Smeared Against The Wall

*




Nautilus Island's hermit
heiress still lives through winter in her Spartan cottage;
her sheep still graze above the sea.
Her son's a bishop. Her farmer is first selectman in our village;
she's in her dotage.

Thirsting for
the hierarchic privacy
of Queen Victoria's century
she buys up all
the eyesores facing her shore,
and lets them fall.

The season's ill--
we've lost our summer millionaire,
who seemed to leap from an L. L. Bean
catalogue. His nine-knot yawl
was auctioned off to lobstermen.
A red fox stain covers Blue Hill.

And now our fairy
decorator brightens his shop for fall;
his fishnet's filled with orange cork,
orange, his cobbler's bench and awl;
there is no money in his work,
he'd rather marry.

One dark night,
my Tudor Ford climbed the hill's skull;
I watched for love-cars. Lights turned down,
they lay together, hull to hull,
where the graveyard shelves on the town....
My mind's not right.

A car radio bleats,
"Love, O careless Love...." I hear
my ill-spirit sob in each blood cell,
as if my hand were at its throat...
I myself am hell;
nobody's here--

only skunks, that search
in the moonlight for a bite to eat.
They march on their solves up Main Street:
white stripes, moonstruck eyes' red fire
under the chalk-dry and spar spire
of the Trinitarian Church.

I stand on top
of our back steps and breathe the rich air--
a mother skunk with her column of kittens swills the garbage pail.
She jabs her wedge-head in a cup
of sour cream, drops her ostrich tail,
and will not scare.

Robert Lowell Skunk Hour



We were there, in the final reaches, in the final dawn, at the end of days. Foreign images batter our eyelids. All else is lost. He was in memory, in dawn, in dusk, and his spirit rose flapping to embrace another place, and they sneered in their bourgeoise comfort zones at the street crazies, the would-be poets, at the unwritten stanzas and the forlorn hopes. An entire generation just disappeared, lost, seeping back into the general population, early deaths. These memories all that is left. Now we are in a different time. Amidst the hatred of men. The sneering age.

He knew the streets had been side-smeared, as if the posts had been planted from another time and various walls, sheets of reality, had been pushed into this world from a malignant place, sheets of grey. This displaced sense was all that was left. He was on borrowed time. So many mistakes, he cringed. They laughed. It was a point in life that he wanted to ignore, stepping fast. Everyone else progressed around him. That sad Christmas, that terrible time. He hadn't learnt to stop thinking, not yet, and every moment was a terrible assault. The cat story hadn't happened yet.

He heard the stories of desperation. The tranny who so wanted to die so much she reached down and picked up used syringes off the streets of Kings Cross, jabbing them into herself. Lying fragile in a hospital bed, pining to make friends with the hospital nurse, it was too late to regret what she had done, that she was dying. Too late to think about what was really happening. Too late to wonder why it was he wanted to join her, why the grey smudges that were blocking out his vision were so frightening.

There were other things that could be done, other forms of consciousness, but he couldn't find the escape route. He didn't know how to feel different. He could imagine himself, the deranged transexual, her make up completely awry, tears unaccountably flowing down her hagged face; and seeing the syringe lying on the ground, the bead of blood inside. What had it been, heroin, speed? Which of the local scumbags had used it? Were they sick, infected, already dying? She reached down and picked it up off the grimy pavement; shouted, an incomprehensible noise, and plunged it into her thigh.

She wanted to die, she wanted to escape, she just wanted to stop her cruel head. Tshere was no other way, no other life. Hello happy, her local shop keeper would say, sending her up for her melancholy stance, before she was dressed for the day, before the makeup was on, before she was shrieking "Daaaahhhling!!" in the bars, downing drinks, entertaining everyone. They didn't know how utterly forlorn she felt inside. They thought she really was fabulous, that their own self doubts could be cured if only they were more like her.

But she had got hopelessly drunk for a month and the bastards at Les Girls had sacked her. So much for all she had done for them over all those years. She had helped to build the place, was the place. And now they had dumped her. And she was broke and humiliated. Many of her friends were already sick from the new disease called Aids. Robbie, her only love, was already in hospice, a living skeleton. She wanted to join him, to follow his path. She wanted to find a world of great love, of triumph, of blessing; a place where she was normal and the pain was gone. And so she picked up the used syringe on the pavement; and plunged it into herself. Her shout died quickly in the muffled echoe of the surrounding buildings; she wiped away the tears, streaking her mascara. Where the hell was she going to get enough money for another drink?



THE BIGGER STORY:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207globalwarming.htm

The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria
Man-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power.

In an interview with a Czech newspaper, Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the "whip of political correctness" for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and even racist.

The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable.

In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.

Here's what we wrote:

The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.

It's not longer a joke.

The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman wrote an op-ed last week denouncing anyone who dares dissent against the God-like authoritative status of the IPCC UN report on climate change.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming agenda - a cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the overwhelming evidence that the Sun and other long term natural cycles are responsible for climate change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to sway the court of public opinion.

During a debate on the BBC's Question Time program, a panelist's appeal for viewers to simply look at both sides of the argument and consider other causes besides the man-made explanation was met with boos and cat-calls from the audience and the speaker was shouted down. It's now treated as sacrilegious to even question the force fed dogma that leads the automatons to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment media like a broken record.

"We can't afford to have this debate," they scream, arguing that the end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival.

But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for themselves, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout the decades. In the late 60's and early 70's, the in-vogue hysteria about climate change and how it spelled the end for humanity as we know it revolved around the concept of global cooling. Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations and the fact that the earth was at the end of the cycle of the Little Ice Age.

Writer John Bender has done an excellent job of compiling quotes from environmental "authorities" of past decades who told us that the sky was falling yet have been completely discredited with hindsight. Keep these dire proclamations in mind when you hear yet another "repeater" regurgitate the brainwashing that he or she has been indoctrinated with by the establishment.

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific organization, therefore its proclamation is purely intended at achieving a political agenda. The document they released on February 2 that was devotedly afforded days of intense coverage by the compliant establishment media was a political manifesto based on a scientific undertaking that has not even been completed. How empirical is a "scientific experiment" whose conclusions are announced before tests have even been completed? The document immediately states that the "scientific" research is being edited to conform to the already released political summary.

“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter,” states the brief.

The U.N. has confidently announced "case closed" on man-made global warming because they are editing their own uncompleted report to mirror their pre-conceived conclusion. Hardly "independent" is it?

The IPCC report was piggybacked onto a bandwagon of public relations stunts that had nothing to do with the evidence behind global warming but were enough to leave an impression in the mind of the casual viewer that the man-made explanation was a global consensus. These included the Eiffel Tower's lights being turned off for 5 minutes and a ludicrous incident in which British primate expert Jane Goodall imitated the wild call of a tropical chimpanzee.

Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

Man-made advocates go to great lengths to highlight the fact that transnational oil giants such as Exxon-Mobil offer thousands of dollars for reports aimed at disproving the UN theory, claiming this taints any opposing viewpoint as biased, and yet conveniently ignore the fact that it was the U.N. itself and Ted Turner, a man-made devotee and advocate of drastic population reduction to save the planet, who gifted the organization $1 Billion which in part funded the IPCC report. Is that not biased? Is that not a example of scientists being lavishly bankrolled to produce evidence that fits a pre-conceived outcome? Is the fact that a carbon tax fueled by fear of climate change that will go directly to assorted U.N. agencies itself a commentary on the U.N.'s role on hyping man-made global warming?

In addition, Greenpeace are recruiting "global warming field organizer's" whose job it is to lobby members of Congress to push the agenda for man-made global warming. So if you thought your donation was going to help save whales or protect the rainforest you're sorely mistaken - it's partly funding a PR assault that will eventually orbit right back to you in the form of a draconian carbon emissions tax that will do nothing to prevent global warming but will fill the pockets of global government and the U.N.

Not all scientists were prepared to sacrifice their impartiality to be in on the scam. Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his own words because, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Landsea is one of many climate experts, meteorologists, geologists and others who have braved the scorn of the flat-earthers to point out that man-made advocates have utilized myopic and blinkered scientific trickery to make their case.