Transhumanism Has Opened the Gates of Hell-Steve Quayle and …

Posted on by

In 1993, I met and befriended Vance Davis of the NSA. He became one of my most important mentors on how the world of intelligence worked. Among the most important things that Vance taught me was how a crucial part of his training would come to prominently play a major role in human history.

Vance told me that his NSA training taught him that there was an eternal war in the cosmos that have been waging for eons.The war was between traditional good and evil and the ultimate prize of that war was the human soul. However, Satan and his demonic minions were unable to solve the mystery on how to destroy the soul, so they decided to destroy Gods creation, mankind. This was in 1993, 25 years ago, and well before the coining of the term, transhumanism, but that was exactly what Vance was talking about.

Steve Quayle and Dr. Tom Hornare two of the worlds foremost authorities on the topic of transhumanism. Through my relationship with Steve, I have a good working knowledge on the topic of transhumanism. From Steve Quayles book, Xenogensis-Changing Men Into Monsters,I learned about the perverse morphing of man into monsters as is revealed in scripture.In the book ofRevelation 9:1-21we see another purpose of the tribulation: to unmask Satans true character. While in the future men will go to hell, inRevelation 9hell comes to men and this is where transhumanism will come to play the dominant role in human history.

Steves book can best be described in the following words:

.Xenogenesis reveals a future of terror that will soon face human beings. Monsterous creations are being developed with secret technology in labs around the world. Xenogenesis is the production of an offspring entirely different from either of the parents, transformed though the addition of DNA from an alien or animal to the normal genetics of a human being. The results will be comic book super-heroes come to life, living creatures with mythical abilities unlike anything mankind has seen for thousands of years, and with inspired the ancient legends of gods and goddesses. This horrifying future targets Gods original creation for corruption.

Thus, Vance Davis 1993 warning comes to fruition. I strongly recommend reading this book as it provides the necessary history which describes how we got to the perverted place in history that we are presently in.

I recently interviewed both Steve Quayle and Dr. Tom Horn. Fortunately, God gave me the wisdom to hold my tongue and I got out of their way and let these two experts share their vast knowledge and information on the topic of transhumanism. In the final chapter of transhumanism, the participating globalists seek immortality and to permanently end Gods creation, that would be us, the human being.

During the course of the interview, Tom Horn and Steve Quayle repeatedly expressed the view, with example after example of how the technology to achieve Satans final goal is here in the present time. As important as events like gun control, school shootings, World War III, the Deep State attempted coup against our government are, this is, without question, mankinds biggest challenge.

The following two hour interview with Steve and Tom are two of the most important hours in the history of The Common Sense Show.

I would ask that all Christians who hear this message, share this information far and wide like your lives depend upon it, because your lives, both spiritual and physical will pivot on the events discussed in this interview.

Stephen Quayleis a nationally known radio host (Survive2thrive and Coast to Coast), photographer and author of a number of important books includingBreathe No Evil, a primer for understanding bioterrorism, first published in 1996. Additionally he has authored:

Long time television and radio personality, author and publisher, Thomas Horn, serves as the Chief Executive Officer of SkyWatchTV. At the dawn of the Internet, Horn launched two news services where coverage of latest-breaking news and information on cutting-edge stories covering religion, prophecy, discovery, and the supernatural through in-depth investigative reports led to his network of writers being referenced and interviewed by the biggest names in broadcasting, including: LA Times Syndicate, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, Time, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, BBC, MSNBC, Michael Savage, SciFi Channel, History Channel, Hannity & Colmes, Sid Roths Its Supernatural, The Jim Bakker Show, Celebration Daystar TV, FaithTV, The Harvest Show, The 700 Club, Coast to Coast AM, WorldNetDaily, NewsMax.com, White House Correspondents, and dozens of other newsmagazines and press agencies around the globe. SkyWatchTV is the consummation and new mothership of Toms several subsidiaries including Defender Films and Defender Publishing.

See original here:

Transhumanism Has Opened the Gates of Hell-Steve Quayle and ...

Can Libertarianism Be a Governing Philosophy?

Posted on by

The discussion we are about to have naturally divides itself into two aspects:

First: Could libertarianism, if implemented, sustain a state apparatus and not devolve into autocracy or anarchy? By that I mean the lawless versions of autocracy and anarchy, not stable monarchy or emergent rule of law without a state. Second: even if the answer were Yesor, Yes, if . . . we would still need to know whether enough citizens desired a libertarian order that it could feasibly be voluntarily chosen. That is, I am ruling out involuntary imposition by force of libertarianism as a governing philosophy.

I will address both questions, but want to assert at the outset that the first is the more important and more fundamental one. If the answer to it is No, there is no point in moving on to the second question. If the answer is Yes, it may be possible to change peoples minds about accepting a libertarian order.

The Destinationalists

As I have argued elsewhere[1], there are two main paths to deriving libertarian principles, destinations and directions. The destinationist approach shares the method of most other ethical paradigms: the enunciation of timeless moral and ethical precepts that describe the ideal libertarian society.

What makes for a distinctly libertarian set of principles is two precepts:

The extreme forms of these principles, for destinationists, can be hard for outsiders to accept. One example is noted by Matt Zwolinski, who cites opinion data gathered from libertarians by Liberty magazine and presented in its periodic Liberty Poll. A survey question frequently included in the survey was:

Suppose that you are on a friends balcony on the 50th floor of a condominium complex. You trip, stumble and fall over the edge. You catch a flagpole on the next floor down. The owner opens his window and demands you stop trespassing.

Zwolinski writes that in 1988, 84 percent of respondents to the flagpole question

said they believed that in such circumstances they should enter the owners residence against the owners wishes. 2% (one respondent) said that they should let go and fall to their death, and 15% said they should hang on and wait for somebody to throw them a rope. In 1999, the numbers were 86%, 1%, and 13%. In 2008, they were 89.2%, 0.9%, and 9.9%.

The interesting thing is that, while the answers to the flagpole question were almost unchanged over time, with a slight upward drift in those who would aggress by trespassing, support for the non-aggression principle itself plummeted. Writes Zwolinski:

Respondents were asked to say whether they agreed or disagreed with [the non-aggression principle]. In 1988, a full 90% of respondents said that they agreed. By 1999, however, the percentage expressing agreement had dropped by almost half to 50%. And by 2008, it was down to 39.7%.

If we take support for the non-aggression principle as a Rorschach test, it does not appear that most people, maybe not even everyone who identifies as a libertarian, are fully convinced that the principle is an absolute categorical moral principle.

The Directionalists

Of course, it could be true that many who identify now as libertarians, and those who might be attracted to libertarianism in the future, are directionalists. A directional approach holds that any policy action that increases the liberty and welfare of individuals is an improvement, and should be supported by libertarians, even if the policy itself violates either the self-ownership principle or the non-aggression principle.

A useful example here might be school vouchers. Instead of being a monopoly provider of public school education, the state might specialize in funding but leave the provision of education at least partly to private sector actors. The destinationist would object (and correctly) that the policy still involves the initiation of violence in collecting taxes involuntarily imposed on at least individuals who would not pay without the threat of coercion. In contrast, the directionalist might support vouchers, since parents would at least be afforded more liberty in choosing schools for their children, and the system would be subject to more competition, thus holding providers responsible for the quality of education being delivered.

Here, then, is a slightly modified take on the central question: Would a hybrid version of libertarianism, one that advocated for the destination but accepted directional improvements, be a viable governing philosophy? Even with this amendment, allowing for directional improvements as part of the core governing philosophy, is libertarianismto use a trope of the momentsustainable? The reason this approach could be useful is that it correlates to one of the great divisions within the libertarian movement: the split between political anarchists, who believe that any coercive state apparatus is ultimately incompatible with liberty, and the minarchists, who believe that a limited government is desirable, even necessary, and that it is also possible.

Limiting Leviathan: Getting Power to Stay Where You Put It

For a state to be consistent with both the self-ownership principle and the non-aggression principle, there must be certain core rights to property, expression, and action that are inviolable. This inviolability extends even to situations where initiating force would greatly benefit most people, meaning that consequentialist considerations cannot outweigh the rights of individuals.

Where might such a state originate, and how could it be continually limited to only those functions for which it was originally justified? One common answer is a form of contractarianism. (Another is convention, which is beyond the scope in this essay. See Robert Sugden[2] and Gerard Gaus[3] for a review of some of the issues.) This is not to say that actual states are the results of explicitly contractual arrangements; rather, there is an as if element: rational citizens in a state of nature would have voluntarily consented to the limited coercion of a minarchist state, given the substantial and universal improvement in welfare that results from having a provider of public goods and a neutral enforcer of contracts. Without a state, claims the minarchist, these two functionspublic goods provision and contract enforcementare either impossible or so difficult as to make the move to create a coercive state universally welcome for all citizens.

Contractarianism is of course an enormous body of work in philosophy, ranging from Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to David Gauthier and John Rawls. Our contractarians, the libertarian versions, start with James Buchanan and Jan Narveson. Buchanans contractarianism is stark: Rules start with us, and the justification for coercion is, but can only be, our consent to being coerced. It is not clear that Buchanan would accept the full justification of political authority by tacit contract, but Buchanan also claims that each group in society should start from where we are now, meaning that changes in the rules require something as close to unanimous consent as possible.[4]

Narvesons view is closer to the necessary evil claim for justifying government. We need a way to be secure from violence, and to be able to enter into binding agreements that are enforceable. He wrote in The Libertarian Idea (1988) that there is no alternative that can provide reasons to everyone for accepting it, no matter what their personal values or philosophy of life may be, and thus motivating this informal, yet society-wide institution. He goes on to say:

Without resort to obfuscating intuitions, of self-evident rights and the like, the contractarian view offers an intelligible account both of why it is rational to want a morality and of what, broadly speaking, the essentials of that morality must consist in: namely, those general rules that are universally advantageous to rational agents. We each need morality, first because we are vulnerable to the depredations of others, and second because we can all benefit from cooperation with others. So we need protection, in the form of the ability to rely on our fellows not to engage in activities harmful to us; and we need to be able to rely on those with whom we deal. We each need this regardless of what else we need or value.

The problem, or so the principled political anarchist would answer, is that Leviathan cannot be limited unless for some reason Leviathan wants to limit itself.

One of the most interesting proponent of this view is Anthony de Jasay, an independent philosopher of political economy. Jasay would not dispute the value of credible commitments for contracts. His quarrel comes when contractarians invoke a founding myth. When I think of the Social Contract (the capitals signify how important it is!), I am reminded of that scene from Monty Python where King Arthur is talking to the peasants:

King Arthur: I am your king.

Woman: Well, I didnt vote for you.

King Arthur: You dont vote for kings.

Woman: Well howd you become king then?

[holy music . . . ]

King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.

Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin in ponds distributin swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

According to Jasay, there are two distinct problems with contractarian justifications for the state. Each, separately and independently, is fatal for the project, in his view. Together they put paid to the notion that a libertarian could favor minarchism.

The first problem is the enforceable contracts justification. The second is the limiting Leviathan problem.

The usual statement of the first comes from Hobbes: Covenants, without the sword, are but words. That means that individuals cannot enter into binding agreements without some third party to enforce the agreement. Since entering into binding agreements is a central precondition for mutually beneficial exchange and broad-scale market cooperation, we need a powerful, neutral enforcer. So, we all agree on that; the enforcer collects the taxes that we all agreed on and, in exchange, enforces all our contracts for us. (See John Thrasher[5] for some caveats.)

Butwait. Jasay compares this to jumping over your own shadow. If contracts cannot be enforced save by coercion from a third party, how can the contract between citizens and the state be enforced? [I]t takes courage to affirm that rational people could unanimously wish to have a sovereign contract enforcer bound by no contract, wrote Jasay in his book Against Politics (1997). By courage he does not intend a compliment. Either those who make this claim are contradicting themselves (since we cant have contracts, well use a contract to solve the problem) or the argument is circular (cooperation requires enforceable contracts, but these require a norm of cooperation).

Jasay put the question this way in On Treating Like Cases Alike: Review of Politics by Principle Not Interest, his 1999 essay in the Independent Review:

If man can no more bind himself by contract than he can jump over his own shadow, how can he jump over his own shadow and bind himself in a social contract? He cannot be both incapable of collective action and capable of it when creating the coercive agency needed to enforce his commitment. One can, without resorting to a bootstrap theory, accept the idea of an exogenous coercive agent, a conqueror whose regime is better than anything the conquered people could organize for themselves. Consenting to such an accomplished fact, however, can hardly be represented as entering into a contract, complete with a contracts ethical implications of an act of free will. [Emphasis in original]

In sum, the former claimthat contracts cannot be enforcedcannot then be used to conjure enforceable contracts out of a shadow. The latter claimthat people will cooperate on their ownmeans that no state is necessary in the first place. The conclusion Jasay reaches is that states, if they exist, may well be able to compel people to obey. The usual argument goes like this:

The state exists and enjoys the monopoly of the use of force for some reason, probably a historical one, that we need not inquire into. What matters is that without the state, society could not function tolerably, if at all. Therefore all rational persons would choose to enter into a social contract to create it. Indeed, we should regard the state as if it were the result of our social contract, hence indisputably legitimate.[6]

Jasay concludes that this argument must be false. As Robert Nozick famously put it in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), tacit consent isnt worth the paper its not written on. We cannot confect a claim that states deserve our obedience based on consent. For consent is what true political authority requires: not that our compliance can be compelled, but that the state deserves our compliance. Ordered anarchy with no formal state is therefore a better solution, in Jasays view, because consent is either not real or is not enough.

Of course, this is simply an extension of a long tradition in libertarian thought, dating at least to Lysander Spooner. As Spooner said:

If the majority, however large, of the people of a country, enter into a contract of government, called a constitution, by which they agree to aid, abet or accomplish any kind of injustice, or to destroy or invade the natural rights of any person or persons whatsoever, whether such persons be parties to the compact or not, this contract of government is unlawful and voidand for the same reason that a treaty between two nations for a similar purpose, or a contract of the same nature between two individuals, is unlawful and void. Such a contract of government has no moral sanction. It confers no rightful authority upon those appointed to administer it. It confers no legal or moral rights, and imposes no legal or moral obligation upon the people who are parties to it. The only duties, which any one can owe to it, or to the government established under color of its authority, are disobedience, resistance, destruction.[7]

Now for the other problem highlighted by Jasay, that of limiting Leviathan. Let us assume the best of state officials: that they genuinely intend to do good. We might make the standard Public Choice assumption that officials want to use power to benefit themselves, but let us put that aside; instead, officials genuinely want to improve the lives of their citizens.

This means a minarchist state is not sustainable. Officials, thinking of the society as a collective rather than as individuals with inviolable rights, will immediately discover opportunities to raise taxes, and create new programs and new powers that benefit those in need. In fact, it is precisely the failure of the Public Choice assumptions of narrow self-interest that ensure this outcome. It might be possible in theory to design a principal-agent system of bureaucratic contract that constrains selfish officials. But if state power attracts those who are willing to sacrifice the lives or welfare of some for the greater good, then minarchy is quickly breached and Leviathan swells without the possibility of constraint.

I hasten to add that it need not be true, for Jasays claim to go through, that the concept of the greater good have any empirical content. It is enough that a few people believe, and can brandish the greater good like a truncheon, smashing rules and laws designed to stop the expansion of state power. No one who wants to do good will pass up a chance to do good, even if it means changing the rules. This process is much like that described by F.A. Hayek in Why the Worst Get on Top (see Chapter 10 of The Road to Serfdom) or Bertrand de Jouvenels Power (1945).

So, again, we reach a contradiction: Either 1) minarchy is not possible, because it is overwhelmed by the desire to do good, or minarchy is not legitimate because it is based on a mythical tacit consent; or 2) no state, minarchist or otherwise, is necessary because people can limit their actions on their own. Citizens might conclude that such self-imposed limits on their own actions are morally required, and that reputation and competition can limit the extent of depredation and reward cooperation in settings with repeated interaction. Jasay would argue, then, that constitutions and parchment barriers are either unnecessary (if people are self-governing) or ineffective (if they are not). Leviathan either cannot exist or else it is illimitable.

But Thats Not Enough

What I have argued so far is that destinationist libertarianism that is fully faithful to the self-ownership principle and the non-aggression principle could not be an effective governing philosophy. The only exception to this claim would be if libertarianism were universally believed, and people all agreed to govern themselves in the absence of a coercive state apparatus of any kind. Of course, one could object that even then something like a state would emerge, because of the economies of scale in the provision of defense, leading to a dominant protection network as described by Nozick. Whether that structure of service-delivery is necessarily a state is an interesting question, but not central to our current inquiry.

My own view is that libertarianism is, and in fact should be, a philosophy of governing that is robust and useful. But then I am a thoroughgoing directionalist. The state and its deputized coercive instruments have expanded the scope and intensity of their activities far beyond what people need to achieve cooperative goals, and beyond what they want in terms of immanent intrusions into our private lives.

Given the constant push and pull of politics, and the desire of groups to create and maintain rents for themselves, the task of leaning into the prevailing winds of statism will never be done. But it is a coherent and useful governing philosophy. When someone asks how big the state should be, there arent many people who think the answer is zero. But thats not on the table, anyway. My answer is smaller than it is now. Any policy change that grants greater autonomy (but also responsibility) to individual citizens, or that lessens government control over private action, is desirable; and libertarians are crucial for providing compelling intellectual justifications for why this is so.

In short, I dont advocate abandoning destinationist debates. The positing of an ideal is an important device for recruitment and discussion. But at this point we have been going in the wrong direction, for decades. It should be possible to find allies and fellow travelers. They may want to get off the train long before we arrive at the end of the line, but for many miles our paths toward smaller government follow the same track.

[1] Michael Munger, Basic Income Is Not an Obligation, but It Might Be a Legitimate Choice, Basic Income Studies 6:2 (December 2011), 1-13.

[2] Robert Sugden, Can a Humean Be a Contractarian? in Perspectives in Moral Science, edited by Michael Baurmann and Bernd Lahno, Frankfurt School Verlag (2009), 1123.

[3] Gerald Gaus, Why the Conventionalist Needs the Social Contract (and Vice Versa), Rationality, Markets and Morals, Frankfurt School Verlag, 4 (2013), 7187.

[4] For more on the foundation of Buchanans thought, see my forthcoming essay in the Review of Austrian Economics, Thirty Years After the Nobel: James Buchanans Political Philosophy.

[5] John Thrasher, Uniqueness and Symmetry in Bargaining Theories of Justice, Philosophical Studies 167 (2014), 683699.

[6] Anthony de Jasay, Pious Lies: The Justification of States and Welfare States, Economic Affairs 24:2 (2004), 63-64.

[7] Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (Boston: Bela Marsh, 1860), pp. 9-10. <http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2206>

Visit link:

Can Libertarianism Be a Governing Philosophy?

Can I Keep My House and Car? | Bankruptcy HQ

Posted on by

In fact, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is designed to help save assets such as your house or car if you are facing foreclosure or repossession. As you did prior to filing bankruptcy, you continue to pay your obligations on these assets if youd like to keep them, but as long as the amount of equity you have in the property you own is permitted by the exemptions, the trustee cannot take them. If you have too much equity in your property to protect in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you may be eligible to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and repay your propertys non-exempt value over a 3-5 year period. A Chapter 13 bankruptcy is not a liquidation bankruptcy, and your house and car are not in danger of being taken by the court to satisfy your debts.

Most people who lose their house in bankruptcy actually choose voluntarily to surrender the property back to the mortgage company because they can no longer afford the monthly mortgage payment. Bankruptcy law allows you to walk away from the debt even if your real estate is sold for less than the balance owed on the mortgage.

Originally posted here:

Can I Keep My House and Car? | Bankruptcy HQ

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure – 2018 Edition

Posted on by

Go directly to the 2018 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure table of contents

Bankruptcy law provides for the development of a plan that allows a debtor, who is unable to pay his creditors, to resolve his debts by dividing his assets among his creditors. This supervised division also allows the interests of all creditors to be treated with some measure of equality. Certain bankruptcy proceedings allow a debtor to stay in business and use revenue generated to resolve his or her debts. An additional purpose of bankruptcy law is to allow certain debtors to free themselves (to be discharged) of the financial obligations they have accumulated, after their assets are distributed, even if their debts have not been paid in full.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure govern the processes and procedures that a bankruptcy court follows to carry out the Bankruptcy Code.

Bankruptcy law is federal statutory law contained in Title 11 of the United States Code. Congress passed the Bankruptcy Code under its Constitutional grant of authority to establish uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcy throughout the United States. (U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8.) States may not regulate bankruptcy though they may pass laws that govern other aspects of the debtor-creditor relationship. A number of sections of Title 11 incorporate the debtor-creditor law of the individual states.

Continue to the 2018 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure table of contents

Read the original post:

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure - 2018 Edition

School of Medicine – School of Medicine | University of …

Posted on by

Our school has emerged as a national leader in primary care medical education, pioneering research and innovative patient care in South Carolina and beyond.

We offer both an M.D. program as well as a number of research-focused and clinicalgraduate programs. Our students enjoy the benefits of small class sizes with all of the resources of a major research university and partnerships withcomprehensive health care systems.

Our programs take full advantage of the University of South Carolina's status as a Tier 1 research university. Our students have access to state-of-the-art technology both on the medical school campus and on the larger university campus. Students also have access to faculty mentors who are eager to collaborate with students.

Thanks to our partnership with Palmetto Health and our community partners, we're able to have a big impact on the health of South Carolinians.ThePalmetto Health USC Medical Group has nearly 700 providers, whopractice in over 100 locations to give you the best options available.

We're home to the Research Center for Transforming Health, an innovative research center that is committed to making it easier for faculty members to do research that will have practical outcomes for patients. We also understand the unique needs of our state. That's why we've created a special focus on rural health that will positivelyimpact the 1.2 million people in South Carolinawho live in a primary care shortage area.

Jeffrey Perkins has relinquished his roles as chief of staff and associate dean for administration and finance for the School of Medicine to focus his attention on his role as USC associate vice president for business & finance and medical business affairs (AVP). Executive Dean Les Hall selected Derek Payne to fill the new position of assistant dean for administration and finance.

The School of Medicine is pleased to announce that Toni L. Bracey, director, contract and grant administration, for the School of Medicine, is the recipient of the 2018 William C. Gillespie Staff Recognition Award.

Recognizing our students, faculty, staff and alumni for their hard work and support is important to the dean and the entire leadership team. Each spring service awards and alumni awards are presented to awardees nominated by their peers.

Allison Manuel and Professor Frizzell are working to understand how protein modifications function. Hopefully, that knowledge can be used to develop a treatment.

See the original post:

School of Medicine - School of Medicine | University of ...

The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State and Other …

Posted on by

Table of Contents

This collection of essays makes available the major and representative writings in political philosophy of one of the distinctive figures in the profound and wide-ranging intellectual debate which took place during the late Victorian age. It was during this period, in the intellectual and social ferment of the 1880s and 1890s, that Auberon Herbert (1838-1906) formulated and expounded voluntaryism, his system of thorough individualism. Carrying natural rights theory to its logical limits, Herbert demanded complete social and economic freedom for all noncoercive individuals and the radical restriction of the use of force to the role of protecting those freedomsincluding the freedom of peaceful persons to withhold support from any or all state activities. All cooperative activity, he argued, must be founded upon the free agreement of all those parties whose rightful possessions are involved.

Auberon Herbert was by birth and marriage a well-placed member of the British aristocracy. He was educated at Eton and at St. John's College, Oxford. As a young man he held commissions in the army for several years and served briefly with the Seventh Hussars in India (1860). On his return to Oxford he formed several Conservative debating societies, was elected a Fellow of St. John's, and lectured occasionally in history and jurisprudence. In 1865, as a Conservative, he unsuccessfully sought a seat in the House of Commons. By 1868, however, he was seeking a parliamentary seat, again unsuccessfully, as a Liberal. Finally, in 1870, Herbert successfully contested a by-election and entered the Commons as a Liberal representing Nottingham. Most notably, during his time in the House of Commons, Herbert joined Sir Charles Dilke in declaring his republicanism and Herbert supported Joseph Arch's attempts to form an agricultural laborer's union. Although, through hindsight, many of Herbert's actions and words during the sixties and early seventies can be read as harbingers of his later consistent libertarianism, he actually lacked, throughout this period, any consistent set of political principles. During this period, for instance, he supported compulsory state educationalbeit with strong insistence on its being religiously neutral.

In late 1873 Herbert met and was much impressed by Herbert Spencer. As he recounts in Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine, a study of Spencer led to the insight that

thinking and acting for others had always hindered, not helped, the real progress; that all forms of compulsion deadened the living forces in a nation; that every evil violently stamped out still persisted, almost always in a worse form, when driven out of sight, and festered under the surface. I no longer believed that the handful of ushowever well-intentioned we might bespending our nights in the House, could manufacture the life of a nation, could endow it out of hand with happiness, wisdom, and prosperity, and clothe it in all the virtues.

However, it was even before this intellectual transformation that Herbert had decided, perhaps out of disgust with party politics or uncertainty about his own convictions, not to stand for reelection in 1874. Later, in 1879, he again sought Liberal support to regain a seat from Nottingham. But at that point his uncompromising individualist radicalism was not acceptable to the majority of the Central Council of the Liberal Union of Nottingham. In the interim, 1877, he had organized the Personal Rights and Self-Help association. And in 1878 he had been one of the chief organizers of the antijingoism rallies in Hyde Park against war with Russia. Along with other consistent classical liberals, Herbert repeatedly took anti-imperialist stands. He called for Irish self-determination. He opposed British intervention in Egypt and later opposed the Boer War.

In 1880 following his rejection by the Liberals of Nottingham, Herbert turned to the publication of addresses, essays, and books in defense of consistent individualism and against all forms of political regimentation. Even in 1877 he had been disturbed by a constant undertone of cynicism in the writings of his mentor, Herbert Spencer, and had resolved to do full justice to the moral side of the case for a society of fully free and voluntarily cooperative individuals. And while Spencer grew more and more crusty, conservative, and pessimistic during the last decades of the nineteenth century, Herbert, who continued to think of himself as Spencer's disciple, remained idealistic, radical, and hopeful. And though he refused to join, he willingly addressed such organizations as the Liberty and Property Defense League which he felt to be a little more warmly attached to the fair sister Property than to the fair sister Liberty. Similarly, Herbert held himself separate from the Personal Rights Association, whose chief mover, J. H. Levy, favored compulsory taxation for the funding of state protective activities. With the exception of the individualistic reasonable anarchists, Herbert thought of himself as occupying the left wing of the individualist camp, that is, the wing most willing to carry liberty furthest.

In 1885 Herbert sought to establish the Party of Individual Liberty and under this rubric gave addresses across England. The title essay for this collection, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State, was written as a statement of the basis for, the character of, and the implications of, the principles of this party. Again with the aim of advancing libertarian opinion, Herbert published the weekly (later changed to monthly) paper Free Life, The Organ of Voluntary Taxation and the Voluntary State, from 1890 to 1901. Free Life was devoted to One Fight MoreThe Best and the Last, the fight against the aggressive use of force which is a mere survival of barbarism, a mere perpetuation of slavery under new names, against which the reason and moral sense of the civilized world have to be called into rebellion. Also during the 1890s, Herbert engaged in lengthy published exchanges with two prominent socialists of his day, E. Belfort Bax and J. A. Hobson. Herbert continued to write and speak into this century, and two of his best essays, Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine and A Plea for Voluntaryism, were written in 1906, the last year of his life.

In all his mature writings Auberon Herbert defended a Lockean-Spencerian conception of natural rights cording to which each person has a right to his own person, his mind and body, and hence to his own labor. Furthermore, each person has a right to the products of the productive employment of his labor and faculties. Since each person has these rights, each is under a moral obligation to respect these rights in all others. In virtue of each person's sovereignty over himself, each individual must consent to any activity which directly affects his person or property before any such activity can be morally legitimate. Specifically, each must forgo the use of force and fraud. Each has a right to live and produce in peace and in voluntary consort with others, and all are obligated to respect this peace.

In The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State, Herbert is anxious to point out that there is a potentially dangerous confusion between two meanings which belong to the word force. Direct force is employed when person A, without his consent, is deprived, or threatened with the deprivation, of something to which he has a rightfor example, some portion of his life, liberty, or property. Anyone subject to such a deprivation or threat is, in his own eyes, the worse for it. His interaction with the wielder of force (or fraud) is something to be regretted, something to which he does not consent. In contrast, if B induces A to act by threatening (so-called) merely to withhold something that B rightfully owns and A values, then, according to Herbert, we can say that B has used indirect force upon A. But such indirect force is radically different from direct force. In the case of indirect force, A does not act under a genuine threat. For he is not faced with being deprived of something rightfully his (his arm or his life). Instead he is bribed, coaxed, induced into acting by the lure of B's offer of something which is rightfully B's. No action endangering rights plays any role in motivating A. A may, of course, wish that B had offered even more. But in accepting B's offer, whatever it may be, A indicates that on the whole he consents to the exchange with B. He indicates that he values this interchange with B over the status quo. He indicates that he sees it as beneficialunlike all interactions involving direct force.

The employer may be indirectly forced to accept the workman's offer, or the workman may be indirectly forced to accept the employer's offer; but before either does so, it is necessary that they should consent, as far as their own selves are concerned, to the act that is in question. And this distinction is of the most vital kind, since the world can and will get rid of direct compulsion; but it can never of indirect compulsion.

Besides, Herbert argues, any attempt to rid the world of indirect force must proceed by expanding the role of direct force. And when you do so, you at once destroy the immense safeguard that exists so long as [each man] must give his consent to every action that he does. The believer in strong government cannot claim, says Herbert, that in proposing to regulate the terms by which individuals may associate, he is merely seeking to diminish the use of force in the world.

What, then, may be done when the violation of rights threatens? So strong is Herbert's critique of force that, especially in his early writings, he is uncomfortable about affirming the propriety of even defensive force. Thus, in A Politician in Sight of Haven the emphasis is on the fact that the initiator of force places his victim outside the moral-relation and into the force-relation. Force, even by a defender, is not moral. The defender's only justification is the necessity of dealing with the aggressor as one would with a wild beast. Indeed, so pressed is Herbert in his search for some justification that he says, in justification of his defense of himself, The act on my part was so far a moral one, inasmuch as I obeyed the derived moral command to help my neighbor.

In The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State, Herbert starts by identifying the task of finding moral authority for any use of force and the task of finding moral authority for any government. He declares that no perfect foundation for such authority can be found, that all such authority is a usurpationthough when confined within certain exact limits a justifiable usurpation.

In his later writings, Herbert seems to have fully overcome his hesitancy about defensive force. Possibly his most forceful statement appears in the essay A Voluntaryist Appeal:

If you ask us why force should be used to defend the rights of self-ownership, and not for any other purpose, we reply by reminding you that the rights of self-ownership are supreme moral rights, of higher rank than all other human interests or institutions; and therefore force may be employed on behalf of these rights, but not in opposition to them. All social and political arrangements, all employments of force, are subordinate to these universal rights, and must receive just such character and form as are required in the interest of these rights.

According to Herbert, each person's absolute right to what he has peacefully acquired through the exercise of his faculties requires the abolition of compulsory taxation. The demand for voluntary taxation only is a simple instance of the demand for freedom in all human interaction. An individual does not place himself outside the moral relation by merely retaining his property, by not donating it for some other person's conception of a worthy project. Such a peaceful individual is not a criminal and is not properly subject to the punishment of having a portion of his property confiscated. Herbert particularly urged those in the individualist camp to reject compulsory taxation.

I deny that A and B can go to C and force him to form a state and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such state; and I go on to maintain that if you act in this manner, you at once justify state socialism. The only difference between the tax-compelling individualist and the state socialist is that while they both have vested ownership of C in A and B, the tax-compelling individualist proposes to use the powers of ownership in a very limited fashion, the socialist in a very complete fashion. I object to the ownership in any fashion.

It is compulsory taxation which generates and sustains the corrupt game of politicsthe game in which all participants strive to further their aims with resources forcefully extracted from those who do not share their aims. Compulsory taxation breaks the link between the preferences of the producers and peaceful holders of resources with respect to how those resources (their property, their faculties, their minds and bodies) should be used, and the actual use of those resources. For instance, compulsory taxation

gives great and undue facility for engaging a whole nation in war. If it were necessary to raise the sum required from those who individually agreed in the necessity of war, we should have the strongest guarantee for the preservation of peace. Compulsory taxation means everywhere the persistent probability of a war made by the ambitions or passions of politicians.

Herbert's demand for a voluntary state, that is, a state devoted solely to the protection of Lockean-Spencerian rights and funded voluntarily, combined with his continual condemnation of existing state activities led to Herbert's being commonly perceived as an anarchist. Often these perceptions were based on hostility and ignorance, but Herbert was also regarded as an anarchist by serious and reasonably well-informed prostate critics like J. A. Hobson and T. H. Huxley. Similarly, J. H. Levy thought that to reject the compulsory state was to reject the state as such. And while, for these men, Herbert's purported anarchism was a fault, the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker always insisted that, to his credit, Auberon Herbert was a true anarchist.

Of course, there can be no question of whether Auberon Herbert was an anarchist of the coercive collectivizing or terrorist sort. Nothing could be further from his own position. For as Herbert points out in his The Ethics of Dynamite, coercion, systematic or random, is nothing but a celebration of the principles on which the coercive state rests. Whether Herbert was an anarchist of the individualist, private property, free market sort is another and far more complex question. Herbert himself continually rejected the label; and although he maintained cordial relationships with men like Benjamin Tucker and Wordsworth Donisthorpe, he insisted that his views were sufficiently different from theirs in important respects to place him outside the camp of reasonable anarchists.

In what ways did Herbert's views differ from those of the individualist anarchists as represented by Tucker? Tucker had tied himself to a labor theory of value. It followed for him that such activities as lending money and renting property were not genuinely productive and that those who gained by such activities advanced themselves improperly at the expense of less-propertied people. Thus, Tucker took the laboring class to be an exploited class, exploited by the holders of capital. And he duly sympathized with, and often shared the rhetoric of, others who were announced champions of the proletariat against the capitalist class. Herbert did not accept this sort of economic analysis. He saw interest as a natural market phenomenon, not, as Tucker did, as the product of state enforced monopolization of credit. And Herbert saw rent as legitimate because he believed, contrary to Tucker, that one did not have to be continually using an object in order to retain just title to it and therefore morally charge others for their use of that object.

I suspect it was these differencesdifferences not actually relevant to the issue of Herbert's anarchismalong with Herbert's desire not to grant the political idiots of his day the verbal advantage of tagging him an anarchist, that sustained Herbert's insistence that what he favored was, in fact, a type of state. But other factors and nuances entered in. Herbert argued that a voluntarily supported state would do a better job at defining and enforcing property rights than would the cooperative associations which anarchists saw as taking the place of the state and protecting individual liberty and property. Unfortunately, in his exchanges with Tucker on this matter, the question of what sort of institution or legal structure was needed for, or consistent with, the protection of individual life, liberty, and property tended to be conflated with the question of the genuine basis for particular claims to property. Finally, Herbert's considered judgment was that individualistic supporters of liberty and property who, like Tucker, favored the free establishment of defensive associations and juridical institutions were simply making a verbal error in calling themselves anarchists. They were not for no government, Herbert thought, but for decentralized, scattered, fragmented government. Herbert's position was that, although it would be better to have many governments within a given territory (a republican one for republicans, a monarchical one for monarchists, etc.) than to compel everyone to support a single state, individuals, if given the choice, would converge on a single government as their common judge and defender within a given territory. How we ultimately classify Herbert depends upon our answers to these two questions: (1) Does the fact that Herbert would allow individuals to withhold support from the state and to form their own alternative rights-respecting associations, show him to be an anarchist? (2) Does the fact that Herbert thought that it would be unwise for individuals to form such splinter associations, and unlikely that they would form them, show that the central institution which he favored was a state?

No sketch of Herbert's views could be complete, even as a sketch, without some mention of Herbert's multidimensional analysis of powerthe sorrow and the curse of the world. Following Spencer's distinction between industrial and militant societies, Herbert continually emphasized the differences between two basic modes of interpersonal coordination. There is the way of peace and cooperation founded upon respect for selfownership and the demand for only voluntary association. And there is the way of force and strife founded upon either the belief in the ownership of some by others or the simple reverence of brute force.

It is difficult, however, to summarize Herbert's analysis of these modes since it involves a great number of interwoven moral, psychological, and sociological insights. One of course must look to his writings, but chiefly his two last essays, Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine, and A Plea for Voluntaryism. Insofar as there is a division of labor between these two essays, the former focuses on the inherent dynamic of political powerthe ways in which the great game of politics captures its participants no matter what their own initial intentionswhile the latter essay focuses on the corrupting results of this captivity within those participants. According to Herbert, no man's integrity or moral or intellectual selfhood can withstand participation in the battle of power politics.

The soul of the high-minded man is one thing; and the great game of politics is another thing. You are now part of a machine with a purpose of its ownnot the purpose of serving the fixed and supreme principlesthe great game laughs at all things that stand before and above itself, and brushes them scornfully aside, but the purpose of securing victory. When once we have taken our place in the great game, all choice as regards ourselves is at an end. We must win; and we must do the things which mean winning, even if those things are not very beautiful in themselves.

Progress is a matter of the development of human individuality, not the growth of uniformity and regimentation. Hence,

Progress depends upon a great number of small changes and adaptations and experiments constantly taking place, each carried out by those who have strong beliefs and clear perceptions of their own in the matter. But true experimentation is impossible under universal systems. Progress and improvement are not amongst the things that great machines are able to supply at demand.

Progress, then, is part of the price we all pay for power. But the possessors of power pay a further price. For, according to Herbert, power is a fatal gift.

If you mean to have and to hold power, you must do whatever is necessary for the having and holding of it. You may have doubts and hesitations and scruples, but power is the hardest of all taskmasters, and you must either lay these aside, when you once stand on that dangerous, dizzy height, or yield your place to others, and renounce your part in the great conflict. And when power is won, don't suppose that you are a free man, able to choose your path and do as you like. From the moment you possess power, you are but its slave, fast bound by its many tyrant necessities.

Ultimately, therefore, it is in no one's interest to seek power over others. Such an endeavor simply generates a dreadful war of all upon all which, even when momentarily won, makes the victor the slave of the vanquished and which robs all contestants of their dignity as selfowning and self-respecting beings. It is necessary to emphasize that, according to Herbert, liberty and respect for all rights are, ultimately, in each individual's interest. For Herbert often couched his appeals in terms of self-denial and self-sacrifice. This was especially true of his appeals to the working class, which he envisioned as forming electoral majorities for the purpose of legislating downward redistributions of property. In fact, it seems that Herbert's calls for self-denial were calls for the discipline to withstand the temptations of (merely) short-term political windfalls and to appreciate the long-term moral, psychological, and economic importance, for each person, of respect for all individual rights. Thus, on the moral and psychological level, Herbert rhetorically asks,

If you lose all respect for the rights of others, and with it your own self-respect; if you lose your own sense of right and fairness; if you lose your belief in liberty, and with it the sense of your own worth and true rank; if you lose your own will and self-guidance and control over your own lives and actions,what can all the gifts of politicians give you in return?

And on the tactical level he adds, In the end you will gain far more by clinging faithfully to the methods of peace and respect for the rights of others than by allowing yourselves to use the force that always calls out force in reply. The skepticism of Herbert's contemporaries about whether they would have to live with such long-term consequences was, for them, no virtue, and, for us, no favor.

Tulane UniversityNew Orleans,

Endnotes

The Canadian Confederation. Fortnightly Review, 1867.

Address on the Choices between Personal Freedom and State Protection. Delivered at the annual meeting of the Vigilance Association for the Defense of Personal Rights, March 9, 1880. London: Vigilance Association, 1880.

State Education: A Help or Hindrance? Fortnightly Review, 1880.

A Politician in Trouble About His Soul. Fortnightly Review (in five parts) 1883, 1884. The last sequel bore the separate title, A Politician in Sight of Haven. The whole work was reprinted as A Politician in Trouble About His Soul (London: Chapman & Hill, 1884). A Politician in Sight of Haven was serialized in Benjamin Tucker's Liberty in 1884, and published by Tucker in Boston in 1884 and 1890.

The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State. London: Williams & Norgate, 1885based on a series of articles in and on letters to the Newcastle Weekly Chronicle.

The Rights of Property. The proceedings of and Herbert's address at the seventh annual meeting of the Liberty and Property Defense League, December l0, 1889. London: Liberty & Property Defense League, 1890.

Free Life. Edited by Herbert (weekly, later monthly). London, 1890-190l.

'The Rake's Progress' in Irish Politics. Fortnightly Review, 1891.

The True Line of Deliverance. In A Plea of Liberty. Edited by T. Mackay. London: John Murray, 1891.

Under the Yoke of the Butterflies. Fortnightly Review (in two parts), 1891, 1892.

A Cabinet Minister's Vade-mecum; a Satire. Nineteenth Century1893.

Is the Hope of Our Country an Illusion? New Review, 1894.

The Ethics of Dynamite, Contemporary Review, 1894.

Wares for Sale in the Political Market. The Humanitarian: A Monthly Review of Sociological Science (in two parts), 1895.

State Socialism in the Court of Reason. The Humanitarian: A Monthly Review of Sociological Science (in two parts), 1895.

The Principles of Voluntaryism and Free Life. Edited by E. E. Krott. Burlington, Vt.: Free Press Assoc., 1897. Second edition, 1899.

A Voluntaryist Appeal. The Humanitarian: A Monthly Review of Sociological Science, 1898.

Salvation by Force. The Humanitarian: A Monthly Review of Sociological Science, 1898.

Lost in the Region of Phrases. The Humanitarian: A Monthly Review of Sociological Science, 1899.

The Tragedy of Errors in the War in Transvaal.Contemporary Review, 1900.

How the Pot Called the Kettle Black. Contemporary Review, 1902.

The Voluntaryist Creed (consisting of Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine and A Plea of Voluntaryism). London: W. J. Simpson, 1908.

Taxation and Anarchism. With and edited by J. H. Levy. London: Personal Rights Assoc., 1912.

E. Belfort Bax. Voluntaryism Versus Socialism.The Humanitarian: A Monthly Review of Sociological Science, 1895.

Dictionary of National Biography. Second Supplement. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1912.

S. Hutchinson Harris. Auberon Herbert: Crusader for Liberty. London: Williams & Norgate, 1943.

S. Hutchinson Harris. Auberon Herbert. Nineteenth Century and After, 1938.

J. A. Hobson. Rich Man's Anarchism. The Humanitarian: A Monthly Review of Sociological Science, 1898.

T. H. Huxley. Government: Anarchy or Regimentation. Nine-teenth Century, 1890.

Liberty. Edited by Benjamin Tucker. Boston and New York, 1851-1908. Reprinted by Greenwood Press (Westport, Conn., 1970).

Some of the relevant material appears in Tucker's Instead of a Book (New York: Tucker, 1893), reprinted by Arno Press (New York, I972).

This address was given by Auberon Herbert before a meeting of the Vigilance Association for the Defense of Personal Rights in London on March 9, 1880. It was published shortly thereafter by the Vigilance Association.

In the midst of much that is written and said about progress and improvement, it is seldom perceived how disorderly are our usual habits of political thinking. Those who are engaged in political work usually reject any kind of systematic thought, and disdain the authority of general principles. Whether they are writers or speakers they dislike to look forward and to consider questions that are not already well above their horizon; they have a generous confidence in the guidance of the future and their own unprepared instincts. They could with difficulty, and perhaps not altogether with satisfaction to themselves, reconcile their votes or opinions on different subjects, and the history of their conduct would contain nearly as many anomalies as does the British constitution. Except in the most general terms they could not describe the goal toward which their efforts are directed, nor have they ever placed before their own minds a distinct and coherent picture of what they seek to make of this England which is subjected to their treatment. They cannot see the forest on account of the trees, and their horizon is inexorably bounded by the immediate struggles in which their party is engaged. Like the rest of the world, they are not unwilling to dislike and condemn what they do not practice. They look on every system of thought as a newfangled invention of the doctrinaires, a sign both of want of practicality and of intellectual conceit, and they resent it vigorously as an attempt to restrain their intelligence from flowing, like Wordsworth's river, at its own sweet will. Expressions of pious thankfulness for the prosperous flowings of this mental river meet us on every side. Thank Heaven! we hear men say, we are not as our neighbors! We are not enslaved by formulas! We are not afraid of doing any wise or useful thing, because it is inconsistent with our general views! We have the gift of always stopping in time, and we can therefore safely move to any point, north, south, east, or west, of our political compass. We can never go far wrong, for we always have our good sense ready to protect us!

In listening to such language we are tempted to ask, does anyone in reality escape the thraldomif thraldom it beof general principles? We may not recognize in our own minds the general principles which direct our conduct; we may be profoundly ignorant of their existence; but I think in every case, putting out of consideration actions which are instinctive, it may be shown that whether these general principles are, or are not known to us, nevertheless we are all acting under their guidance. One man may be quite conscious of the principles he is following; he has deliberately examined, tested, and chosen them as his guides; another man is equally under the authority of some other set of principles, though he has never consciously placed himself in that position, and does not even know the name or nature of what he obeys; in one case they may be narrower; in another case, wider; more consistently or more uncertainly applied; but in every case, however carelessly adopted or inconsistently followed, or however little recognized they may be, general principles of some kind or another will be found as the guides of conduct. This will become plainer when we remember that a general principle implies the classing together of certain factswith or without an injunction added to itand that daily life is only carried on from hour to hour by means of the knowledge which results from such classifications. We perceive that a certain thing acting under similar conditions produces a certain effect, and having repeatedly observed this same cause and this same effect accompanying each other, we enact for ourselves a command to do or to forbear, and we act so as to produce or avoid a foreseen effect. It will be plain to everyone who considers the matter, that there could be no advance in knowledge of any kind, unless facts were always being classified, and unless, with the enormous increase of facts so classified, the further work were to go on of arranging them in groups according to their relations amongst themselves. This is the work on which the race has been engaged ever since the dim early days when it first classified the effect of fire and water, by saying fire burns and water quenches. Advance of knowledge means that we are learning as regards some substance whatever it may be, metal, plant, animal, that the same cause is accompanied by the same effectby placing this effect in connection with other effects, and gathering from the members of the group the law which is common to them all. It means not only learning new facts, but introducing order amongst facts already learned. All available knowledge consists of classification, since facts unarranged and unclassified are of no more present use to us, than bricks are until they are built into some kind of a building. What is true as regards material substances of the world is true as regards human nature. Now politics are essentially one part of the science of human nature, and it is the same human nature, neither more nor less, as that with which we come in contact every hour of our lives. This simple truth is often forgotten in presence of the machinery of Parliaments, public offices, parties, organizations, caucuses, and all the other instruments of political life, but we cannot go back in mind too often to the fundamental facts, first, that we are dealing with the simple human nature of every day, and, second, that human nature must be studied and understoodits facts must be classifiedlike causes connected with like effects, furnishing us with their own special generalizationsthen these effects connected with other effects furnishing us with their own special generalizationsthen these effects connected with other effects furnishing us with wider generalizationsif we are to act as successfully upon it as we do upon any of the materials that we use in our manufactures. It seems almost like urging the importance of study of the alphabet to urge that all successful political conduct must be founded upon the classification of those facts that affect human nature, of those conditions which as we learn from the common everyday experience of life, either aid or impede its development. Is proof required that in our views of human nature we recognize general principles? Si quaeris signa, circumspice! A speech that wins the applause of its hearers, a character skillfully drawn in a novel, a successful play bear witness to the self-evident proposition that men have classified certain facts regarding their own selves, and recognized what are called laws of human nature. Otherwise we could not by a sort of common agreement praise the skill and truth of the artist; the effect upon each of us would be purely personal, subjective and accidental. We should be without that common standard of reference which we now possess and of which our common judgments of praise and blame are the evidence. And yet the very words general principles cause a sort of horror to those who are ingaged in politics. There is a vague superstitious dread about the use of them; and men feel, when an appeal is made in their name, almost as if they were asked to give up the study of facts and to return to those verbal explanations of earlier days, which merely supplied a new clothing of words and left the matter itself standing where it did before.

But amongst the objectors to general principles in politics will be found some men of cautious and exact thought whose mental inclination will be to hand over each question as it arises to the decision of those who have given special attention to it, and may be looked on as authorities in the matter. These men will deny that there is at present sufficient material to justify the laying down of wide general principles; they will be on the side of experiment; they will wish each question to be separately treated, and treated according to the recommendations of those most familiar with it; they will attach immense importance to special knowledge and special experience, and exceedingly little importance to knowledge and experience of a wider kind. I cannot attempt to reply at length here to such objections, which must however be treated with respect. It is sufficient to point out that those great advances in knowledge, which cause mental and moral revolutions, are more often made by those men who fit themselves to connect existing groups of facts, than by those who add one more group to the many thousand groups now in existence. Without undervaluing the gain of a new fact in any department of life, I think one is justified in saying that at present the accumulation of facts is in advance of the power of using and connecting facts, and that the balance seems likely to be still further inclined in this direction; especially as regards the science of human nature the mass of unused facts is enormous. Every history, every novel, every newspaper, every household is full of them; but they are lost to the world for want of careful attempts to follow their connections and to introduce order amongst them. I must also urge as against following the advice of political specialists, that they are seldom if ever men who have studied the body politic as a whole, or who have given much thought to the effect on the general system of the local remedy they would apply. A specialist in medicine is only really deserving of confidence if, in addition to his knowledge of the part, he has thorough knowledge of the whole system, but our local advisers in politics, who are often men of great thoroughness and worthy of all respect for their own special knowledge, would generally disclaim such wider knowledge. In politics quite as much as in medicine the local evil is often but a symptom of the systematic evil, and only to be removed when some condition of life, at first sight unconnected with it, is altered.

But it may be urged that the acceptance of general principles in politics would lead to an idle way of thinking. All questions would be dismissed from political consideration at the dictation of an assumed formula which, as it is remarked, might not be true after all. No doubt there is a saving of intellectual labor. So there is when an astronomer takes the law of gravitation for granted; or a mechanician the properties of the lever; or a chemist the laws of the combining weights of the elements; or a physiologist the law that work implies waste. No worker in any of these departments would be grateful for the obligation to do such work over again on each occasion for himself. He would complain that a science that was not in possession of certain accepted generalizations, could not be treated as a science at all, but as a mere aggregate of floating facts. As regards the objection that incalculable harm might follow from the acceptance of a false general principle, we must bear in mind that every wide generalization that continues to live and gather strength in the world, bears in itself a certain evidence of its truth. It is so far true, that presumably the existing generation of men have not the requisite knowledge to disprove it. The wider it is, the more exposed to attack it is in many places and at many times. It stands in the presence of all men, always inviting attack. The wider it is spread amongst an intelligent people, the more probable it becomes that if not true in itself, the experience of some person or other will provide the weapon for its destruction. Unless, as some persons believe, the human race is born to err, it is as nearly certain as can be that the doom of refutation sooner or later will descend upon any false first principle that has been exalted into a law of conduct.

We must also remember that in seeking for a guide for conduct, we have not really the choice of either consistently following general principles, or being guided in each case by special knowledge. Few men can have special knowledge on many subjects, and what are those to do who are not amongst the happy few? Follow the specialists? but generally the specialists are divided. The more carefully we examine the springs which move those who reject the guidance of general principles, the more clearly we shall see that either they are swayed by general principles, which they have never examined, and are scarcely conscious of, and which in such a case are degenerated into mere prejudices (prejudice being I think a general principle that has never been submitted to the examination of reason), and therefore that they are likely to select that specialist as their guide who most agrees with their ordinary way of thinking; or else that they leave themselves at the mercy of that chapter of accidents, popular excitement, private interest, advantage of party, contagion of emotion, or whatever it may be which is responsible for so many of our actions, and which explains why our actions so often present startling contrasts between themselves.

Last, it must be said, that those who object to general principles in politics and disclaim their supremacy, are themselves betrayed by their incautious cautionnimium premendo littus iniquuminto making a generalization of a very wide and rash character. Those like effects which follow from like causesthat unbroken interdependence of every group of facts with every other group of factsthat order and that arrangement which prevail everywhere else in the worldthese things are suddenly and miraculously to be suspended in the political world, here alone in the whole realm of nature, for the benefit of the politician who wishes to have no further embarrassment than those of the present time, and to fulfill from hour to hour of his shifting course, the maxim sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. This is the startling general principle to which we find ourselves committed in our vain attempt to discover a region behind the north wind. I have spent much of your time today in trying to show that our great work in politics, as in every other science, is to bring facts into groups, or to use the more common expression, under law, to connect these groups with each other, until from them we establish the great principles which are to be the guides of our action. I believe until this is done, whatever work of reform we undertake for special objects is in a great measure wasted. You break off today with infinite labor the chains that fasten one limb, to find tomorrow that chains of the same kind have been placed on another limb. At present in England no reform can be attempted until the part affected is in an acute state of suffering and the effects are visible to all men. No reform has the least chance of success which appeals to abstract justice, and which simply says, Evil must follow, because the primary laws are broken. I do not wish to undervalue the fair-mindedness of Englishmen; we have some small measure of that quality which is scarcely as yet at all developed amongst civilized men, the power of being convinced; but I wish to attack the self-complacency with which Englishmen regard their present state of mental disorder, and their satisfaction at placing their convictions at the mercy of the chapter of accidents. Half the evils in politics arise from our being obliged, whenever and wherever a reform is needed, to show that the immediate (and I may say the lower) interests of some class are involved in the matter; until at last, thanks to such constant appeals, the feeling arises in those classes that their immediate interest is the right standpoint from which to view every political question. If, instead of such appeals, we stood on those great and primary principles which underlie every group of political facts, then there would be an ennobling and transforming influence in politics, because the sense of direct personal interest would be put on one side, and men would seek to interpret rightly in each case the universal law. The universal law cannot be disregarded without injury to every part of society, and it is a truer method to regard political questions from this point of view, than to attempt to balance the loss or profit which will accrue to some special class.

And now, if there be great primary laws controlling the intercourse of men and regulating their relations with each other; if order prevails in human science as it does in every other science, can we yet speak confidently as to what these laws are? Mr. Herbert Spencer, to whom in all this matter we owe largely, to whom I am convinced the world owes a debt which it will some day much more fully recognize than it has yet done, to whom personally I owe directly or indirectly every belief for which this paper contends, has expressed the law which binds men in their relations to each other. We can suppose no other object to be placed before ourselves but happiness, though we may differently interpret the word, in a higher or in a lower sense. We are then entitled to pursue happiness in that way in which it can be shown we are most likely to find it, and as each man can be the only judge of his own happiness, it follows that each man must be left free so to exercise his faculties and so to direct his energies as he may think fittest to produce happiness;with one most important limitation, which must always be understood as accompanying the liberty of which I speak. His freedom in this pursuit of happiness must not interfere with the exactly corresponding freedom of others. Neither by force nor by fraud may he restrain the same free use of faculties enjoyed by every other man. This then, the widest possible liberty, is the great primary law on which all human intercourse must be founded if it is to be happy, peaceful, and progressive. Perfect obedience to it will produce constant advance in our capabilities for happiness, in our feelings of kindliness and good will toward each other, in our intellectual acquisitions. Just as I believe this to be the master-principle of good in human affairs, so do I believe that old desire which is so firmly planted in the breasts of menthe desire to exercise force over each otherto be the master-principle of evil. Where liberty is to be bounded by liberty, it is necessary for us to define liberty and to restrain all aggressions upon it. In this one case force acquires its true sanction, that of being employed in the immediate defense of liberty, but except in this case physical force has no place or part in civilized life, and represents the antiprogressive power that still exists amongst us. If this principle be trueand I believe that the more it is examined and subjected to attacks, the more clearly will it be seen to be truethen how sure and how simple is the guide which we possess in political life, and how mischievous though well intentioned are all those efforts of the reformer or the philanthropist who believes in his own special method of coercion and restraint, and has never learned to believe in the all-healing method of liberty. I do not ask that the principle of liberty should be accepted by any man until he has most carefully and most anxiously viewed it in its every bearing, and has examined every group of political facts with the purpose of ascertaining whether mischievous results, like in kind, do not, sooner or later, follow wherever there is a neglect or contempt of liberty. If the principle be true we shall be able, with increasing knowledge and better methods of examination, to vindicate it at every point. Of all the serious steps in life, that is the most serious when a man chooses the guiding principle of his actions. I think, therefore, we ought to search out for ourselves and to listen to all that can be said against the principle of liberty. Let us hear all the counter evidence possible before we finally exalt it as our rule and guide, though, perhaps, when we have once done so, we shall be as much inclined to smile when it is impatiently proposed to disregard it for the sake of some passing evil, as the Astronomer Royal would be if some new group of facts were to be hastily explained in disregard of the influence of gravitation. Nor must we assign to liberty qualities which it does not possess, and which, if we were in a mood of unreasoning enthusiasm to attribute to it, would only lead to our disappointment. Like other great beneficent forces in nature, such as natural selection, there is a sternness in it, and its direct effects are often accompanied with pain. It is, as I believe, the great all-healer, but healing must sometimes be a painful process.

Now let me point out to you that we have not arrived simply at an abstract result, but that this question of liberty as against force will be found to enter into all the great questions of the day. It is the only one real and permanent dividing line between opinions. Whatever party names we may give ourselves, this is the question always waiting for an answer, Do you believe in force and authority, or do you believe in liberty? Hesitations, inconsistencies there may bemen shading off from each side into that third party which in critical and decisive times has become a proverb of weaknessbut the two great masses of the thinking world are ever ranged on the one side or the other, supporters of authority, believers in liberty.

What, then, is the creed of liberty, and to what, in accepting it, are we committed? We have seen that there exists a great primary right that as men are placed here for happiness (we need not dispute as to the meaning of the term), so each man must be held to be the judge of his own happiness. No man, or body of men, has the right to wrest this judgment away from their fellow man. It is impossible to deny this, for no man can have rights over another man unless he first have rights over himself. He cannot possess the right to direct the happiness of another man, unless he possess rights to direct his own happiness: and if we grant him the latter right, this is at once fatal to the former right. Indeed to deny this right, or to abridge anything from it, is to reduce the moral world to complete disorder. Deny this right and you have no foundation left for rights of any kindfor justice, political freedom, or political equalityyou have established the reign of force, and whatever gloss of civilization you may place over it, you have brought men once more to the good old plan on which our fathers stood.

This I believe to be the plain truth. There is this one strong simple foundation, or there is nothing. We may accustom our minds to Houses of Parliament, to majorities in the House, or majorities in the nation; we may talk our political jargon and push forward our party schemes, but this great truth remains unaltered through all our sayings and doings. It is true that here, as elsewhere in nature, we may live in disregard of the law, but here, as elsewhere, there is no escape from the consequences. All the partialities and privilegesall the bitter envyings and hostilities which exist amongst usall the craving for powerall the painful unrest and blind effortsall the wild and dangerous remediesall the clinging to old forms, and the want of faith and courage to choose the newall these will be found in an ultimate analysis to be amongst the consequencesand serious enough they areof not recognizing and obeying the law on which our intercourse with each other is founded.

In very few words I will point out what are the derivatives from this law of liberty. Granted that a man is to be judge of his own happiness, and to direct his exertions in whatever manner he will, he is entitled to receive the full reward of those exertions. Except for the defense of liberty itself, which defense is necessary to ensure the receiving of this full reward, no man or body of men may rightfully step in and intercept any part of that reward. We know as a fact that governmentswho are the last to recognize rightsare not encumbered with scruples in this matter, and that they do not hesitate to help themselves out of the resources of their subjects, as largely as they consider necessary for the furtherance of any and every kind of object, which they either consider is desired by some influential part of the nation, or which they have personal motives for desiring themselves. But few men will contend that the actions of governments are founded on right; and few men amongst those who look for the foundations of right below existing customs and current expressions, will accept the will of a majority as a sanction for taking from a man what he has won by his own exertions. It may be inconvenient, and it is often highly so in politics, to recognize the truth; but there the truth is, that if a man possesses rightsI mean primary rights, rights belonging to human existence, not created by any majority of his fellow menneither that majority nor any other majority outside that man can dispossess him of those rights. To do so is to abolish the very word rights from any place in civilized language.

To resume the argument, once let this right be granted this right of free action and full enjoymentand what follows? By it all those attempts of government to restrain people for their own good, are condemned. The man is to be his own judge, and you are not to tell him in what fashion he is to follow his religion, pursue his trade, enjoy his amusements, or in a word, live any part of his life. Neither are you to protect him in either body or mind. To protect one man you must take from the resources of another manyou must abridge the amount which the latter by his exertions has earned for himself. It is impossible to protect any one man save by diminishing the result of what the perfect enjoyment of libertythat is the free use of his own facultieshas brought to another man, and therefore without taking into consideration here the weakening and destroying effects of protection upon the person protected, all protection equally with all restraint by force of government, must be held as a diminution from perfect liberty. It comes then to this, that except to protect the liberty of one man from the aggression of another man, that is, to repel force and fraud, which latter is force in disguise, you cannot justify the interferences of government in the affairs of the people, however benevolent or philanthropic may be the cloak you throw over them. That there may be certain cases which, from their very nature, are not cases to which the law applies, and which require special consideration, such, for example, as the management of property, wisely or unwisely placed in the hands of a government, I at once admit; into these I need not here enter. But bearing in mind that which Mr. Spencer has pointed out, the imperfection of all human definitions, and that at the boundary of every division into which we place existences of any kind, whether physical or mental, there is a point where it is impossible to say on which side of the line the thing in question lies; remembering that nature has not divided plant or animal, qualities of the mind, or even those ancient opposites, good and bad, into black and white squares, like those of a chessboard; but that, however complete and manifest may be their differences today, in virtue of that common root which existed in the ages of long ago, they still melt into each other by gradations too delicate for any point of separation to be fixed; remembering this, and making such allowance for it as is necessary, we may still say, and say truly, that the law knows no exception. You must accept human liberty whole or entire, or you must give up all cogency of reasoning by which to defend any part of it. Either it is a right, as sacred in one part as in another, an intelligible and demonstrable right, from which political justice and political equality intelligibly and demonstrably descend, or else it only exists in the world as a political luxury, a passing fashion, a convenience for obtaining certain economical advantages, which today is and tomorrow is not. Either you must treat men as self-responsible, as bearing their own burdens, and making their own lives, as free in thought, word and action, or you must treat them as so much political matter, which any government that can get into power may protect, restrain and fashion as it likes. In this case it all becomes subject matter for experiment, and Tory or Communist are alike free to work out their theories upon it, if they can only once count hands enough to transfer the magic possession of power to themselves. It is easy to perceive how long the reign of force has lasted in the world, how withering to conscience and to intellect has been its influence, when we find the great mass of men practically supporting such a creed. Out belief in force, our readiness to use it, and our obedience yielded to it, are but forms of fetish worship still left amongst us. Written in almost every heart, though unknown to the owner of it, are the words force makes right. Those who wish to escape from this baneful superstition, who wish to destroy its altar and cut down its groves, can only do so by taking their stand on plain, intelligible principle; can only do so by recognizing that there are moral laws standing above our human dealings with each other, laws which we cannot depart from, which we cannot recognize at one moment and ignore at the next to suit our party conveniences. No detached effort, no rising of a few people against some special wrong which personally affects them, will ever alter the world's present way of thinking. It must be the battle of principlesthe principle of liberty against the principle of force. With slight alterations we may take the words of Lowell, and read our own meaning in them:

Endnotes

This article appeared in the Fortnightly Review for July 1850.

For ten years we have been busy organizing national education. A vigorous use of bricks and mortar is not generally accompanied by a careful examination of first principles, but now that we have built our buildings and spent our millions of public money, and civilized our children in as speedy a fashion as that in which the great Frank christianized his soldiers, we may perhaps find time to ask a question which is waiting to be discussed by every nation that is free enough to think, whether a state education is or is not favorable to progress?

It may seem rash at first sight to attack an institution so newly created and so strong in the support which it receives. But there are some persons at all events whom one need not remind, that no external grandeur and influence, no hosts of worshipers can turn wrong principles into right principles, or prevent the discovery by those who are determined to see the truth at any cost that the principles are wrong. Sooner or later every institution has to answer the challenge, Are you founded on justice? Are you for or against the liberty of men? And to this challenge the answer must be simple and straightforward; it must not be in the nature of an outburst of indignation that such a question should be asked; or a mere plea of sentiment; or the putting forward of usefulness of another kind. These questions of justice and liberty stand first they cannot take second rank behind any other considerations, and if in our hurry we throw them on one side, unconsidered and unanswered, in time they will find their revenge in the imperfections and failure of our work.

National education is a measure carried out in the supposed interest of the workmen and the lower middle class, and it is they especiallythe men in whose behalf the institution existswhom I wish to persuade that the inherent evils of the system more than counterbalance the conveniences belonging to it.

I would first of all remind them of that principle which many of us have learned to accept, that no man or class accepts the position of receiving favors without learning, in the end, that these favors become disadvantages. The small wealthy class which once ruled this country helped themselves to favors of many kinds. It would be easy to show that all these favors, whether they were laws in protection of corn, or laws favoring the entail of estates, creating sinecures, or limiting political power to themselves, have become in the due course of time unpleasant and dangerous burdens tied round their own necks. Now, is state education of the nature of a political favor?

It is necessary, if discussion is in any way to help us, to speak the truth in the plainest fashion, and therefore I have no hesitation in affirming that it is so. Whenever one set of people pay for what they do not use themselves, but what is used by another set of people, their payment is and must be of the nature of a favor, and does and must create a sort of dependence. All those of us who like living surrounded with a slight mental fog, and are not overanxious to see too clearly, may indignantly deny this; but if we honestly care to follow Dr. Johnson's advice, and clear our minds of cant, we shall perceive that the statement is true, and if true, ought to be frankly acknowledged. The one thing to be got rid of at any cost is cant, whether it be employed on behalf of the many or the few.

Now, what are the results of this particular favor? The most striking result is that the wealthier class think that it is their right and their duty to direct the education of the people. They deserve no blame. As long as they pay by rate and tax for a part of this education, they undoubtedly possess a corresponding right of direction. But having the right they use it; and in consequence the workman of today finds that he does not count for much in the education of his children. The richer classes, the disputing churches, the political organizers are too powerful for him. If he wishes to realize the fact for himself let him read over the names of those who make up the school boards of this country. Let him first count the ministers of all denominations, then of the merchants, manufacturers, and squires. There is something abnormal here. These ministers and gentlemen do not place the workmen on committees to manage the education of their children. How, then, comes it about that they are directing the education of the workmen's children? The answer is plain. The workman is selling his birthright for the mess of pottage. Because he accepts the rate and tax paid by others, he must accept the intrusion of these others into his own home affairsthe management and education of his children. Remember, I am not urging, as some do, the workmen to organize themselves into a separate class, and return only their own representatives as members of school boards; such action would not mend the unprofitable bargain. To take away money from other classes, and not to concede to them any direction in the spending of it, would be simply unjustwould be an unscrupulous use of voting power. No, the remedy must be looked for in another direction. It lies in the one real form of independencethe renunciation of all obligations. The course that will restore to the workmen a father's duties and responsibilities, between which and themselves the state has now stepped, is for them to reject all forced contributions from others, and to do their own work through their own voluntary combinations. Until that is done no workman has more, or has a claim to have more, than half rights over his own children. He is stripped of one-half of the thought, care, anxiety, affection, responsibility, and need of judgment which belong to other parents.

I used the expression, the forced contributions of the rich. There are some persons who hold that the more money you can extract by legislation from the richer classes for the benefit of the poorer classes the better are your arrangements. I entirely dissent from such a view. It is fatal to any clear perception of justice. Justice requires that you should not place the burdens of one man on the shoulders of another man, even though he is better able to bear them. In plainer words, that you should not make one set of men pay for what is used by another set of men. If this law be once disregarded it simply reduces politics to a universal scramble, in which the most selfish will have the most success. It turns might into right, and proclaims that each man may rightfully possess whatever he can vote into his pocket. Whoever is intent on justice must be as just to the rich man as to the poor man; and because so-called national education is not for the children of the rich man, it is simply not just to take by compulsion one penny from him. No columns of sophistry can alter this fact. And yet, when once the obligation disappears, and the grace of free-giving is restored, it is a channel in which the money of the richer classes may most worthily flow. Whatever the faults are of our richer classes, there is no lack amongst them of generous giving. Take any newspaper and you will find that although by unwise legislation we are closing many of the great channels existing for their gifts, yet the quality persists. The endowment of colleges at one period, the endowment of grammar schools at another period, gifts to religious institutions, and the support given to that narrow, partial, vexatious, and official-minded system of education which prevailed up to 1870, are all evidence of what the richer people are ready to do as long as you do not withhold the opportunities. It may, however, be said, Do not rich gifts bring obligations, and with them their mischievous consequences? It is plain that the most healthy state of education will exist when the workmen, dividing themselves into natural groups according to their own tastes and feelings, organize the education of their children without help, or need of help, from outside. But between obligatory and voluntary contributions there is the widest distinction. There is but slight moral hurt to the giver or receiver in the voluntary gift, provided only that the spirit on both sides be one of friendly equality. It is the forced contribution, bringing neither grace to the giver nor to the receiver, which has the evil savor about it, and brings the evil consequence. The contribution taken forcibly from the rich is justified on the ground that the thing to be provided is a necessity for which the poorer man cannot pay. Thus the workman is placed in the odious position of putting forward the pauper's plea, and two statments equally deficient in truth are made for him: one, that book education is a necessity of lifea statement which for those who look for an exact meaning in words that are used is simply not trueand the other, that our people cannot provide it for themselves if left to do so in their own fashion.

I wish to push still further the question of how much real power the workman possesses over the education of his children. I maintain that, setting aside the interference of ministers, merchants, manufacturers, doctors, lawyers, and squires in his affairs, he has only the shadow and semblance of power, and that he never will possess anything more substantial under a political system. Let us see for what purposes political organization can be usefully applied. It is well adapted to those occasions when some definite reply has to be made to a simple question. Shall there be peace or war? Shall political power be extended to a certain class? Shall certain punishments follow certain crimes? Shall the form of government be republican or monarchical? Shall taxes be levied by direct or indirect taxation? These are all questions which can be fairly answered by yes or no, and on which every man enrolled in a party can fairly express his opinion if he has once decided to affirm or deny. But whenever you call upon part of the nation to administer some great institution the case becomes wholly different. Here all the various and personal views of men cannot be represented by a simple yes or no. A mixed mass of men, like a nation, can only administer by suppressing differences and disregarding convictions. Take some simple instance. Suppose a town of 50,000 electors should elect a representative to assist in administering some large and complicated institution. Let us observe what happens. It is only possible to represent these 50,000 people, who will be of many different mental kinds and conditions, by some principle which readily commands their assent. It will probably be some principle which, from its connection with other matters, is already familiar to their mindmade familiar by preceding controversies. For example, the electors may be well represented on such questions as Shall the institution be open or closed on Sundays? Shall it be open to women? Shall the people be obliged to support it by rate? and, When rate-supported, to make use of it? But it will at once be seen that these are principles which do not specially apply to any one institution but to many institutions. They are principles of common political applicationthey are, in fact, external to the institution itself, and distinct from its own special principles and methods. The effect then will be that the representative will be chosen on principles that are already familiar to the minds of the electors, and not on principles that peculiarly and specially affect the institution in question. Existing controversies will influence the minds of the electors, and the constituency will be divided according to the lines of existing party divisions. Both school boards and municipal government yield an example that popular elections must be fought out on simple and familiar questions. The existing political grooves are cut too deeply to allow of any escape from them.

But, it may be replied, as intelligence increases, and certain great political questions which are always protruding themselves are definitely settled, the electorate may become capable of conducting their contests simply with regard to the principles which really belong to the matter itself. Another difficulty arises here. Without discussing the possible settlement of these ever-recurring political questions, it ought to be remembered that, in the case of increased intelligence, we should have an increase in the number of different views affecting the principles and methods of the institution in question; and, as we should still have only one representative to represent us, it would be less possible for him than before to represent our individual convictions. If he represent A he cannot represent B, or C, or any of those that come after C; that is to say, if A, B, C, and the others are all thinking units, and therefore, do not accept submissively whatever is offered to them. He can only represent one section, and must leave other sections unrepresented. But as these individual differences are both the accompaniment and sign of increasing intelligence, this unhappy result follows, that the more intelligent a nation becomes, the greater pain it must suffer from a system which forces its various parts to think and act alike when they would naturally be thinking and acting differently.

But if this is so, then there is no such thing possible as representation. If one person cannot represent many persons, then administration of all kinds fails equally in fulfilling a common purpose. All united effort therefore becomes impossible.

No doubt effective personal representation is under any circumstances a matter of difficulty; but political organization admits only of the most imperfect form of it, voluntary organization of the most perfect. Under political organization you mix everybody together, like and unlike, and compel them to speak and act through the same representative; under voluntary organization like attracts like, and those who share the same views form groups and act together, leaving any dissident free to transfer his action and energy elsewhere. The consequence is that under voluntary systems there is continual progress, the constant development of new views, and the action necessary for their practical application; under political systems, immobility on the part of the administrators, discontented helplessness on the part of those for whom they administer.

But still there remain certain things which, however much you may desire to respect personal differences, the state must administer; such, for example, as civil and criminal law, or the defense of the country.

The reason why the nation should administer a system of law, or should provide for external defense, and yet abstain from interference in religion and education, will not be recognized until men study with more care the foundations on which the principle of liberty rests. Many persons talk as if the mere fact of men acting together as a nation gave them unlimited rights over each other; and that they might concede as much or as little liberty as they liked one to the other. The instinct of worship is still so strong upon us that, having nearly worn out our capacity for treating kings and such kind of persons as sacred, we are ready to invest a majority of our own selves with the same kind of reverence. Without perceiving how absurd is the contradiction in which we are involved, we are ready to assign to a mass of human being unlimited rights, while we acknowledge none for the individuals of whom the mass is made up. We owe to Mr. Herbert Spencerthe truth of those writings the world will one day be more prepared to acknowledge, after it has traveled a certain number of times from Bismarckism to communism, and back from communism to Bismarckismthe one complete and defensible view as to the relations of the state and the individual. He holds that the great condition regulating human intercourse is the widest possible liberty for all. Happiness is the aim that we must suppose attached to human existence; and therefore each man must be freewithin those limits which the like freedom of others imposes on himto judge for himself in what consists his happiness. As soon as this view is once clearly seen, we then see what the state has to do and from what it has to abstain. It has to make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure the enjoyment of this liberty by all, and to restrain aggressions upon it. Wherever it undertakes duties outside this special trust belonging to it, it is simply exaggerating the rights of some who make up the nation and diminishing the rights of others. Being itself the creature of liberty, that is to say, called into existence for the purposes of liberty, it becomes organized against its own end whenever it deprives men of the rights of free judgment and free action for the sake of other objects, however useful or desirable they may be.

It is on account of our continued failure to recognize this law of liberty that we still live, like the old border chieftains, in a state of mutual suspicion and terror. Far the larger amount of intolerance that exists in the world is the result of our own political arrangements, by which we compel ourselves to struggle, man against man, like beasts of different kinds bound together by a cord, each trying to destroy the other out of a sense of self-preservation. It is evident that the most fair-minded man must become intolerant if you place him in a position where he has only the unpleasant choice either to eat or be eaten, either to submit to his neighbor's views or force his own views upon his neighbor. Cut the cord, give us full freedom for differing amongst ourselves, and it at once becomes possible for a man to hold by his own convictions and yet be completely tolerant of what his neighbor says and does.

I come now to another great evil belonging to our system. The effort to provide for the education of children is a great moral and mental stimulus. It is the great natural opportunity of forethought and self-denial; it is the one daily lesson of unselfishness which men will learn when they will pay heed to none other. There is no factor that has played so large a part in the civilization of men as the slow formation in parents of those qualities which lead them to provide for their children. In this early care and forethought are probably to be found the roots of those things which we value so highlyaffection, sympathy, and restraint of the graspings of self for the good of others. We may be uncertain about many of the agents that have helped to civilize men, but here we can hardly doubt. What, then, is likely to be the effect when, heedless of the slow and painful influences under which character is formed, you intrude a huge all-powerful something, you call the state, between parents and children, and allow it to say to the former, You need trouble yourself no more about the education of your children. There is no longer any occasion for that patience and unselfishness which you were beginning to acquire, and under the influence of which you were learning to forego the advantage of their labor, that they might get the advantage of education. We will give you henceforth free dispensation from all such painful efforts. You shall at once be made virtuous and unselfish by a special clause in our act. You shall be placed under legal obligations, under penalty and fine, to have all the proper feelings of a parent. Why toil by the slow irksome process of voluntary efforts and your own growing sense of right to do your duty, when we can do it so easily for you in five minutes? We will provide all for youmasters, standards, examinations, subjects, and hours. You need have no strong convictions, and need make no efforts of your own, as you did when you organized your chapels, your benefit societies, your trade societies, or your cooperative institutions. We are the brain that thinks; you are but the bone and muscles that are moved. Should you desire some occupation, we will throw you an old bare bone or two of theological dispute. You may settle for yourselves which dogmas of the religious bodies you prefer; and while you are fighting over these things our department shall see to the rest of you. Lastly, we will make no distinctions between you all. The good and the bad parent shall stand on the same footing, and our statutes shall assume with perfect impartiality that every parent intends to defraud his child, and can only be supplied with a conscience at the police court. This cynical assumption of the weakness and selfishness of parents, this disbelief in the power of better motives, this faith in the inspector and the policeman, can have but one result. Treat the people as unworthy of trust, and they will justify your expectation. Tell them that you do not expect them to possess a sense of responsibility, to think or act for themselves, withhold from them the most natural and the most important opportunities for such things, and in due time they will passively accept the mental and moral condition you have made for them. I repeat that the great natural duties are the great natural opportunities of improvement for all of us. We can see every day how the wealthy man, who strips himself entirely of the care of his children, and leaves them wholly in the hands of tutors, governesses, and schoolmasters, how little his life is influenced by them, how little he ends by learning from them. Whereas to the man whose are much occupied with what is best for them, who is busied with the delicate problems which they are ever suggesting to him, they are a constant means of both moral and mental change. I repeat that no man's character, be he rich or poor, can afford the intrusion of a great power like the state between himself and his thoughts for his children. Observe the corresponding effect in another of our great state institutions. The effect of the Poor Law which undertakes the care in the last resort of the old and helplesshas been to break down to a great extent the family feelings and affections of our people. It is simply and solely on account of this great machine that our people, naturally so generous, recognize much less the duty of providing for an old parent than is the case either in France or in Germany. With us, each man unconsciously reasons, Why should I do that which the state will do for me? All such institutions possess a philanthropical outside, but inwardly they are full of moral helplessness and selfishness.

These, then, are the first charges that I bring against state education; that the forced payments taken from other classes place the workman under an obligation; that, in consequence, the upper and middle classes interfere in the education of his children; that under a political system there is no place for his personal views, but that practically the only course of action left open to him is to join one of the two parties who are already organized in opposition to each other, and record a vote in favor of one of them once in three years. I do not mean to make the extreme statement that it is impossible to persuade either one party or both parties to adopt some educational reform, but I mean to say that one body acting for a whole country or a whole town can only pursue one method, and, therefore, must act to the exclusion of all views which are not in accordance with that one method; and that bodies which are organized for fighting purposes, and whose first great object is to defeat other great bodies nearly as powerful as themselves, are bound by the law of their own condition not to be easily moved by considerations which do not increase their fighting efficiency.

I have just touched upon the evils of uniformity in education; but there is more to say on the matter. At present we have one system of education applied to the whole of England. The local character of school boards deceives us, and makes us believe that some variety and freedom of action exist. In reality they have only the power to apply an established system. They must use the same class of teachers; they must submit to the same inspectors; the children must be prepared for the same examination, and pass in the same standards. There are some slight differences, but they are few and of little value. Now, if any one wishes to realize the full mischief which this uniformity works, let him think of what would be the result of a uniform method being established everywherein religion, art, science, or any trade or profession. Let him remember that canon of Mr. Herbert Spencer, so pregnant with meaning, that progress is difference. Therefore, if you desire progress, you must not make it difficult for men to think and act differently; you must not dull their senses with routine or stamp their imagination with the official pattern of some great department. If you desire progress, you must remove all obstacles that impede for each man the exercise of his reasoning and imaginative faculties in his own way; and you must do nothing to lessen the rewards which he expects in return for his exertions. And in what does this reward consist? Often in the simple triumph of the truth of some opinion. It is marvelous how much toil men will undergo for the sake of their ideas; how cheerfully they will devote life, strength, and enjoyment to the work of convincing others of the existence of some fact or the truth of some view. But if such forces are to be placed at the service of society, it must be on the condition that society should not throw artificial and almost insuperable obstacles in the way of those reformers who search for better methods. If, for example, a man holding new views about education can at once address himself to those in sympathy with him, can at once collect funds and proceed to try his experiment, he sees his goal in front of him, and labors in the expectation of obtaining some practical result to his labor. But if some great official system blocks the way, if he has to overcome the stolid resistance of a department, to persuade a political party, which has no sympathy with views holding out no promise of political advantage, to satisfy inspectors, whose eyes are trained to see perfection of only one kind, and who may summarily condemn his school as inefficient, and therefore disallowed by law, if in the meantime he is obliged by rates and taxes to support a system to which he is opposed, it becomes unlikely that his energy and confidence in his own views will be sufficient to inspire a successful resistance to such obstacles. It may be said that a great official department, if quickened by an active public opinion, will be ready to take up the ideas urged on it from outside. But there are reasons why this should not be so. When a state department becomes charged with some great undertaking, there accumulates so much technical knowledge round its proceedings, that without much labor and favorable opportunities it becomes exceedingly difficult to criticize successfully its action. It is a serious study in itself to follow the minutes and the history of a great department, either like the Local Board or the Education Department. And if a discussion should arise, the same reason makes it difficult for the public to form a judgment in the matter. A great office which is attacked envelopes itself, like a cuttlefish, in a cloud of technical statements which successfully confuses the public, until its attention is drawn off in some other direction. It is for this reason, I think, that state departments escape so easily from all control, and that such astounding cases of recklessness and mismanagement come periodically to light, making a crash which startles everybody for the moment. The history of our state departments is like that of some continental governments, unintelligent endurance through long periods on the part of the people, tempered by spasmodic outbursts of indignation and ineffectual reorganization of the institutions themselves. It must also be remembered that the manner in which new ideas produce the most favorable results is not by a system under which many persons are engaged in suggesting and inventing, and one person only in the work of practical application. Clearly the most progressive method is that whoever perceives new facts should possess free opportunities to apply and experiment upon them.

Add one more consideration. A great department must be by the law of its own condition unfavorable to new ideas. To make a change it must make a revolution. Our Education Department, for example, cannot issue an edict which applies to certain school boards and not to others. It knows and can know of no exceptions. Our bastard system of half-central half-local government is contrived with great ingenuity to render all such experiments impossible. If the center were completely autocratic (which Heaven forbid) it could try experiments as it chose; if the localities were independent, each could act for itself. At present our arrangements permit of only intolerable uniformity. Follow still further the awkward attempts of a department at improvement. Influenced by a long-continued public pressure, or moved by some new mind that has taken direction of it, it determines to introduce a change, and it issues in consequence a wholesale edict to its thousands of subordinates. But the conditions required for the successful application of a new idea are, that it should be only tentatively applied; that it should be applied by those persons who have some mental or moral affinity with it, who in applying it, work intelligently and with the grain, not mechanically and against the grain. No wonder, therefore, that departments are so shy of new ideas, and by a sort of instinct become aware of their own unfitness to deal with them. If only one wishes to realize why officialism is what it is, let him imagine himself at the center of some great department which directs an operation in every part of the country. Whoever he was he must become possessed with the idea of perfect regularity and uniformity. His waking and sleeping thought would be the desire that each wheel should perform in its own place exactly the same rotation in the same time. His life would simply become intolerable to him if any of his thousands of wheels began to show signs of consciousness, and to make independent movements of their own.

Read more here:

The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State and Other ...

Coconut Oil: Germ Warfare! | Underground Wellness

Posted on by

It happened!

There is one particular day I look forward to each year and it went down yesterday.

I woke up, strolled to the kitchen, and found my jar of coconut oil smiling at me.

It was so beautiful, like a butterfly emerging from its cocoon to take its first flight. Like a wayward child coming home again.

It happened.

The coconut oil was liquid.

Summer is here.

Not only is the oil of all oils heart-healthy. Not only does it make your skin look dead sexy. Not only does it fight the bugs that attack your body, as we will discuss today.

Coconut oil makes one heck of a weather forecaster, too.

Yesterday brought blue skies with a high of 81 degrees in San Diego. And I didnt need the weather girl to tell me that.

The coconut oil told me.

And best of all, I can drink it from the jar now. I take my coconut oil to the head! Spoons are for wussies.

Anyway, just thought Id share in my summer excitement before dropping some knowledge bombs on you about coconut oil and your immunity. If youre on the East Coast, youve got something to look forward to in the coming weeks. Leave your jar on the counter and tweet me when your butterfly hatches!

**********************************

Tonight, its on like Donkey Kong. Bruce Fife, author of The Coconut Oil Miracle is on the UW Radio Show. Certain to be another hot one. My coconut oil told me so.

Dont miss it! 5pm PT/8pm ET

A major topic Bruce and I will be covering is the use of coconut oil as a means of fighting nasty bugs like bacteria, viruses, parasites, and yeast. One thing that dawned on me while reading his book is the well-known fact that traveling to tropical climates puts those of us from more moderate temperatures at risk of coming home with a bad case of the gut bugs.

Working with clients, one of the red flags I would see quite often was digestive dysfunction originating during or after a trip to some island paradise. For many, a stool test revealed a parasitic infection that likely lingered for years, even decades.

But what about the natives who have actually lived in these literal breeding grounds for microbes and critters for generations? Why dont they have an epidemic of digestive challenges and parasitic infection?

Its the coconut oil, baby.

When you really think about it, its quite the coincidence that God, Mother Nature, or the aliens (whoever you believe put us here) just so happened to supply one of the most antibacterial, antiviral, anti-parasitic foods on Earth to a people living in a place where such microbes flourish. Even Weston Price was amazed by the low incidence of malaria in tropical people.

Amazingly, science has yet to explain a genetic explanation for such resistance. Why not?

Because its the coconut oil, baby!

Duh!

When we feel a cold coming on, most of us should be reaching for the kitchen cabinet before the medicine cabinet. Actually, we should be taking our coconut oil to the head every day or at least using it for cooking as a means of preventing all types of nasty infections.

In last weeks blog, I typed about the medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs) coconut oil consists of. These MCFAs, which include caprylic acid, capric acid, mystiric acid, and lauric acid, are quite sparse in our food supply. Not only are these fats burned immediately for fuel (as discussed last time), but they also possess incredible antimicrobial properties, with lauric acid having the greatest antiviral activity.

As you know, medical doctor are notorious for prescribing antibiotics for viral infections. This brings about two problems. The first problem is the ever-growing development of superbugs, which are antibiotic resistant (but maybe not MCFA-resistant). And of course, the second problem is the fact that antibiotics do not kill viruses!

But coconut oil and its MCFAs can.

Bacteria and viruses are typically coated with a lipid (fat) membrane (rhinovirus is an exception), which encloses their DNA and other cellular materials. This membrane is very fluid, flexible, and mobile, allowing it to squeeze its way in and out of tight spots.

Due to the fact that the fats making up this membrane are very similar to MCFAs, the medium-chain fatty acids from coconut can sneak past security and become absorbed into the membrane, where they weaken it, split it open, and kill it by pretty much ripping its insides out.

Coconut oil has a violent streak.

So gangsta.

The most intriguing part of this germ warfare is that the MCFAs are selective. Friendly fire isnt a problem. In the case of bacteria, we possess both good and bad bacteria in our guts. The MCFAs actually single out the bad guys and leave the good guys alone.

Its really amazing stuff.

Published research shows that the MCFAs from coconut oil can kill bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites that cause the following illnesses. This is just a short list. More can be found on page 77 of The Coconut Oil Miracle. Of course, MCFAs are no panacea. But they deserve far more attention in the prevention and treatment of many diseases and conditions. Then again, you cant patent coconut oil and sell if for outlandish prices. So dont expect Big Pharma to run any ads for it any time soon.

Bacterial InfectionsThroat and sinus infectionsUrinary tract infectionsDental cavities and gum diseaseHelicobacter PyloriGastric ulcersEar infectionsFood poisoning

Viral InfectionsInfluenzaMeaslesHerpesChronic fatigue syndromeAIDS and HIV

Fungal InfectionsRingwormAthletes footCandidiasisToenail fungus

Parasite InfectionsGiardia

I can go on and on about the benefits of coconut oil. But Im out of time today. Gotta edit Episode 3 of the Underground Wellness Show (guest: Mark Sisson).

Dont forget to tune in to tonights UW Radio show and find out how much coconut oil you should be consuming and MORE!

Its at 5pm PT/8pm ET. Dial 347-237-5608 to ask Bruce your burning coconut questions. Or tweet me at @ugwellness.

UPDATE: Listen to the show with Dr. Fife below!

Peace.

SeanAuthor, The Dark Side of Fat Loss

View post:

Coconut Oil: Germ Warfare! | Underground Wellness

Stem Cell Therapy for Knee Injuries and Arthritis – StemCell ARTS

Posted on by

Utilizing your own stem cells to help the healing process of injured or degenerated jointsThe human body is made of billions of specialized cells that form specific organs like the brain, skin, muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints, and bone. Each day these cells go through a degenerative and regenerative process. As older cells die, new cells are born from stem cells with the unique capability of being able to create multiple types of other cells. However, when tissues are injured, the degenerative process exceeds this regenerative process, resulting in structures that become weaker, painful and less functional. While there are several types of stem cells, those that are best at promoting musculoskeletal healing (tendon, ligament, cartilage and bone) are found in bone marrow. These mesenchymal stem cells, or MSCs, are essential to successful patient outcomes and at Stem Cell ARTS we utilize the patented Regenexx Stem Cell Protocol, which iscapable of yielding much higher concentrations of these important cells.Most Commonly Treated Knee Conditions and InjuriesBelow is a list of the most common knee injuries and conditions that we treat with stem cells or platelet procedures. This is not an all-inclusive list.Knee Patient Outcome Data

This Regenexx bone marrow derived stem cell treatment outcome data analysis is part of the Regenexx data download of patients who were tracked in the Regenexx advanced patient registry.

Regenexx has published more data on stem cell safety in peer reviewed medical research for orthopedic applications than any other group world-wide. This is a report of 1,591 patients and 1,949 procedures treated with the Regenexx Stem Cell Procedure. Based on our analysis of this treatment registry data, the Regenexx Stem Cell Procedure is about as safe as any typical injection procedure, which is consistent with what we see every day in the clinic.

To use, begin playing the first video. Then use the Playlist Dropdown Menu in the upper left corner of the video display to show all video titles. Use the Scroll Bar on the right hand side of the playlist to browse all video titles if required.

Minutes Until Next Webinar:

These non-surgical stem cell injection procedures happen within a single day and may offer a viable alternative for those who are facing surgery or even joint replacement. Patients are typically able to return to normal activity following the procedure and are able to avoid the painful and lengthy rehabilitation periods that are typically required to help restore strength, mobility and range-of-motion following invasive joint surgeries. Lastly, patients are far less vulnerable to the risks of surgeries, such as infection and blood clots.

Modern techniques in todays medicine allows us to withdraw stem cells from bone marrow, concentrate them through a lab process and then re-inject them precisely into the injured tissues in other areas of the body using advanced imaging guidance. Through Fluoroscopy and MSK Ultrasound, were able to ensure the cells are being introduced into the exact area of need. When the stem cells are re-injected, they enhance the natural repair process of degenerated and injured tendons, ligaments, and arthritic joints Turning the tables on the natural breakdown process that occurs from aging, overuse and injury.

If you are suffering from a joint injury or degenerative condition such as osteoarthritis, you may be a good candidate for a stem cell procedure. Please complete the form below and we will immediately send you an email with additional information and next steps in determining whether youre a candidate for these advanced stem cell procedures.

See the original post:

Stem Cell Therapy for Knee Injuries and Arthritis - StemCell ARTS

Stem Cell Therapy For Orthopedic Injuries and Arthritis – New …

Posted on by

Stems cell therapy is a cutting-edge technology that is now widely being used in orthopedic and sports medicine. The procedure involves using a patients own stem cells, which have the unique property of being able to develop into many different cell types, to treat injuries and arthritis. Stem cells can be found in our bone marrow, fat cells and other tissues. These cells are frequently taken from the bone marrow or from a small amount of fat tissue, where a high concentration of stem cells can be extracted. This concentration is known as bone marrow aspirate or lipoaspirate respectively.

The aspirate (containing the stem cells) is then injected into the site of injury so the cells can help repair the injured or degenerative tissue. Stem cell therapy is also commonly used to treat arthritis, meniscal tears and a variety of orthopedic and medical conditions. Patients can experience significant pain relief and improved function within a few months after the procedure.

Although stem cell therapy has been used for decades, it is still considered experimental in orthopedic and sports medicine. Stem cell therapy should NOT be used as the first step in treating an orthopedic injury. In addition, the risk of bone marrow aspiration for stem cell therapy includes infection, prolonged bleeding, pain at the aspiration or injection site and bruising

The best way to determine if you are a candidate for stem cell therapy is to have a thorough evaluation by a physician experienced with stem cell therapies. Stem cell therapy is usually not covered by insurance. However, depending on the type of treatment that is needed, partial reimbursement may be possible.

Stem cell therapy is now being used to treat advanced lung disease/COPD and for cosmetic purposes. The primary focus of Dr. Carters practice is orthopedics, but treatment for the above conditions can also be offered to her patients.

Dr. Carter offers a complimentary 10-minute phone consultation for those interested in stem cell therapy.

Call Us: 212.794.7040

A: Yes. Dr. Carter treats virtually all orthopedic and sports conditions and can use stem cell treatments for most, including disorders and injuries of the spine.

A: Stem cells can be obtained from the bone marrow/pelvic bone or from a small amount of abdominal fat tissue.

A: Stem cell therapy is typically not covered by insurances. However, depending on your condition, partial reimbursement may be possible. Reimbursement questions can be answered in more detail after your consult and once we know more about your insurance coverage.

A: The price can vary depending on the type of condition being treated and whether bone marrow aspirate or fat tissue is utilized to acquire the stem cells.

A: It depends on your insurance plan. Any upfront costs for the initial consult will be deducted from the total cost of the stem cell procedure done by Dr. Carter. If you are not a good candidate or if you choose not to proceed with stem cell therapy, then the consultation feet is nonrefundable however, alternative treatments will be thoroughly discussed. We will gladly submit the consult visit claim to your insurance company on your behalf, which may or may not be reimbursable.

More here:

Stem Cell Therapy For Orthopedic Injuries and Arthritis - New ...

A Cyborg Manifesto – Wikipedia

Posted on by

"A Cyborg Manifesto" is an essay written by Donna Haraway and published in 1984. In it, the concept of the cyborg is a rejection of rigid boundaries, notably those separating "human" from "animal" and "human" from "machine." She writes: "The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust."[1]

The Manifesto criticizes traditional notions of feminism, particularly feminist focuses on identity politics, and encouraging instead coalition through affinity. She uses the metaphor of a cyborg to urge feminists to move beyond the limitations of traditional gender, feminism, and politics; consequently, the "Manifesto" is considered one of the milestones in the development of feminist posthumanist theory.[2]

Haraway begins the Manifesto by explaining three boundary breakdowns since the 20th Century that have allowed for her hybrid, cyborg myth: the breakdown of boundaries between human and animal, animal-human and machine, and physical and non-physical. Evolution has blurred the lines between human and animal; 20th Century machines have made ambiguous the lines between natural and artificial; and microelectronics and the political invisibility of cyborgs have confused the lines of physicality.[1]

Haraway highlights the problematic use and justification of Western traditions like patriarchy, colonialism, essentialism, and naturalism (among others). These traditions in turn allow for the problematic formations of taxonomies (and identifications of the Other) and what Haraway explains as "antagonistic dualisms" that order Western discourse. These dualisms, Haraway states, "have all been systematic to the logics and practices of domination of women, people of color, nature, workers, animals... all [those] constituted as others." She highlights specific problematic dualisms of self/other, culture/nature, male/female, civilized/primitive, right/wrong, truth/illusion, total/partial, God/man (among others). She explains that these dualisms are in competition with one another, creating paradoxical relations of domination (especially between the One and the Other). However, high-tech culture provides a challenge to these antagonistic dualisms.

Haraway's cyborg theory rejects the notions of essentialism, proposing instead a chimeric, monstrous world of fusions between animal and machine. Cyborg theory relies on writing as "the technology of cyborgs," and asserts that "cyborg politics is the struggle for language and the struggle against perfect communication, against the one code that translates all meaning perfectly, the central dogma of phallogocentrism." Instead, Haraways cyborg calls for a non-essentialized, material-semiotic metaphor capable of uniting diffuse political coalitions along the lines of affinity rather than identity. Following Lacanian feminists such as Luce Irigaray, Haraways work addresses the chasm between feminist discourses and the dominant language of Western patriarchy. As Haraway explains, grammar is politics by other means, and effective politics require speaking in the language of domination.[1]

As she details in a chart of the paradigmatic shifts from modern to postmodern epistemology within the Manifesto, the unified human subject of identity has shifted to the hybridized posthuman of technoscience, from representation to simulation, bourgeois novel to science fiction, reproduction to replication, and white capitalist patriarchy to informatics of domination.[1] While Haraways ironic dream of a common language is inspired by Irigarays argument for a discourse other than patriarchy, she rejects Irigarays essentializing construction of woman-as-not-male to argue for a linguistic community of situated, partial knowledges in which no one is innocent.

Haraway takes issue with some traditional feminists, reflected in statements describing how "women more than men somehow sustain daily life, and so have a privileged epistemological position potentially." The views of traditional feminism operate under the totalizing assumptions that all men are one way, and women another, whereas "a cyborg theory of wholes and parts," does not desire to explain things in total theory. Haraway suggests that feminists should move beyond naturalism and essentialism, criticizing feminist tactics as "identity politics" that victimize those excluded, and she proposes that it is better strategically to confuse identities. Her criticism mainly focuses on socialist and radical feminism. The former, she writes, achieves "to expand the category of labour to what (some) women did" Socialist feminism does not naturalize but rather builds a unity that was non-existent before -namely the woman worker. On the other hand, radical feminism, according to Catherine MacKinnon, describes a world in which the woman only exists in opposition to the man. The concept of woman is socially constructed within the patriarchal structure of society and woman only exist because men have made them exist. The woman as a self does not exist. Haraway criticizes both when writing that "my complaint about socialist/Marxian standpoints is their unintended erasure of polyvocal, unassimilable, radical difference made visible in anti-colonial discourse and practice" and "MacKinnon's intentional erasure of all difference through the device of the 'essential' non-existence of women is not reassuring" (299). H[1]

Haraway also indirectly critiques white feminism by highlighting the struggles of women of color: she suggests that a woman of color might be understood as a cyborg identity, a potent subjectivity synthesized from fusions of outsider identities and in the complex political-historical layerings of her biomythography."[1]

To counteract the essentializing and anachronistic rhetoric of spiritual ecofeminists, who were fighting patriarchy with modernist constructions of female-as-nature and earth mothers, Haraway employs the cyborg to refigure feminism into cybernetic code.

Haraway calls for a revision of the concept of gender, moving away from Western patriarchal essentialism and toward "the utopian dream of the hope for a monstrous world without gender," stating that "Cyborgs might consider more seriously the partial, fluid, sometimes aspect of sex and sexual embodiment. Gender might not be global identity after all, even if it has profound historical breadth and depth."[1]

Haraway also calls for a reconstruction of identity, no longer dictated by naturalism and taxonomy but instead by affinity, wherein individuals can construct their own groups by choice. In this way, groups may construct a "post-modernist identity out of otherness, difference, and specificity" as a way to counter Western traditions of exclusive identification.

Although Haraway's metaphor of the cyborg has been labelled as a post-gender statement, Haraway has clarified her stance on post-genderism in some interviews.[3] She acknowledges that her argument in the Manifesto seeks to challenge the necessity for categorization of gender, but does not correlate this argument to post-genderism. She clarifies this distinction because post-genderism is often associated with the discourse of the utopian concept of being beyond masculinity and femininity. Haraway notes that gender constructs are still prevalent and meaningful, but are troublesome and should therefore be eliminated as categories for identity.[3]

Although Donna Haraway intended her concept of the cyborg to be a feminist critique, she acknowledges that other scholars and popular media have taken her concept and applied it to different contexts. Haraway is aware and receptive of the different uses of her concept of the cyborg, but admits "very few people are taking what I consider all of its parts".[3] Wired Magazine overlooked the feminist theory of the cyborg and instead used it to make a more literal commentary about the enmeshment of humans and technology.[4] Despite this, Haraway also recognizes that new feminist scholars "embrace and use the cyborg of the manifesto to do what they want for their own purposes".[3]

Patchwork Girl, a hypertext work, makes use of elements from Cyborg Manifesto. Patchwork Girl's "thematic focus on the connections between monstrosity, subjectivity, and new reproductive technologies is apparent from its very first page, when readers, or users, open the hypertext to find a picture of a scared and naked female body sewn together with a single dotted line...Readers enter the text by clicking on this body and following its 'limbs' or links to different sections of the text."[5] In Jackson's narrative, the Patchwork Girl is an aborted female monster created by Victor Frankenstein of Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus, is an abhorrent and monstrous creature that is "part male, part female, part animal, 175 years old, and 'razed' up through hypertext technology."[5] The monster, following her destruction by Victor, is sewn back together by Mary Shelley herself, while simultaneously becoming Mary's lover; she is thus, "a cyborg who is queer, dis-proportioned, and visibly scarred. She both facilitates and undermines preoccupations with the benefits and dangers of reproductive technologies by embracing all of the monstrosities that reproductive/fetal screenings are imagined to 'catch' and one day prevent."[5] The Patchwork Girl embraces Haraway's conception of a cybernetic posthuman being in both her physical multiplicity and her challenge towards "the images and fantasies sustaining reproductive politics."[5]

Turkish critical scholar Leman Giresunlu uses Haraway's cyborg as framework to examine current science fiction movies such as Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and Resident Evil in her essay "Cyborg Goddesses: The Mainframe Revisited".[6] In this essay, she explores how her new concept of the cyborg goddess, a female figure "capable of inflicting pain and pleasure simultaneously", can be used to make sense of how female representation is shifting towards a more multidimensional stance. Giresunlu builds from Haraway's cyborg because the cyborg goddess goes beyond "offering a way out from [the] duality" and instead provides how spirituality and technology work together to form a complex and more accurate representation of women.[6]

In her essay "Mind Over Matter: Mental Evolution and Physical Devolution in The Incredible Shrinking Man", American critical scholar Ruthellen Cunnally uses Haraway's cyborg to help make sense of how Robert Scott Carey, the protagonist of The Incredible Shrinking Man, transforms into a cyborg in the midst of a metaphor of cold war politics in his home. As Robert continues to shrink, the gendered power dynamic between him and his wife Louise shifts from "the realm of husband/wife into the mode of mother/son".[7] When Robert finds himself lost in the feminine space of the basement, an area of the house that was reserved for Louise's domestic duties of sewing and washing, he is forced to fight for his life and reclaim his masculinity. Although he is able to conquer some of his foes and regain his "manhood", the gender lines do not become established again because there is no one to share and implement the gendered power structure with. Robert's transformation presents "an existence in which acceptance and meaning are released from the limitations of patriarchal dualisms", which aligns with Haraway's cyborg.[7]

Traditional feminists have criticized "A Cyborg Manifesto" as anti-feminist because it denies any commonalities of the female experience.[3] In the Manifesto, Haraway writes "there is nothing about being 'female' that naturally binds women",[1] which goes against a defining characteristic of traditional feminism that calls women to join together in order to advocate for members of their gender.[citation needed]

Criticism and controversy were built into the essay's publication history: the East Coast Collective of the Socialist Review found the piece "a naive embrace of technology" and advocated against its publication, while The Berkeley Collective ultimately insisted that it go to print.[8] The essay has been described as "controversial" and "viral" in its circulation through multiple academic departments and disciplinary boundaries, contributing to the critical discourse on its claims.[9] This controversiality was matched by its omnipresence; Jackie Orr, Associate Professor of Sociology at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, writes, "It is hard to be a feminist graduate student in the U.S. humanities or social sciences after 1985 and not be touched in some way by the cyborg manifesto."[10] The rapid adoption of the article in academic circles also increased the pace of the critical conversation surrounding the work, and in 1990, Haraway felt that the essay had "acquired a surprise half life," which made it "impossible to rewrite" and necessitated revisiting the topic in her subsequent publications.[11]

Many critiques of "A Cyborg Manifesto" focus on a basic level of reader comprehension and writing style, such as Orr's observation that "undergraduate students in a science and technology class find the cyborg manifesto curiously relevant but somewhat impenetrable to read." [12][13] This is corroborated by Helen Merrick and Margret Grebowicz's observation that scientists who reviewed Primate Visions had similar issues, particularly as related to Haraway's use of irony.[14] Judy Wajcman, Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, suggests in TechnoFeminism that "the openness of her writing to a variety of readings is intentional," which "can sometimes make Haraway difficult to interpret;" however, it does not seem that Wajcman critiques Haraway's tone for its capability to encompass more possibilities, rather than limit them. Wajcman concludes her chapter "Send in the Cyborgs" on a critical note, claiming that "Certainly, Haraway is much stronger at providing evocative figurations of a new feminist subjectivity than she is at providing guidelines for a practical emancipatory politics." [15]

Critiques[16] of Haraway have also centered on the accessibility of the thematic topics she discusses in her writing, and according to third-wave feminist readings, her work "assumes a reader who is familiar with North American culture," and posits that "readers without the appropriate cultural capital are...likely to find it infuriatingly obscure and impenetrable."[15] Therefore, Haraway's symbolism is representative of North American culture symbolizing a "non-universalizing vision for feminist strategies" and "has been taken up within cyberfeminism as the symbol of an essential female being." [15] Considering the question of accessibility more broadly, disability studies have focused on Haraway's essay, noting the absence of "any kind of critical engagement with disability...disabled bodies are simply presented as exemplary...requiring neither analysis nor critique"a gap which Alison Kafer, Professor of Feminist Studies at Southwestern University, attempts to address in Feminist, Queer, Crip.[17] Wajcman also argues that Haraway's view of technology in "A Cyborg Manifesto" is perhaps too totalizing, and that the binary of "the cyborg solution and the goddess solution" ultimately "caricatures feminism" by focusing too readily on a dichotomy that may in fact be a false one.[15]

In Unfinished Work-From Cyborg to Cognisphere, N. Katherine Hayles questions the validity of cyborg as a unit of analysis. She says that because of the complicated situation of technology and media, cyborg is no longer the individual person or for that matter, the individual cyborg is no longer the appropriate unit of analysis, if indeed it ever was.[18]

As for the relationships between cyborg and religion, Robert A. Campbell argues that in spite of Haraway's efforts to move beyond traditional Western dualisms and offer a new hope for women, and by extension a of humanity and the world, what she in fact offers is a further legitimation for buying into the not so new American civil religion of high technology. He says that in spite of what some may view as a radical critique of the present and a potentially frightening prescription for the future, the stark reality about Haraway's 'postmodern reality' is that there is no such thing.[19]

Beyond its presence in academic context, "A Cyborg Manifesto" has also had popular traction including Wired Magazine's piece by Hari Kunzru [20] and Mute Magazine,[21] BuzzFeed, [22] as well as Vice Magazine.[23] Retrospective articles consistently mark its anniversary.[24]

Scholar Marilyn Maness Mehaffy writes that the "sonographic fetus is in many ways the ultimate cyborg in that it is 'created' in a space of virtuality that straddles the conventional boundary between an organic body and a digital text."[25] Yet it is this cyborg that presents a limit to Haraway's posthuman theory. The sonographic fetus, as posited by scholar Heather Latimer, "is publicly envisioned as both independent of [its mother's] body and as independent of the sonographic equipment used to read this body. We know that fetal images are depictions, yet the sonogram invokes a documentary-like access to fetuses that makes it easy to ignore this, which in turn can limit the authority and agency of pregnant women."[5] In positioning the fetus as independent, and consequently oppositional, to the pregnant mother, these reproductive technologies "reinscribe stable meanings to the human/machine dualism they supposedly disrupt."[5] Valerie Hartouni argues, "most reproductive technologies have assimilated into the 'order of nature'"[26] which would make Haraway's vision of a regenerative species, unrestricted by heteronormative conceptions of reproduction, unattainable in the sonographic fetus.

Haraway began writing the Manifesto in 1983 to address the Socialist Review request of American socialist feminists to ponder over the future of socialist feminism in the context of the early Reagan era and the decline of leftist politics. The first versions of the essay had a strong socialist and European connection that the Socialist Review East Coast Collective found too controversial to publish. The Berkeley Socialist Review Collective published the essay in 1985 under the editor Jeff Escoffier.[3] The essay was most widely read as part of Haraway's 1991 book Simians, Cyborgs and Women.[27]

View post:

A Cyborg Manifesto - Wikipedia

Temecula Middle School – Official Site

Posted on by

Help us bring the TMS Library/Media Center into the 21st Century for the 2018/19 School Year. A fundraiser has been createdon DonorsChoose.org posting a supply list of items that will be used in the new Makerspace Section of our library.

What is a Makerspace? It's an area that offers librarypatrons an opportunity to create intellectual and physical materials using resources such as computers, 3-D printers, audio and video capture and editing tools, and traditional arts and crafts supplies.

To make a donation, visit DonorsChoose.org.

Give to our library by May 11, 2018, and your donation will be doubled thanks to Ripple. Just enter the code RIPPLE during checkout and you'll be matched dollar for dollar (up to $50).

In return, you'll get awesome photos of your gift in action and our heartfelt thanks. Please feel free to pass this information along should you know anyone who may want to support our library.

Thank you, in advance, for your support in helping us create this new area of the library for our students.

See the article here:

Temecula Middle School - Official Site

Posted in Tms

Selected Quotes from Church Documents: On Human Cloning

Posted on by

Papal Teaching

No one can fail to see the dramatic and distressing consequences of thispragmatism that conceives of truth and justice as malleable qualitiesthat human beings themselves can shape. One relevant example amongothers is man's attempt to control the sources of life throughexperiments in human cloning. Here, we can see for ourselves the themethe Meeting [for Friendship Among Peoples] refers to: the violence withwhich people seek to appropriate the true and the just, reducing them tovalues which can arbitrarily be disposed of without recognizing anykind of limit, apart from those fixed and continuously surpassed bytheir technological operability.

...Christ taught another way: it is that of respect for human beings;the priority of every method of research must be to know the truth abouthuman beings, in order to serve them and not to manipulate themaccording to a project sometimes arrogantly seen as better even than theplan of the Creator.

Pope John Paul II, Message for the 25th Meeting for Friendship Among Peoples (August 2004), nos. 2, 3

I am speaking of a tragic spiral of death which includes murder,suicide, abortion, euthanasia.... To this list we must add irresponsiblepractices of genetic engineering, such as the cloning and use of humanembryos for research, which are justified by an illegitimate appeal tofreedom, to cultural progress, to the advancement of mankind. When theweakest and most vulnerable members of society are subjected to suchatrocities, the very idea of the human family, built on the value of theperson, on trust, respect and mutual support, is dangerously eroded. Acivilization based on love and peace must oppose these experiments,which are unworthy of man.

Pope John Paul II, Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace (2001), no. 19

In any event, methods that fail to respect the dignity and value of theperson must always be avoided. I am thinking in particular of attemptsat human cloning with a view to obtaining organs for transplants: thesetechniques, insofar as they involve the manipulation and destruction ofhuman embryos, are not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goalis good in itself. Science itself points to other forms of therapeutic interventionwhich would not involve cloning or the use of embryonic cells, butrather would make use of stem cells taken from adults. This is thedirection that research must follow if it wishes to respect the dignityof each and every human being, even at the embryonic stage.

Pope John Paul II, Address to the 18th International Congress of the Transplantation Society (2000), no. 8

[T]he distinction that is sometimes drawn between reproductive andtherapeutic cloning seems specious. Both involve the same technicalcloning process and differ only in goal. Both forms of cloning involvedisrespect for the dignity of the human being. In fact, from an ethicaland anthropological standpoint, so-called therapeutic cloning, creatinghuman embryos with the intention of destroying them, even if undertakenwith the goal of possibly helping sick patients in the future, seemsvery clearly incompatible with respect for the dignity of the humanbeing, making one human life nothing more than the instrument ofanother. Further, given the fact that cloned embryos would beindistinguishable from embryos created by in vitro fertilization andcould readily be implanted into wombs and brought to birth, we believeit would be practically impossible to enforce an instrument that allowedone type of cloning while banning the other.

Archbihop Celestino Migliore to the United Nations on the International Convention Against the Cloning of Human Beings (October 21, 2004)

Mr. Chairman, the science may be complex, but the issue for us is simpleand straightforward. The matter of human cloning that involves thecreation of human embryos is the story of the beginning of humanlife.... If reproductive cloning of human beings contravenes the law ofnature a principle with which all delegations appear to agree sodoes the cloning of the same human embryo that is slated for researchpurposes. A cloned embryo, which is not destined for implantation into awomb but is created for the sole purpose of extraction of stem cellsand other materials, is destined for pre-programmed destruction...

If the United Nations were to ban reproductive cloning without banningcloning for research, this would, for the first time, involve this bodyin legitimizing something extraordinary: the creation of human beingsfor the express purpose of destroying them. If human rights are to meananything, at any time, anywhere in the world, then surely no one canhave the right to do such a thing. Human rights flow from therecognition that human beings have an intrinsic dignity that is based onthe fact that they are human. Human embryos are human, even if theyare cloned. If the rest of us are to have the rights that flow from therecognition of this dignity, then we must act to ban cloning in all itsforms.

Archbishop Celestino Migliore to the United Nations on the International Convention Against the Cloning of Human Beings (2003)

The Holy See looks upon the distinction between "reproductive" andso-called "therapeutic" (or "experimental") cloning to be unacceptable.This distinction masks the reality of the creation of a human being forthe purpose of destroying him or her to produce embryonic stem celllines or to conduct other experimentation. Human embryonic cloning mustbe prohibited in all cases regardless of the aims that are pursued.The Holy See supports research on stem cells of post-natal origin sincethis approach - as has been demonstrated by the most recent scientificstudies - is a sound, promising, and ethical way to achieve tissuetransplantation and cell therapy that could benefit humanity....

Cloning a human embryo, while intentionally planning its demise, wouldinstitutionalize the deliberate, systemic destruction of nascent humanlife in the name of unknown "good" of potential therapy or scientificdiscovery.... Since embryonic cloning generates a new human life gearednot for a future of human flourishing but for a future destined toservitude and certain destruction, it is a process that cannot bejustified on the grounds that it may be able to assist other humanbeings.

Interventionby the Holy See Delegation to the United Nations, at the SpecialCommittee of the 57th General Assembly on Human Embryonic Cloning (2002)

The act of cloning is a predetermined act which forces the image andlikeness of the donor and is actually a form of imposing dominion overanother human being which denies the human dignity of the child andmakes him or her a slave to the will of others. The child would be seenas an object and a product of one's fancy rather than as a unique humanbeing, equal in dignity to those who "created" him or her. Thepractice of cloning would usurp the role of creator and would thus beseen as an offence before God....

There remains, however the fact that reproductive cloning is only partof the overall issue. Therapeutic cloning, the production of humanembryos as suppliers of specialized stem cells, embryos to be used inthe treatment of certain illnesses and then destroyed, must be addressedand prohibited. This exploitation of human beings, sought by certainscientific and industrial circles, and pushed forward by underlyingeconomic interests, retains all its ethical repugnance as an even moreserious offence against human dignity and the right to life, since itinvolves human beings (embryos) who are created in order to bedestroyed.

Archbishop Renato Martino to the United Nations, on an International Convention Against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings (2001)

Since 1988, two great global divides have grown deeper: the first is theever more tragic phenomenon of poverty and social discrimination ...,and the other, more recent and less widely condemned, concerns theunborn child ... as the subject of experimentation and technologicalintervention (through techniques of artificial procreation, the use of"superfluous embryos," so-called therapeutic cloning, etc.). Here thereis a risk of a new form of racism, for the development of thesetechniques could lead to the creation of a "sub-category of humanbeings," destined basically for the convenience of certain others. Thiswould be a new and terrible form of slavery. Regrettably, it cannot bedenied that the temptation of eugenics is still latent, especially ifpowerful commercial interests exploit it. Governments and thescientific community must be very vigilant in this domain.

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Contribution to the World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa (2001), no. 21

In the cloning process the basic relationships of the human person areperverted: filiation, consanguinity, kinship, parenthood.... In vitrofertilization has already led to the confusion of parentage, but cloningwill mean the radical rupture of these bonds....

The "human cloning" project represents the terrible aberration to whichvalue-free science is driven and is a sign of the profound malaise ofour civilization, which looks to science, technology and the "quality oflife" as surrogates for the meaning of life and its salvation....

Halting the human cloning project is a moral duty which must also be translated into cultural, social and legislative terms.

Pontifical Academy for Life, "Reflections on Cloning" (1997), no. 3

[A]ttempts or hypotheses for obtaining a human being without anyconnection with sexuality through "twin fission," cloning orparthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, sincethey are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and ofthe conjugal union.

Congregationfor the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life inits Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (Donum vitae) (1987), I

Revising the name given to the killing reduces its perceived gravity. This is the ecology of law, moral reasoning and language in action.Bad law and defective moral reasoning produce the evasive language tojustify evil.... The same sanitized marketing is now deployed on behalfof...fetal experimentation and human cloning. Each reduces the humanperson to a problem or an object. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics" (1998), II, 11

Human cloning does not treat any disease but turns human reproductioninto a manufacturing process, by which human beings are mass-produced topreset specifications. The cloning procedure is so dehumanizing thatsome scientists want to treat the resulting human beings as subhuman,creating them solely so they can destroy them for their cells andtissues....

While cloning may never produce any clinical benefit, its attack on human dignity has already begun.

BishopWilton D. Gregory, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,on reports that a biotechnology firm has cloned human embryos (2001)

See the article here:

Selected Quotes from Church Documents: On Human Cloning

Lesson 10: Pantheism and New-Age Mysticism | Free Sunday …

Posted on by

Pantheism

Pantheism teaches that the universe and all it contains is God. Thats why its called pantheism everything is part of God. The word Pantheism derives from the Greek words pan (all) and theos (God). Thus, pantheism means All is God.

In essence, pantheism holds that the universe as a whole should be regarded with religious reverence, and that there is nothing that truly merits the name God other than the universe and nature. The Cosmos is divine, and the earth sacred. Pantheists do not propose belief in a deity; rather, they hold nature itself as a creative presence. Pantheists believe in Divine Immanence, i.e., that God is present in all things. To the Pantheist, divinity does not transcend reality; it surrounds, and is within. All share divinity. This leads the pantheist to personal ethics of tolerance and understanding.1

Natural or Scientific Pantheism has much in common with religious humanism, religious naturalism and religious atheism, as well as with philosophical Taoism, Zen Buddhism, and symbolic paganism. Scientific Pantheists take the real universe and nature as their starting point, not some preconceived idea of God. Scientific Pantheists feel a profound reverence and awe for these, like the reverence and awe that believers in a more conventional God feel towards their deity. Natural/scientific pantheism reveres and cares for nature, accepts this life as our only life, and this earth as our only paradise, if we look after it.

Natural/scientific pantheism does not require faith in miracles, invisible entities or supernatural powers. It does not regard this life as a waiting room or a staging post on the way to a better existence after death. It has a healthy and positive attitude to sex and life in the body. It teaches reverence and love for nature.2

Pantheism is built on the philosophical idea called monism. Monism teaches that all reality is unified, i.e., everything is part of the same big system. All things are ultimately and absolutely united. Reality is indivisible. Differences are simply illusions. There is one solid, eternal indivisible ball of being. Since everything is part of everything else, everything that exists must be God.

Probably the most well known pantheistic religion is Hinduism.

Pantheism asserts the following:

God is non-personal. God is not a person; God is the oneness of all things, the single reality that encompasses all things. God has no self-consciousness. God is an It, not a He.

God is absolutely infinite and unknowable. We can say what God is not but not what God is. Logical reasoning is incapable of comprehending God.

Because God is not a person, one cannot have a personal relationship with God. The disciples goal is to be unified with God, to converge with Gods oneness. One achieves this unity by turning away from the physical world and focusing on the soul. It is only through meditation and mystical intuition that one leaps beyond the physical and is united with the One.

God is the source of all being. Everything is rooted in God and springs from God.

Its obvious even to the casual observer that pantheism is in sharp disagreement with Christianity. Note some weaknesses of pantheism:

If all being is unified, then no individual existence is possible. Its self-defeating to assert that individual existence is not real. If ones individual conscious existence is merely an illusion, then the idea that all is one is an illusion, too.

Pantheism and monism assert an idea that cannot be proven, i.e., that all reality is part of the one. However, different kinds of beings may exist, namely, finite (man) and infinite (God).

Pantheism cannot distinguish good from evil. Both good and evil must necessarily be part of God if everything is one.

An impersonal God is no God at all. The idea of God as a personal, loving father is foreign to pantheistic thought. In fact, pantheism differs little from atheism. They both assert that the universe is all there is.

The pantheistic God is incomplete without creation. If nothing material existed, the pantheistic God would not exist.

Its impossible to say for sure what the pantheistic God is. If all is God, then even two contradictory statements about it would both be true, which is logically absurd. One can say nothing meaningful about the pantheistic God.

To claim that God is unknowable is illogical, for it is claiming to know something about God, i.e., that he is unknowable.

The Bible clearly asserts that God is a Person, not the unity of all things. Its mans depraved mind that worships and serves the creation rather than the creator (Rom 1:17f). God exists separate from His creation. Created beings do not share in the divinity of God. God is knowable and the information we have about God is true, logical and meaningful. The Bible contradicts pantheism on almost every point.

When dealing with pantheists, the best attack is to present the gospel in the most clear and positive terms. Further, believers must show pantheists how illogical their system is.

The New Age Movement is largely based on pantheistic notions. The New Age Movement is not a unified system of thought, but a loosely-knit association of ideas and philosophies, most of which are incompatible with Christianity.

The New Age Movement, unlike most formal religions, has no holy text, central organization, membership rolls, formal clergy, geographic center, dogma, or system of beliefs. The New Age is a free-flowing spiritual movement; a network of believers and practitioners who share somewhat similar beliefs and practices. Seminars, conventions, books and informal groups replace sermons and religious services.

Recent surveys of US adults indicate that many Americans hold at least some New Age beliefs:

8% believe in astrology as a method of foretelling the future.

7% believe that crystals are a source of healing or energizing power.

9% believe that Tarot Cards are a reliable base for life decisions.

about 1 in 4 believe in a non-traditional concept of the nature of God which are often associated with New Age thinking:

11% believe that God is a state of higher consciousness that a person may reach.

8% define God as the total realization of personal, human potential.

3% believe that each person is God.

New Age teachings became popular during the 1970s as a reaction against what some perceived as the failure of traditional sources to provide spiritual and ethical guidance for the future. Its roots are traceable to many sources: Astrology, Channeling, Hinduism, Gnostic traditions, Spiritualism, Taoism, Theosophy, Wicca and other Neo-pagan traditions, etc. The movement started in England in the 1960s where many of these elements were well established. The movement quickly became international. The movement has become established a stable, major force in North American religion during the past generation. New Agers expect their movement to expand, promoted by the social backlash against logic and science.3

Basic New Age ideas:

God is an impersonal energy or force. The New Age idea of God is very pantheisticeverything is part of God. People must come to realize their connection to God. Everyone is divine.

Death initiates another life. New Agers generally believe in reincarnation, the idea that after death they come back and experience another life. One accumulates wisdom from one life to the next, and eventually one may be released from the cycle of life and death.

Release from the reincarnation cycle depends on ones karma, i.e., works. Good works build up good karma; bad works build up bad karma. If at the end of life one has accumulated enough good karma, he may be reincarnated at a higher level of life. But if one has accumulated enough bad karma, he may come back at a lower level and suffer for his sin.

Those who break out of the cycle by accumulating enough good karma experience Nirvana, the state of nothingness, the absorption into the One.

The New Age Movement has a low regard for logic or rational thought. An important part of the system is a mystical, transcendental form of meditation in which one seeks unity with the One. Such an experience is not rational. The emphasis is on experience rather than logical thought. A mystical, trance-like state is required to experience unity with the One. This is achieved through various means, such as hypnotism, drugs, yoga, meditation, dreams, visualization, chants, dancing, and various other rituals. Achieving cosmic consciousness will supposedly unleash hidden powers and assist in the exploration of the universe within.

Some aspects of the New Age Movement are returning to pagan religious rituals like sun and moon worship, ancestor worship, god/goddess worship, magic, the use of crystals, channeling, witchcraft, etc.

Because there is no personal God, there can be no absolute standards of right and wrong. New Agers are relativists, except when it comes to environmental issues, where they want to be more objective. They refuse to make moral judgments because they have no basis to make such judgments. Note: this obviously contradicts the whole idea of karma. But that doesnt matter to a New Agerhe can live with all sorts of contradiction. Generally, such people make up their own standards of karma.

Personal Transformation: A profoundly intense mystical experience will lead to the acceptance and use of New Age beliefs and practices. Guided imagery, hypnosis, meditation, and (sometimes) the use of hallucinogenic drugs are useful to bring about and enhance this transformation. Believers hope to develop new potentials within themselves: the ability to heal oneself and others, psychic powers, a new understanding of the workings of the universe, etc. Later, when sufficient numbers of people have achieved these powers, a major spiritual, physical, psychological and cultural planet-wide transformation is expected.

Ecological Responsibility: A belief in the importance of uniting to preserve the health of the earth, which is often looked upon as Gaia (Mother Earth), a living entity.

Universal Religion: Since all is God, then only one reality exists, and all religions are simply different paths to that ultimate reality. The universal religion can be visualized as a mountain, with many sadhanas (spiritual paths) to the summit. Some are hard; others easy. There is no one correct path. All paths eventually reach the top. They anticipate that a new universal religion which contains elements of all current faiths will evolve and become generally accepted worldwide.

New World Order: As the Age of Aquarius unfolds, a New Age will develop. This will be a utopia in which there is world government, and end to wars, disease, hunger, pollution, and poverty. Gender, racial, religious and other forms of discrimination will cease. Peoples allegiance to their tribe or nation will be replaced by a concern for the entire world and its people.

Logical problems with the New Age Movement:

If theres no personal God, then its impossible to tell what is good karma and what is bad. If all is part of the same universal One, then there can be no distinction between good and evil.

Its impossible to tell when one has accumulated enough good karma to reach Nirvana. How much is enough?

Most people dont remember their (supposedly) previous lives, so how can they carry any wisdom from one life to the next?

According to the New Age system, those enduring suffering are probably being punished for their accumulation of bad karma from a previous life or lives. Hence there is no reason to try to help them or to decrease their suffering.

Its illogical to think that all religions are equally valid, each one a separate but legitimate path. When two religions contradict each other, they cannot both be right.

A Biblical Response:

The New Age Movement clearly rejects biblical revelation. What does the Bible say about New Age ideas?

God is a person, not a force or the unity of all things.

There is only one physical death, and after that is the judgment. There is no such thing as reincarnation. See Heb 9:27. The second death, not another life, awaits those who reject Jesus Christ.

Nirvana is not synonymous with heaven. Believers will enjoy eternal conscious existence in a place of happiness and fulfillment (John 14:2-3); they will not be absorbed into the one. Unbelievers will be punished with everlasting, conscious torment.

Believers are complete in Christ (Col 1:28, 2:10). We need no special mystical experiences to enjoy a relationship with God. All saved people have access to the same benefits from God. It is not necessary to experience a mystical trance or altered state of consciousness to commune with God.

The New Age Movement is really just another version of salvation by works. The Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9).

The created universe is not part of God. God exists independently from the universe. He is self-existent and needs nothing.

Faith in Jesus Christ is the one and only means of salvation. All religions that deny this are false.

As with any pagan, the best method of reaching a New Ager is through a simple presentation of the gospel. New Agers tend not to value deep logical or rational arguments, so it may be difficult to engage them in a rational discussion. Just proclaim the gospel and call the person to repentance and faith.

Conclusion: Both pantheism and the New Age Movement are particularly hostile to Christianity. They directly contradict biblical claims and are seemingly impervious to logical argumentation. Their belief systems are so vague and broad that they can encompass all sorts of odd doctrines. Christians must show such people the error of their ways by proclaiming the gospel to them and calling them to faith and repentance.

Discussion:

Define pantheism? The belief that All is God.

How is pantheism similar to naturalism? Both claim that there is nothing beyond nature, nothing outside the box.

What is monism? The idea that all things are part of the absolute One.

Why is it self-defeating to say that God is unknowable? Because youre saying something that you know about God.

Why cant a pantheist or New Ager distinguish good from evil? Because they accept no absolute standard or Law Giver. Also, since everything is part of the same One, good and evil are the same.

Explain reincarnation, karma, and Nirvana.

1 Universal Pantheist Society, http://www.pantheist.net/

2 World Pantheist Movement, http://www.harrison.dircon.co.uk/wpm/index.htm

3 http://www.religioustolerance.org/newage.htm

More:

Lesson 10: Pantheism and New-Age Mysticism | Free Sunday ...

Medications Information – Index of drug monographs …

Posted on by

ACE (angiotensin converting enzyme) inhibitors-Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors are used to treat high blood pressure. They cause the blood vessels to relax and become larger and, as a result, blood pressure is lowered. When blood pressure is reduced, the heart has an easier time pumping blood. This is especially beneficial when the heart is failing. ACE inhibitors also cause the process of hypertensive- and diabetes-related kidney diseases to slow down and prevent early deaths associated with high blood pressure. ACE inhibitors cannot be taken during pregnancy since they may cause birth defects. Generic ACE inhibitors are available.

acetaminophen (brand name: Tylenol)-A pain reliever and fever reducer. The exact mechanism of action of acetaminophen is not known. Acetaminophen relieves pain by elevating the pain threshold (that is, by requiring a greater amount of pain to develop before it is felt by a person). Acetaminophen reduces fever through its action on the heat-regulating center of the brain. Generic is available.

alprazolam (brand name: Xanax)- A benzodiazepine sedative that causes dose-related depression of the central nervous system. Alprazolam is useful in treating anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia, and muscle spasms. Generic is available.

amoxicillin (brand names: Amoxil, Polymox, Trimox)-An antibiotic of the penicillin type that is effective against different bacteria such as Haemophilus influenzae, Neisseria gonorrhoea, Escherichia coli, Pneumococci, Streptococci, and certain strains of Staphylococci, particularly infections of the middle ear, tonsillitis, throat infections, laryngitis, bronchitis, and pneumonia. Amoxicillin is also used in treating urinary tract infections, skin infections, and gonorrhea. Generic is available.

atenolol (brand name: Tenormin)-A medication that blocks the action of a portion of the involuntary nervous system that stimulates the pace of the heartbeat. By blocking the action of these nerves, atenolol reduces the heart rate and is useful in treating abnormally rapid heart rhythms. Atenolol also reduces the force of heart muscle contraction, lowers blood pressure, and is helpful in treating angina. It is also used for the prevention of migraine headaches and the treatment of certain types of tremors. Generic is available.

bupropion (brand names: Wellbutrin, Zyban, Wellbutrin SR)-An antidepressant medication that affects chemicals within the brain that nerves use to send messages to each other. These chemical messengers are called neurotransmitters. The neurotransmitters that are released by nerves are taken up again by the nerves that release them for reuse (referred to as reuptake). Many experts believe that depression is caused by an imbalance among the amounts of neurotransmitters that are released. Bupropion is unrelated to other antidepressants. It works by inhibiting the reuptake of the neurotransmitters dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine, resulting in more of these chemicals being available to transmit messages to other nerves. Bupropion is unique in that its major effect is on dopamine. Wellbutrin and Wellbutrin SR are used for the management of depression. Zyban has been approved as an aid to patients who want to quit smoking. Generic is not available.

cephalexin (brand names: Keflex, Keftabs)-A semisynthetic cephalosporin antibiotic that is chemically similar to penicillin. Cephalexin is effective against a wide variety of bacterial organisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Escherichia coli, particular involving infections of the middle ear, tonsillitis, throat infections, laryngitis, bronchitis, and pneumonia. Cephalexin is also used in treating urinary tract infections and skin and bone infections. Generic is available.

ciprofloxacin (brand name: Cipro)-An antibiotic that stops multiplication of bacteria by inhibiting the reproduction and repair of their genetic material (DNA). Ciprofloxacin is used to treat infections of the skin, lungs, airways, bones, and joints that are caused by susceptible bacteria. Ciprofloxacin is also frequently used to treat urinary infections caused by bacteria such as Escherichia coli. Ciprofloxacin is effective in treating infectious diarrheas caused by E. coli, Campylobacter jejuni, and shigella bacteria. Generic is not available.

citalopram (brand name: Celexa)-An antidepressant medication that affects neurotransmitters, the chemical messengers within the brain. Neurotransmitters manufactured and released by nerves attach to adjacent nerves and alter their activities. Thus, neurotransmitters can be thought of as the communication system of the brain. Many experts believe that an imbalance among neurotransmitters is the cause of depression. Citalopram works by preventing the uptake of one neurotransmitter, serotonin, by nerve cells after it has been released. The reduced uptake caused by citalopram results in more free serotonin being available in the brain to stimulate nerve cells. Citalopram is in the class of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Generic is not available.

clonazepam (Klonopin)-Used to treat anxiety, clonazepam works by enhancing the response to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the brain, a neurotransmitter that inhibits the activity of many parts of the brain. It is believed that too much activity can lead to anxiety. By enhancing the response to GABA, clonazepam inhibits activity in the brain and relieves the short-term symptoms of anxiety. Clonazepam should not be taken during pregnancy, as the effects are known to cause damage to the fetus. More than half of those who take clonazepam experience the side effect of sedation. Generic clonazepam is available.

codeine (brand name: Empirin 2, 3, 4, Tylenol 2, 3, 4, Tylenol with Codeine Elixir)-Codeine is a pain reliever used to temporarily relieve mild to severe pain. Codeine has the ability to impair thinking and physical ability necessary for driving, and, when combined with alcohol, the impairment can be worsened. Those taking codeine have the ability to become dependent on the drug mentally and physically. Those patients allergic to aspirin and pregnant mothers should not take codeine. Codeine often is combined with acetaminophen (Tylenol) or aspirin to add to its effectiveness. Side effects of codeine include light-headedness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, and sedation. Generic codeine is available.

doxycycline (brand name: Vibramycin)-A synthetic broad-spectrum antibiotic that is derived from tetracycline and is effective against a wide variety of bacteria, such as Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydia psittaci, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Neisseria gonorrhoea. Doxycycline is particularly helpful for treating respiratory tract infections and for treating nongonococcal urethritis (due to ureaplasma), Rocky mountain spotted fever, typhus, chancroid, cholera, brucellosis, anthrax, syphilis, and acne. Generic is available.

fluoxetine (brand name: Prozac)-A class of antidepressant medications that affects chemical messengers within the brain. These chemical messengers are called neurotransmitters. Many experts believe that an imbalance in these neurotransmitters is the cause of depression. Fluoxetine is used in the treatment of depression and obsessive-compulsive disorders. Fluoxetine is believed to work by inhibiting the release of or affecting the action of serotonin. Generic is available.

hydrocodone/acetaminophen (brand names: Vicodin, Vicodin ES, Anexsia, Lorcet, Lorcet Plus, Norco)-A narcotic pain reliever and a cough suppressant that is similar to codeine and is used for the relief of moderate to moderately severe pain. The precise mechanism of pain relief by hydrocodone and other narcotics is not known. Acetaminophen is a nonnarcotic pain reliever and fever reducer. It relieves pain by elevating the pain threshold and reduces fever through its action on the heat-regulating center of the brain. Generic is available.

hydroxyzine (brand names: Vistaril, Atarax)-An antihistamine with anticholinergic (drying) and sedative properties that is used to treat allergic reactions and to relieve nasal and nonnasal symptoms such as those from seasonal allergic rhinitis. Histamine is released by the body during several types of allergic reactions and to a lesser extent during some viral infections, such as the common cold. When histamine binds to its receptors on cells, it causes changes within the cells that lead to sneezing, itching, and increased mucus production. Antihistamines compete with histamine for cell receptors; however, when they bind to the receptors, antihistamines do not stimulate the cells. In addition, antihistamines prevent histamine from binding and stimulating the cells. Generic is available.

ibuprofen (brand names: Advil, Motrin, Medipren, Nuprin)-A traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that is effective in treating fever, pain, and inflammation in the body. As a group, NSAIDs are nonnarcotic relievers of mild to moderate pain of many causes, including injury, menstrual cramps, arthritis, and other musculoskeletal conditions. Generic is available.

levothyroxine sodium (brand names: Synthroid, Levoxyl, Levothroid, Unithroid)-A synthetic version of the principal thyroid hormone thyroxine (T4), which is made and released by the thyroid gland. Levothyroxine sodium is used to treat hypothyroidism and to suppress thyroid hormone release in the management of cancerous thyroid nodules and growth of goiters. Thyroid hormone increases the metabolic rate of cells of all tissues in the body. Thyroid hormone helps to maintain brain function, food metabolism, and body temperature, among other effects. Generic is available.

lisinopril (brand name: Zestril, Prinivil)-Lisinopril is an ACE inhibitor that works to lower blood pressure by relaxing and enlarging blood vessels. It also is used to treat heart failure. Lisinopril should be taken at the same time each day in order to ensure consistent blood levels. Pregnant mothers should avoid lisinopril, and it is important to avoid taking lisinopril within two hours of an antacid since antacid binds the lisinopril and prevents it from being absorbed into the body. Side effects of lisinopril include dizziness that is felt when the blood pressure begins to drop, and kidney damage as well. Those taking potassium supplements or diuretics that cause potassium to be retained by the body should not take lisinopril because blood potassium levels may rise to dangerously high levels. Generic lisinopril is available.

lithium (brand name: Lithobid)-Since the 1950s, lithium has been used in the treatment of bipolar disorder as well as depression. Lithium is a mineral that has a positive charge, similar to sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium. It works by interfering inside cells with other minerals with positive charges such as potassium, calcium and magnesium. Lithium impacts the brain by affecting both the concentrations of tryptophan and serotonin within the brain's cells, and neurotransmitters, chemical messengers that nerves use to communicate with each other. It is recommended that lithium be taken together with food. The full clinical effects of lithium are seen about 2-3 weeks after beginning treatment. Goiters of the thyroid gland develop in one out of every 25 persons taking lithium. Generic lithium is available.

lorazepam (brand names: Ativan)-An antianxiety medication in the benzodiazepine family. Lorazepam and other benzodiazepines act by enhancing the effects of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the brain. GABA is a neurotransmitter, a chemical that nerves in the brain use to send messages to one another. GABA inhibits activity in many of the nerves of the brain, and it is thought that this excessive activity is what causes anxiety and other psychological disorders. Lorazepam has fewer interactions with other medications and is felt to be potentially less toxic than most of the other benzodiazepines. Lorazepam is also used to treat insomnia and panic attacks. Generic is available.

meloxicam (brand name: Mobic)-Meloxicam is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that is used in the treatment of inflammation due to osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Meloxicam, like other NSAIDs, reduces the pain, tenderness and swelling caused by inflammation by preventing the formation of chemicals that contribute to inflammation. Individuals who are prone to asthma attacks, hives or have an allergy to aspirin and other NSAIDs should not take meloxicam. Aspirin should not be taken with meloxicam as such a combination raises the risk for developing ulcers of the stomach or small intestine. Generic meloxicam is available..

metformin (brand name: Glucophage)-Approved by the FDA in 1994, metformin is used to lower blood glucose levels in type 2 diabetes in adults and children. Metformin also reduces complications of diabetes including heart disease, blindness and kidney disease. When used alone, metformin does not increase insulin levels in the blood and, therefore, does not result in extremely low blood glucose levels. Metformin increases the effects that insulin has on the liver, muscle, fat, and other tissues. As a result, the reduced levels of insulin have more of an effect than they otherwise would. Metformin also has been used to prevent diabetes from worsening and also has been used to treat polycystic ovaries. Side effects of metformin include nausea, vomiting, gas, bloating, diarrhea, and loss of appetite. Generic metformin is available.

methotrexate (brand names: Rheumatrex, Trexall)-A drug that is capable of blocking the metabolism of cells (an antimetabolite). As a result of this effect, methotrexate has been found to be helpful in treating certain diseases associated with abnormally rapid cell growth, such as cancer of the breast and psoriasis. Recently, methotrexate has been shown to be effective in inducing miscarriage (for example, in patients with ectopic pregnancy). This effect of methotrexate is attributed to its action of killing the rapidly growing cells of the placenta. Methotrexate has also been found to be very helpful in treating rheumatoid arthritis, although its mechanism of action in this illness is not known. Methotrexate seems to work, in part, by altering aspects of immune function that may play a role in causing rheumatoid arthritis. Generic is available.

methylprednisolone (brand name: Medrol, Depo-Medrol)-Methylprednisolone is a synthetic corticosteroid that is used to reduce inflammation in inflammatory diseases such as arthritis, lupus, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis. The body produces corticosteroids naturally in the adrenal glands. Methylprednisolone may be used during pregnancy as it does not cause abnormalities in the fetus. However, using methylprednisolone for long periods of time can cause the body to stop producing its own corticosteroids. This can lead to a serious problem, i.e., inadequate amounts of corticosteroids, if the methylprednisolone is stopped for any reason. Generic methylprednisolone is available.

metoprolol (brand names: Lopressor, Toprol XL)-A medication that blocks the action of a portion of the involuntary nervous system. The sympathetic nervous system stimulates the pace of the heart beat. By blocking the action of these nerves, metoprolol reduces the heart rate and is useful in treating abnormally rapid heart rhythms. Metoprolol also reduces the force of heart muscle contraction, lowers blood pressure, and is helpful in treating angina. Generic is available.

metronidazole (brand name: Flagyl)-Metronidazole is an antibiotic used to fight infections caused by a class of bacteria called anaerobic bacteria as well as some parasites. Metronidazole is used for infections of the small intestine, amebic liver abscesses, dysentery and trichomonas vaginal infections. It also is used to treat infections of the colon caused by the bacterium, Clostridium difficile. Taking metronidazole with alcohol is dangerous as it can cause nausea, vomiting, cramps, flushing and headache. Pregnant mothers and nursing mothers should not use metronidazole. Side effects of metronidazole, although they are few, include seizures and nerve damage that can lead to numbness and tingling of the hands and feet. Generic metronidazole is available.

naproxen (brand names: Naprosyn, Naprelan, Anaprox, Aleve)-A traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that is effective in treating fever, pain, and inflammation in the body. As a group, NSAIDs are nonnarcotic relievers of mild to moderate pain of many causes, including injury, menstrual cramps, arthritis, and other musculoskeletal conditions. Generic is available.

phentermine (brand names: Adipex-P, Fastin, Obenix, Oby-Trim)-An appetite suppressor that decreases appetite by possibly changing brain levels of serotonin. Phentermine is a nervous system stimulator like the amphetamines, causing stimulation, elevation of blood pressure, and increased heart rates. Phentermine is used for short periods, along with diet and behavior modification, to treat obesity. Generic is available.

prednisone (brand names: Deltasone, Liquid Pred, Prednisolone, Pediapred Oral Liquid, Medrol)-An oral, synthetic corticosteroid that is used for suppressing the immune system and inflammation. Synthetic corticosteroids mimic the action of cortisol (hydrocortisone), the naturally occurring corticosteroid that is produced in the body by the adrenal glands. Corticosteroids have many effects on the body, but they most often are used for their potent anti-inflammatory effects, particularly in conditions in which the immune system plays an important role. Such conditions include arthritis, colitis, asthma, bronchitis, certain skin rashes, and allergic or inflammatory conditions of the nose and eyes. Generic is available.

tramadol (brand name: Ultram)-A pain reliever (analgesic) that is used in the management of moderate to moderately severe pain. Its mode of action resembles that of narcotics, but tramadol has significantly less potential for abuse and addiction than narcotics. Tramadol is as effective as narcotics in relieving pain, but it does not depress respiration, which is a side effect of most narcotics. Generic is not available.

See more here:

Medications Information - Index of drug monographs ...

Medicine – Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted on by

This page is about the science. For drugs, see Medication.

Medicine is the science that deals with diseases (illnesses) in humans and animals, the best ways to prevent diseases, and the best ways to return to a healthy condition.

People who practice medicine are most often called medical doctors or physicians. Often doctors work closely with nurses and many other types of health care professionals.

Many doctors specialize in one kind of medical work. For example, pediatrics is the medical specialty about the health of children.

In this specialty, the doctor is trained to provide anaesthesia and sedation. This is important for surgeries and certain medical procedures. Anaesthesiologists also provide pre-operative assessments, ensuring the patient is safe during the operation and successfully awakens from anaesthesia after the operation. They assess for medical conditions and suitability for anaesthesia. They screen for risk factors prior to surgery and try to optimize the operative environment for the patient and the surgeon. They are the doctors who give epidurals during labor and delivery, provide spinal blocks, local nerve blocks, and general anaesthesia for procedures. They are the doctors who are especially trained in intubation (putting a tube into the lungs to help a person artificially breathe when the person is paralyzed and asleep during surgery). Hence, due to their skill in intubation, they are often the first line responders for emergencies. They help people who are in distress with their breathing, who have lost their airway or when their airway has become obstructed.

A cardiologist is a doctor with special training on the heart. The doctor in this field ensures the heart is healthy and functions properly. The heart is a vital organ whose role is to pump blood to the rest of the body. The purpose of blood is to deliver oxygen to the tissues. Without the heart functioning well, our tissues and organs would die and not function properly. Cardiologists treat heart attacks, sudden cardiac arrests, arrhythmias (rhythm issues related to a faulty electrical system of the heart), heart failure (where the heart fails to pump blood forward properly) and many other heart related illnesses. They specialize in life saving procedures like cardiac stents and cardiac ablation. There is a subspecialty within cardiology called "Interventional cardiology." These are cardiologists who specialize in interventions or procedures to save the function of the heart, such as cardiac stenting or angiography.

This specialty consists of well trained doctors who practice cardiac surgery. They are best known for their role in cardiac bypass surgeries. In cardiac bypass, the surgeon restores blood flow to the area of the heart that was deficient due to a blocked coronary artery. This is usually done by taking a vein, most commonly the saphenous vein from the leg, to create a pathway of blood flow to the heart region that needs it.

Emergency room doctors are in charge of sudden important or life-threatening emergencies. In addition to dealing with heart attacks, strokes, traumas, issues that require immediate medical attention or surgeries, they also deal with a wide range of other health conditions, such as mental health and drug overdoses. Their training is broad and diverse as anyone can walk through the door seeking help. They see patients of all ages and walks of life. However, unlike a general practitioner or family doctor, their immediate goal is to make sure the patient is stable and exclude any serious or life threatening diseases or conditions.

A family doctor, otherwise known as general practitioner, is trained to provide medical service to people of all ages, demographics, and walks of life. Their training is diverse to deal with a variety of conditions including all non surgical specialties. They also follow the patient from birth to death and are trained to treat an individual as a whole, in the context of their social setting and also their family situation and mental health. Unlike specialists who mainly deal with problems of one organ or system, family doctors deal with all parts of the body and synthesize this information for the patient's general health. They provide a global perspective of the person's health in the patient's unique life situation. They are an individual's regular doctor who knows the patient in their social and family context. They can refer to specialists for issues that require more detailed or specialized treatments unavailable to them as an outpatient or beyond their expertise.

Gastroenterologists are doctors who specialize in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and upper abdominal organs. The GI tract is consists of the esophagus all the way down to the anus. The upper abdominal organs include the liver, gallbladder, pancreas and spleen. In addition to dealing with medical conditions associated with these organs, doctors in this speciality also perform endoscopies. This is where a camera is placed to visualize the esophagus and stomach (upper endoscopy) or the colon (lower endoscopy or colonoscopy). Gastroenterologists that specialize in the liver is called a Hepatologist. They are responsible for treating patients with liver failure or cirrhosis. They also treat patients with viral Hepatitis (A,B,C) and many other forms of liver disease.

Doctors in this specialty are trained to recognize and treat a variety of different conditions involving the internal organs. They have wide knowledge in a number of specialties including, but not limited to: Respirology, Nephrology, Gastroenterology, Cardiology. Doctors who practice broadly in this field are known as General Internists (or General Internal Medicine doctors). Internists can go to receive further training beyond residency in a particular field. For example, Gastroenterologists are internists that have chosen to specialize in GI medicine. Internal medicine doctors are in charge of inpatient units when patients are admitted for a general reason. Unlike family doctors and emergency doctors, although their training is diverse and they have broad knowledge in many organ systems, they do not treat or manage children, babies, or pregnant women. (Those patients are instead cared for by Pediatricians and Obstetrics/gynecology, respectively.)

Doctors in this field, abbreviated OBGYN or Obs/Gyn, specialize in women's health covering conditions of the female reproductive organs, and pregnancy care and delivery. Some examples of gynecological issues they deal with include contraceptive medicine, fertility workup and treatments, prolapse and incontinence, sexual health, ovarian tumors/ cysts, gynecological oncology. They are also surgeons in their fields, capable of performing numerous gynecological surgeries. Doctors in this field also practice obstetrical medicine, specialising in maternal fetal care and deliveries, complications related to deliveries, assisted deliveries (such as vacuum and forceps deliveries) and Caesarian sections.

Continue reading here:

Medicine - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Home – University of Chicago – Department of Medicine

Posted on by

Everett E. Vokes, MD

Chair, Department of Medicine

University of ChicagoDepartment of Medicine

Welcome to the Department of Medicine at the University of Chicago. Our department was the first department created when the medical school began over 110 years ago. It has evolved into the largest department not only in the medical school with over 345 full time faculty and research faculty but is the largest department in the University. The main missions of the Department of Medicine, scholarship, discovery, education and outstanding patient care, occur in a setting of multicultural and ethnic diversity. These missions are supported by exceptional faculty and trainees in the Department. We believe you will quickly agree that the DOMs faculty, fellows and trainees very much represent the forefront of academic medicine extraordinary people doing things to support the missions of our department. The result is a Department which reaches far beyond the walls of our medical school to improve humanity and health throughout our community and the world providing high quality patient care and training of the next generation of leaders in medicine.

The Department of Medicine has a long and proud history of research and discovery in the basic, clinical and translational sciences. Currently, the Department of Medicine is among an elite group of medical centers who are leading in the discovery and delivery of personalized medicine. Our impressive pool of talented researchers are renowned for bridging the bench to the bedside, and clinical research evaluations of new drugs and devices. The educational mission of the Department of Medicine is to train exceptional healers and the future leaders in academic medicine. The Department is home to four top residency programs (Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Dermatology and Medicine-Pediatrics) and twelve fellowship programs, including seven federally-funded training grants. Our residents obtain their 1st choice of fellowship programs over 80% of the time with these positions usually obtained in the very best academic programs nationwide, a fact clearly reflecting the high esteem in which our program and house staff is held. Diversity of housestaff and faculty is a key priority in our enterprise, both to cultivate leadership from underrepresented minorities and women and to reflect the ethnic and racial makeup of the patients we serve. Our trainees and faculty are recruited from top medical schools in the country.

The Department of Medicine also takes great pride in providing unparalleled, comprehensive and innovative patient care. The Departments clinical excellence is continually recognized by the highly regarded US News and World Report. Each of the Departments subspecialty practices are recognized as programs of national, regional, and local distinction for our novel diagnostic and therapeutic patient care offerings.

We invite you to learn more about our outstanding programs in the Department of Medicine.

Everett E. Vokes, MDJohn E. Ultmann ProfessorChair, Department of MedicinePhysician in Chief, University of Chicago Medicine

Read more:

Home - University of Chicago - Department of Medicine

Department of Medicine College of Medicine University …

Posted on by

Welcome to the Department of Medicine!

All internists are at heart a strange mix of both detective and engineer. We are attracted to Internal Medicine in the first place because we are detectives, we want to solve problems, and the problems we want to solve are what makes people sick, because it hurts us when someone suffers, when someone presents with a complex of symptoms that causes them pain. We cannot help ourselves, when faced with someone who is hurting we cannot help but respond, to investigate. Why is this happening? we ask ourselves, late at night, laying bed, why? Driving into work early in the morning, while it is still dark, tell me you have not done this; of course you have, you are in Internists. This drives you, it makes you crazy, the not knowing, not able to understand why. This is the heart of an Internist.

But there is another part to your heart, if you are an Internist. This is the part that, when you finally understand the reason for the suffering, you want to attack it, you want to fix it. Once you understand the reason for the problem, you and I cannot rest until it is fixed. Read More...

Read more here:

Department of Medicine College of Medicine University ...

Medicine – Wits University

Posted on by

The Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor of Surgery (MBBCh) degree is a 6 year, full-time course.The degree course is the standard qualification for becoming a medical practitioner.

Duties include the examination and diagnosis of patients, the prescription of medicines, performing of minor operations and the provision of treatments for injuries, diseases and other ailments.

Once qualified, it is a requirement that two years internship and one further year community service must be undertaken before the qualified doctor is permitted to pursue specialty training.

Completing the MBBCh degree opens the door to a variety of exciting and challenging careers.Surgeons, paediatricians, pathologists, radiologists, family medicine practitioners, all start by graduating with an MBBCh.

South Africa offers great scope to medical practitioners. There is a critical need for doctors in underserved areas and it is a challenge to provide good quality preventative, diagnostic and therapeutic services in a resource-poor setting.

However, the personal rewards of giving back and making a difference to the lives of so many people make the effort worthwhile. On the other hand, the country offers up-to-date facilities in both academic and private practice settings with the opportunity of being involved in research at many levels.

There are two points of entry into MBBCh.

See the article here:

Medicine - Wits University

Navajo medicine – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Navajo medicine today has remained preserved for millennia as many Navajo people have relied on traditional medicinal practices as their primary source of healing. However, modern day residents within the Navajo Nation have incorporated contemporary medicine into their society with the establishment of Western hospitals and clinics on the reservation over the last century.

In addition, medicine and healing are deeply tied with religious and spiritual beliefs, taking on a form of shamanism. These cultural ideologies deem overall health to be ingrained in supernatural forces that relate to universal balance and harmony. The spiritual significance has allowed the Navajo healing practices and Western medical procedure to coexist as the former is set apart as a way of age-long tradition.

Illness is described as the manifested mental or physical consequence brought on by a disruption of patient harmony. Some causes of this disruption include taboo transgression, excessive behavior, improper animal contact, improper ceremony conduction, or contact with malignant entities including spirits, skin-walkers and witches. Breaking taboos is believed to be acting against the principles devised by the Holy People that withhold personal harmony with the environment. There are some cases in which illness is merely the result of accident. Personal injury or illness can be the error from lack of judgment or unintentional contact with harmful creatures of nature. Illness can also be brought on by malevolent practitioners of negative medicine. This belief in hchx, translated as "chaos" or "sickness", is the opposite of hzh and helps to explain why people, who are intended to be in harmony, perform actions counter to their ideals, thus reinforcing the need for healing practices as means of balance and restoration. Those who practice witchcraft include shape shifters who intend to use spiritual power and ceremony to acquire wealth, seduce lovers, harm enemies and rivals. Ill health is also believed to be brought upon by chindi (ghost) who can bring about a kind of ghost sickness that leads others to death.[1]

reference aziz baloch

Navajo Hataii are traditional medicine men who are called upon to perform healing ceremonies. Each medicine man begins training as an apprentice to an older practicing singer. During apprenticeship, the apprentice assembles medicine bundles (jish) required to perform ceremonies and assist the teacher until deemed ready for independent practice. Throughout his lifetime, a medicine man can only learn a few chants as each requires a great deal of time and effort to learn and perfect. Songs are orally passed down in traditional Navajo from generation to generation. Unlike other American Indian medical practitioners that rely on visions and personal powers, a healer acts as a facilitator that transfers power from the Holy People to the patient to restore balance and harmony. Healing practice is performed within a ceremonial hogan. It is common for medicine men to receive payment for their healing services. In the past, healing was exchanged for sheep. In modern times however, monetary payment has become a widely accepted form of compensation. It should be noted that women can also play the role of healer in medicinal practice.[1]

Hand tremblers act as medical diagnosticians and are sometimes called upon in order to verify an illness by drawing on divine power within themselves as received from the Gila monster. Typical services can be provided in the form of songs, prayers, and herb usage. During a diagnosis a hand trembler traces symbols in the dirt while holding a "trembling arm" over the patient. Movement of the arm signifies a new drawn symbol or a possible identification to the cause of illness. Once a solution has been found, the patient can be referred to a herbalist or singer needed to perform a healing ceremony.[1]

A number of healing ceremonies are performed according to a given patient situation. Some chants and rites for curing purposes include:

See Navajo ethnobotany for a list of plants and how they were used.

Navajo Indians utilize approximately 450 species for medicinal purposes, the most plant species of any native tribe. Herbs for healing ceremonies are collected by a medicine man accompanied by an apprentice. Patients can also collect these plants for treatment of minor illnesses. Once all necessary wild plants are collected, an herbal tea is made for the patient, accompanied by a short prayer. In some ceremonies, the herbal mixture causes patient vomiting to ensure bodily cleanliness. Purging can also require the patient to immerse themselves in a yucca root sud bath. Any distribution of medicinal herbs to a patient is accompanied by spiritual chanting. The Navajo people recognize the need for botanical conservation when gathering desired healing herbs. When a medicinal plant is taken, the neighboring plants of the same species receive a prayer in respect. Despite this fact, the collection of medicinal herbs has been more difficult in recent years as the result of migrating plant spores. Popular plants included in Navajo herbal medicine include Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), Wild Buckwheats (Eriogonum spp.), Puccoon (Lithospermum multiflorum), Cedar Bark (Cedrus deodara), Sage (Salvia spp.), Indian Paintbrush (Castilleja spp.), Juniper Ash (Juniperus spp.), and Larkspur (Delphinium spp.).[3]

Sand painting is the transfer of strength and beauty to the patient through various drawings made by a medicine man in the surrounding sand during a ceremony. Elaborate figures are drawn in the sand using colorful crushed minerals and plants. Many sand paintings contain depictions of spiritual yeii to whom a medicine man will ask to come into the painting in order for patient healing to occur. After each ceremony, the sacred sand painting is destroyed.[1]

As prompted by the Meriam Report in 1928, federal commitment to Indian health care under the New Deal increased as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Medical Division expanded, making medical care more accessible, affordable, and tolerated by the Navajo populace.

Increased demand of BIA medical care by Native Indians conflicted with post World War II conservatives who resented government funded and privileged health care. Growing interest in Indian termination policy in addition to unaided medical attention called for a transition of medical affluence by both native and non-native parties.

Under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, funding was provided for the United States Public Health Service to gain a "Division of Indian Health" which would help provide a stronger federal commitment to health care. This division would later be renamed the division of Indian Health Service. Despite its initial successes, the Indian Health Service on the Navajo Nation faced challenges of being underfunded and understaffed. In addition, language barriers and cross-cultural tensions continued to complicate the hospital and clinic experience.[1]

Expanding Western medical influence and diminishing medicine men in the second half of the 20th century helped to initiate activism for traditional medical preservation as well as Indian representation in Western medical institutions.

With the coming of the 1970s spawned new opportunities for Navajo medical self-determination. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act 1976 aided local Navajo communities in autonomously administering their own medical facilities and prompted natives to gain more bureaucratic positions in the Indian Health Service. The gained presence of native people in medical institutions also helped ease many who regarded non-Navajo medical providers with mistrust.[4]

Community medical care that relied less on government involvement also took root in Rough Rock and Ganado, both towns that administered their own health care services. Navajo Nation Health Foundations was run in Ganado solely by Navajo people. In expressing identity in the medical community, the Navajo Nation took advantage of the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act to create the Navajo Health Systems Agency in 1975, being the only American Indian group to do so during that time.[1]

See the original post here:

Navajo medicine - Wikipedia

Nick Knight – Home

Posted on by

Red Bustle, Yohji Yamamoto, 1986

Susie Smoking, Yohji Yamamoto, 1988

Jil Sander, 1992

Louis Vuitton, 1996

Devon, Alexander McQueen, 1997

War, Big Magazine, 1997

Christian Dior, 1997

Flora, 1997

Flora, 1997

Flora, 1997

Alexander McQueen 1997

Aimee Mullins, Access-able, Dazed & Confused, 1998

Dolls, SHOWstudio, 2000

Rose, 2000

Past, Present & Couture, John Galliano, 2002

Past, Present & Couture, John Galliano, 2002

Past, Present & Couture, John Galliano, 2002

Blade of Light, Alexander McQueen, 2004

Paint Explosions, Purple on Blue, Another Man, 2005

Beasting, Arena Homme Plus, 2007

Couture, Naomi Campbell, V Magazine, 2007

Lily Donaldson, British Vogue, 2008

British Birds, 2008

Roses, 2008

Alexander McQueen, 2010

Lady Gaga, Vanity Fair, 2010

Lady Gaga, Vanity Fair, 2010

Haute Death, W Magazine, 2012

Hatstand, SHOWstudio, 2012

Rose I, 2012

Isabella Blow: Fashion Galore Catalogue, Somerset House, 2013

Isabella Blow: Fashion Galore Catalogue, Somerset House, 2013

Transhuman After All, VMAN, 2013

Transhuman After All, VMAN, 2013

Sans Couture, The Independent, 2014

Stella Lucia Deopito wearing Alexander McQueen, 2015

Molly Bair for SHOWstudio, 2015

Bjork for SHOWstudio, 2016

Bjork for SHOWstudio, 2016

Bjork for SHOWstudio, 2016

Gazelle Zanaughtti for Comme des Garons, 2016

Gazelle Zanaughtti for Comme des Garons, 2016

Gazelle Zanaughtti for Comme des Garons, 2016

Caitlin Stickels for SHOWstudio, 2016

Caitlin Stickels for SHOWstudio, 2016

Caitlin Stickels for SHOWstudio, 2016

Jazzelle Zanaughtti, 2016

See the original post here:

Nick Knight - Home