There are 4 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Fwd: IC Publications
From: kennnthomas@webtv.net
2. Signs and wonders
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
3. The Anthrax Vaccine: Hiding The Truth
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
4. Live Not By Lies
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:34:13 -0600
From: kennnthomas@webtv.net
Subject: Fwd: IC Publications
[This message is not in displayable format]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:37:12 -0500
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
Subject: Signs and wonders
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Signs and wonders
We asked for signs. The signs were sent. - Leonard Cohen
Afraid the time's too short today for writing, but time's getting shorter every day. I don't mean to get all John the Revelator about it, but as Juan Cole's written, "Tuesday was an apocalyptic day in Iraq."
The destruction of Samarra's Askariyah shrine marks a Biblical moment of provocation in Iraq's ersatz Civil War. And just in time, too, because there's a time-table to keep where "real men" want to go.
These must be hard times for soft-headed apologists of "benign" empire, who thought there could be something of worth even to the fiction of liberation and democracy; who believed that civil war would be the last thing sought by Western powers, which wanted peace and security rather than provocation and chaos.
The Samarra mosque contains the shrine of the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, whom many Shiites believe is about to manifest himself. It's a belief shared and encouraged by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as Iraq's Muqtada all-Sadr. (The United States, of course, couldn't comfortably confront Iran so long as its presidency was held by the frustratingly reasonable Mohammad Khatami. In Ahmadinejad - who, like Bush, most probably won his office as well by election fraud - the US has a fine millenial foil.)
As Washington's Republican Guard must know, one advantage of cultivating a base which believes in the imminent end of the world is that the more catastrophic a regime's governance, the more encouraged its supporters become that they picked the right horseman for an apocalypse. Is all hell breaking loose? Great - all hell should break loose.
How short is our time, and how hot the coming hellfire? One more month, maybe, of this New Normal, before we tumble into the next circle. Consider this report published last Friday by Newropeans Magazine, via the RI forum, thanks to "seemslikeadream":
The Laboratoire europ�en d�Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020, now estimates to over 80% the probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006 will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American or Israeli military intervention against Iran. In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020.
An Alarm based on 2 verifiable events
The announcement of this crisis results from the analysis of decisions taken by the two key-actors of the main on-going international crisis, i.e. the United States and Iran:
- on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil producers of the region;
- on the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable indicator on the amount of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward.
These two decisions constitute altogether the indicators, the causes and the consequences of the historical transition in progress between the order created after World War II and the new international equilibrium in gestation since the collapse of the USSR. Their magnitude as much as their simultaneity will catalyse all the tensions, weaknesses and imbalances accumulated since more than a decade throughout the international system.
..
LEAP/E2020 anticipate that these two non-official decisions will involve the United States and the world in a monetary, financial, and soon economic crisis without precedent on a planetary scale. The �monetarisation� of the US debt is indeed a very technical term describing a catastrophically simple reality: the United States undertake not to refund their debt, or more exactly to refund it in "monkey currency". LEAP/E2020 also anticipate that the process will accelerate at the end of March, in coincidence with the launching of the Iranian Oil Bourse, which can only precipitate the sales of US Treasury Bonds by their non-American holders.
Perhaps it won't be March. It may be April, or May. But I can't think of a circumstance arising, short of a global religious and numinous event (and who knows - maybe just as ersatz), to prevent War with Iran.
Remember the story of Manhattan's talking fish? In March 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, a 20 lb carp began shouting in Hebrew about the end of the world. Where it was reported it was played for laughs - the lighter side of apocalypse. Naturally, because such a thing doesn't happen in the world most of us inhabit. And so it must not have happened.
Two fish-cutters, Nivelo, a Gentile who does not understand Hebrew, was so shocked at the sight of a fish talking in any language that he fell over. He ran into the front of the store screaming: 'It's the Devil! The Devil is here!' Then the shop owner heard it shouting warnings and commands too.
'It said "Tzaruch shemirah" and "Hasof bah",' he told the New York Times, 'which essentially means that everyone needs to account for themselves because the end is near.'
Nivelo, a "devout Christian," reportedly still believes the carp was the Devil: "I don't believe any of this Jewish stuff. But I heard that fish talk."
A local resident noted, "Two men do not dream the same dream." I don't know about that. How many of us are there? And surely this can't be our waking lives.
We have the signs. Keep a sharp lookout for the wonders.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/02/signs-and-wonders.html
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:04:11 -0500
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
Subject: The Anthrax Vaccine: Hiding The Truth
The Anthrax Vaccine: Hiding The Truth
By Kathleen Deoul
01/2006
Time and time again over more than two centuries, America's young people have been called to defend the cause of freedom. In each instance, they have come forward, without fear or reservation, to do what is right. Today they are again fighting on foreign shores both in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to assure to others the same benefits of liberty enjoyed by citizens of the United States. Like their predecessors, they have chosen to subordinate their own well being and safety to the greater good. There can be little doubt that their unselfish sacrifice deserves the gratitude of the protected.
But it deserves something else as well. It deserves honesty and that, in at least one respect, is something that they are not getting.
Three years ago, this column first raised the alarm over the mandatory administration of the Anthrax vaccine to members of the Armed Forces. Although the Department of Defense claimed that its Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program or AVIP posed no serious health threat to the troops and, more important, was necessary to protect the troops against the threat of biological weapons - other voices had raised concerns.
Not the least of these was the troops themselves.
Indeed, during the initial period following initiation of the AVIP program hundreds of service members went so far as to face court-martial rather than be immunized.
Ultimately, the controversy found its way into the courts.
On December 22, 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued a temporary injunction halting the AVIP program because the FDA had failed to approve the vaccine for inhalation Anthrax, the form associated with biological weapons. Two weeks later, however, he lifted the injunction when the FDA issued the necessary approval. In lifting the ban, though, Judge Sullivan called the timing of the FDA ruling "highly suspicious."
The Judge's skepticism was more than evident in an exchange with Shannen Coffin, a Justice Department lawyer representing the Pentagon:
"Only after issuance of an injunction, up pops a federal rule, and you're telling me it's coincidental?" the Judge asked.
"I'd stand on a stack of Bibles and tell you it's coincidental." Coffin insisted.
"That's an amazing coincidence." Judge Sullivan replied.
The legal wrangling, however, was not over.
Six service members, whose identity was concealed to protect against retaliation, still had an ongoing suit against the mandatory vaccination program based on different facts. They still had not had their day in court, and quite a day it would be.
On October 27, 2004, ten months after Judge Sullivan had been forced to reinstate the vaccination program by the FDA's oddly timed ruling, he again ordered a halt to the program. This time his decision was based on the failure of the FDA to allow appropriate public comment when it approved the Anthrax vaccine the previous year.
In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said:
"The men and women of our armed forces deserve the assurance that the vaccines our government compels them to take into their bodies have been tested by the greatest scrutiny of all - public scrutiny."
The service member's lawyer, Mark Zaid was ecstatic stating:
"It validates our position of six years that the program was illegal and ill-conceived from day one."
Still, the Department of Defense continued to maintain that there was no problem insisting that:
"DoD remains convinced that the (vaccination program) complies with all legal requirements and that the Anthrax vaccine is safe and effective."
Judge Sullivan was not so sure. Moreover, he was sure that there were many citizens who shared his doubts and who had not been given the opportunity to express them. In his decision he said:
"While some individuals may have submitted comments as part of a citizen petition, it is clear to this court that if the status of the Anthrax vaccine were open for public comment today, the agency would receive a deluge of comments and analysis that might inform an open-minded agency."
With the new injunction in place, the Defense Department had no choice but to make taking the vaccine voluntary. Service members soon demonstrated their doubts, with more than half refusing vaccination.
But the battle was far from over.
The Pentagon continued to press for approval of the Anthrax vaccine asserting that it was safe and effective. What made their insistence all the more difficult to understand was the fact that there was a substantial body of evidence to suggest that the Anthrax vaccine was anything but safe and effective.
In one study of soldiers at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, 44 percent of those vaccinated suffered an adverse reaction. In another study performed at a U.S. military facility in Korea, between 72 percent and 74 percent of all women vaccinated had adverse reactions as did between 42 percent and 44 percent of the men.
Nor was the military the only branch of government that had developed data questioning the safety of the Anthrax shots.
The Government Accounting Office (GAO), the official investigative arm of the Congress, conducted a study of Air National Guard pilots and aircrew members who had been vaccinated and found that 37 PERCENT had SERIOUS adverse reactions and that an astounding 84 PERCENT had some sort of adverse reaction.
Perhaps the most important data developed by the GAO was that almost ONE-FIFTH of those vaccinated had SYSTEMIC reactions, the most serious kind. These reactions can have effects that linger for months, years, or even a lifetime!
Remember, the rate of adverse effects found by the GAO was 100 TIMES that claimed by the vaccine's manufacturer!
What is perhaps most disturbing about the Pentagon's insistence on vaccinating the troops is that the rationale for administering this dangerous drug no longer exists!
The reason that the Defense Department wanted our service members vaccinated was the strong belief that they might face biological weapons in Iraq.
Now, no matter what you might have read in the press, there really was good reason for military leaders to have this concern.
During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his opponent, and was trying to develop biological weapons - especially Anthrax - as well. Following that conflict, he also used weapons of mass destruction - again poison gas - against the Kurds in Northern Iraq, killing at least 100,000. Moreover, during the first Persian Gulf War, stores of chemical weapons were discovered.
There was a substantial body of evidence that in the years following the first Persian Gulf War he was continuing to try to develop chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons. So the concern was valid. As it turned out, however, it was also based on bad information.
Interrogations of Iraqi scientists revealed a bizarre truth: They were so fearful of retribution in the event of failure that they vastly overstated the degree of progress they were making in the development of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to their superiors. Indeed, in large degree their whole program to develop weapons of mass destruction was a sham, concocted to keep them from earning the Iraqi dictator's wrath.
Therefore, the major reason for insisting that all troops be inoculated: the potential that their enemy would use biological weapons against them was no longer present. Despite this fact, the Pentagon continued to insist on vaccination, and therein lies the problem.
No one would argue against vaccinating troops, even if there were a substantial risk to their health, if there was a reasonable certainty that they would be exposed to weapons grade Anthrax. Given the virulence of such biological weapons and the high probability that without the vaccination many of those exposed would die, it made sense. But now that the threat no longer exists - if it ever did - there is no reason to vaccinate them if a substantial risk is involved.
Moreover, the experience with the Anthrax attacks that took place in the United States following the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center has demonstrated that if treated immediately with high-powered antibiotics such as Cipro, the effects of exposure can be overcome.
Of course, if, as the Pentagon has maintained, the risk of adverse effects is low, then it might still be prudent to vaccinate the troops on the chance that someone might develop and use Anthrax against them. Indeed, this is exactly the argument a parade of high-ranking officers has made to Congress over the past several years when called upon to testify on the subject.
But now we know that they have not been telling the truth!
The Newport News, Virginia, Daily News recently published the results of an investigation into the Pentagon's Anthrax vaccine program that revealed the stunning and outrageous truth: the Pentagon has been hiding the facts about the vaccine's dangers for more than a decade!
The article notes how, in their periodic appearances before Congress, the Pentagon Brass has always said that there were fewer than 100 cases of adverse effects involving hospitalization or serious illness from the Anthrax vaccine during the period between 1998 and 2000. They also insisted that their official policy was that any serious illness or hospitalization associated with the vaccine had to be reported within 24 hours. As the Daily News discovered, there was a reason why the numbers were so low: THEY COOKED THE BOOKS!
The way they did this was to limit the types of illnesses doctors were allowed to report as adverse effects from the vaccine. By deliberately understating the number of adverse effects, they were able to create the impression that the vaccine was much safer than was actually the case.
Now we must be clear here. We are not talking about a difference of a few hundred cases or even a few thousand. Rather, we are talking about an adverse effect rate fully 200 TIMES as high as the Pentagon reported. Instead of less than 100 cases of serious adverse effects, there were ALMOST 21,000!!! AND THOSE ARE JUST THE MOST SERIOUS CASES!!!
Further, in some cases, the types of reactions that went unreported were not just serious, they were a death sentence. For example, three cases of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig's Disease, went unreported.
The Pentagon argues that a statistical analysis of the incidence of the various illnesses and other adverse effects experienced by service members who were vaccinated were within normal limits. Other medical experts, however, do not agree.
One of the main criticisms stems from the fact that the adverse effects experienced involve a complex set of symptoms, but the statistical analysis reviewed symptoms individually. Moreover, the Pentagon stopped keeping records of adverse events in 2000, even though the effects of the vaccine might be long-term. What is perhaps most disturbing about the discontinuation of the Anthrax vaccine monitoring program is that it failed to meet the standards set by the National Institute of Medicine, which recommends a minimum of five years of surveillance.
Meanwhile, veterans who were forced to take the vaccine continue to experience problems. Among the most common are neuropathy - a tingling in the feet arms and hands, chronic pain in the joints and other symptoms of arthritis and difficulty in concentrating. Other more serious problems include things such as ALS.
In the face of such complaints, how could the military brass continue to tell Congress there was no problem?
The answer is simple, they played word games.
Testifying at a congressional hearing, Lt. General G. Robert Claypool, who at the time was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Operations Policy said:
"The duty to report adverse medication events has been codified for many years. The joint regulation requires submission of a form, VAERS-1 for all adverse events resulting in more than 24 hours of lost duty time or any period of hospitalization. These requirements represent a higher standard than in comparable civilian community health care settings."
That certainly is an impressive statement, but there's a catch. He said that all hospitalizations related to adverse medication events had to be reported, not ALL HOSPITALIZATIONS. But if a particular symptom or health problem is not classified as a recognized "adverse event" then it need not be reported.
In some cases it may well be that the hospitalizations not reported were in fact not related to the vaccine. But we will never know if no attempt is made to determine where the truth lies. Still, it would seem impossible, after five years, to discover the truth. Things, however, are not always what they seem.
In addition to the VAERS system, the military also maintains another database: the Defense Medical Surveillance System or DMSS. It is the most exact and comprehensive database of its kind. The DMSS is capable of tracking and accessing every item of medical information on every member of the Armed Forces: every shot, doctor visit, hospitalization or other medical treatment. The VAERS system pales in comparison.
So why not access and analyze this data to put the vaccine debate to rest once and for all?
The Pentagon argues that they cannot figure out how to access the data and still protect patient privacy.
Officials at the National Institute of Medicine have one thing to say about this claim: NONSENSE!
One Institute official put it succinctly:
"We use these kinds of data sets in Medicaid and Medicare all the time. There are technological solutions."
Indeed, the type of epidemiological research access to the DMSS records would allow is exactly what is needed to get to the truth. Moreover it is in the Pentagon's interest to find out if the vaccine is dangerous.
As military technology has become more complex, the cost of training members of the Armed Forces has become increasingly expensive. It can cost anywhere from a hundred thousand dollars to train an infantryman to millions of dollars to train a fighter pilot or Special Forces soldier. But it is not just the money. It also takes time - years in some instances - to fully train military personnel for some specialties and it is the most highly trained service members that are likely to be the first deployed. It is therefore foolish on many levels to risk their becoming incapacitated by an unsafe vaccine.
So why does the military continue to resist scrutiny?
Some observers believe it is a matter of control:
"If you let independent people have the data, you run the risk of losing control. In combat, letting things get out of control gets people killed, so loss of control is a very sensitive issue."
This may be true, but so is needlessly causing illness or injury to those who volunteer to defend their nation. Yet that is exactly what is about to happen.
On December 19, 2005, the FDA issued a ruling that recognized the Anthrax vaccine as "safe and effective" against all forms of the disease. This once again opens the door to a resumption of the military's mandatory vaccination program. If it is resumed, our service personnel will once again face the dilemma of taking a vaccine that poses unknown and potentially fatal side effects or ending their military careers. It is a choice they should not have to make.
http://www.cancercoverup.com/newsletter/2006-01/
The Anthrax Vaccine:
Making Our Soldiers Guinea Pigs
http://www.cancercoverup.com/newsletter/print-version/anthrax-vaccine.asp
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:39:03 -0500
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
Subject: Live Not By Lies
Live Not By Lies
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
As printed in The Washington Post, p. A26
Monday, February 18, 1974
Following is the full text of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's essay ``Live Not By Lies.'' It is perhaps the last thing he wrote on his native soil [before the collapse of the Soviet Union] and circulated among Moscow's intellectuals [at that time]. The essay is dated Feb. 12, the day that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany.
At one time we dared not even to whisper. Now we write and read samizdat, and sometimes when we gather in the smoking room at the Science Institute we complain frankly to one another: What kind of tricks are they playing on us, and where are they dragging us? gratuitous boasting of cosmic achievements while there is poverty and destruction at home. Propping up remote, uncivilized regimes. Fanning up civil war. And we recklessly fostered Mao Tse-tung at our expense-- and it will be we who are sent to war against him, and will have to go. Is there any way out? And they put on trial anybody they want and they put sane people in asylums--always they, and we are powerless.
Things have almost reached rock bottom. A universal spiritual death has already touched us all, and physical death will soon flare up and consume us both and our children--but as before we still smile in a cowardly way and mumble without tounges tied. But what can we do to stop it? We haven't the strength?
We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today's modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants--but just don't disturb our fragile existence. We lack staunchness, pride and enthusiasm. We don't even fear universal nuclear death, and we don't fear a third world war. We have already taken refuge in the crevices. We just fear acts of civil courage.
We fear only to lag behind the herd and to take a step alone-and suddenly find ourselves without white bread, without heating gas and without a Moscow registration.
We have been indoctrinated in political courses, and in just the same way was fostered the idea to live comfortably, and all will be well for the rest of our lives. You can't escape your environment and social conditions. Everyday life defines consciousness. What does it have to do with us? We can't do anything about it?
But we can--everything. But we lie to ourselves for assurance. And it is not they who are to blame for everything-we ourselves, only we. One can object: But actually toy can think anything you like. Gags have been stuffed into our mouths. Nobody wants to listen to us and nobody asks us. How can we force them to listen? It is impossible to change their minds.
It would be natural to vote them out of office-but there are not elections in our country. In the West people know about strikes and protest demonstrations-but we are too oppressed, and it is a horrible prospect for us: How can one suddenly renounce a job and take to the streets? Yet the other fatal paths probed during the past century by our bitter Russian history are, nevertheless, not for us, and truly we don't need them.
Now that the axes have done their work, when everything which was sown has sprouted anew, we can see that the young and presumptuous people who thought they would make out country just and happy through terror, bloody rebellion and civil war were themselves misled. No thanks, fathers of education! Now we know that infamous methods breed infamous results. Let our hands be clean!
The circle--is it closed? And is there really no way out? And is there only one thing left for us to do, to wait without taking action? Maybe something will happen by itself? It will never happen as long as we daily acknowledge, extol, and strengthen--and do not sever ourselves from--the most perceptible of its aspects: Lies.
When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: ``I am violence. Run away, make way for me--I will crush you.'' But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally--since violence lays its ponderous paw not every day and not on every shoulder. It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies--all loyalty lies in that.
And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.
This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.
We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth our loud or to express aloud what we think. It's not necessary.
It's dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.
This is our path, the easiest and most accessible one, which takes into account out inherent cowardice, already well rooted. And it is much easier--it's dangerous even to say this--than the sort of civil disobedience which Gandhi advocated.
Our path is to talk away fro the gangrenous boundary. If we did not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together the rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and subside.
That which should be naked would then really appear naked before the whole world.
So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood--of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one's family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies--or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one's children and contemporaries.
And from that day onward he:
a.. Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
b.. Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
c.. Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
d.. Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
e.. Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
f.. Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
g.. Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question.
h.. Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
i.. Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed.
Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.
No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.
But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.
And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul- don't let him be proud of his ``progressive'' views,a dn don't let him boast that he is an academician or a people's artist, a merited figure, or a general--let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It's all the same to me as long as I'm fed and warm.
Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.
A great people of Europe, the Czhechoslovaks, whom we betrayed and deceived: Haven't they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it?
You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. Not, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.
So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.
If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. let us then bow down even more, let us wail, and out brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.
And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:
``Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?
``Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.''
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/livenotbylies.html
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/september_eleven_vreeland/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
september_eleven_vreeland-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment