Endgame Vol.1

by Jensen, Derrick

  Just to be certain, the scientists then injected bee venom or acetic acid into fish’s lips. In the words of one researcher, “Anomalous behaviours were exhibited by trout subjected to bee venom and acetic acid.” As a former beekeeper, I can attest to how much it hurts to have bee venom injected into one’s lip, and how directly that leads to “anomalous behavior,” in my case jumping up and down and cursing.

  But evidently the (intensely stupid) debate isn’t over. Dr Bruno Broughton, fisheries biologist for the United Kingdom’s National Angling Alliance, fired a scientific salvo back, dismissing this research by saying one cannot “draw conclusions about the ability of fish to feel pain, a psychological experience for which they literally do not have the brains.”191

  This is of course a repetition of a line we’ve heard too many times, the equivalent of the National Science Foundation spokesman saying there’s no causal connection between firing airguns at 240 db and whales beaching themselves, the equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences saying that salmon don’t need water.

  In order to maintain our way of living, we must tell lies to each other, and especially to ourselves.

  From birth on we the civilized are systematically lied to, until in time we systematically lie to ourselves. We insulate ourselves from the pain of others (and from our own pain). We pretend it does not exist. Factory farmed chickens (and carrots) feel no pain. Dammed rivers feel no pain, no claustrophobia. Children made weak and stupid by pesticides feel no pain, no loss. Children with grotesque birth defects from depleted uranium feel no pain. But oh, I forgot, there has been no causal connection shown between the activities of those in power and any of these.

  Nor has there been a causal connection shown between the systematic elimination of all wild creatures and the pain, terror, and despair these creatures must feel. But oh, I forgot, these creatures do not have the brains to feel any of these things: only humans feel these things. Only humans in power feel any of these things. Only humans highest on the hierarchy feel these things. Only humans highest on the hierarchy really exist.

  And so it goes.

  This is what science teaches us (You will pull the vacuum-packed frog from its plastic shroud, or alternatively, you will scramble the brains of this live frog, make it as insensate as I am making you, as insensate as my elders made me). It’s what economics teaches us (Money has value. Nonhuman life does not, except insofar as it can be somehow converted to cash. Among humans, because the rich have more money than the poor, and thus the capacity to make more money than the poor, the lives of the rich have more value than those of the poor.)

  This is what the military puts in place and the police enforce.

  This is what is killing the world.

  I have seen tadpoles struggle when caught by backswimmers, and frogs flip frantically when held by the curved pincers of giant water bugs. I’ve reeled in fish fighting for their lives with hooks in their lips or throats or in the roofs of their mouths. I know these creatures feel pain. I do not need to burn or inject them with venom to know this.

  Creatures eat each other. They cause pain to each other. That is part of life. That is part of death. That is part of eating. This causing of pain, this killing, happens whether or not we are vegetarians. It happens whether or not we choose to believe that others feels pain. I prefer to not cause pain, and must be reminded by my vegetarian friends when I accidentally step on a beetle or slug that I am a large mammal, and large mammals accidentally step on smaller creatures. But when I do cause pain, whether by accidentally squashing a sow bug, intentionally killing a fish or potato to eat, or pulling invasive scotch broom, I attempt to at least be honest about it.

  WHY CIVILIZATION IS KILLING THE WORLD, TAKE FOUR.

  March 6.

  That’s why.

  March 6, 1857, the United States Supreme Court rules in Scott v. Sanford that because blacks are “so far inferior” to whites, “they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

  Fast forward.

  March 6, 1974, Ayn Rand addresses West Point cadets, something she considered the greatest honor of her life. When someone has the impertinence to “express an unpopular view” and ask her about the United States’ basis on the dispossession and genocide of Indians, she responds, “They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal [and how else would she expect an animal—which is what we are—to live?], or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.”192

  Some things don’t change.

  WHY CIVILIZATION IS KILLING THE WORLD, TAKE FIVE. In 1900, Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana, who later won a Pulitzer Prize, and was much later included favorably in John F. Kennedy’s immensely popular and influential Profiles in Courage, put forward his best arguments in favor of the United States invading—oh, sorry, liberating—the Philippines. I quote his argument at length because he articulates so perfectly and so guilelessly what is wrong with civilization, and because with a few minor changes his words could just as easily have been spoken two thousand years earlier or a hundred years later: “Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever, ‘territory belonging to the United States,’ as the Constitution calls them. And just beyond the Philippines are China’s illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. And we will move forward to our work, not howling out regrets like slaves whipped to their burdens, but with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength, and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world.

  “. . . For power to administer government anywhere and in any manner the situation demands . . . is the power most necessary for the ruling provisions of our race—the tendency to explore, expand, and grow, to sail new seas and seek new lands, subdue the wilderness, revitalize decaying peoples, and plant civilized and civilizing governments all over the globe. . . .

  “Mr. President, this question is deeper than any question of party politics: deeper than any question of the isolated policy of our country even; deeper even than any question of constitutional power. It is elemental. It is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns . He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth. He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples. Were it not for such a force as this the world would relapse into barbarism and night.193 And of all our race He has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world. This is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit, all the glory, all the happiness possible to man. We are trustees of the world’s progress, guardians of its righteous peace. The judgment of the Master is upon us: ‘Ye have been faithful over a few things; I will make you ruler over many things.’

  “What shall history say of us? Shall it say that we renounced that holy trust, left the savage to his base condition, the wilderness to the reign of waste, deserted duty, abandoned glory, forgot our sordid profit even,194 because we feared our strength and read the charter of our powers with the doubter’s eye and the quibbler’s mind? Shall it say that, called by events to captain and command the proudest, a
blest, purest race of history in history’s noblest work, we declined that great commission? Our fathers would not have had it so. No! They founded no paralytic government, incapable of the simplest acts of administration. They planted no sluggard people, passive while the world’s work calls them. They established no reactionary nation. They unfurled no retreating flag.

  “That flag has never paused in its onward march. Who dares halt it now—now, when history’s largest events are carrying it forward; now, when we are at last one people, strong enough for any task, great enough for any glory destiny can bestow? . . .

  “Blind indeed is he who sees not the hand of God in events so vast, so harmonious , so benign. Reactionary indeed is the mind that perceives not that this vital people is the strongest of the saving forces of the world; that our place, therefore, is at the head of the constructing and redeeming nations of the earth; and that to stand aside while events march on is a surrender of our interests, a betrayal of our duty as blind as it is base. Craven indeed is the heart that fears to perform a work so golden and so noble ; that dares not win a glory so immortal.

  “Do you tell me that it will cost us money? When did Americans ever measure duty by financial standards?195 Do you tell me of the tremendous toil required to overcome the vast difficulties of our task? What mighty work for the world, for humanity, even for ourselves has ever been done with ease? . . .

  “Do you remind me of the precious blood that must be shed, the lives that must be given, the broken hearts of loved ones for their slain? And this is indeed a heavier price than all combined. And yet as a nation every historic duty we have done, every achievement we have accomplished, has been by the sacrifice of our noblest sons.196 Every holy memory that glorifies the flag is of those heroes who have died that its onward march might not be stayed. . . . That flag is woven of heroism and grief, of the bravery of men and women’s tears, of righteousness and battle, of sacrifice and anguish, of triumph and of glory. It is these which make our flag a holy thing. Who would tear from that sacred banner the glorious legends of a single battle where it has waved on land or sea? . . . In the cause of civilization, in the service of the republic anywhere on earth, Americans consider wounds the noblest decorations man can win, and count the giving of their lives a glad and precious duty.

  “Pray God that spirit never falls. Pray God the time may never come when Mammon and the love of ease shall so debase our blood that we will fear to shed it for the flag and its imperial destiny. Pray God the time may never come when American heroism is but a legend like the story of the Cid. American faith in our mission and our might a dream dissolved, and the glory of our mighty race departed.

  “And that time will never come. We will renew our youth at the fountain of new and glorious deeds. We will exalt our reverence for the flag by carrying it to a noble future as well as by remembering its ineffable past. Its immortality will not pass, because everywhere and always we will acknowledge and discharge the solemn responsibilities to our sacred flag, in its deepest meaning, puts upon us. And so, Senators, with reverent hearts, where dwells the fear of God, the American people move forward to the future of their hope and the doing of His work.

  “Mr. President and Senators, adopt the resolution offered, that peace may quickly come and that we may begin our saving, regenerating, and uplifting work. [Recall that the resolution he wishes to adopt is for the sacking, looting, and holding of the Philippines.] Adopt it, and this bloodshed will cease when these deluded children of our islands learn that this is the final word of the representatives of the American people in Congress assembled. Reject it, and the world, history, and the American people will know where to forever fix the awful responsibility for the consequences that will surely follow such failure to do our manifest duty. How dare we delay when our soldiers’ blood is flowing?”197

  Rhetoric aside, the ensuing American invasion left a large percentage of Filipinos dead. Massacres of every man, woman, and child encountered by American soldiers were commonplace, as was mass torture of combatants and noncombatants alike. The Philippines arguably continue to be, to this day, a colony of the United States.

  WHY CIVILIZATION IS KILLING THE WORLD, TAKE SIX.

  Fast forward to the twenty-first century. Albert Beveridge is long dead, but the imperative, old as civilization, thrives. The flag has still not paused in its onward march, and no one has yet dared halt it.

  Indeed, its pace is accelerating. Recall the stated goal of the U.S. military of “full-spectrum dominance.” Or consider Michael Ledeen. The day I typed in the words of Albert Beveridge, I also came across the words of Ledeen, former consultant to President George W. Bush’s national security adviser, and special adviser to the secretary of state. Considered a leading authority on intelligence and international affairs as well as one of the most influential advisors on U.S. policy in the Middle East, he has been profiled by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. One article lauded his “deep commitment to democracy [sic],” and stated that Ledeen “is a man who has helped shape American foreign policy at its highest levels.” At least the latter is true: when Ledeen speaks, people like Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listen and act. People in the rest of the world die.

  “Creative destruction is our middle name,” Ledeen writes. “We do it automatically.” 198 He speaks of “exporting the democratic [sic] revolution,”199 which can be done through a process called “total war,” best described by his colleague Adam Mersereau: “By ‘total’ war, I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy’s military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place. A total-war strategy does not have to include the intentional targeting of civilians, but the sparing of civilian lives cannot be its first priority. . . . The purpose of ‘total’ war is to permanently force your will onto another people. . . . Limited war pits combatants against combatants, while total war pits nation against nation, and even culture against culture.”200

  How does Ledeen suggest those in power prepare themselves psychologically to force their will onto another people? In an essay entitled “Machiavelli On Our War: Some Advice for Our Leaders,” he states: “1. Man is more inclined to do evil than to do good.” This of course says more about Ledeen’s own proclivities and the proclivities of those in his circle than it does about human nature or the world at large. He continues, “Societies with a majority of good people are rare, and are constantly threatened by the evil-minded world outside. Peace is NOT the normal condition of mankind, and moments of peace are invariably the result of war. Since we want peace, we must win the war. Since our enemies are inclined to do evil, we must win decisively and then impose virtue on their survivors, so that they can’t do any more evil to us. . . . 2. The only important thing is winning or losing. Don’t worry about how the world will judge your strategy. Just worry about winning. Machiavelli tells us that if you win, everyone will judge your methods to have been appropriate. If you lose, they will despise you. 3. If you have to do unpleasant things, it is best to do them all at once, rather than to do a long series of little ones. Strike decisively, get it over with. Don’t listen to your diplomats, who will try to convince you that you can achieve your goals with a little bit of nastiness and a whole lot of talking. . . . 4. It is better to be more feared than loved. You can lead by the force of high moral example. It has been done. But it’s risky, because people are fickle, and they will abandon you at the first sign of failure. Fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once you show that you are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to your enemies, your power will be far greater.”201

  All of this mirrors and brings up to date Caligula’s favorite phrase, coined by the poet Lucius Accius, “Oderint dum metuant: Let them hate us so long as they fear us.”202 This line, now quoted regularly by those who run the United States government,203 is perhaps
the most important phrase in the history of civilization, and characterizes everything from childrearing practices to education to social regulation (the civilized term would be law enforcement) to relations with human neighbors to relations with the natural world. It characterizes civilization.

  Ledeen more or less always urges politicians to go to war. And he more or less always urges them to do so quickly, ending many of his essays more or less the same way: “Peace in this world only follows victory in war. Enough talking, Mr. President. . . . Let’s roll again. Faster, please.”204 Or, “One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.”205 Or, “Faster, please. What the hell are you waiting for?”206 “Faster, please. Opportunity is knocking at our door.”207 “Iran is the heart of darkness. Enough already. Do it now.”208 “As in the war against Iraq, we have already waited far too long to get on with it. Faster, please!”209 “No let’s get on with the war. Faster, please.”210

  Those in charge of this culture are insane.

  They are killing the world.

  WHY CIVILIZATION IS KILLING THE WORLD, TAKE SEVEN. During negotiations over the “Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” (that’s a lot of words to describe a document into which a lot of people put a lot of energy, and which is in the end nearly meaningless in terms of its effect in the real world; this was of course the point all along), Greenpeace activist Jeremy Leggett asked Ford Motor Company executive John Schiller how opponents of the Convention could believe there’s no problem with “burning all the oil and gas available on the planet.”