The Final Revolution

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961.

The final revolution will take place when you stop reading books. Pick one up now. Read. Free your mind. Free yourself.



SpyWriter Jack King "A new King of thrillers on the horizon" www.SpyWriter.com

What is Literature

"...all literature is civic action: Because it is memory. All literature preserves something which otherwise would die away with the flesh and bones of the writer. Reading is reclaiming the right to this human immortality, because the memory of writing is all-encompassing and limitless. ... Our books are accounts of our histories: Of our epiphanies and our atrocities. In that sense all literature is testimonial. But among the testimonies are reflections on those epiphanies and atrocities, words that offer the epiphanies for others to share, and words that surround and denounce the atrocities so that they are not allowed to take place in silence. They are reminders of better things, of hope and consolation and compassion, and hold the implication that of these too, we are all of us capable. Not all of these we achieve, and none of these we achieve all the time. But literature reminds us that they are there, these human qualities, following our horrors as certainly as birth succeeds death. They too define us...

Of course, literature may not be able to save anyone from injustice, or from the temptations of greed, or the miseries of power. But something about it must be perilously effective if every dictator, every totalitarian government, every threatened official tries to do away with it, by burning books, by banning books, by censoring books, by taxing books, by paying mere lip-service to the cause of literacy, by insinuating that reading is an elitist activity. ...

Every day, somewhere in the world, someone attempts (sometimes successfully) to stifle a book which plainly or obscurely sounds a warning. And again and again, empires fall and literature continues. Ultimately, the imaginary places writers and their readers invent  — in the etymological sense of “to come upon,” “to discover” — persist at all because they are simply that which we should call reality, because they are the real world revealed under its true name. The rest, as we should have realized by now, is merely shadow without substance, the stuff of nightmares, and will vanish without a trace in the morning."

More: http://www.salon.com/2012/06/08/is_there_any_reason_to_read/singleton/



### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com

The writer is the most threatening person for dictatorships

"The murder of poets and writers was the beginning of murder of a universal freedom of a whole people [...] Freedom begins and ends every time that a writer is murdered [...] - the defender of the right and just is annihilated, since it is the most articulate voice of society, every time that fear overcomes dissent, every time that the voice that sounds different is seen as a threat. The writer is the most threatening person for dictatorships and dictators. Democratic society and its institutions must see their perfect reflection in the acts of writers and in the writers themselves.

[...] the effort to remain human never ends. It takes meaning from political systems, from circumstances, from the goals that it has, from the standards of freedom and morality that the individual seeks for him, for the society and his country. Let the memory of martyr intellectuals, poets and writers encourage us and for such a goal!

May their memory and deeds be immortal!" SOURCE

What is good for Venezuela

Reading Philip Agee's CIA DIARY, in light of the events taking place today in Venezuela, one cannot help but conclude that what is good for Chavez' country might be good for USA:

American capitalism, based as it is on exploitation of the poor, with its fundamental motivation in personal greed, simply cannot survive without force - without a secret police force. The argument is with capitalism and it is capitalism that must be opposed, with its CIA, FBI and other security agencies understood as logical, necessary manifestations of a ruling class's determination to retain power and privilege.

Now, more than ever, indifference to injustice at home and abroad is impossible. Now, more clearly than ever, the extremes of poverty and wealth demonstrate the irreconcilable class conflicts, that only socialist revolution can resolve. Now, more than ever, each of us is forced to make a conscious choice whether to support the system of minority comfort and privilege with all its security apparatus and repression, or whether to struggle for real equality of opportunity and fair distribution of benefits for all of society, in the domestic as well as the international order. Philip Agee in CIA Diary.

Agee wrote it in 1974, while still under the impression of the Cuban revolution, the American defeat in Vietnam, and the Watergate scandal, but he might as well have written it yesterday. His words apply to the USA, Venezuela and everywhere else. Agee was a CIA officer who worked in Latin America, and that's were his eyes opened. Mine did, and your will too if you step beyond those Acapulcos and Cancuns...

One thing that Agee does not see, is that socialism, much as capitalism requires repressive apparatus of secret police to sustain itself.

Justification for Civil Disobedience

Times are ripe to think about it:

In a democratic society each man must act as he thinks the principles of political right require him to. We are to follow our understanding of the principles, and we cannot do otherwise. There can be no morally binding legal interpretation of these principles, not even by supreme court or legislature. [...] Although the Court has the final say in settling any particular case, it is not immune from powerful political influences that may change its reading of the law. [...] The final court of appeal is not the Court, or Congress, or the President, but the electorate as a whole.
John Rawls (professor of philosophy at Harvard University) in: The Justification of Civil Disobedience