so obvious. In the end, the war on tobacco will lend support to the alternate drug culture. One of our major growth industries is the prison industry, half of which is used to house drug addicts at great public expense. This relieves the economy of much potential productive labor which undermines the Social Security System.
Tobacco did not kill nearly as readily before the advent of toxic growing practices.
DOMESTICS
The domestic labor force used to be one of the largest labor classes in the country. The war on poverty pretty much destroyed it by putting the lion's share of the domestic labor force on permanent paid vacation. Now those able to hire domestic labor depend mainly on legal and illegal aliens, and this is one of the rationales for encouraging continued Third World immigration. Same for itinerant field labor. Those coming off of welfare are slated to become "knowledge workers." The domestic labor industry has returned, however, in the guise of publicly subsidized "housekeepers" for the handicapped and elderly.
CLINTON HAS MORE WOMAN TROUBLE
16 Mar. 1998: Pridger predicts the overwhelming case against Clinton's character will evaporate like perfume before a west wind as soon as Clinton gets sufficiently tough on Palestinians and Iraq. The public is already tired of the Clinton-bashing, and identifies more with his pain than his persecutors. All that is required is for somebody to call the media attack dogs off.
WILL ASIAN NATIONS REVOLT?
15 Mar. 1998: At what point will Asian nations wake up to the fact that they have been, and are being, had? Another term for the international bale-out is "subjection to the western banking establishment and global corporations." The "old order" colonialism is gone, but we are now witnessing a new kind of colonialism. We are about to see a test of the power of the New World Order. It will be interesting. But, as usual, (no matter what turn the future takes) it will be at the cost of great suffering to the poorer masses of humanity.
CONGRESS VOTES DEATH TO SADDAM
15 Mar. 1998: So Congress thinks Saddam is a war criminal. Are our representatives suffering from an infectious case of hypocritical authoritarian syndrome, (Or legislative blood-lust)?
Of course, a great percentage of the American public cheer the Congressional show of "spine." Pridger, doesn't have any particular love for Saddam either, and thinks it would be highly appropriate for the whole Congress to take a junket over to Iraq and bring him promptly to justice. They could do it in perfect safety, since if one hair were harmed on a single congressional head, the Security Council would undoubtedly go into immediate deliberations.
Our Congress would do well to prevent Clinton and the rest
of us from becoming war criminals.
"EXTREME" SPORTS
15 Mar. 1998: Many are baffled by the increased popularity of so-called "extreme" sports. Friedrich Nietzsche provided the answer a century ago. "When there is peace, warlike man attacks himself." Today, of course, that includes women. It also explains a lot of other pecurliar things happening in our society. In the vacuum we call peace, society and civilization are becoming suicidal and cannibalistic.
THE TOP SERGEANT
15 Mar. 1998: (UPDATE) Surprisingly, the Top Sergeant got off on all sexual harrassement charges. He was convicted, however, on one count of "obstruction of justice"—apparently in connection to one or more of the charges of which he was found not to be guilty. Most peculiar, to say the least. How can one obstruct justice in a case wherein he has been found innocent? The message appears to be that he "had" to be found guilty of "at least something"—anything. But this won't appease the women who knew he was guilty as charged. It goes to show that the military justice system is just as mixed up and confused as the civil court system. We now have "degenerate justice" in our various courts. Anyway, if Clinton can do it...
AMERICANS SERVING THE UNITED NATIONS
Should U.S. Military personnel serve the United Nations? Clearly, the United Nations needs an army if it is ever going to be able to effectively police, (or "rule") the world. And those men and women must come form member nations. Trouble is, nobody can effectively and honestly serve two masters. American military personnel take an oath to defend this nation and its Constitution. They ought not be expected to breach their solemn contract. United Nations armed forces are actually composed of member "Foreign Legion" units. The solution to a rather difficult problem would be simply to formalize that reality. If American citizens wish to volunteer to serve the UN, they would do so in the American contingent of the UN Legionnaires. They ought to have that right. Let them be released from their oaths to this nation and swear allegiance to the UN or its American agents. Such units would be fashioned after the French Foreign Legion. American service personnel who take their oaths of allegiance the the United States seriously, should never be required to serve the UN.
Of course, if the United States ever decides to re-declare its independence, American UN Legionnaires should be given the option of coming home before the shooting starts.
Pridger believes the UN would serve a valuable function if
it were "reinvented" as an international debating society. Its
"teeth" will probably otherwise be its undoing, as soon as the Third
World wakes up and realizes who is really running the show.
ABORTION CLINIC AND IRAQI BOMBING
10 Mar., 1998: Abortion clinic bombings are back in the news. Just last night, on Nightline, we watched a "Reverend" So-And-So, justifying the killing of abortionists and their facilitators in order to save the lives of innocent unborns. That servant of the Lord claimed clinic bombing atrocities carried out by the so-called "Army of God" amount to "justified" killing—no matter who gets killed or hurt. Rational People, of both pro-life and pro-choice stripes, are rightfully horrified at such reasoning. Actually, however, the mad-dog right-to-lifers have an uncomfortably valid point. Exactly the same rationale is used to justified our intended bombing attack on Iraq. We would gleefully bomb Iraq, killing innocent men, women, and children in the process, to prevent Saddam from maybe doing something equally as bad to someone else sometime in the future. We, too, believe we would be doing the "Will of God" (and the Security Council). It's surprising the allegory has not been used.
The "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
and right-wing liberals
19 Feb. 1998: Everybody knows Pridger is a liberal, right? Well, a conservative liberal. So how is it he is a member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?" Because when Hillary Clinton casts her vast right-wing conspiracy net, she snares just about every thinking person to the right of Karl Marx. Everybody who thinks her husband is not sterling presidential material is included, whether left, right, or indifferent. Her net covers a whole lot of territory. Pridger isn't a left-winger, so he is a right-winger in the eyes of most lefties. Pridger is a right-wing liberal. A right-wing liberal is a libertarian with uncommon sense—one that believes in an America First policy.
America First?
Shouldn't the American government have an America First policy? No. Not according to most left-wing liberals, libertarians, and neo-conservatives. An America First policy would be nationalist, protectionist, isolationist, narrowly provincial, and down-right selfish. It would give Americans the full benefit of their national wealth and accumulated social capital. That just wouldn't do. Wall Street represents global capital, and it puts the "Gross" in the American GDP. Loyal to Mammon, most of our representatives represent Wall Street—thus, according to conventional wisdom, an America First Policy would be un-American. By the same token, most representatives are mis-representatives.
The Media
16 Feb. 1998: The media, (particularly the television media) in continuously airing the Clinton's dirty linen in public, is showing that it no longer feels any need to show loyalty to our nation's image, nor respect for the office of the presidency. Sensationalism and the advertising dollar are more important than the national image. No holds barred journalism may be evidence of freedom of the press, but there ought to be a line drawn somewhere with regard to common decency. There would be in truly responsible journalism. TV journalism is now sinking to new depths. Today, the media feels as justified in both creating and shaping the news, as in reporting it. It doesn't matter who gets hurt in the process. The scary thing about the TV media is its ability to tailor public opinion to its own ends. Media polls are merely gauges of their own successes in influencing public opinion. Another thing, live crime reporting and daytime talk shows spotlighting all nature of social perversions may make for good entertainment, but we must remember one all-important thing: "Whatever the television media dwells on, increases."
"Millennium Madness."
6 Feb. 1998: "Prophecy, the Millennium Bug, Armageddon, the 5/5/2000 pole shift, ailing Asian tiger-cubs, shaky financial markets, volatile situations in the Middle East and Bosnia—the specter of a growing mass-hysteria and its potential for self-fulfilling prophecy—point toward 'troubled waters ahead' and a gathering storm. The millennium may herald 'interesting times.' "
"When the world takes on the characteristics of a 'village,' great nations may fall seriously ill when Asian tigers catch cold."
Pridger's Thumbnail Assessment of the New World Order
Among other things, the New World Order means a globalized corporate economy. "Free trade" and "deregulation" are euphemisms for license to internationalized capital to exploit both natural and human resources without national restrictions—enabling them to maximize profits and predatory practices. The game-plan effectively calls for the ever-accelerating exploitation of global resources in order to fulfill an impossible, unkeepable, promise. It is firmly based in the concept that corporate greed is good and that "the end justifies the means." (The "end," in this case, is a perpetually profitable bottom line for the world's largest corporations and the financial interests they support.) The primary function of state and federal governments will come down to the exercise of their police power. This will be used to mold "good corporate citizenship." International "peace-keeping" means protection of international capital, for the security and profit of international plutocrats. All for the "greater good of mankind," of course.
The most amazing thing about this new global economic order is the number of well-intentioned people who fail to see the fallacy of measuring "progress" and "prosperity" in terms of GDP and the volume of debt-based "wealth creation" associated with Wall Street. The fact that so many who are being economically "down-sized," and politically disenfranchised, have also bought into the idea that a "Wonderful New World" is just over the horizon, in the global village, is ample indication that things will get much worse before they get any better.
SPECULATION
The coming millennium could mark a significant turning point in world affairs. Perhaps it will bring down the new Tower of Babel with all the uncertain implications of such an event in a modern global economy. Will we scatter in babbling disarray, among falling chips and cascading cards? Or will the New Order framework stand? Will there be a new birth of liberty—or will government of, by, and for the people finally perish from this earth? Will barbarism engulf the earth?