//
you're reading...
Writing

The Booger Peril: A History of Things to Come (Preface)

full

I’m currently writing a novel called “The Booger Peril,” which I’ve been working on since March 2013.

I always thought it would be awesome to go into the future to see what historians had to say about the present and near future, and whether they thought it was as crazy in retrospect as I think it is now.

As I see it, this is the next best thing, a history book that falls through a wormhole from the future. It tells of a moral panic over inmigrants from another planet coming to Earth to steal our jobs, take our wonen and undermine the fabric of human civilisation after we make First Contact with aliens (or as I like to call them, ‘Space Terrorists’).

The 120,000 words I’ve already written has been sitting on my hard drive for over two years; figured I might as well put some of them on my blog.

The title comes from the pejorative name the society of the future gives to our new interplanetary neighbours.

Please note that this is only a draft version and yes, there are typos, run-on sentences, incomplete references etc

 


History is a nightmare from which I am trying to wake.
– JAMES JOYCE, Ulysses

To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and yet so far.
– CECIL RHODES

Publishers’ Note

2015 Edition

We have nothing to add except to note that a scanned manuscript of everything that follows was emailed to us from the literary agent of an obscure relief teacher who initially claimed to have written it as a work of fiction, until his wife found out and he was forced to admit he had tripped over it in the hallway taking a leak at 2am. Neither have the slightest idea how it got there.

Preface

2067 Edition

If you browse a news website or download a Vulture News broadcast into your cerebral implant once in a blue moon, you are far more likely than not aware of the existence of a manuscript of a book you now hold, a book known as The Booger Peril. You may even be vaguely familiar with the manuscript’s well-publicised backstory, how it was discovered in a suburban Australian home propping up an old dining table with an uneven leg. If so, then you’re likely more aware than not that the young lad in possession of the book had removed it from his grandfathers’ effects after his death, having discovered it was the perfect height for ramming under the uneven leg on the kitchen table and being pretty tired of his cornflakes sliding off the table. If you’re aware of that then you undoubtedly know that the young lad had a literary-minded girlfriend who got sick of the unsightly table with the uneven leg propped up by an old book, and in deciding to buy her lover a new one, and having cause to pick the manuscript up, discovered it was in fact a manuscript.

Thankfully enough for posterity, the young woman in question read far enough into it to get some idea of what the manuscript contained, and raced to university in the daytime to show it to her supervisor (who thanked her and asked if her boyfriend had any other piece of shit items of furniture in the house he was propping up with books that hadn’t been written yet). If you’re at all acquainted with the story behind this book, then it will come as no surprise for you to learn that it features a publication date approximately sixty years into the future.

Wormholes, shortcuts through the fabric of space-time, have been theorised since the days of Albert Einstein, who revolutionised the field of physics with his theory of general relativity. Though severely limited by the level of technological advancement of his day, and lacking the kind of observational evidence necessary to set the theories he developed in the process on a more solid foundation, Einstein nevertheless extrapolated the existence of wormholes on a theoretical level from the equations he created in the process in a way physicists commonly accept as falsifiable (which is to say, based on empirical processes that may be reproduced and, if possible, improved on by others). His theory of general relativity contained amongst other things the theoretical possibility of these shortcuts through space in the form of ‘wormholes’ between two different locations (and apparently now also between two different periods of time). Clearly, the implications were monumental, and would represent a quantum leap in the development of human civilisation should we ever prove ourselves up to the task of bringing them to fruition.

As alien as it will undoubtedly sound to the untrained ear, the fact that this book connects us to the future in this manner — the only vaguely plausible explanation for an otherwise completely inexplicable set of circumstances — is confirmed by research from the best and brightest scientific minds the world has to offer. An international team of physicists comprised of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US), Stanford (US), a combined Oxbridge team (UK) and, in aid of the process of détenté, the University of Melbourne (Union of Australian Soviet Republics), operating under the auspices of a team of official observers from a combination of scientific and academic associations, have exhaustively analysed the chemical components of this mystery book to definitively determine its physical character, geo-temporal makeup and ultimately its origin. As reported widely in the media, the report produced by this team contains amongst other things the mind-shattering conclusion that, ‘as bizarre as it sounds to say so, after exhaustive study and analysis of the materials used to produce The Booger Peril manuscript, the only rational and scientific conclusion we are able to reach is that it must have originated from some point in the future.’[1]

Of course, the technical details substantiating these findings are discussed exhaustively in the official report, but suffice it to say that the most significant conclusion is that the manufacturing processes used to create the original manuscript containing the work that follows have not yet been invented. That this revelation is upon us seems even more so significant given the initial hostility not only of the international team of scientific investigators who studied this book, but also just about everyone else as well, to its contents. This certainly explains the zeal with which they sought to understand at first ‘how some demented (though certainly creative) nut with the time, energy and inclination could have pulled off such an elaborate hoax.’[2]

No one with a head screwed on straight could, after all, entertain the outlandish idea that anyone could ever reasonably want to send history books written in the present back in tim, or that that anyone might ever want to educate people in the past about their own present if they had the means. Such an idea was — apparently — utterly preposterous. If the panic surrounding the book and the paranoia giving rise to conspiracy theories about some convoluted hoax to defraud the public was anything to go by, such ideas could only be considered as absolutely, utterly, immeasurably insane — all the more so if one accepted that the truth of an idea is determined by the number of people who believe it. As Occam’s Razor and our common sense tell us, however, they make perfect sense. If we were able to travel through time ourselves, tpday, why would we not try to travel into the future and read history books to try to gain insight into the present? But no — the fact that the The Booger Peril materialised amongst the possessions of an aging retiree living out his last days in an unremarkable backwater like Bacchus Marsh, Australia, was by contrast completely inexplicable, apparently.

Issue such as these aside, once the study was underway, the scientific method of empirical study and analysis and the search for a falsifiable explanation lead inexorably to the conclusion that this book was not the hoax that a great many had insisted it was. When materials used in its production and associated processes had been determined not to be of the present time, none could deny this overarching and undeniable fact — least of all the politically orthodox, who began shrieking that certain fuzzy and amorphous communist extremists were attempting to manufacture a hoax to undermine the legacy of the First Interworld War and sow the seeds of chaos and rebellion against authority. Rather than the present work, they wanted to read the books it critiqued, such as Rique Candle’s For Earth or Against It: The First Interworld War and the Crusade Against the Booger Peril, or Matilda Rice’s The Booger Peril: The Fight Against White-Anting of Human Civilisation.

The establishment of scientific consensus on the legitimacy of the work telling the more politically conservative and otherwise orthodox-minded a lot of things they didn’t want to hear about the future, however, provoked a fresh storm of controversy in the world media. Having already attacked the legitimacy of this book and its contents in terms of the specific nature of the supposed hoax, The Booger Peril’s detractors turned the issue into one of being able to verify the claims being made in the contents of the book itself. This was not however the most amazing part of the story of the original copy of the book from which this story originates, not least because in raising the question then as to when the hell it had come from, the scientists working on the book reached and breached the threshold of what we understand to be possible in the world of physics.

Humankind has not yet developed the technology to create wormholes between two points in space, but we understand that it is possible, and the existence of this book reveals it to be true for reasons that will become evident shortly. What we haven’t known — or haven’t known previous to this point in time at least — is not simply the revelation that creating wormholes between two different points in time is possible, and that the question of creating wormholes between two different points in time is likewise a question of creating wormholes between two different points in space, the part of the equation we had already understood to be theoretically possible. As the official scientific report acknowledges, the Earth orbits the Sun at the centre of our solar system at a speed of 30km/s, or 107,208kph. The circumference of the Earth being roughly 40,075 kilometres, a comparative speed would be equivalent to 2.67 orbits an hour (by contrast, the NATO Popular Uprising Surveillance Station only does .65, the International McSpace Station a tardier .54, and Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Rhinoplasty Space Retreat a lazy .3). So it moves rather quickly, and within a solar system that itself has an orbital velocity of 220 kilometres per second (792,000 kilometres per hour), the equivalent of 19.762944 orbits per hour.

Imagine for a second that you have the ability to send an object through a wormhole in space-time, and you want to send it back a week. Since it moves so quickly through space, a week ago the Earth was 133,056,000 kilometres away from where it is now, so if you sent it back through time to where you are now, it would appear in the middle of the cold, dark vacuum of space, and assuming for the sake of argument that it didn’t drift anywhere, your object would burn up in the atmosphere as the Earth loomed down on it like a cruise liner looming down on a matchbox raft at sea. In addition to sending it back a week in time, you would also then need to move it roughly 133 million kilometres in order to land somewhere on the Earth’s surface, at the point where it was a week ago. Since the Earth is moving at a velocity of 220 kilometres a second you would want to be able to do it with some accuracy; to achieve that kind of accuracy would clearly be a remarkable feat to say the least. [please note: the maths is all out. Need to redo completely].

Consider then the fact that the book we are now discussing has been demonstrated to be the product of a shift in space-time not of a week, and not a month, or a year, nor even 10 years, but of approximately sixty. We’re talking here of a physical distance of some 95,800,320^9 kilometres (not counting the shift and velocity of the Milky Way itself or of any other intervening variables), a figure astronomical enough that we can begin to speak of light years when discussing the gap between where the book was when it was sent and where it was when it arrived. To put things in perspective, this figure is greater in kilometres than the number of stars in the Milky Way. Suffice it to say then that the science (if not the say the technology) involved in bringing this knowledge to us is not inconsiderable, and coupled with the fact that the science available to us today tells us that the manuscript is authentic, should impress on us the not-inconsiderable insights it has to offer as a future work of history, penned by an author whose grandparents are most likely still in hyper-nappies.

And offer us considerable insights it does. For many, History is one of those dreary subjects shoved down our throats at high school by overworked, under-resourced and under-supported teachers who all too often fail to involve us in the process of our own learning, lack resources to really help us to engage with the subject, and are beholden to curriculums so sanitised that the subject becomes dry, dull, boring, tedious, alienating, irrelevant and permanently off-putting. After the experience of attempting to learn about history in this kind of environment, it can hardly come as a surprise that far more often than not we avoid it like the plague once we leave. The chaos and disorder of mass education conditions us to despise history and to regard it — not entire without reason given the aforementioned circumstances — as something oppressive and alien, as something hostile to all that is authentic and alive about us as individuals with all the potential that involves for creative and autonomous individuality.

We come then, in the final analysis, to see history not as the wellspring of our knowledge about ourselves and of our true understanding of who we are as individuals and as societies, as in reality we should, but as something that is, at best, irrelevant, and at worst, innately hostile. Rather than viewing history as something that serves self-knowledge and our understanding of our own true identity, we see it as something our self-knowledge and understanding of our own true identity has to be defended from. Should it be any surprise then that we continue to fail to learn from it? Hardly.

It is indeed a great shame that this should be so, not least for this reason in particular. If anything has characterised human history to this stage of it, it is surely our failure to learn from it. None other than the same aforementioned Albert Einstein once defined insanity as ‘repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.’ If Einstein was true — and it would definitely appear that he was — then surely it follows that, to the extent that humans have failed to learn from history, we continue to repeat the same mistakes and expect different results. To the extent that that follows, it may be fairly argued that our civilisation is beset by insanity. Stated differently, we are insane to the extent that we are ahistorical, and to the extent that we are ahistorical we find ourselves within what the 20th century writer and philosopher Arthur Koestler described as a ‘blind alleyway of evolution’ (The Ghost in the Machine), in which we embrace all that perpetuates our own helplessness and lack of control over the conditions of our own lives and arrests our development while fearing, fighting and indeed persecuting all that might potentially help us to set ourselves free.

To the extent that we are stuck in a ‘blind alleyway of evolution,’ historical knowledge is valuable to us then as a panacea for our insanity, particularly to the extent that it provides us with insight into our identity as individual and social actors within a historical context. We are products of history; without knowing who we are in the context of history how can we know who we are. The answer is clear: we can’t, because an intimate connection exists between our understanding our ourselves as individuals and social actors, our sense of identity in that regard, and our understanding of our own personal and social history.

Clearly then the alienating and off-putting way that history is generally first presented to us and the tendency of those kinds of experiences to deter us from approaching the subject ever again are more or less completely at odds with the axiomatic importance of the subject. This is particularly true where the bearing on our ability to understand who we really are as a society and a civilisation is concerned, and in so doing to develop the capacity to overcome the pervasive insanity of both. Armed with sufficient knowledge about the historical context we are operating in and the historical circumstances that give rise to the particular set of challenges we face, we can start to try to develop new ways of relating to one another such that we avoid perpetuating the kinds of assumptions about who we are as individuals and what it means to be a member of the human race that result in constantly repeating the mistakes of the past.

Herein lies the significance of The Booger Peril, which is a book in two parts, the academic study of the Green Crusade and the text reproduced in full in the appendix, The New Prince. If it a truism of history that, as the author points out in the introduction, it has a marked tendency to be written by the victors, then it is equally true that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The historical survey of the future war, which does at least attempt academic impartiality, contrasts with the narcissistic, neo-Machiavellian New Prince to the extent that it cares to make sense of that historical experience objectively and dispassionately, but bizarrely enough it is the New Prince arguably that inadvertently provides us with the greatest insights into our present historical condition.

I.P Freely, the credited author of this text, is clearly not burdened by extraneous considerations like moral or ethical niceties, and he appears to be willing to sacrifice the considerations of his conscience to the considerations of power and its attitude towards the threat of social justice. This should not however prevent us from acknowledging and appreciating what is truly valuable in his historical analysis, though we should also remain clear as to what it is about this work, remarkable in its uniqueness, that is by the same token absolutely, completely, utterly, and immeasurably insane.

The work of most historians is arguably to try to understand the nuances and vicissitudes of historical experience, especially where it repeats itself as it is often wont to do, to aid reflection and refinement of thought and action and in so doing, to be more self-aware and more humane in our actions. In somewhat glaring contrast to this, I.P. Freely seeks to try to understand the nuances and vicissitudes of historical experience, especially where it repeats itself, to harness them in the interests of perpetuating power and privilege—particularly where the First Exoplanet Crusade was concerned and all that that involved in terms of interplanetary conquest.

In other words, and despite having an excellent all-round understanding of history, rather than trying to reconcile himself with history such that he might transcend it and in so doing break the vicious cycles that tend to characterise it, Freely seeks instead to sublimate himself to power, to give up the pain and suffering that here and there attends the human condition as experienced through the eyes of a responsible, self-aware individual in favour of the security afforded him by the womb of authority. He achieves this not by developing an historical analysis that liberates, but rather one that advises the powerful — in this case, US President Gordon Raft — how best to manipulate the public for their own ultimately criminal ends.

As The New Prince and indeed The Booger Peril demonstrate, to serve the needs of power is also to serve the forces that give rise to historical repetition, for it is precisely the condition of historical amnesia that allows events of past (and in this case future) history to take place. The reason for this in turn should be clear enough, and that is because that, to the extent that they function to protect and perpetuate social and economic privilege, the operations of power are unjust and inimical to everything that enlightened humanity claims to stand for. If the analysis of the New Prince is anything to go by — and given that it was written in the service of power, it would appear to be as credible a source as any — this would certainly appear to be the case, particularly to the extent that it appears as an appendix to a work of history that reveals the operations of power functioning in a similar manner and otherwise touches on similar kinds of themes.

This is no more effective than in the relationship between the events described in the body of The Booger Peril and the way that Freely demonstrates the relationship between historical events and the treatment in social psychology of the phenomenon of moral disengagement, an umbrella term in social psychology used to describe the processes we employ to rationalise harm we do to others in order to maintaining a positive self-image, a positive sense of ourselves as moral agents. These processes may in turn be characterised as various means for what is known in psychological circles as ‘projecting’ or ‘transference,’ and blame-shifting behaviours designed to divest perpetrators of responsibility for harmful acts and lay them at the door of the victims.

Moral disengagement has four main categories: ‘reconstructing immoral conduct, displacing or diffusing responsibility, misrepresenting injurious consequences, and dehumanising the victim.’[3] More broadly, processes associated with moral disengagement can include:

  1. ‘Moral’ justification–which we prefer to call ‘spurious moral justification’ – the process by which individuals rationalise harm done to others in ways that make it appear morally justifiable (e.g., if I didn’t do this, someone else would, and it’s better if I’d do it because my motives are not reprehensible, ‘playing the victim’);
  2. Euphemistic labelling – use of morally neutral language to make reprehensible conduct seem less harmful or even benign (e.g., collateral damage is inevitable in such situations);
  3. Advantageous comparison – unethical behaviour is compared with even more harmful conduct, thus making the original behaviour appear acceptable (e.g., what I did was nothing compared to the other things that had been done recently);
  4. Displacement of responsibility – viewing one’s behaviour as being a direct result of authoritative dictates (e.g., I was only following orders);
  5. Diffusion of responsibility – no one group member feels personally responsible for the collective group destructive behaviour (e.g., I don’t feel particularly badly about this, because we all had a part in doing it);
  6. Disregard or distortion of consequences – downplaying the probable results of unethical behaviour (e.g., taking this little bit of money doesn’t affect anything in a huge company like this);
  7. Dehumanising or demonising the other – us-versus-them thinking based on convenient stereotypes (e.g., they live like animals, therefore they deserve to be treated like animals); and
  8. Attribution of blame – exonerates the self by placing fault with the target of the harmful behaviour (e.g., terrorists deserve to be tortured because they have brought such outcomes upon themselves).[4]

Clearly the New Prince was authored as a private instruction manual for President Raft and his staff, a fact reflected in Heywood Jablome’s description of the lead-up to and prosecution of Interworld War One for Exoplanet Nullius. It is, has one recent commentator described, essentially a ‘Dummies’ Guide to Being a Complete Bastard.’[5] While it takes the kind of effort that would make any run-of-the-mill sociopath blush not to become cognizant of the moral implications of the events he describes, Freely correctly establishes a foundation for the lesson he seeks to impart by discussing the relationship between Arthur Miller’s brilliant stage play The Crucible and various events of the 20th Century.

As he again correctly notes, the importance of The Crucible derives from its treatment of the 16th century witch-hunts in Salem, Massachusetts as an allegorical critique of the McCarthyist anti-communist purges of the 1950’s. While naturally from the standpoint of his operating assumptions he rejects the notion of the witch-hunt as a destructive event and treats it rather as a vehicle of purification and renewal, he nevertheless establishes the foundation for a rollercoaster ride down the archetypal rabbit-hole by acknowledging the legitimacy of the parallel Miller drew between the Salem witch-hunts and the inquisition perpetrated in Hollywood under the auspices of Joseph McCarthy’s House Committee on Un-American Activities. He rightly demonstrates the mechanics of moral disengagement common to both, and pointing to other historical episodes where moral panics established favourable conditions for crackdowns on dissent and open society — the Red Scares of 1919-1920 being another obvious example and the Terror Scare of 2001 (described so bizarrely at the time as the ‘War on Terror’). While clearly enamoured with the process in a way that none but a sociopath could be, Freely nevertheless cuts to the heart of the issue when he writes

If it makes sense to note a parallel between the McCarthyist crusade and the crusade of the puritans against the germ of communism in Salem, as it does, then can that parallel not be extended to others as well? Could this historical parallel based on the application of the study of moral disengagement, for example, not also be applied to the crusade known as the ‘War on Terror’? Of course the term ‘War on Terror’ was a politicized term, an ideological term, and one that neither correctly nor objectively describes the events that took place under its banner. While it was and remains far more accurate to describe it as a Terror Scare, we use the ideological term because we remember once again that the average person cannot know, and therefore they must believe. Since we can extend the parallel from two historical events to three, and within a roughly 50-year period within a single country where the latter two are concerned, how many other comparable events are there throughout the entire course of human history in every country? How far down the proverbial rabbit hole can we actually go?[6]

 Clearly for Jablome (and, for that matter, for us) the significance of this text was not merely that Freely’s work served to inspire the architects of the Green Crusade, but even more significantly that they reveal it in historical context, as a further manifestation of Koestler’s ‘blind alleyway of evolution.’ Freely found the connection Miller established between the Salem witch-hunts and McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade useful because of the way the latter drew a parallel between the process of blame-shifting and scapegoating visible in each; his malfeasant and destructive purposes notwithstanding, Freely’s contribution was revolutionary to the extent that he took up the issue of this connection and analysed it specifically in terms of moral disengagement processes. It wasn’t just a matter of enjoying the play as a general comment on the politics of the 1950’s, but actually deconstructing the dynamics both of the McCarthyist period and the strategies that underpinned HUAC and the implementation of the Hollywood blacklist, when directors, scriptwriters and actors were screened for evidence of what George Orwell called crimethink.

The Crucible tells the story of a repressed puritanical religious community in New England in the 16th Century that falls prey to moral panic. A group of young women accuse an enslaved black woman, Tituba, of bewitching them to forestall punishment for violating the community’s rigid and joyless moral code by dancing in the forest, whereupon they are discovered and criminalised. As Freely notes, the moral disengagement appears here, in amongst the invocation of a clear and present threat to the safety and integrity of the community, in processes such as:

  1. Playing the victim (where the young women claim to be victims of witchcraft to forestall punishment);
  2. Blaming the victim (where they take advantage of the elevated emotions created by the fear of witchcraft to settle personal rivalries and neutralise threats to their ideologically-driven hoax);
  3. Articulating a defence in morally absolutist terms (most notably when the presiding judge of the resulting trial, Hale, insists that those who are not for his court are against it);
  4. Ignoring their own responsibility (all are just following the rules of the community, rigid though they may be), and:
  5. Downplaying the consequences of their actions (people convicted of being witches and hung become invisible).[7]

As Freely notes, and unsurprisingly, McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade exhibits more or less the same characteristics. The ‘junior Senator from Wisconsin,’ McCarthy launched himself into the limelight by brandishing a list he claimed contained a list of 207 known communists working for the US State Department, and fuelling fears of communist subversion of democratic institutions throughout the United States thereby. Later he invoked this same mythology to establish an inquisition in Hollywood, the cultural beacon of the United States and much of the western world, and on the basis of this inquisition arguably to instigate a purge of those who failed to worship the great idol of the free market with the requisite level of awe. As Freely again notes, the moral disengagement appears here, in amongst the invocation of a clear and present threat to the safety and integrity of the community, as

  1. Playing the victim (McCarthy claims to be a victim of the communist conspiracy to forestall criticism of the noble lie);
  2. Blaming the victim (where they take advantage of the elevated emotions created by the fear of communism to settle personal rivalries and neutralise threats to their ideologically-driven hoax);
  3. Articulating a defence in morally absolutist terms (operating on the basis of the assumption that those who are not in support of McCarthy are giving aid to communism);
  4. Ignoring their own responsibility (McCarthy is just doing his job as a loyal American), and:
  5. Downplaying the consequences of their actions (people convicted of being communist sympathisers and penalised become invisible).[8]

In drawing this comparison using a literary device, Miller had set the stage both literally and metaphorically for Freely to create this additional layer of social psychological analysis, inadvertently creating the foundation for a social psychohistory that would end up being adopted by virtue of the fact that a book containing his basic theories fell through a wormhole in the fabric of space-time. The efficacy not only of Miller’s literary comparison and the layer of analysis built on top by Freely but of this social psychohistory that emerged was reflected in the fact that it would be possible to extend the pattern to any number of different scenarios. Consider the following (further) examples:

bp-preface-table1
bp-preface-table2

As we can see from the chart above, the parallel processes of moral disengagement alluded to by Arthur Miller and expanded on by Freely also apply to a variety of other major historical events, from the Red Terror of the 1930s and the Terror Scare of the early 21st century to the Sino-US War (2041-52) and the intervention in the Australian Civil War of 2046-52 following the seizure of power by the Trotskyist Socialist Alternative Party. All exhibit in various ways the basic mechanisms of moral disengagement and thus the underlying pattern on which history appears to be repeating itself — and on which history will apparently continue to repeat itself if the future history described in The Booger Peril is to be believed, which we must if we are to accept the conclusions of science and empirical research.

And in fact, the greatest value of Jablome’s work is that it helps to illustrate the processes of moral disengagement evident in Freely’s The New Prince, primarily because it is appears to be the first study of the First Interworld War that can claim to be comprehensive and honest. To the extent that this is so, it provides the best opportunity possible for us to extrapolate from the historical parallels and patterns of repetition established thereby to develop a much greater intersectional and integral understanding of what we already know ourselves about history. In the final analysis it is this, the ability Freely’s study provides to extrapolate from the relationship between moral disengagement and the history of the future to establish general principles of psychohistory that helps us to connect the history the future to that of the past and present. In this lies the true significance of The Booger Peril as an article of an historical record that we are yet to repeat as a result of our inability to learn from history, and to the extent that that is so, as a warning.
Dr. Hannah Bloggs

Institute for Social Psychohistory,

New York, USA


References.

[1] Visit the website at boogerfacts.verizon.gov for a copy of the report and breakdown of its findings.

[2]

[3] See for example Eustace Gruber, Moral Disengagement for Dummies, New York; 1312 Press, 2051. This work cites a good working definition from a much older article, James Detert, Linda Klebe Trevino & Vicki Sweitzer, Moral Disengagement in Ethical Decision Making: A Study of Antecedents and Outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2008, Vol. 93, No. 2, 374–391.

[4] James Detert, Linda Klebe Trevino & Vicki Sweitzer, Moral Disengagement in Ethical Decision Making: A Study of Antecedents and Outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2008, Vol. 93, No. 2, ibid.

[5]The Daily Show with the Hologram of Jon Stewart, Monday March 4, 2193.

[6] Freely, I.P., The New Prince, New York; GSK-CocaCola Press, 2062, pp. 56.

[7] Arthur Miller. The Crucible. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.

[8]William Preston, Aliens and dissenters: federal suppression of radicals, 1903-1919; Alex Carey, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Propaganda in the US and Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press, 1995; Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. London; Cape, 1966; M. J. Heale, American Anticommunism: Combating the Enemy Within, 1830-1970. Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990; Robert Murray, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria 1919-1920.Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press,1955.

[9]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30harris.html, accessed 18 October 2193. Mommsen, History of Rome; Neville Morley, The Roman Empire: roots of imperialism; Susan P. Mattern, Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate; G. E. M. De Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. The works of Livy, Polybius and Cicero also merit sustained attention.

[10] Asbridge, Thomas (2011). The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land. Ecco; Hillenbrand, Carole (1999). The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; Hindley, Geoffrey. The Crusades: Islam and Christianity in the Struggle for World Supremacy. New York: Carrol & Graf; Mayer, Hans Eberhard (1988). The Crusades (Second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: Riley-Smith, Jonathan (2005). The Crusades: A Short History (Second ed.). New Haven, CT: Cornmouth University Press; Strayer, Joseph Reese (1992)). The Albigensian Crusades. University of Michigan Press.

[11]Edward Burman, The Inquisition: The Hammer of Heresy; Edward M. Peters, Inquisition; Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain (4 volumes); Simon Whitechapel, Flesh Inferno: Atrocities of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition; Francisco erBethencourt, The Inquisition: A Global History; Giles, Mary E., ed. Women in the Inquisition: Spain and the New World; Stephen Haliczer, Inquisition and Society in the Kingdom of Valencia, 1478-1834;

[12] Karl Dietrich Bracher, The German Dictatorship; The Origins, Structure, and Effects of National Socialism; The Third Reich in Power; Richard J. Evans. Mommsen, Hans. The Third Reich between Vision and Reality: New Perspectives on German History, 1918-1945; William L. Shirer. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich;

[13] Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers Control; Conquest, Robert, The great terror: A Reassessment; Conquest, Robert, Stalin and the Kirov murder, New York: Oxford University Press, 1989; Carmichael, Joel. Stalin’s Masterpiece: the show trials and purges of the thirties, the consolidation of the Bolshevik dictatorship.

[14] Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 2000; Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, Empire, 2000; Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, 2004; Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang! : How Our Covert Wars Have Created Enemies Across the Middle East and Brought Terror to America, 2002; Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy.

[15]

[16]

Advertisements

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: