Duck! and Gather

Chemotherapy Doesn’t Work

Posted on: August 11, 2006

I figured I’d join the other gazillion bloggers and give my two cents about the British arrests yesterday in that spectacular “terrorist” plot involving incendiary liquids. I thought some discussion here might be interesting because this event may well prove to serve as a political crossroads in the U.S., Britain, and the world generally. My two cents on this event is the same as that for this whole “war on terror” going back to 9/11.

Taking the reactionaries at their word — ie. that a notion like “Islamofascism” is coherent — what is Islamofascism? Well, some of these folks liken Islamofascism to cancer.

I think this is an apt analogy. Think of the billions of cells in our bodies as the billions of people on Earth. Then think of our various organs as the various countries on Earth. For example, maybe the U.S. is the heart, Russia the spine, Mozambique the spleen, and so on.

Now amidst this neatly organized system of civilized cells, there are some cancerous cells. Those cells are nasty because they don’t obey normal rules of civility. Instead they grow, replicate, and kill peaceful “civilian” cells indiscriminately.

Even if the cancer starts in one particular organ (e.g. testes), that doesn’t mean that whole organ is bad. It just means that that organ has some “rogue” cells (see, e.g., Pakistan helped break this British terror case).

Moreover, even if the cancer started in one particular organ (e.g. breast), left to its own nefarious devices, the cancer could metastasize and spread to other organs throughout the body (see, e.g., Keystone Cop “terrorists” pop up in friendly Canada of all places).

I think this is an apt analogy because these “Islamofascist terrorists” don’t run any countries (not even Iran or Syria). Instead, they simply comprise some small number of people spread around the countries of the world. Such “cancerous” people seem to pop up like mushrooms in most any country we look. This week it’s Britain. Back in June, it was Canada. Earlier it was Spain. And so on.

Like the analogy so far? Seems apt to me. So let’s proceed.

What is the standard treatment for fighting cancer? It’s chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is about going into the organs of the sick body, guns a blazin’, and blasting out those good for nuthin’ cancerous cells. Kind of like an Arnold movie.

Here’s the problem: more or less, chemotherapy doesn’t work.

(Hence my tidy little investment in gold.)

Here’s the related podcast: (88) Cancer and Islamofascist Terrorism

2 Responses to "Chemotherapy Doesn’t Work"

Interesting analogy… A valid one I think, too…

My main man G Edward Griffin has two very well-developed ideas both on terrorism and cancer…

In A World Without Cancer, he claims that vitamin B-17 cures cancer and–like colloidal metals–is unpatentable and therefore unprofitable and therefore was shunned as quackery regardless of the positive results. I’m not sure about the legitimacy of this claim, but as the receiver of invasive surgery and 18 months of chemotherapy myself some 30 years ago, I would be interested to see this taken seriously…

As for terrorism, he presents a soon-to-be-5-part series of essays called The Future is Calling, about the history of social conditioning and how the modern war on terror is just a part of that. He’s an die-hard libertarian, so he spends a good deal of time bashing collectivist ideals, but the documented history he presents here is fascinating and I think important for any non-biased thinker who is pondering the legitimacy of the war on terror.

Chemotherapy is to cancer as the war on terror is to terrorism, and the moneyed establishment is manipulating us on both counts to foster fear and dependency.

Also–to deepen the analogy…

Chemotherapy drugs do not differentiate between cancerous and non-cancerous cells… They merely kill fast growing cells, as–for the most part–cancerous cells divide faster than healthy cells. So we throw out some babies with the bathwater…

The war on terror does not differentiate between terrorists and non-violent dissenters. It merely targets any opposition to the estabishment or even any legal pathways for peaceable opposition and attempts to destroy it. For the most part, terrorists are dissenters, right? So we throw out some babies with the bathwater…

Comments are closed.

for the money has gone too far

Blog Stats

  • 10,050 hits
August 2006
« Jul   Sep »
%d bloggers like this: